Template talk:Trivia/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Bot request for articles with template at top

I understand that it is only an estimated 60 articles that have the Trivia template at the top; however, in those 60, the language "This section..." at the top is an absolute mess. I would like to address that problem before we implement any changes that mention section only. I would like to make a request to Android Mouse (or any other bot-maker) to create a bot to do the fix, but I want to make sure the fix that's implemented will not be opposed. Bots should not be used to make controversial edits.

Would any editors oppose a bot request to change those 60 to a parameterized form so that we can proceed with wording fixes? If you oppose on the grounds that the template should be moved to the applicable section, I ask that you volunteer to do that work yourself -- and accept that it may meet with opposition.--Father Goose 18:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Better yet—and I ask this out of ignorance—would it be possible for a bot to give us a count of articles that have this template at the top? Surely a computer can do that, right? If so, it would be pretty dang useful. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

60 is just an arbitrary piece of BS an editor made up to push their POV. I've seen many more than 60, and I pretty much always tag the top myself. Matthew 00:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there you have it: a compelling reason to get a real count, not something someone pulled out of their ass. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You guys mind watching your tone? We all know your particular point of view, but there is no need for abusive dialogue. It really doesn't accomplish anything. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather get an answer to my question than be chided for not being nicey-nice. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sugar might work better than vinegar, though. At any rate, I agree that the exact number is unknown, and prior to changing articles, a bot would have to identify them -- so a precise count ought to be obtainable as a preparatory step. However, it's still a safe bet that section-not-top is the majority, if only due to Android Mouse Bot 3's tagging sections only.--Father Goose 03:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm the editor who counted the thousand articles to get an idea of how many are using the template at the top, and while I do have the opinion that the template should go in the section, I find it insulting and very uncivil that my integrity is brought into question. All I wanted to do was get an idea of an number and bring it here to the discussion. The fact is I only found 9 articles in 1000 using the tag at the top, and I made it clear that only expanding on that sample would get the number around 60. I fully support the use of the bot to ascertain an accurate number, I also support people's right to have their own POVs. There is absolutely no need to to get uncivil about this. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm struggling to believe you counted the articles to be honest -- didn't you also claim you moved the tags for these nine articles? Matthew 16:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

AGF! Vegaswikian 18:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I assume you're pointing out the "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary" part, yes? Good. Matthew 19:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

And hey, I can assume good faith on the part of people who pull stuff out of their ass. Does that help? +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious, what would be your estimate as to how many articles have the template at the top?--Father Goose 22:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You can believe whatever you want to. I'm trying to be civil here and you can go ahead and count the articles if you want to. I know I counted and that's all that really matters to me. If somebody wants to have the bot count then that's fine with me ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't see any opposition to the proposal, so I'll make the request now, and ask for a count first, to be posted here, before any edits are made.--Father Goose 19:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ask that the parameter be in the form "place=top". We can nail down the wording for whichever placement the template has once that's done.--Father Goose 19:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If no one else has taken on the task yet, I could write a bot to get an article count and later, if needed, write a bot to add the top paramater. May take a few days though, since I need to get a newer database dump. --Android Mouse 00:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That'll be fine. I made the request directly to you due to your familiarity with the template and general bot-writing expertise. I just checked Whatlinkshere; there's only 8 instances of {{Trivia|date=March 2008}} in the (Main) namespace and I added the parameter to the two instances that appeared at the top, so you'll only need to check for {{Trivia|date=March 2008}}. I guess we can define "at the top" as any instance that comes before the first ==.--Father Goose 03:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll get to work on it and post the article count here when done. --Android Mouse 18:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There are approximately ~450 articles at the top which do not already have the top parameter. Bot output follows:

loading articles...
Articles to be scanned: 8203
Gerry Cowper tag is at top 60
Larry Bird tag is at top 153
Andy Kaufman tag is at top 183
Baldness tag is at top 258
Admiralty Arch tag is at top 264
Blue plaque tag is at top 285
Aaahh!!! Real Monsters tag is at top 292
Benson (TV series) tag is at top 298
Behind the Music tag is at top 342
Alko tag is at top 356
Blue Hawaii tag is at top 364
A People's History of the United States tag is at top 391
Bendin' in the Wind tag is at top 495
Mitch Anderson tag is at top 537
Blue Collar Comedy Tour: The Movie tag is at top 539
Alfonsina tag is at top 567
Because I Said So (film) tag is at top 570
Cape Fear (1962 film) tag is at top 781
Canary Wharf tag is at top 785
China Clipper tag is at top 828
Casino (film) tag is at top 871
Concordia Language Villages tag is at top 902
The Buzz on Maggie tag is at top 940
Carry On Camping tag is at top 941
Cosmic Cube tag is at top 961
Carry On Cruising tag is at top 1018
Carry On Spying tag is at top 1019
Carry On Doctor tag is at top 1020
Contact (video game) tag is at top 1037
Cobra Starship tag is at top 1051
Circus Herman Renz tag is at top 1052
Cristiano Mozzati tag is at top 1058
Juliet Burke tag is at top 1065
Cellphone's Dead tag is at top 1074
Challenge of the Super Friends tag is at top 1078
Cupid's Chokehold tag is at top 1081
Doctor Zhivago (film) tag is at top 1195
Deliverance tag is at top 1199
Dave Obey tag is at top 1290
Double Dragon 3: The Rosetta Stone tag is at top 1306
Cat Deeley tag is at top 1330
Distance (Utada Hikaru album) tag is at top 1332
The Dukes of Hazzard (film) tag is at top 1337
Deathstroke tag is at top 1339
Deewaar (1975 film) tag is at top 1342
Death Wish II tag is at top 1349
Doc Hammer tag is at top 1392
Tommy Emmanuel tag is at top 1433
Teyla Emmagan tag is at top 1445
Devasuram tag is at top 1511
Deus Ex Machina (Lost) tag is at top 1514
Don't Go To Sleep! tag is at top 1518
Float On tag is at top 1527
Escape to the House of Mummies Part II tag is at top 1538
Désiré-Joseph Mercier tag is at top 1556
Fire + Water tag is at top 1558
Dmitri Gredenko tag is at top 1573
The Eye (2007 film) tag is at top 1578
Lleyton Hewitt tag is at top 1641
Glorificus tag is at top 1763
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology tag is at top 1774
Hajime Sorayama tag is at top 1788
Harpenden tag is at top 1790
Havok tag is at top 1798
Hannibal King tag is at top 1829
Hank Marvin tag is at top 1852
Funyuns tag is at top 1854
Gantz tag is at top 1866
From Russia with Love (video game) tag is at top 1920
Grosse Pointe Blank tag is at top 1924
Maki Goto tag is at top 1947
Hanso Foundation tag is at top 1995
Ghost in the Shell (film) tag is at top 2005
Peter Foster tag is at top 2011
Florence Henderson tag is at top 2017
Giant Dipper (roller coaster) tag is at top 2018
Habib Marwan tag is at top 2021
Christopher Henderson tag is at top 2024
Hal Gardner tag is at top 2025
Herbicidal Maniac / Chaos Theory tag is at top 2029
Rose Henderson tag is at top 2035
Hannibal (novel) tag is at top 2042
Hector Salazar tag is at top 2043
Hit Me with Your Best Shot tag is at top 2057
Frank Bertaina tag is at top 2060
Further Instructions tag is at top 2062
Paul Hayes (antiques expert) tag is at top 2064
Hiros tag is at top 2067
Herpen's Heroes tag is at top 2087
Krav Maga tag is at top 2127
Incarn tag is at top 2249ty tag is at top 2215
Kingwood, Houston, Texas tag is at top 2295
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996 film) tag is at top 2304
Rickie Lee Jones tag is at top 2307
Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius (film) tag is at top 2343
Lethal Weapon 3 tag is at top 2347
James Bond 007: Everything or Nothing tag is at top 2356
James L. Avery, Sr. tag is at top 2381
Lynne Kresge tag is at top 2382
The Legend of Kyrandia tag is at top 2420
Jimmy John's tag is at top 2426
Mark Hunter (musician) tag is at top 2454
Lasher (comics) tag is at top 2509
James Heller tag is at top 2510
John Keeler tag is at top 2511
Hybrid (Venom Spawn) tag is at top 2514
Jennifer Mosely tag is at top 2518
Jim Prescott tag is at top 2524
Indiana Jones and His Desktop Adventures tag is at top 2528
Desmond Hume tag is at top 2535
I Melt with You tag is at top 2538
Kick (soft drink) tag is at top 2553
Jyūshinshu tag is at top 2555
Les Chapman tag is at top 2564
The Kiss Before the Mirror tag is at top 2570
I Was A Sixth Grade Alien tag is at top 2571
Joker (Flame of Recca) tag is at top 2574
Michael Kölling tag is at top 2575
ILok tag is at top 2576
The King's Damosel tag is at top 2586
Zeppo Marx tag is at top 2768
Gummo Marx tag is at top 2770
Kenny Loggins tag is at top 2789
Tom Mix tag is at top 2836
Mega Man Legends series tag is at top 2864
Monkey Business (1931 film) tag is at top 2905
Sayumi Michishige tag is at top 2912
Meatballs (film) tag is at top 2919
Maxwell's Silver Hammer tag is at top 2921
List of minor Star Wars bounty hunters tag is at top 2924
Matt Skiba tag is at top 2938
Live Free  tag is at top 2963at top 2943
Claire Littleton tag is at top 2977
Midol tag is at top 2986
Mick Thomson tag is at top 3000
List of Initial D chapters tag is at top 3007
List of Pure Pwnage episodes tag is at top 3020
Lockdown (Lost) tag is at top 3025
Move Along (song) tag is at top 3027
Mandy (24 character) tag is at top 3030
My First Day tag is at top 3032
List of The King of Fighters: Maximum Impact characters tag is at top 3036
List of World Heroes characters tag is at top 3040
Maging Sino Ka Man tag is at top 3053
Man of the Year (2006 film) tag is at top 3054
Mohinder Suresh tag is at top 3063
Network (film) tag is at top 3198
Bettie Page tag is at top 3259
Pet Sematary tag is at top 3310
Paul Thomas tag is at top 3339
Agent Pleakley tag is at top 3345
Ninin Ga Shinobuden tag is at top 3366
Night of the Living Dead (1990 film) tag is at top 3380
Ned Bigby tag is at top 3389
Official (American football) tag is at top 3398
Over the Top tag is at top 3403
Ombra mai fu tag is at top 3429
Naina tag is at top 3430
Daniel Powter tag is at top 3432
Purple Rain (song) tag is at top 3443
Risa Niigaki tag is at top 3456
Number Eight (Battlestar Galactica) tag is at top 3477
Phage (comics) tag is at top 3499
Wayne Palmer tag is at top 3501
Poppy tea tag is at top 3502
Aaron Pierce tag is at top 3503
The Other 48 Days tag is at top 3515
Ramon Salazar (24 character) tag is at top 3519
Karen Narasaki tag is at top 3527
Samuel Page tag is at top 3559
Only You (1994 film) tag is at top 3568
Parasite (Heroes) tag is at top 3570
Royal Mail tag is at top 3778
SeaQuest DSV tag is at top 3800
St Olave's Grammar School tag is at top 3803
Ricky Rudd tag is at top 3831
Romeo (American rapper) tag is at top 3847
Saturday Night Live tag is at top 3853
Roswell (TV series) tag is at top 3863
Romeo Must Die tag is at top 3884
Rikku tag is at top 3896
Southern Fried Rabbit tag is at top 3901
Spawn (film) tag is at top 3912
Ronon Dex tag is at top 3953
Cait Sith (Final Fantasy) tag is at top 3962
Jack Shephard tag is at top 3966
Scream (comics) tag is at top 3972
Shai (band) tag is at top 3978
Ryan Howard (The Office) tag is at top 3992
Saul Tigh tag is at top 3993
Riot (comics) tag is at top 3994
Ronson's Lighters tag is at top 4009
Sex and Candy tag is at top 4019
Shark (TV series) tag is at top 4031
Raz de Sein tag is at top 4033
Reptiles in the Rose Garden tag is at top 4036
Robert Hawkins (Jericho character) tag is at top 4050
Sorry 2004 tag is at top 4062
Re-Animated tag is at top 4065
Silent Hill influences and trivia tag is at top 4069
Smart and Smarter tag is at top 4084
Sunderland A.F.C. tag is at top 4231
Sweet Home Alabama (film) tag is at top 4243
The Style Council tag is at top 4264
Speed of Sound (song) tag is at top 4368
Eadric Streona tag is at top 4375
The Forge (Star Trek: Enterprise) tag is at top 4397
Super Mario Bros. (TV series) tag is at top 4399
Star Trek: New Voyages tag is at top 4403
The Great Louse Detective tag is at top 4407
Elliot Stabler tag is at top 4417
The Thomas Crown Affair (1999 film) tag is at top 4428
The Lockhorns tag is at top 4445
The Punisher 2099 tag is at top 4449
Super Bowl ring tag is at top 4467
The BFG (film) tag is at top 4469
St. Xavier's School, Ranchi tag is at top 4474
Anne Stephenson tag is at top 4547
Stephen Saunders (24 character) tag is at top 4561
The My Two Dads (The O.C. episode) tag is at top 4570
Star 69 / Weapon of Choice tag is at top 4585
Alan Titchmarsh tag is at top 4767
Toots & the Maytals tag is at top 4802
Paul Wall tag is at top 4852
Vampire Princess Miyu tag is at top 4853
University of Saskatchewan Students' Union tag is at top 4866
Uncle Fucka tag is at top 4878
Nozomi Tsuji tag is at top 4887
Voltage regulator tube tag is at top 4895
B. D. Wong tag is at top 4905
United States Bullion Depository tag is at top 4917
Toxin (comics) tag is at top 4922
Ty Pennington tag is at top 4925
The Virus (XM) tag is at top 4957
The World's Fastest Indian tag is at top 4983
Trafficlink tag is at top 4989
Waldsee (camp) tag is at top 4998
David Thornton (actor) tag is at top 5010
Vladimir Bierko tag is at top 5014
We Are Marshall tag is at top 5020
Tony Gates tag is at top 5023
Which Is Witch tag is at top 5029
Richard Walsh (24 character) tag is at top 5032
UPIXO In Action: Mission in Snowdriftland tag is at top 5066
Westfield Sunrise tag is at top 5080
Batman (TV series) tag is at top 5291
Cameo (band) tag is at top 5368
Breaking (martial arts) tag is at top 5480
Cabin Fever / Rinse & Spit tag is at top 5506
Anthony Gonzalez tag is at top 5567
Ferdinand Anton Ernst Porsche tag is at top 5785
Jesse G. James tag is at top 5794
Mariel Hemingway tag is at top 5795
Keyshawn Johnson tag is at top 5796
Gran Turismo 4 tag is at top 5869
Don't Cha tag is at top 5872
Dia de Los Dangerous! tag is at top 5970
Fair Exchange tag is at top 5982
I Think I Love My Wife tag is at top 6082
In Society tag is at top 6139
Ben Grubbs tag is at top 6158
Mystikal tag is at top 6175
Layzie Bone tag is at top 6226
Julian Bond tag is at top 6260
Joe Mauer tag is at top 6317
Man's Best Friend (Ren & Stimpy television episode) tag is at top 6326
Alex kan-ryū tag is at top 6707ity) tag is at top 6541
Kenny Wayne Shepherd tag is at top 7157
Tomcats (film) tag is at top 7224
Ricky Williams tag is at top 7239
Wish Bone tag is at top 7287
Working (TV series) tag is at top 7290
James Wilson (House) tag is at top 7291
Dictionary tag is at top 7544
Moxie tag is at top 7547
Rapier tag is at top 7556
Father Ted Crilly tag is at top 7578
Steal This Album! tag is at top 7589
Annie Potts tag is at top 7592
Home Alone tag is at top 7599
Matt LeBlanc tag is at top 7612
Rachel Green tag is at top 7622
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996 film) tag is at top 7636
Bert Blyleven tag is at top 7639
Chinese martial arts tag is at top 7652
Catherine Bell tag is at top 7659
Roger Lloyd Pack tag is at top 7664
Father Jack Hackett tag is at top 7680
The One with George Stephanopoulos tag is at top 7691
Credit Suisse tag is at top 7698
My Dad the Rock Star tag is at top 7699
Mrs. Doyle tag is at top 7700
Elixir (comics) tag is at top 7735
Episodes and levels of Doom tag is at top 7736
Daniel Powter tag is at top 7805
Jesse Spencer tag is at top 7813
Robin Höek/Nurse Stimpy tag is at top 7814
George Huang (Law & Order) tag is at top 7817
The One with the Ring tag is at top 7818
Cranberry sauce tag is at top 7823
Estadio Monumental Isidro Romero Carbo tag is at top 7825
Narc (film) tag is at top 7831
Nick Picks tag is at top 7854
Toby Lightman tag is at top 7863
The One Where the Monkey Gets Away tag is at top 7866
Old McDonald Had a Farm tag is at top 7867
The One with the Breast Milk tag is at top 7868
Any Bonds Today? tag is at top 7878
Night at the Museum tag is at top 7894
The Last One (Friends episode) tag is at top 7898
Lisa Cuddy tag is at top 7902
The One with Phoebe's Uterus tag is at top 7903
The One with Rachel's Crush tag is at top 7904
The One with Joey's Dirty Day tag is at top 7905
The One with All the Rugby tag is at top 7907
The Jolly Boys' Outing tag is at top 7913
Dates (Only Fools and Horses) tag is at top 7944
A Touch of Glass tag is at top 7945
Diamonds Are for Heather tag is at top 7946
Big Brother (Only Fools and Horses) tag is at top 7947
Marooned/Untamed World tag is at top 7948
Tea for Three tag is at top 7950
A Royal Flush tag is at top 7951
The Frog's Legacy tag is at top 7952
Fatal Extraction tag is at top 7953
No Greater Love (Only Fools and Horses) tag is at top 7954
Miami Twice (part two) tag is at top 7955
Episode One (The Office, Series One) tag is at top 7957
Episode Two (The Office, Series One) tag is at top 7958
Episode Six (The Office, Series One) tag is at top 7959
Heroes and Villains (Only Fools and Horses) tag is at top 7960
Strained Relations tag is at top 7961
The Longest Night tag is at top 7963
Modern Men (Only Fools and Horses) tag is at top 7964
Little Problems tag is at top 7965
Hole in One (Only Fools and Horses) tag is at top 7968
Stage Fright (Only Fools and Horses) tag is at top 7971
Class of '62 tag is at top 7972
Mother Nature's Son (Only Fools and Horses) tag is at top 7973
The Long Legs of the Law tag is at top 7974
A Losing Streak tag is at top 7975
Homesick tag is at top 7977
Go West Young Man (Only Fools and Horses) tag is at top 7978
It's Only Rock and Roll (Only Fools and Horses) tag is at top 7979
If They Could See Us Now tag is at top 7981
Strangers on the Shore tag is at top 7982
Cash and Curry tag is at top 7984
A Slow Bus To Chingford tag is at top 7985
It Never Rains... tag is at top 7986
From Prussia With Love tag is at top 7987
Happy Returns tag is at top 7990
Danger UXD tag is at top 7991
Sleeping Dogs Lie (Only Fools and Horses) tag is at top 7992
Ben (Friends) tag is at top 7994
Good Luck, Father Ted tag is at top 7995
Entertaining Father Stone tag is at top 7996
Rock-a-Hula Ted tag is at top 7998
As One Door Closes tag is at top 7999
Escape from Victory tag is at top 8001
Flight Into Terror tag is at top 8003
A Christmassy Ted tag is at top 8004
Grant unto Him Eternal Rest tag is at top 8008
New Jack City (Father Ted) tag is at top 8009
Diether Ocampo tag is at top 8011
Song for Europe (Father Ted) tag is at top 8018
Sugar E.P. tag is at top 8019
The Old Grey Whistle Theft tag is at top 8020
Chirpy Burpy Cheap Sheep tag is at top 8021
List of The King of Fighters EX characters tag is at top 8027
Joe Tompkins tag is at top 8031
The One with the Thumb tag is at top 8059
The One Where Nana Dies Twice tag is at top 8060
The One Where Underdog Gets Away tag is at top 8061
The One with Mrs. Bing tag is at top 8062
The One with the Dozen Lasagnas tag is at top 8063
The One with the Stoned Guy tag is at top 8064
The One with the Fake Monica tag is at top 8065
The One with the Prom Video tag is at top 8073
The One Where Paul's the Man tag is at top 8082
The One with the Ick Factor tag is at top 8083
The One with the List tag is at top 8084
The One with the Evil Orthodontist tag is at top 8090
The One with the Birth tag is at top 8091
The One Where Rachel Finds Out tag is at top 8092
The One Where Heckles Dies tag is at top 8093
The One with Five Steaks and an Eggplant tag is at top 8094
The One with the Lesbian Wedding tag is at top 8095
The One Where Ross and Rachel...You Know tag is at top 8096
The One Where Joey Moves Out tag is at top 8097
The One Where Eddie Won't Go tag is at top 8098
The One Where Old Yeller Dies tag is at top 8099
The One with the Bullies tag is at top 8100
The One with the Jam tag is at top 8101
The One With the Metaphorical Tunnel tag is at top 8102
The One with Frank, Jr. tag is at top 8103
The One with the Flashback tag is at top 8104
The One with All the Resolutions tag is at top 8105
The One with the Race Car Bed tag is at top 8106
The One with the Giant Poking Device tag is at top 8107
The One with the Football tag is at top 8108
The One Where Monica and Richard Are Just Friends tag is at top 8109
The One Where Ross and Rachel Take a Break tag is at top 8110
The One with the Cop tag is at top 8111
The One with Chandler in a Box tag is at top 8112
The One Without the Ski Trip tag is at top 8113
The One with the Hypnosis Tape tag is at top 8114
The One with the Tiny T-Shirt tag is at top 8115
The One the Morning After tag is at top 8116
The One with the Screamer tag is at top 8117
The One with the Videotape tag is at top 8118
The One with the Dirty Girl tag is at top 8120
The One Where Ross Got High tag is at top 8121
The One Where Everybody Finds Out tag is at top 8122
The One Where They're Going to Party tag is at top 8124
The One Where Ross Can't Flirt tag is at top 8125
Top Chef tag is at top 8126
The One with the Girl from Poughkeepsie tag is at top 8129
The One with the Fake Party tag is at top 8130
The One with the Free Porn tag is at top 8131
The One with Rachel's New Dress tag is at top 8132
The One with the Girl Who Hits Joey tag is at top 8135
The One Where Estelle Dies tag is at top 8136
The One with Princess Consuela tag is at top 8137
The One After Ross Says Rachel tag is at top 8139
The One Hundredth tag is at top 8140
The One Where Phoebe Hates PBS tag is at top 8141
The One with the Kips tag is at top 8142
The One with the Yeti tag is at top 8143
The One Where Ross Moves In tag is at top 8144
The One with the Inappropriate Sister tag is at top 8145
The One with All the Thanksgivings tag is at top 8146
The One with Ross's Sandwich tag is at top 8147
The One with Chandler's Work Laugh tag is at top 8148
The One with the Wedding Dresses tag is at top 8149
The One with the Worst Best Man Ever tag is at top 8150
The One with Rachel's Inadvertent Kiss tag is at top 8151
The One Where Rachel Smokes tag is at top 8152
The One with the Ride-Along tag is at top 8153
The One with the Ball tag is at top 8154
The One Where the Stripper Cries tag is at top 8160
The Unlucky Winner Is... tag is at top 8161
Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (Only Fools and Horses) tag is at top 8162
Thicker than Water (Only Fools and Horses) tag is at top 8163
To Hull and Back tag is at top 8164
Yuppy Love tag is at top 8165
The Russians Are Coming tag is at top 8166
The One in Vegas tag is at top 8167
The One with Phoebe's Wedding tag is at top 8168
The Second Time Around (Only Fools and Horses) tag is at top 8169
The One with the Cake tag is at top 8170
Time On Our Hands tag is at top 8171
The One with Rachel's Other Sister tag is at top 8172
Yesterday Never Comes tag is at top 8173
Wanted (Only Fools and Horses) tag is at top 8174
Who's a Pretty Boy? tag is at top 8175
The One with Monica's Thunder tag is at top 8176
The Miracle of Peckham tag is at top 8177
The One with the Male Nanny tag is at top 8178
Video Nasty (Only Fools and Horses) tag is at top 8179
Watching the Girls Go By tag is at top 8180
The Passion of St Tibulus tag is at top 8181
The One with Chandler's Dad tag is at top 8182
The Sky's the Limit (Only Fools and Horses) tag is at top 8183
You Say Toe-Mato tag is at top 8184
The One Where Rachel Has a Baby tag is at top 8185
The One in Massapequa tag is at top 8186
The One Where Rachel Tells... tag is at top 8187
The One Where Chandler Takes a Bath tag is at top 8189
The One with All the Candy tag is at top 8193
Think Fast, Father Ted tag is at top 8194
The One with the Boob Job tag is at top 8195
Sycamore Trails Pool tag is at top 8202
done 476

--Android Mouse 23:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha! So much for whoever said there were "about 60" articles w/the tag at the top. Remind me not to hire you for my next statistical project. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that was uncalled for. "60" is accurate if the sample drew heavily on May 2007 (the month when the bot added the tags). I did a personal count two days ago for a sample of 90 articles tagged in May 2007 and July 2007 and came up with a figure of "about 1200" overall, and with only 2% of articles in May were tagged at the top. In any case, it is apparent that article-top tagging is used relatively rarely (6% of cases). So, I believe we should try to agree on a wording that conforms with in-section placement. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyhow, does anyone oppose "phase two" -- applying the parameter to the articles in the above list?--Father Goose 02:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

ILike2BeAnonymous, Why do you let your POV make you be uncivil to me? All I did was count 1000 articles and report back here what I found? I made it clear that using the sample to get 60 was how I got that number. Your attitude is totally uncalled for and rude. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you were wrong; what can I say? Please quit whining; it's unseemly. +ILike2BeAnonymous 16:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

May we request the curtailing of all unseemly behavior?--Father Goose 18:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting you put emphasis there, as if you were to look at my original post I put emphasis on the "if" when expanding on the sample I made. The fact is I was right when I counted only 9 in 1000 because that's what happened, and I made it clear that the value was derived from that. Your behavior is increasingly childish and insulting and I suggest you stop. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Bot written. Waiting for approval. --Android Mouse 21:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Bot approved today. Task is now complete. --Android Mouse 01:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks, Android Mouse.--Father Goose 01:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. --Android Mouse 19:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Revised Relevance guideline

Based on feedback that the initial draft got, I've done a full rewrite of Wikipedia:Relevance. I hope to make it an "official" guideline in the near future, and have this template link to it (instead of WP:NOT). If you have objections to the proposed guideline -- or any other comments to offer -- please state them at Wikipedia talk:Relevance.--Father Goose 18:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Could vs. can

I'm under the impression that neither of these words are going to remain once the template is parameterized (discussion of the wording was stalled by that issue for the past few weeks). A wording using "should", above, seemed to meet with consensus. Is there much point to arguing over "could" vs. "can" if neither word is likely to make it into future versions?--Father Goose 21:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd strongly endorse "should", with "can" as a runner-up in lieu; "could" just sounds so ... weasel-ish. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections guideline states: "in certain cases a narrowly-focused list may be appropriate". Since a bot has placed the template on thousands of pages it seems unlikely that the algorithm that did it was be smart enough to avoid trivia lists that are actually OK. Hence the need for the more "weasel-ish" word: "could." —WikiLen 18:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, no; you've just made an excellent argument against a bot placing the template on thousands of pages. Rumor has it that human beings still have some utility in this world. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Should" is inappropriate - it is more suited to a policy, not a guideline. "Could" reflects the fact that the decision is up to individual editors. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Move to talk

Could we suggest in the template that sometimes it is best to move the trivia section to the talk page and allow editors to move things back onto the article when they have been made into relevant sections? This would clean up a lot of articles, not piss off the people who added the trivia, and keep the information that might be a viable addition someday. — Omegatron 23:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There was a discussion (link) about two months ago regarding this on the Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections guideline talk page and it was rejected. I will quote my comments from that discussion:

First, it is not standard practice to move content to the talk pages unless that content is somehow disputed (controversial or libelous). This is rarely the case with "Trivia" entries.

Second, it is in practice no different from simply deleting the content. Most talk pages receive so little attention from so few users that it is unlikely that such information would be re-incorporated. Realistically, it will just linger on the talk page. So, in a way, it is misleading when one moves content to the talk page "for discussion" when one knows full well that a particular talk page is rarely sees any discussion. The option of "move to the talk page" presents a loophole for deleting content, the deletion of which one would otherwise be hard-pressed to justify (that is, content with promise of integration into the article).

Third, it is a "half-assed" attempt at a solution, as you (User:Mangojuice) note. There is no reason that editors can't discuss on a talk page the fate of a "Trivia" section (or particular entries) without removing the content from the article. If the goal is indeed discussion, is it not better to start a discussion and leave the content until an agreement is reached as to how to handle it? Again, there is an exception for cases where the content is highly controversial or potentially libelous, but this does not apply to the majority of entries in "Trivia" sections.

If an editor wants to "clean up" articles of trivia, s/he should just go ahead and integrate the trivia or, if appropriate, delete it. I think the "move to the talk page" approach essentially boils down to a way of rapidly clearing the growing backlog without actually solving the root problem. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

At the time of that discussion, I embraced the "move to the talk page" approach, but since then I have come to agree with Black Falcon -- it's a sweep-it-under-the-rug solution.--Father Goose 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia2

I have created {{Trivia2}} for use in trivia sections that are not called "Trivia", after I saw someone delete a {{trivia}} for that reason. Hopefully {{Trivia2}} makes this clear. Please take a look and comment on the talk page. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Too bulky

Is it really necessary for this tag to be so enormous? That makes sense when we're drawing attention to something seriously problematic, but the presence of a trivia section is a relatively minor flaw (more akin to a proposed merger than to most of the cleanup issues). In some cases, inserting this giant box arguably harms the article's appearance more than the actual trivia section does.
I'd like to restyle the template along these lines:

Top:

Section:

We needn't include the date within the box, as this is useful primarily for categorization (and is visible at the bottom of the page for the minority of readers who wish to view it). Opinions? —David Levy 03:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A bold first line is pretty standard for cleanup templates, even the "low-importance" ones (see WP:TC). Some of them only bold the salient word(s), however: we could try bolding "trivia" only. The template is most obtrusive when used at the top of the article... but a couple of editors are adamant about using it that way.--Father Goose 05:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Be great if we could stop messing around with the template now. - Dudesleeper · Talk 12:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Even greater if we could make it perfect! Woot.--Father Goose 02:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we decide on a wording for this template already? It seems as if every time I see this tag on an article, it says something different. That is sort of disconcerting in itself, but the main problem is that sometimes it changes wording so it has be placed in a different place. Some wordings imply that it should on top of an article, while some imply that it could into a section as well.

At this point, I could care less if the tag just says "This article contains trivia. Purple monkey dishwasher." as long as it stays that way. So, bottom line - decide on a wording and if necessary, protect this template from further changes so it's stable. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea, it makes it simpler because it is true that no one looks at the date and it fixes the current weird wording. --Kyle^(K1000)_(talk) 04:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I generally ignore tags with recent dates (thinking "someone who knows the topic will likely deal with it"), but when I see old tags I'll attempt to integrate the info. Perhaps a small simple ^MM-YYYY would work, as the date placed on the tag obviously implies that this is the date the tag was placed. I find tags with hidden info annoying, and it should remembered that on Wikipedia, all readers are potential editors. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What about -

or some variation? I think avoiding the word "Trivia" altogether will prevent the template as reading "this information is trivial", and will prevent redundancy when placed in a Trivia section. Also, a gentle message saying why the information should be integrated (other than just "This is a Trivia section") will help people understand and hopefully be less offended, so that Android Mouse Bot 3 can get back to work. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've actually seen some trivia sections in the form of akwardly written paragraphs. I'm not sure describing it as a list would fit all circumstances. How about calling calling it "loosely related information" (wording from WP:TRIVIA)? --Android Mouse 06:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

K, what about this?

~ JohnnyMrNinja 17:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The date would have to be displayed as "month year" (e.g. June 2008) unless we were to include special (and ever-expanding) conditional code to convert the combined month and year to numerical format. Other than that, I like your proposed version. —David Levy 17:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with that proposed wording. However, based on prior statements, a few other editors might find it to be insufficiently 'anti-trivia'. I can only hope this won't be the start of another edit war. I'd leave it at the "proposed" stage for the next week, just in case.--Father Goose 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, just in case that one is too accepting, I made a new one, but posted it here so as to not distract from this conversation. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 18:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice!  :-) —David Levy 18:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem with current wording- (This is a trivia section)

The current wording with "This is a trivia section" makes some articles not work and does not sound very good. I have come across a few articles where the trivia template was placed at the top of the article. With the previous wording of "This article contains a trivia section" it works to have the trivia template with the trivia section or at the top. Since the change, many articles that used the template at the top now look rather stupid. I cannot name any articles because any that I come across I have already changed. I say that we should change the wording back to what it has been for a long time. Oh, and just out of curiosity, why was it changed in the first place? I can't seem to find any discussion on the talk page that talks about changing it to what it is now(I didn't look for too long).--Kyle^(K1000)_(talk) 02:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

from Template talk:Trivia2 - "The trivia template was supposed to be made conditional and to use different wording if the parameter 'place=top' was used with it. Apparently no one got around to doing this though. I went ahead and now made those changes, and I think the original template now serves the purpose this one is supposed to. See here for the previous discussion about the conditional logic. --Android Mouse 23:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)"

So if you do see any that are placed at the top, add "place=top" and it should solve the problem. But I whole-heartedly agree that wording "This is a trivia section" is somewhat-silly when used in a trivia section. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 02:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clearing up the reasoning for the conditional stuff. The wording still sounds weird though. The talk section above this one seems to have a good idea. --Kyle^(K1000)_(talk) 04:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to "This section contains a list of trivia items", which is an idea I pitched a while back. Don't know if that wording will meet with favor, but it's better than saying "This is a trivia section" right under a ==Trivia== heading.--Father Goose 05:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd earlier changed it to "This section is composed of trivia", but it was quickly reverted. [1] Perhaps this one will fare better. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevance proposal

This template speaks of "relevant items" as a criterion for integration of trivia, but fails to define the term in any manner. Wikipedia:Relevance of content (formerly located at Wikipedia:Relevance) is an attempt to lay out some common ground on the subject of relevance. It has undergone several rounds of feedback and revision, but it needs your input if it is to truly reflect a common stance on the subject. Please make your thoughts known! Thanks.--Father Goose 03:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need more guidelines?? — Omegatron 22:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Where there exist areas of frequent contention that could be smoothed out a bit by laying out some common ground -- yes. Guidelines have value in that role.--Father Goose 23:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

For further updates on Relevance of Content, see the talk page. Work on the project is currently suspended due to edit-protection being in place, and events are proceeding at the (informal) mediation Cabal. [2] See talkpage if interested, work on the project can not resume until the edit-protect is lifted. Newbyguesses - Talk 05:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Margin clear

The template was colliding with infoboxes? Yes, but e.g. 1999 (song) looks rather ugly now... GregorB 20:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

New format (it's been up for five days)

As proposed above (date format fixed)

As nobody has commented in five days, I wish to make it very clear that this wording is being proposed here. This addresses the points -

• the word "trivia" is redundant in a Trivia section
• the previous wording was sometimes too harsh, as trivia sections are not completely unhelpful, just unencyclopedic in format
• the previous template was too bulky, and the bolding was "pretentious"

Are there any suggestions on how this can be improved further? Does anyone wholly object to this format? If not, is it safe to proceed? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this is an improvement. The assumption that as a section tag this is only used in a section with the name 'Trivia' is incorrect. There is too much text in the box and the font is way too small. Vegaswikian 06:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no assumption that this is only used in sections with the name "Trivia." The point is that it often is (resulting in silly redundancy), and there never is a need to display that particular word (even if the section title is something entirely different). It makes more sense to explain the actual issue (which would avoid misleading people to believe that they should only be on the lookout for sections titled "Trivia").

As for the font size, it seems perfectly readable to me (and I have a 15" display with a resolution of 1400x1050). —David Levy 16:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I partly agree with Vegaswikian: if the text is all in "fine print", why have a banner at all? And although I like the wording suggested by JohnnyMrNinja, it would be better at half the length.

It's understood that this template is used in trivia and non-trivia sections, so the wording has to be applicable to both. Using the word "trivia" itself is thus wrong for both types of sections.

So, a counter-suggestion:

I understand the desire to capture all the nuances of WP:ATS, but if you want a small template, KISS.--Father Goose 16:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I like it. —David Levy 17:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you integrate the revelant items, what is left is inappropriate, so you could make this clearer with

Once you determine what is appropriate, everything else is not. Vegaswikian 19:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that I definitely disagree with: integrateability is not the right metric for "relevance" or "appropriateness". I've been trying to address that problem for a while now with the relevance proposal (which is unfortunately the target of an edit war at this moment).--Father Goose 19:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If the material is relevant, it can be integrated and belongs in the article. Once all of the relevant material is included then what is left is lacks relevance (inappropriate?) and can be removed. Vegaswikian 19:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That may be true in theory, but different editors have different ideas of what's "relevant" and what's not. (It isn't unusual for someone to find a good way to integrate an item that other users believed couldn't be integrated well. Rather than attempting to cram it into the existing prose, this might entail expanding the article in a manner that substantially improves it.) It makes much more sense to advise readers to remove material that's "inappropriate" (and refer them to the page that explains what types of content qualify). —David Levy 20:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest this wording. But the small text worries me, it is ugly. Newbyguesses - Talk 22:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the first line more in this one, but the removing of remaining items is not good because of what David Levy said. Why not combine the best of each with:

This implies that some of the content would be better if you could create context while also saying to remove the stuff that Wikipedia considers inappropriate.--Kyle_(talk) 23:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd further simplify that to "The information in this section lacks context".--Father Goose 03:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And the small text can be made less ugly by taking out the "small" tag since it's superscripted already. Thus:--Father Goose 03:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow that's a lot of action after 5 days of silence! Ok, another reason for my initial wording was addressing the questions

1. What is a Trivia section?
2. What's wrong with a trivia section?
3. What do you do with a trivia section?

So how about -

That's only a couple words more but it explains what a Trivia section is without using the word "trivia", which to some means the info is being called "trivial". Or the deluxe super-compact model -

Or the limited edition ultra-compact (not available in Guam) -

Ok, the last one was a joke, but how about the other ones? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

(re: lot of action) Well, there's nothing like a single objection to overcome complacency.

I dunno, there's something about "loosely related" that really doesn't work for me. It's just kind of awkward, I think. Would you be okay with an approximation of the same idea?--Father Goose 07:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, we are going more complex again. I think that we want to keep the message here simple and link to pages that explain it more. Also, if we are going to say that it is loosely related(i am not happy with disorganized, though loosely related is not much better) I would have to insist on having the word "some". Just saying that "The facts in this section are loosely-related and lack context" is not good because a fact could lack context, but could be well related to the article. Saying "some" would eliminate this problem by saying that it could either lack context or be unrelated. Once the "loosely related" wording is fixed and "some" is added I would be very happy.--Kyle_(talk) 23:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Another attempt. Newbyguesses - Talk 23:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's the list itself that robs the entries of additional context they could have as prose. So "some" is not necessary. "Disorganized", "loosely-related", etc., while true, are also unnecessary. Just give one decent "why" and leave the nuances to WP:TRIVIA.--Father Goose 23:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I was just saying that the some would be necessary if people were set on disorganized or loosely related. I like Father Goose's one without the small tag. It follows the KISS principle and solves most of the other problems. --Kyle_(talk) 01:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Boldness foretold

I will put this one:

on the template page tomorrow unless there are objections. I won't change the "place=top" wording, which is a use not favored by most editors anyway.--Father Goose 18:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the "place=top" option should be removed. Most editors seem to agree that the template should be inserted into the pertinent section, and I can't think of a valid reason to deviate from this setup. —David Levy 19:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally agree, but unless we change the 500 or so articles where it is at the top, eliminating the "top" wording will make the template doubly-obtrusive in those articles. I'll add a note that place=top is deprecated, but not eliminate it.--Father Goose 19:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that very few of those articles actually call the parameter (which was added to the template only sixteen days ago), so most of them already have the incorrect wording. I've requested that a bot remove/relocate the misplaced transclusions. —David Levy 19:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The parameter was added to the "offending" templates by Android Mouse Bot weeks ago (see #Bot request for articles with template at top), but the parameter code was only added recently. I wouldn't mind having all templates moved in-section, although when/if Matthew and ILike2BeAnonymous return their attention to this page, they will probably raise hell about it.--Father Goose 20:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation.  :-)

There is clear consensus for transcluding this template in the pertinent sections, and I would hope that the editors in question would respect that. —David Levy 20:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems like there is a good majority, do it.--Kyle_(talk) 00:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what about "marginally"? That looks a lot less silly than "loosely" -

I know I was the one who first used "context", but I'm thinking it isn't the most descriptive problem with Trivia sections, especially in sections like "Cultural references". Although this is a really weak context, it's still a context, the subject in culture. However, any of these versions is preferable to the current one. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, "context" seems to work OK. This editor is content with the version above that User:Father Goose suggested to go on the templatepage. Newbyguesses - Talk 05:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"Lacking context" emphasizes "this is a list where prose would be better". Marginally-related could be interpreted as "marginally related to the topic", which may or may not be true. A truly well-written "cultural references" section will have an intro paragraph and/or a narrowly-focused and selective list, so if the context is sufficient there, it should be de-{{trivia}}'d anyway.

Anywho, presto change-o. I won't toss place=top until those templates are fixed.--Father Goose 15:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

*Looks at it in-place on a few articles* Yeah, the description of "trivia lists" is kind of indirect, but it's short and good enough. It's used on such a variety of lists that I don't want to make it more specific.--Father Goose 15:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that I've studied it in-place in several articles, I find I want to change it to this:

--Father Goose 16:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, not really, prefer the original. Newbyguesses - Talk 16:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I support this one. It makes much more sense than the current lack context one as the context one is confusing for newer editors, and even me, a long standing admin :p. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What convinced me the "context" one was wrong was this: AGM-88 HARM#Trivia. There are several articles where what's in the Trivia section should simply be under a different heading, and dumping it into a trivia section is simply a case of bad organization. A full-blown trivia list is just a lot more bad organization.

In retrospect, the "lacks context" wording... lacks context. We arrived at it by a logic that's not obvious to those outside our conversation, and I accept my portion of the blame for previously advocating it. I'm going to switch the template to "poorly organized", and if you hate that, revert it, and we'll keep looking for something better.--Father Goose 17:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me take a crack at this:

It seems that the basic dispute is about whether to call the information as trivia. Instead, I suggest that the template remarks that the information is presented as if it were trivia. This is also echoed by WP:TRIVIA and is probably a far more natural approach. --Farix (Talk) 03:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not the basic dispute at all. That's just Pixelface's reasoning (the TfD nominator), and most of the responders commented on different issues. Also, see the history of this template, as what you're suggesting has been tried and reverted quite a few times. And, the date stamp is not necessary, because according to the guideline, although trivia should be integrated into other sections, there is no time limit for doing so. Showing a date stamp implies exactly what we're trying to prevent -- the deletion of trivia items just because they've been there for a while.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

03:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with everything Equazcion just said. I would also like to mention that the use of the word "list" has been talked about previously and it was mentioned that sometimes Trivia sections are written as paragraphs, that is why the current template says trivia sections. It applies no matter what form the trivia is in. --Kyle_(talk) 03:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

MfD

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

place=top

Instead of tossing "place=top", perhaps it can be changed to be used for an article that is entirely trivia, such as List of cliffhanger endings, or Apollo 11 in popular culture. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 15:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If someone believes that an article contains no substantial content other than disorganized trivia, he/she should propose that it be merged into another article or deleted. —David Levy 15:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

True, but the bane of such articles is the same with trivia sections, some info is genuinely useful, and some rubbish. A clean-cut "merge or delete" wouldn't be exactly right, and this template is the best way to say "merge some, delete the rest". ~ JohnnyMrNinja 15:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It might also suggest that the info be reformulated into a cohesive article. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 15:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm very wary of applying a template like this to articles as a whole. Pure "trivia" articles should be integrated into the parent article, and "pop culture" articles can be valid list articles (Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc), although even the well-maintained ones tend to get deleted. The fate of such articles on Wikipedia is still undecided; WP:TRIVIA's scope is trivia sections only.--Father Goose 16:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This would generate confusion. —David Levy 16:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

We already have some cleanup templates for this purpose. —David Levy 16:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

When performing article mergers, the removal of inappropriate/extraneous content is standard procedure. —David Levy 16:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, would someone archive this page. (Not me, I'm all thumbbs.) Newbyguesses - Talk 16:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Father Goose 21:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, for pure trivia articles there may be items that are relevant to one article and other items relevant to other articles. Some of the items on the Apollo 11 in popular culture page belong on the Apollo 11 page and some belong on the movie or book page they refer to. Just saying "integrate this into the main article" would cause certain items to be lost. Padillah 20:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that, and WP:TRIVIA says as much, but unless we want the template text to be as long as the guideline, we have to offer the gist of it and leave editors to read the full guideline for the specifics.--Father Goose 21:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

How is this different from trivia sections? For example, Stardust (novel) says 'One of the characters in Stardust is a large tree with red leaves that talks. The character was based on singer/songwriter (and friend of Gaiman) Tori Amos. She references this in the song "Horses" on her 1996 album Boys For Pele. She sings "And if there is a way to find you I will find you/but will you find me if Neil makes me a tree?"' This could relate to the novel, the singer, the album, the song, etc. All this argument does is point out a flaw in placing the template in any trivia list, be it a section or an entire article. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 21:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

This is to all you weasels out there, and I think you know who you are, who have brought this template to such a fine state of ambiguity, of saying-nothingness, of mediocrity, of vacillation, of an extreme case of hiding whatever light it has under a hundred bushels. I offer this award to celebrate the puissant pusillanimity of this crowning achievement.

I see that all the closet trivia-keepers among you have finally suceeded in so throughly de-clawing and castrating this thing that it really does say nothing, so there's not a chance in hell that any Trivia section so tagged stands a chance of being broken up into little pieces or removed. Trivia section, you say: what trivia section? for even that horrible word has been expunged from this template. It's all about "context", don't you see, whatever the hell that means. (Meaning that most readers, encountering this, will quite reasonably give a puzzled shrug and just move on.)

Jolly good job, that. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I changed my mind on that and would prefer "poorly organized". But let's be honest: the tags probably don't accomplish much anyway. People either add trivia or they don't. They either do the cleanup work or they don't. I doubt the wording of the trivia tag changes either behavior much.--Father Goose 07:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, in its present state you're practically guaranteeing that it will be ignored, so as I said before, good job. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

First ponder Wikipedia:Ignore all cleanup templates. OMG! The template says to clean it up! I better do what it says!

No matter how harsh the scolding, it's still going to be ignored. No need to further clutter the article with polemic.--Father Goose 18:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, then I'm going to nominate this for deletion, and wage an all-out battle to get it removed. If what you say is so, then why have any template at all? I'm serious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ILike2BeAnonymous (talk • contribs) 18:50, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point in waiting until the conclusion of this debate to come to the talk page and attack people. It has been around 20 days since the this revision was started, and you have been on Wikipedia every one of those days. I also find it safe to assume from previous discussion that you had this template watched, and if not, then there is nobody to blame but yourself. I agree that wording got weird, but if you just want to piss everyone off because you missed a discussion, you can fight that one alone. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually like the most recent edit by ILike2BeAnonymous because it is really easy to understand. I know it is better than poorly organized which really did not make sense to me (saying that makes it sound like you should re organize the trivia list so that the facts are in a different order). I do not entirely like the etiquette here with waiting to the end of the discussion to comment and then just changing it without really explaining the reasoning behind the change. But, in the end that doesn't entirely matter. As I said, I like it and I can see how poorly organized is bad. Lacks context makes sense to me but I can see how others might not understand. I also can see why some don't understand why the word trivia was removed. I personally did not feel that it made all that much of a difference because when I first came to the discussion the wording was something like "This is a trivia section", and anything was an improvement from that. Removing the word trivia was in hindsight a bad idea because so what if a few people think that trivia means trivial. I personally don't understand that (no offense to whoever said that first). Is there ever a chance that people could agree on the wording? This template receives way too many changes.--Kyle_(talk) 23:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've switched to a version containing a variant of the first line from ILike2BeAnonymous' version and the second line from the previous version (which does a much better job of explaining that we should remove inappropriate items and attempt to salvage the useful ones). I hope that this is an acceptable compromise. —David Levy 23:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

My problem with "the following is a trivia section" (and similar statements) is that this usually is rendered painfully obvious by the fact that the title of said section is "Trivia." This isn't always so, but I'd like to settle on wording that's logical in all cases (irrespective of the section's title). Any suggestions? —David Levy 00:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Is "this trivia section..." okay? It clearly states that it's a trivia section without appearing to imply that our readers are too dense to recognize this fact. —David Levy 00:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'd like to say that your (David Levy's) last revision, shown here, is just fine, and I would support keeping it. Unfortunately, as sure as the sun will rise again tomorrow, it won't last. At which point I will file a TfD. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

For conversational ease, I took the liberty of replacing the template code with a direct link to the revision. (I hope that you don't mind.)

I urge you to please assist in the collaboration instead of nominating a template for deletion because you disapprove of its exact wording. You'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. —David Levy 00:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC

I agree that David Levy's edit immediately after mine is good, I just didn't like stating "Trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines." because it presents a sort of Why is this on this article? type of thought in my head. The current one makes the template more personal to the article. I think that "This trivia section..." sounds fine, it would be nice to leave it that way for a while.--Kyle_(talk) 02:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Or, you could help eliminate the need for this magnet of controversy. Those of you who either despise or love trivia to the point that it drives you to make emotional talk page posts might consider supporting the proposed WikiTrivia project. It would mean trivia gone from Wikipedia for those who have trivia nightmares -- not to mention even more of an excuse to remove trivia, since there would be a dedicated place to move it to. Trivia lovers would likewise benefit, since they'll have a place to unabashedly browse through all the nonsense they love so much -- an occasional guilty pleasure for some, myself included.

• See meta:WikiTrivia for the proposal.
• To discuss/support the WikiTrivia project, go to meta:Talk:WikiTrivia.

Help make the world a better place! WikiTrivia needs your support and involvement!

That is all.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

02:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Auto archive

I just set this page up to auto archive after 28 days. Vegaswikian 07:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

Edit warring is boring and juvenile. If you wish to be taken seriously, please participate in a WP:Civil discussion. Otherwise you are just being WP:Disruptive and WP:Pointy. I greatly dislike Trivia sections in articles, but if editors insist on making this template confrontational and pretentious then other editors will delete it from articles, so it won't be useful. This is also the reason that the Trivia bot got shut down. If anyone gets genuinely angry at Trivia sections, perhaps their problems run a little deeper than phrasing. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 22:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is a production template and not test template. Consensus needs to be developed before making significant changes. Are we at the point were the template needs to be protected? Vegaswikian 00:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

At this point, we seem to be working collaboratively in search of an acceptable compromise (not revert-warring back and forth), so I see no need for full protection. —David Levy 00:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Twelve edits in less than 24 hours is a bit excessive, folks. Please reach agreement here before implementing changes. Pairadox 01:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, regardless of whether the changes are collaborative in nature, it'd be better to workshop it here. Here's the current one:

Can we <small> the second line, first and foremost?--Father Goose 04:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I say go ahead if you think it's an improvement. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Like

Vegaswikian 05:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Using <sup> instead will make the template a little more compact.

~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Second suggestion: "This trivia section" -> "Trivia sections". The 'this' seems to imply some trivia sections aren't discouraged. (Separately, I prefer small to sup; it looks less cramped.)--Father Goose 06:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No! [groan]; now we're fully back into the equivocating process that made such mush out of this in the first place. You have to give readers credit for some intelligence, after all, and assume that the meaning is clear—that it is this trivia section that's being pointed out, and that trivia sections in general are discouraged. (The alternative is just too absurd, as most readers will work out for themselves.) Your wording leaves us with a disembodied entity that will cause more confusion. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the equivocating process to the warring process, which creates a messier mess. Angry mastodon and all that. Separately, you give them even less credit if you think "Trivia sections are discouraged" is somehow disembodied when the template appears in a trivia section. The "this" is utterly unnecessary.--Father Goose 18:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

<--- out dent. How about a different approach?

Vegaswikian 07:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

*How bout this:

08:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

My problem is that the first sentence needs to be more specific. 'Discouraged under guidelines' does not imply that any work is required. I also think that the second sentence needs to be stronger about editors taking the problem and fixing it. Vegaswikian 18:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with:

--Father Goose 18:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

We need to do "Trivia sections are discouraged" and not "This trivia section is discouraged", because the trivia tag has been spammed across thousands of articles and the word "this" implies that an editor has specifically cited that particular trivia section in that particular article as being discouraged. It has not. It has probably been auto-tagged. So, we need to equivocate if we are going to be honest. There are some articles that will always have trivia sections that are perfectly acceptable (despite the discouragement) and, especially in the autotagging cases, it can be a lie to say that "this" trivia section is discouraged. Tempshill 20:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please reach something resembling consensus on the talk page before changing the template. Pairadox 20:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Tempshill makes a compelling argument. Many (most?) of these tags were inserted automatically, so it is misleading to use the phrase "this trivia section." That hadn't occurred to me. —David Levy 21:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, fine this argument makes sense, even though this is just an unfortunate problem. Adding "this" makes the template more personal and without it I still get a "Why is this on this article" type thought in my head. I am willing to give up arguing for "this" because of Tempshill's argument and the fact that I am tired of the rediculously long argument here. The current one is good enough.--Kyle_(talk) 00:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My two cents

As someone who sometimes removes trivia sections:

"Trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines. The article could be improved by integrating relevant items into the main text and removing inappropriate items."

This has a stronger message than the others I've seen. It really lets people know that there should not be trivia section. Best one so far.

Examples: "This is a trivia section", "This article contains a trivia section."(and similar ones), "This article lacks context" - these dont let people (especially IP holders and newcomers) what so wrong about trivia secion. Yes, theres a link to the guideline, but still doesnt have a strong message.

Cheers. THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 21:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree, the current wording about sections being discouraged is good in my opinion. (as would be "sections containing trivia are discouraged..." if people think it's referring to the section name) ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm good with the current one. Not everything in a trivia section is trivia (otherwise there'd be no recommendation to integrate) so I prefer it to "sections containing trivia...".--Father Goose 23:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems, the current version looks/works fine. —Newbyguesses - Talk 00:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel the new template makes no point whatsoever. It only conveys the message, to me anyways, of "This section is discouraged, but it's okay here, It's only a guideline anyways". SpigotMap 05:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It is only a guideline. And the guideline says "avoid" not "delete". If you are hoping for stronger stuff, get the guideline changed.--Father Goose 06:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the current wording, this constant changing is getting old. Aaron Bowen 19:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry the changes bother you, but that's really no reason for it to stop. Discussions and their resulting changes will continue as long is there is consensus to do so. And agreed on FG's point. This template refers to the trivia guideline, which does not say that trivia sections must be banned or deleted -- only avoided.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

15:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the current one is a strong as the current policy could possibly support. Details do not belong in the template. It's just a notice.DGG (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

The user Pixelface (talk • contribs) nominated this template for speedy deletion. This template might be unpopular but it's not "divisive and inflammatory".

20:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There is nothing inflammatory about it, and the only divisiveness is about the wording, not the existence of the template. I think it's also important to note that Pixelface has absolutely no posts to this talk page to date. Pairadox 20:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the speedy deletion template has been removed, I will be nominating this Template at WP:TFD. --Pixelface 20:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Why have you added a speedy deletion tag to this? What criteria could it possibly satisfy?!? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That won't accomplish anything. No one will listen to you if you nominate things for deletion without voicing your concerns here first. Why not tell us what you think is wrong with this template's existence first?

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

20:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Trivia

Template:Trivia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Pixelface 20:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Seriously this crap is getting so boring. What is it about the topic of Trivia that makes so many editors make so many poor decisions? All WP:Points and no talk makes Jack a dull boy. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Templates that are not neutral may be proposed for deletion at WP:TFD. The common definition of "trivia" is "unimportant information." "Unimportant" is in no way neutral -- it is a personal opinion of "importance" and is a completely subjective concept. A template named after a non-neutral word cannot be neutral. There are no policies on "importance." Notability is distinct from "importance." The template is being used in a non-neutral way; it is being placed under headings that are not named ==Trivia==. --Pixelface 18:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that you'd have to have pretty thin skin to take offence at this template. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

But that's not the definition here. The definition of "talk" means to speak audible words using one's mouth, but here it means an electronic page where people type out their thoughts; so some words are defined differently here. You're arguing over semantics, nothing more. It's like you're saying, "Why call it trivia? You callin' me stupid?" which is a ridiculous argument, if it can even be called an argument. It's just being overly sensitive and easily offended. I don't like the trivia template either, but your reasons are just not at all valid.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

18:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If a word has negative connotations, it should not be a template because the word is not neutral. {{crappy}} can mean "unencyclopedic", but it can also mean "shitty." There is no valid reason for having a template that can be used to insult a contributor by calling his/her edits "unimportant." And there is no policy whatsoever on whether information in an article should be "important" or not. The terms "worthless crap", "irrelevant crap", and "garbage" have been mentioned in the TFD log. If a template is being used to push the opinion of an editor that certain information in an article is "crap" or "garbage", that template is not helping Wikipedia and it may discourage new contributors. The guideline on notability has nothing to do with "importance." And the guideline on notability is not meant to limit the content of articles. We already have policies on original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view. If an edit is found to be against those policies, it can be removed; the "triviality" or "importance" of the information should not be an issue. --Pixelface 19:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Goodness. Adding a {{trivia}} template to a "Trivia" section might cause offence because the word "Trivia" might make people think you are insulting them? If that's the case, then why are they adding to a "Trivia" section? That argument makes no sense. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

A trivia heading (==Trivia==) is inviting to new contributors. It's relatively easy for a new user to add a fact to the section. They may be unaware of the negative connotations that the word "trivia" has. However, the {{trivia}} template stigmatizes those sections. It's a warning that basically means "your contributions are not welcome here" -- and that is upsetting to many editors. Some users actively express their contempt for trivia on talk pages. Wikipedia does not ban trivia. There is no trivia policy. This template enables editors to actively attack and marginalize other users' edits and label them as "trivia." Which then leads to arguments like: That can't be in the article, that's just trivia! No it's not! Yes it is! And on and on. A statement does not have to be important to remain in an article, so arguments over it's importance aka "triviality" are not applicable. Unsourced statements are already covered by the policy on verifiability. --Pixelface 18:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if all that were a valid argument (and I'm not saying it is), then don't you think it would've been a better idea to request that the template's name be changed, instead of asking that it be deleted altogether?

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

19:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Another proposal

Since there is a concern about the connotation of trivia in the infobox, maybe something like

Seems to be very neutral in tone. However this would argue for only using this in a section and not at the top of an article since it is so neutral. Vegaswikian 19:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I must object. The initial objection contradicted itself, I believe that there is a good chance that only a very few editors would find this offensive, and almost always for the wrong reasons. Please keep it as it is. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the template contradicts itself. To say that "trivia" should be integrated implies that the information is important. "Important trivia" is an oxymoron. --Pixelface 18:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

We should still link to WP:TRIVIA, and I thought the current first line (which you've removed here) did that just fine, and neutrally.--Father Goose 23:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the point was to reduce the footprint of the box, since people at the TfD are complaining about the eyesore (I count myself among them). I think a one-line box is a good idea, as it would seem less intrusive, and perhaps we can still incorporate some of the language and links from the former first line.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

01:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This is better. I don't like the "discouraged" language, as I believe it could encourages deletion over integration. How about

I also suggested in the TfD that this template might be better renamed to Template:Integrate and used in the article's talk page (after appropriate rewording, perhaps using parser functions to determine whether it is in the talk page or the article page) rather than in the article itself. DHowell 03:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe?--Father Goose 03:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I like DHowell's better. I know you're trying to avoid the stigma of the word "trivia", but your version doesn't really say much, and I'm not the only one who's gonna notice that. New editors aren't even going to understand why the section was tagged. We should probably stick with what we can reasonably get out of most of the people here in terms of a consensus.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

03:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Trivia guidelines" implies that Wikipedia actually has a trivia guideline (it doesn't) and additionally implies that it has more than one such guideline. I'm not keen on "suggest" either. In terms of consensus, I'd be surprised if we could improve much on the current template.--Father Goose 05:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have a trivia guideline? I'm sure you have some very technical reason for saying that, but as far as the average user is concerned, WP:TRIVIA qualifies as the trivia guideline (at least for now ;)). I understand wanting to get rid of "suggest", but then you'll need to explain some difference between "this" section and "the main text"; if you don't call it a trivia section, people (new people especially) are going to be bewildered by the notion that "this" section isn't already the "main text". If you follow.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

14:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA doesn't give any guidance on trivia, just on "trivia sections". We really don't have a trivia guideline, except to the extent that we recommend not arranging trivia in a list. Separately, I have doubts about your claims that "new users are going to be bewildered". I haven't seen any single-line template suggested here yet that is an improvement on the current one.--Father Goose 17:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You see the distinction between trivia sections and the main text as something completely obvious, because you're a writer/editor. The average casual reader doesn't know that there are all these rules about what's "encyclopedic" and what's not. And "Trivia sections" are precisely what this template is for -- we don't need to be completely, semantically, technically accurate in our wording. The TfD nominator may have used that argument, but not too many people are actually buying it.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

17:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems what is missing in this entire conversation is that there is a difference between trivia and gossip.Trivia in and of itself is not necessarily inappropriate. Trivia is, after all, general information that is factual, but of little importance. A trivia section is not license to add rumor or unverified facts - a trivia section, if allowed, should be used for those little factoids that are interesting, but not necessary to create a well-rounded article.--Chrisa 17:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

{{Integrate}}

Since several editors voted to "Keep and rename/reword" to Integrate, I took Father Goose's latest attempt and dubbed it {{Integrate}}. It seemed perfect for this.

That is a completely new template but not a one to replace {{Trivia|date=March 2008}}.--Svetovid 20:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Never said it was.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

20:26, September 10, 2007

I'll go that far though.. it should replace {{Trivia|date=March 2008}}. Much better and reads better to casual readers, too, than being faced with a stern warning. DeusExMachina 22:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, great, yet another template to accomplish the same goal. Pairadox 02:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

New version - September 10, 2007

I've come up with a new wording for the template. I considered the different definitions of trivia (tri: three; via: way or road; trivium: where three roads meet; trivialis: appropriate to the street corner, commonplace, vulgar; trivia: junction of three ways; trivia: basic or unimportant knowledge; trivia: bits of information), I kept in mind that some users *hate* trivia and some users *love* trivia, and I have noted that the {{trivia}} template is not always placed under a ==Trivia== heading (thanks to Android Mouse Bot 3)...

I think this is a reasonable compromise ;) --Pixelface 23:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I see what you are trying to do, but in the end I do not believe that your idea says anything. It contradicts itself on every line and is not actually a clean up template. All it says is that you should either not read the section or read it if you want to, which people do anyway.--Kyle_(talk) 23:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Kyle's right, this completely voids the purpose of this template. The trivia template is a tag that's meant to get editors to change the article somehow, but you're just issuing a notice to readers. It doesn't accomplish anything as far as fixing the article and isn't at all necessary as far as readers are concerned. Readers will always read what they want to read and ignore what they want to ignore; they don't need guidance in that department. In fact it would be insulting to them.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

00:27, September 11, 2007

I agree with the previous two comments. I thought that one of the important points raised in the discussion was that trivia sections are discouraged. If this is supposed to be a maintenance tag, then it should indicate that the section needs maintenance, not that the reader may or may not want to read it. I feel something like this would be a more appropriate, although it is clear from my wording that I think the ultimate solution is to redirect this template to Template:Integrate, like Pixelface previously suggested. --Nick Penguin 00:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that we are really moving backwards here. One of the major complaints with the trivia template is that is an eyesore. The last two suggestions are absolutely huge and have other problems such as the fact that the word "list" was previously removed since some trivia sections were paragraphs. Also, if you think that the ultimate solution is to redirect to integrate, stand by that and just argue for that. Don't even waste your time with trying to fix something that you think is broken beyond repair. I personally prefer this template because it explains why something should be integrated, the integrate template doesn't really explain why, it just says to do it. (I know that i am a hypocrite because I did try to fix the integrate template even though I do not think it is necessary.) --Kyle_(talk) 02:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree in that I'm not sure what these revisions are hoping to accomplish. What exactly is the problem that needs fixing? I for one don't think the present template can be improved all that much. If you want some less harshly-worded, use {{integrate}}. If you want something not obtrusive at all, use {{trivia talk}}. If you want to not have to use a template, start fixing the article yourself. But the present {{trivia}} is fine the way it is, for what it's meant for. At least if you ask me.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

03:05, September 11, 2007

I see your point. In that case, then I guess it is time to turn to Category:Articles_with_trivia_sections, start fixing some of the amazing backlog of articles, and hope this template dies a quick death. --Nick Penguin 03:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me try a new attempt at the template:

That should deal with the "list" complaint brought up earlier. Also it doesn't call the information trivial, only its presentation, which is the real problem. And to defend the date line, all other cleanup tags have date lines on them. That does not mean the editor can remove the section after so long, it just gives an indication of how long the problem has been marked. Sections tagged for a long time will like encourage an editor to do the work if integrating the information instead of further passing. --Farix (Talk) 03:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what the date means, it matter what people will think it means; an unfortunate reality of template wording. I would leave the date out. It's an invitation for more conflict.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

03:20, September 11, 2007

It also doesn't solve anything to say "presents ... as trivia". You might as well just say "this section contains a trivia list." I'm not too fond of the wording in this attempt.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

03:24, September 11, 2007

But that is exactly what the problem is. There is no point in trying to dance around trying to avoid calling a list of trivia a "list of trivia". --Farix (Talk) 03:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• • but it can be avoided; given the subjectivity of the word and concept trivia:

I think the date is appropriate; all cleanup templates do this; it helps the cleanup process. I think the links to disputed guidelines in the template altogether misleading. DGG (talk) 03:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

edit conflict... to Farix: Right, so why dance around it? The current template says that trivia sections are discouraged. Your template dances around it more than the current one.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

03:34, September 11, 2007

Honestly, this seems completely arbitrary, I don't see why people are proposing things, I know that Equazicon and I are basically confused, anyone else? And could someone please explain what they are fixing?--Kyle_(talk) 03:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The current trivia template is: a) too harshly worded; and b) too much of an eyesore. How about replacing {{Trivia|date=March 2008}} with {{Trivia talk|date=March 2008}}:

Template:Trivia talk DeusExMachina 04:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As they currently are, {{Trivia|date=March 2008}} is more horizontally compact than {{Trivia talk|date=March 2008}}, which makes it less likely to interfere with the placement of images or other templates. For comparison:

Trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines. The article could be improved by integrating relevant items and removing inappropriate ones.

05:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Neitherday (talk • contribs)

The wording is apparently a concern too though, so a) the current box can be reworded to something more similar to the "integrate" template, and b) we can work on trying to shorten the form "integrate" template, possibly using formatting. Also, there really isn't that big a difference. The percentage of instances where one would interfere and the other wouldn't has got to be pretty small; and besides, if it does "interfere", that just means things won't look perfect, and there's also additional page formatting that can be done to get it to look decent. Images can be shifted around and so forth. I don't really think interference with other page elements should be too much of a concern. I think a one-line box is a good goal for us to have, as it really does look a lot slimmer and less obtrusive.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

12:24, September 11, 2007

How about simply:

or some variation thereof? DeusExMachina 19:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That's just making the "integrate" text small; and we want to also address the concerns Kyle raised at template talk:integrate. So here's how that should look:

Might be a little too small for some people.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

19:47, September 11, 2007

Yeah, that is too small, no one would pay any attention. By the way, what was the point of creating {{integrate}} if you are just going to change trivia to match it? Also, most of the concerns brought up have already been mentioned in most of the sections here. I have to stress that we keep the word trivia in the template since that is where the template will be used and it is just beating around the bush to remove it. I'm open for suggestions, but it has to include the word trivia, explain on some level why the text should be integrated and not to use the term "main text" since new users would not have any idea what that is.--Kyle_(talk) 23:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with changing the wording, but keeping it a similar size is paramount. The current trivia template is an eyesore in terms of size. DeusExMachina 23:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It isn't necessarily trivia, and that word does seem to cause some trouble. What we're really referring to are miscellaneous lists, not trivial information, so maybe we could say that instead. I created the integrate template as a compromise, to address that very concern, but it's still a separate template and there are already thousands of article that use this one. It would be good if we could get all of those to say something more accurate and less prone to misunderstanding.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

23:41, September 11, 2007

I see what you mean about the word trivia, I would agree to miscellaneous information, but not miscellaneous lists since not all of the sections tagged are lists. I also agree that the template is a bit of an eyesore, but all of the clean up templates are an eyesore and even the tiniest ones look bad so short of removing clean up templates all together, i see no real solution.--Kyle_(talk) 00:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

How about this? It makes clear the issue is with trivia sections, not the contents:

Neitherday 00:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

We're trying to eliminate the word "trivia" though, see above. I see what you're trying to do though and it's an interesting idea. It's a little too convoluted though, and I think "miscellaneous information" describes the problem accurately and much more concisely.

To Kyle: List doesn't necessarily mean bullets, but I can see how that might get misunderstood. No one's saying we'll come up with an end-all solution, but it pays to address concerns raised in the argument and try to improve this as best we can.

So how can we get the word "miscellaneous" in there instead of "trivia"? "Miscellaneous lists" would've been good, but without lists it'll be more difficult. How about "This section contains a miscellaneous collection of information"? Or something along those lines.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

00:27, September 12, 2007

I am basically in agreement with that, just with the word collection moved (this section contains a collection of miscellaneous information). I like this, but would like to point out that we are almost going back to a previous discussion that said "the information in this section lacks context"(and variations of that). I think that miscellaneous information is better, but I am just saying...--Kyle_(talk) 00:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought the main problem with the word "trivia" is that some people felt as if the facts inside the section were being labeled as such, which is the problem I was attempting to address with my template by clarifying that the problem is there is non-trivial facts in trivia sections. Neitherday 00:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the wording miscellaneous collection It clearly implies that such things are not good ways of organizing things or writing articles, and that some of the material may be appropriate while some may not, without the baggage that the previous wording trivia now carries. (I wonder just who it was that though it was a good idea to call those sections trivia in the first place when they were being over-enthusiastically written.) I think this may be the basis for a generally acceptable solution. DGG (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean miscellaneous collection of information because just miscellaneous collection does not really make sense? I don't really see a difference between collection of miscellaneous information and miscellaneous collection of information in meaning, it is just that collection of miscellaneous information sounds better to me.--Kyle_(talk) 04:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Kyle: I understand your concern -- You have a problem with "miscellaneous collection" because it isn't accurate in the strictest grammatical sense. Miscellaneous collection really means that this is a collection of information that could be made up of items related to a focused topic, but that the collection itself is one of many different collections in a larger miscellaneous list. I don't think we need to be that accurate, as "miscellaneous collection" will probably get the message across for most people, even those who notice the grammatical error.

DGG: I think originally these sections were referred to as trivia because that's what the sections were named -- I'd even go as far as to say I think people specifically copied trivia sections from other publications (IMDb seems to be a common target), so the "trivia" title followed logically, even though for an encyclopedia these types of sections (arguably) aren't lists of "fun facts" but simply of "miscellaneous unorganized information".

Neitherday: You're right about the intention, and you're somewhat right in a technical sense with your attempt. But being technically accurate isn't necessarily the biggest concern here. Also, what's inaccurate is calling the section "trivia" to begin with, as a) the section isn't always titled "trivia", and b) the word trivia really doesn't describe the contents of such sections, at least within an encyclopedia (other publications do refer to them that way though).

I do think that "miscellaneous collection" is so far the best option, simply because it's easier to understand -- it applies a label to the section ("miscellaneous collection"), whereas "collection of miscellaneous information" doesn't -- it only describes what's in the section. I feel like people will respond better to a direct label, and not see it so much as "dancing around the issue" like they did with the way this template was worded before ("this lacks context...etc").

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

05:29, September 12, 2007

What about using the term "hodge-podge"? It's short, simple, and most people know what it means. Furthermore, it would be difficult to take "hodge-podge" as referring to the individual items, because individual items cannot on their own constitute a hodge-podge. Neitherday 15:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The message could read:

Neitherday 15:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"hodge-podge" seems too informal to me.--Kyle_(talk) 22:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Variation 137c

--Father Goose 20:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Rather than add another box to the pile here, I would just like to see a different word than inappropriate. As I said in the TfD, it's too loaded of a word, in my opinion, and doesn't come across in good faith. Otherwise, I'm pretty indifferent to the many proposals here.—Twigboy 04:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Prose

Just wanted to call attention to another template: {{prose}}. This is useful for IPC (pop culture) list sections, because it tells people to make the section itself into prose, rather than integrating into other sections. IPC lists can often make good standalone sections if they're written out well in paragraphs.

That would not be an inappropriate other template to note on the doc page. —Quasirandom 20:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, done

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

00:13, September 12, 2007

I'd further suggest we write one called perhaps notprose: "this section would be clearer if written as an outline or a table, rather than paragraphs" These styles have a role in communication also. DGG (talk) 02:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There is {{proseline}}, though that's specific to timelines which are written as an awkward hybrid of prose and list.--Father Goose 04:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

just an idea

--Jack Merridew 09:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

no.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 16:06, 09/14/2007

I think we have a winner. Straight to the point, easy to follow. That a just ices it. / edg ☺ ★ 16:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, 1. it directly contradicts the guidelines on the matter 2. if we should delete trivia sections altogether, there's no point in tagging it with a huge template first. Melsaran (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's try not to be as objectionable as possible to the opposition. Please make an attempt at being reasonable and understanding the opposing viewpoint. Besides which, as Melsaran points out, this version makes no sense, if it was indeed a serious proposal.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 16:59, 09/14/2007

at the risk of sounding impertinent...it's fine the way it is. it's concise and refers editors to the policy for further information and definition. what more could one want in a template tag? --emerson7 | Talk 17:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We ought to add this one to every page.--Father Goose 21:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me :)

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 22:10, 09/14/2007

Looks good to me, too — but take it to {{Template:Information}}. --Jack Merridew 11:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The box doesn't say to delete trivia sections on sight, it says to delete trivia, refers them to a page that — hopefully — defines it well, and leaves them to exercise their interpretation. --Jack Merridew 11:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

also: I just edited it so that the link is to Wikipedia:Trivia — instead of Wikipedia:Trivia sections; it's currently a redirect to the latter, but that could always change. --Jack Merridew

Right. So this would be a template to use when you see unimportant information that needs to be deleted, in which case you're suggesting we leave the useless information where it is, post this tag, and wait for someone else to remove it. And that's assuming Wikipedia:Trivia ever becomes its own guideline. Brilliant.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 15:03, 09/15/2007

Purpose of this debate?

I know we all want to make a big wikisplash by submitting the template that magically solves the trivia problem, but what's the big problem with the existing template? I know that "the word trivia makes a judgment about the facts in the section", but just be a little Consequentialist here, the goal of this template is to CLEAN UP articles, not dance around the meta-problem about wither authors will be offended by calling some facts trivial. The truth is that some facts really are trivial, especially some that I've come across while I've been fixing articles with trivia sections. Often articles will be most improved by being bold and just by deleting these sentences, but the current template is good because it suggests that we do more and try to integrate these orphaned sentences into the larger article.

It also seems to me that the contributors to this template are, in general, more concerned with the overall trivia pandemic than with the specific and minute problems generated by a poorly worded template. After some reflection, I feel that this template does a "pretty good" job (or at least a sufficient job) at identifying the general problem, especially with the friendly little broom sweeping picture (major points for that one). In conclusion, even though most people (myself included) would have a lot more fun with an endless discussion about the "correct" way to setup this template, I think the real truth is that a Pragmatic approach that gets results now is preferable to some unattainable "perfect template" that may or may not come out of this discussion. Thus I suggest that contributors focus their time less on the template and more on the massive backlog of articles with trivia sections --Nick Penguin 17:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A step back

The last well-accepted attempt was the current {{integrate}} template. Here it is again (after some new ambox styling):

This article could be improved by integrating relevant items from the list below into other sections and removing inappropriate items.

So far the attempts at a small-text version of this, and others, have been somewhat less unpopular. So I'd like to go back to discussing this version. Keep in mind that a one-line box would go a long way to address the "eyesore" concern.

PS. This box uses {{ambox}} CSS styles and icon, however it's not an actual ambox template. The reason for this is that the actual ambox adds unnecessary height to the box, which takes away from the "slimness" and non-obstruction that was part of the goal.

I like it, but then again, I'm essentially its co-author. ;-) --Father Goose 05:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Two notes

• Cf. {{prose}} and {{integrate}}.
• The width of this template does not seem to follow the stacking protocol of ambox templates.

Rich Farmbrough, 11:21 17 September 2007 (GMT).

A reason was given for {{Trivia}} to be designed not to stack correctly, so perhaps there would be resistance to making it look like a normal cleanup template. But I wish it stacked correctly. Yuck. / edg ☺ ★ 19:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Fixed for now! / edg ☺ ★ 19:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I spoke too soon. / edg ☺ ★ 19:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As explained above, I included an optional parameter that allows the standard width to be used in the relatively rare instances in which the tag should be stacked with other templates. I've added it to the Zack Taylor article. —David Levy 20:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Why should this template have a behavior inconsistent with other cleanup templates, many of which also will be used in sections? This seems to be imposing an inconvenience that requires editors to learn a special syntax to use this particular template. Unless this is being done deliberately to make the template appear objectionable — which seems contrary to some of the objections given about the old template — I don't see the advantage of this. / edg ☺ ★ 22:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's to make it less objectionable. And I don't think stacking should be a problem, because trivia sections should really only have one tag. Other section tags shouldn't be present, in a section that's tagged as not belonging in the article at all.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 22:36, 09/17/2007

I think it would be better to just use the standard tag setup. The few pixels it saves isn't really worth making it inconsistent. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It really needs to be consistant. Trivia sections should not necessarily have only one tag since the facts listed could also be unsourced or wrong. The trivia template just states to remove innappropriate items and integrate others. A fact could be completely appropriate for the article, but it could be unsourced as well. If just the facts in the trivia section are unsourced and the rest of the article is well sourced, then it makes sense to place the tag under the trivia section with others. Besides, it was mentioned in a section above (Width/date) about how on some resolutions the template is actually larger, I am just restating something for someone else, I have not tested this. --Kyle_(talk) 01:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm really for having a separate width standard for section tags; it doesn't make much sense to me that section tags should be a full 80% like the ones meant to go on top of articles. Plopping something that big into the middle of an article is counterproductive, which was the reason section tags tended to be smaller generally, before the ambox standardization. But also, the ant-trivia people are always complaining that trivia is usually all unsourced, and I don't think I've actually seen any trivia sections with both a ref-needed tag and a trivia tag. People tend to see it as obvious, that a section tagged as trivia will be riddled with unverified facts and other problems, so they see {{trivia}} alone as all-encompassing. I've had this discussion over at the guideline, where I suggested tagging trivia sections with ref-needed, but was shot down. If I saw a significant number of examples of multiple tags in trivia-tagged sections, then that would be a good reason to consider changing -- although again, I'm not all too thrilled with the same width being standard for section tags and article tags.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 01:27, 09/18/2007

I guess the best solution then would be to use the non-standard format because it does look better by itself, and, whenever you see a trivia template stacked, apply the width=full parameter.--Kyle_(talk) 02:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Width/date

I've restored the automatic width (by default). This addresses the tag's large size (which has proven unpopular) and discourages its non-consensus placement at the tops of article (because it won't stack well with other templates). In a relatively rare case in which it's to be stacked with another tag within the relevant section, adding the parameter "width=full" will switch to the standard width.
I also have reverted to the compact date format that was discussed on this page. —David Levy 22:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused about the "large size" you're claiming is "addressed", since the box is actually wider at many resolutions with your edit than without. As for "discourag[ing] its non-consensus placement", you're ignoring the consensus for the width of article message box templates in doing so, and for extremely little benefit since anyone who is going to do a "non-consensus placement" and cares about having a nice display can easily specify your width=full parameter. Please remove your automatic width. Anomie 21:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

For a small percentage of users, the template might be slightly larger (and it might simply be wider and shorter). For everyone else, it's smaller.

I'm not ignoring consensus. Guidelines aren't intended to be rigidly and bureaucratically applied in 100% of cases. There are exceptions to every rule. There's been a standard width for cleanup templates for quite some time, and the consensus for this particular template was to override it with the automatic width.

You seem to have misunderstood my point about the top-placement. I'm not tying to stop users determined to defy consensus. I'm simply providing a visual cue to users who aren't aware that the tag belongs in the relevant section. —David Levy 01:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)rep

What percentage or people use 1024 width or less? Is it really that small? Anomie 02:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I just tried changing to 1024 from 1680 and it really is small. From that I would say that the percentage is really small of people who use that low of a resolution. (I personally cannot remember the last time I saw a screen like that).--Kyle_(talk) 03:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

None of my computers will go above 1178; I don't know anyone personally who uses a resolution even that high. I don't think we'll be able to decide here by trading anecdotes just how many people use high versus low resolutions. As to the original discussion, I still see no reason for this template to be special. Anomie 03:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

yeah you're right, it is just personal experience anyway.--Kyle_(talk) 03:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the relevant threshold (among typical resolution options) is 800x600. According to this page, less than 12% of users have this resolution or lower. —David Levy 04:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

When I resized by browser up to 1024 (full screen here, and no sidebar) this template was still slightly wider; let's please not get into a discussion over the typical narrowness of fonts people use. And don't forget, as is the case with me, your page there notes "the display resolution says little about the size of the browser window". Anomie 11:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The template is slightly wider for you at that resolution, but is it actually larger? Isn't the height reduced?

Obviously, I'm referring to full-screen page viewing (which users with lower resolutions typically use). —David Levy 15:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You're changing definitions now? We've been discussing width all this time, and now you're trying to drag height into it? But anywayit e, if the 80% wraps the text line while the auto doesn't, it adds 19 pixels. If you add a style="line-height:normal" to your <small> tag so it doesn't inherit a 1.5em spacing from div#content, the difference in height is a whole 6 pixels. Wow. Anomie 17:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What is your point? Mine is that the automatic width makes the template smaller (not larger) for most users. —David Levy 18:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

My point is it looks dumb for this one template to not match all the rest of the templates for absolutely no good reason. As for "most", who knows? I don't, and I doubt you really do either. Anomie 01:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

1. I've cited reasons. You're entitled to your stance that they aren't "good," but that's a matter of opinion.

2. I know that most users have a display resolution of 1024x768 or higher, and I know that we generally gear our design considerations toward full-screen viewing (out of sheer necessity). I also know that the decision to use the automatic width instead of the standard width was reached on this talk page. —David Levy 03:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I just came here because I noticed the width on this template looked funny. I think that it should conform to the standard width that all the similar templates use. Where is the discussion where the standard width "proved unpopular"? --CapitalR 00:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree.--Kyle_(talk) 00:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read the discussions on this page (and in the archives). —David Levy 01:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I must be blind or stupid because I do not see the discussion where this was discussed, and I have been monitoring this page for as long as this was relevant. Not to mention I reread much of these discussions (not all of it (I don't have that much time))--Kyle_(talk) 01:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

/Archive_1#Too_bulky

/Archive 2#New format (it's been up for five days)

#New version - September 10, 2007

—David Levy 01:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, though those do only talk about the general size and not really stacking since that was not an issue before.--Kyle_(talk) 01:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That's true. As I noted above, however, this tag seldom is stacked with other templates. In the relatively few cases where it should be, the "width=full" parameter will apply the standard {{ambox}} width. —David Levy 01:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Can this instruction be added to the Welcome templates so that editors will all know how to do this? We should probably also write up a blurb for WP:POST. / edg ☺ ★ 03:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The parameter is unique to this template (though it certainly could be added to others). —David Levy 04:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that is an option. If you introduce it to others, it will make this template less user-unfriendly. / edg ☺ ★ 04:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of the other article message boxes use the standard {{ambox}} width by default, so I don't quite understand what you're proposing. —David Levy 04:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose then that adding this parameter to other boxes would mean removing the standard {{ambox}} width from article message boxes. That way there would be a consistent behavior, and editors would more quickly learn to add this parameter when they wanted message boxes to stack, which I imagine might be desirable sometimes. / edg ☺ ★ 04:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I configured the template in this manner because it needn't be stacked with others very often. Most other article message boxes, conversely, usually should be displayed at the standard {{ambox}} width. —David Levy 04:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In the quoted discussions above, I see nothing about the width of this template and everything about people arguing over whether there was too much wording and using tiny font sizes to cram more text in. Most of the various proposals were, like David Levy's preferred version here, wider than the {{ambox}} standard on my display. Anomie 11:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In the quoted discussions above, I see nothing about the width of this template

Really? Nothing at all? —David Levy 15:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me look again. Nope, zero occurrences of the words "width" or "wide" in any of the three. Anomie 17:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You're performing a keyword search instead of bothering to read the discussions? Are you honestly missing the fact that I proposed (and other users adopted) the automatic width? —David Levy 18:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I skimmed through them too; I couldn't stand to read all the tedious discussion over whether we should really mention the word "trivia" in {{trivia}}. Didn't see where you proposed an automatic width, and I wonder how you managed to propose it without mentioning "automatic width". Anomie 01:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you see the design that I proposed (and other users partially copied) with the rationale that the template was too bulky? That contains automatic width. It even says so in the code. —David Levy 03:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of the various proposals were, like David Levy's preferred version here, wider than the {{ambox}} standard on my display.

Why do you suppose that was? Again, width ≠ size. —David Levy 15:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And again, we've been discussing width this whole time and suddenly you're trying to drag height into it? Anomie 17:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Go back and read my first message. I noted that the change in width addressed "the tag's large size" (new emphasis), and you then disputed this by noting that it actually increased the width in some resolutions. I replied by noting that "it might simply be wider and shorter" (new emphasis). The template's width is the specified attribute in question, but the resultant height is very much a factor. —David Levy 18:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You said you restored the automatic width. In the very first sentence. And the difference between the two height-wise is a whole 6 pixels. Wow. But you seem willing to wheel war over this, and I've had my say, so there is no point in my continuing this conversation. Congratulations in making this template look dumb. Anomie 01:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes, I said that I restored the automatic width, and then I repeatedly attempted to explain to you that width ≠ size. You are the one who has continually conflated the two. I raised the issue of height in my very first reply to you, so I don't understand why you've accused me of "suddenly ... trying to drag height into it."

2. You're citing the figures from your screen, and you're using measuring pixels instead of area.

3. When did I wheel war?! —David Levy 03:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I come from The Abyss. There you can see a stacked instance of this template, and I was mightily surprised to see it needed an optional parameter to stack. Is there a really good reason for that? I'd go for standard width to be the default, even if that increases height. --Kjoonlee 18:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

1. The rationale is provided above.

2. There was absolutely no valid reason for that second tag to be there; it duplicated one that applies to the entire article (and correctly appears at the top). —David Levy 18:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I've read it once, but I still don't get it. How is this template different from all others, please? Your second point is a moot point. You can imagine a list of, say, trivia that can be merged, together with non-IPA transcriptions: {{Cleanup-IPA}}. --Kjoonlee 18:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I too am not too clear on the exact reason for the template to be constructed like this. the argument that took place above kind of clouded the rationale for me (larger, higher, wider, etc.). ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Right. There are bound to be more people who disagree with only this template being "special", for whatever reason. Maybe consensus was reached the last time to make this template different, but now it's time to reach a new consensus. It would be more helpful if you could summarize the previous discussions instead of providing lots of links. For all I know reading them would be just as unhelpful as reading this section. --Kjoonlee 19:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying my darnedest. Perhaps you could explain how the nonstandard setup is harmful. —David Levy 19:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If there's something specific that you aren't clear on, I'll gladly try to help.  :-) —David Levy 19:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

1. One thing that's different about this template is that the encyclopedia has been polluted with it by a bot that indiscriminately dumped it in thousands upon thousands of articles containing sections entitled "trivia." It irks the heck out of people, but it's slightly less annoying if it's compact.

Another way that it differs from most templates is that it never belongs at the top of an article. As noted above, the nonstandard size discourages people from placing it there.

Another way that it differs from most templates is that it rarely needs to be stacked with other templates. When it does, a simple parameter applies the standard width.

2. I was merely pointing out that the cited example was invalid. I wasn't claiming that there are no valid examples. I don't, however, see how it would ever be appropriate to stack the {{trivia}} tag with the {{cleanup-IPA}} tag. —David Levy 19:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

1. I for one have no objection to large templates, and those people should focus on merging the trivia sections if they're so annoyed. Heck, make this template as big as possible, as long as it's the standard size. The parameter should be unnecessary then.

2. You haven't seen how Shibboleth used to look, I gather... --Kjoonlee 19:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

1. You seem to be missing the point that the tag appears in thousands of articles that were never checked by a human to determine that they actually contain sections requiring integration with other text. Removing empty space (without reducing the size of the text or icon) doesn't make the tag any less visible, but it does make it less of an eyesore (including for non-editing readers).

2. I don't understand your point. Why would it be advisable to stack a section-specific tag with one that applies to the entire article (and should be placed at the top)? —David Levy 00:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying my darnedest. Perhaps you could explain how the nonstandard setup is harmful.

How is it harmless? It forces you to use a parameter to use the standard setup. --Kjoonlee 19:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

And I must emphasize that the point about shrinking this template to reduce irk is very disturbing. These cleanup templates are meant to urge people to act, aren't they? --Kjoonlee 20:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but they needn't uglify articles (especially ones that no human has even checked). You seem to be suggesting that the tag's purpose is more to annoy than to inform. —David Levy 00:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Much of the problem is that this is one of the few templates that contains controversial advice: not everybody agrees with the need to eliminate trivia sections. This problem was intensified when the template was applied to thousands of articles site-wide by a bot. A nonstandard width may be preferable to more fighting over the use of the template.

For what it's worth, I've added documentation of the width=full parameter to the doc page along with a minimal explanation of why we have it.--Father Goose 20:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I assure you, a few fewer pixels don't make the advice any less annoying to people who find it so. And the template is not intrusive enough (style-wise) to be causing that much trouble, is it? The "smaller is less annoying" argument doesn't seem very convincing. --Kjoonlee 20:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Pointless

Oh man, we have been talking about this template for over a year now. Stop continuously changing it. Making it tougher, nicer, smaller, more noticeable, I have seen it all the past 1,5 year. This is all a pointless exercise in not stepping on anybodies toes, but it's not about stepping on anybodies toes. It's about "Discouraging lists of trivia information". We can't satisfy everyone and we should not be trying to, because with all the fandom boys this template usually attracts we never will satisfy everyone. Describe what the problem is, and inform people where they can find how to fix it. Stop fracking about with the wording and the layout dimensions etc of this template. Some people will just have to go to citizendium or wikia if they don't like how we do it at Wikipedia. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The term "discouraging" was only thought up in the last couple of weeks, as a result of all this "pointless" discussion.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 18:57, 09/17/2007

I might be getting old, but i'm sure that if you check out the original versions of the template/WP:TRIVIA, then you will see that discouraging was exactly the word that we started with.. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that, at least not in original versions of the template. Maybe you are getting old. Either way: discussion leads to better consensus. If a significant number of people want it changed, we should work to address their concerns. I see nothing wrong with that. But the next time there's a discussion about changing it, you should participate in it and voice your opinion that it shouldn't be changed. That's what discussions are for.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 19:23, 09/17/2007

hmm, seems we started out with "avoid making lists of trivia" --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That's consistent. The word "avoid" was considered offensive in Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections, hence the rename of that article. / edg ☺ ★ 20:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

We're way past this, but just to clarify: Offensiveness wasn't the reason; at least not the main reason. It was more to avoid misunderstandings. Having an action word in the title led to misconceptions about the proper handling of "trivia" sections.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 22:10, 09/17/2007

The proposed misunderstanding in that case was that having "avoid" and "trivia" next to each other would make people think the guideline was an instruction to delete trivia. I don't think this change made that guideline much clearer (Talk page tendencies confusion hasn't changed, may even be worse), and anyway this template isn't an explanation of the guideline — it's an instruction to fix trivia sections.

The term avoid is appropriate here, and not using such language weakens the imperative to fix trivia sections, which is what this notice is supposed to encourage. The current is discouraged (passive voice no less) is a milquetoast term that really tells editors "you can just ignore this one". / edg ☺ ★ 23:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well I'm not sure what your point is here. This started because someone felt there's already been enough revision of this template, then you said something about consistency with the trivia guideline, and now you're saying changes shouldn't be consistent with the guideline. I don't really know what this is about but if you're looking to change the wording yet again then I'd suggest starting a new section about it.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:47, 09/18/2007

I'm just saying that there is a time we should decide to be done with it. The template is good (with the exception of the width because now the template doesn't stack). If people want a stronger template, then they should get a policy that FORBIDS trivia and they can make it strong, if people want more sugarcoated language, then they can ask on Village Pump to get this template changed, but this is just ridiculous, cause this template's wording has been under debate for well over a year, while beyond that almost nothing changed. So archive all talk, put a talk banner that the wording of the template is now fixed as long as no policy/guideline changes are made and stop debating it and starting helping people understand why trivia lists are bad instead. PS, why I don't take part in these kinds of discussions anymore can be found here --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's a great solution. You might be sick of talking about this, but others aren't necessarily so satisfied -- new users join Wikipedia/join the dicsussion every day. We have to allow them to suggest changes and be taken seriously, no matter how long that goes on for. I understand your weariness of the subject though, so I fully understand if you'd rather ignore this talk page.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 19:48, 09/17/2007

It is a great solution, and I say that as yet another editor who has grown weary of the endless debate over this issue. I don't mean to suggest that that we should never review the decision, and I'd guess that TheDJ feels the same way. However, discussions cannot just go on and on, "no matter how long that goes for." There does come a point where we have to stop and say "enough is enough". There is so much time and energy going in to this debate over how to word a template, energy that really should be spent on addressing the subject of the template. (Furthermore, while nitpick over the template when the guideline it represents is under discussion? Why not wait until that is settled?) Again, that doesn't mean we reject new voices, it just means that we put aside the debate for a few months and get on with the work at hand. (I recall another debate, over naming astronomical articles, that could well have devolved into this style of "perpetual discussion" if not for the fact that we finally agreed to give it a rest and work with what we had.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Enough might be enough for you, but what if you just came into this discussion today? Wouldn't you think it unfair if the people who'd been here for a while decided to close it because they got sick of it? I think this is a pretty bad way of thinking. If you're sick of it, like I said, just ignore it. Take it off your watch page and go about your business. No one's forcing you to pay attention to this.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 20:18, 09/17/2007

That argument doesn't work, to be quite honest. I'm reluctant to be so blunt, but we really have to be practical in addition to being fair. How would AfD, or administrator nominations, or any other Wikipedia procedure work if we just let discussion go on, and on, and on? For that matter, how would anyone get elected to public office - how would any work get done - if society waited until everyone had their say, no matter when they joined the discussion? Keep in mind that we're not advocating that debate be stifled; it is just time to leave the template as it is for a while, and actually do something about the articles that need cleanup. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't work for those processes, but that's why those processes have set time limits, while talk pages don't.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 20:38, 09/17/2007

I was thinking like something like this:

The wording of this template has been discussed for over a year. It was carefully chosen to be not too offensive for novice editors, but still properly and decisively describe the problem. There is little point about discussing the wording again unless guidelines or policies have changed. We should all recognize that it is impossible to satisfy everyone, because at heart it is a discussion about the intent of the guideline and not about wording of the template. Everyone is welcome to discuss this once again, but is also encouraged to consider the usefulness of another discussion

And if people wanna discuss it again, i would tell them they can after they read all the archives. :D that's a lot of homework and that should fend most of them off :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

How about:

The wording of this template is controversial to many editors, and discussions about it have been under way for over a year. The current wording was carefully chosen in an effort to find a compromise that will not be too offensive to novice editors, while properly and decisively describing the problem that needs to be addressed. We should all recognize that it is impossible to satisfy everyone, because in reality the focus of the discussion has been the intent of the guideline instead of the wording of the template. Accordingly, editors are cautioned against initiating a new discussion about the language in the template unless guidelines or policies regarding trivia have changed. Please review the archived discussions on this topic; they will assist you in assessing the usefulness of reopening the discussion.

Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A little long, but very accurate and good language. I'm all for it. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no time limit for talk pages. There's no guideline that supports a practice like this. If you want to start limiting discussion of controversial subjects, then propose at it as a policy at VP or write an essay. Otherwise this is pretty unprecedented and inappropriate.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 20:40, 09/17/2007

It isn't inappropriate - it is a matter of being practical. We're not telling people they can't talk about something; instead, we're asking them to review the previous discussions and make an informed choice as to whether there is any reason to do so. The reality is that this will probably never be settled, given how (as TheDJ pointed out) the real source of disagreement is the trivia guideline. If we all agreed on the intent of the guideline, there wouldn't be an extensive debate about the template - it would just be a matter of layout and wording. The bulk of the discussion here, however, has nothing to do with that, and is best directed to the guideline page. (After all, the talk pages are supposed to be for "improvement of the article" (or template, or whatever.) We've essentially been running a parallel discussion about the guideline - a fork that wouldn't be allowed on an article discussion page - and the end result has been a template that is perpetually unstable. That, in and of itself, probably does more damage to the "look" of the articles than the trivia. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Would it ease your concerns if the "caution" note made a very clear point about how discussions of the guideline belong on the guideline page, perhaps with links to that talk page? --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No. People should never be cautioned against discussing anything. That's how it works here. Unless you have a policy or guideline to support something like this, I'll revert the placement of this tag until I hit 3, and after that I'll begin discussions on this page again due to legitimate concerns. And the present policies would support me in that more than they would you in your actions.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 20:57, 09/17/2007

The idea of whether or not to close the discussion is merely a proposal, it's only been on the page for a few hours, and only four people have even had a chance to talk about it. Before announcing a revert-a-thon, why not wait to see what other editors think? Again, this is not about stifling debate - large parts of the content of this talk page could easily be removed under the "wrong page" aspect of the talk page guideline anyway. The idea is to come up with a solution that can keep this page focus where it should be? --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

How about

The wording of this template is controversial to many editors, and discussions about it have been under way for over a year. The current wording was carefully chosen in an effort to find a compromise that will not be too offensive to novice editors, while properly and decisively describing the problem that needs to be addressed. We should all recognize that it is impossible to satisfy everyone, because in reality the focus of the discussion has been the intent of the guideline instead of the wording of the template. Accordingly, editors are asked to review the archived discussions on the wording of the template, before initiating another discussion. If you want to discuss the guideline about trivia, then you are welcome to join the discussion at the guideline

--TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point about avoiding "caution". What about changing the last line to:

"If you have concerns about Wikipedia's policies regarding trivia, then you are welcome to join the discussion at the guideline page"

Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be for something that cautions people against discussing irrelevant subjects, and directing them to the guideline for policy discussions. That's probably something this page could use. But saying something to the effect of "Try not to rock the boat anymore, we've all had enough" is, as I said, inappropriate.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 21:20, 09/17/2007

OK, I did my suggestions, I think everyone gets what my current issues with {{trivia}} are. I'm walking away again, cause like I said: I avoid these topics in wikipedia, there are better ways to spend my time around here. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, all that in just three hours. I agree with equazicon that it would be inappropriate to caution people against discussing something that bothers them, but I also agree that some sort of note that talks about why the current wording was chosen so that we don't have to rediscuss things(like we basically just did a little while ago) is necessary. The note should also talk about not discussing the guideline here. --Kyle_(talk) 21:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a bad idea to tell people to not discuss this template. That's just an attempt by the trivia-deletionists to stifle debate. Many of us editors voted to delete this template entirely just now. Tempshill 05:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that's about accurate.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 06:37, 09/18/2007

The intention was never to tell people they cannot discuss the template. (BTW, I quite resent Tempshill's needless "attempt by the trivia-deletionists to stifle debate" crack, since it is groundless, but let's just let that one go in the interest of keeping this civil.) The purpose of this was only to try to keep the discussion on this page on topic. Since the proposal appears to be controversial as well, I've instead placed a standard talk page header at the top, along with a simple message that details the idea we seem to agree on. (That is, that the page is for discussing the template, not the guideline.) Fair enough? --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. But since you decided to comment on the "crack" instead of truly letting it go, allow me to explain. Your side of the argument is that you like things the way they are -- so your side is served by discouraging further discussion. Therefore you're masking (or rather, it is likely to be perceived that you are masking) your agenda with a more objective stance of simply not wanting further changes because there have been too many changes already. Meanwhile if the template were not currently in a state you agreed with, you would of course not be for discouraging discussion. This is, I think, what Kyle was referring to, and it isn't groundless; It's obvious.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 07:53, 09/18/2007

You've made several presumptions in your argument, none of which are warranted. In order, you have assumed 1) that I like things the way they are. (You don't know this; as it happens, I think the wording is an acceptable compromise in an extremely polarized debate, but I wouldn't say I "like" it.) 2) You've presumed I have a "side", and that I endorsed TheDJ's idea in order to support that "side" and stifle discussion. Wrong on all counts, and very presumptuous. I don't consider myself to be in any particular camp; I am, however, very tired of the apparently endless discussion that is really about the guideline, but which is disrupting the template instead. The application of the template, when and where to use it, and other such concepts should be discussed at the guideline page. The only thing we should be discussing here is the nuts and bolts of implementing those decisions. 3) The claims that I'm "masking" my "agenda" and the presumption that I'd reject TheDJ's idea if I didn't "agree" with the current version are equally baseless, and symptomatic of how the discussion about trivia has become so poisoned. It has degenerated into an "us versus them" mentality that helps no-one. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say you liked it, I said you agreed with its current state. I'll let the rest of this go though, as the issue has already been resolved.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 08:29, 09/18/2007

It's all good

I was under the impression the current wording was quite broadly supported. Sure, there'll always be dissenters, but is the template really in the midst of another upheaval, or are we just freaking out over the prospect of one?--Father Goose 22:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There were dozens of votes to delete the template entirely. You didn't ask me, but personally I find the current wording OK; I object a lot to the spamming of the template across 10,000 articles by bot; and I will vote again to delete this template when the vote is proposed again. By the way, someone should tag the top of this discussion page with the note that the template was nominated for deletion on X date and the vote ended up being "keep". Tempshill 05:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, especially because the result of the debate was "keep and discuss." Done.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 06:43, 09/18/2007

Ambox vs. non-standard width

Compare

{{{text}}}

Trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines. The article could be improved by integrating relevant items and removing inappropriate ones.

{{{text}}}

with

{{{text}}}

Trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines. The article could be improved by integrating relevant items and removing inappropriate ones.

{{{text}}}

Please tell me if there's any previous research on how those extra pixels above contribute to annoying people, or if it's unsourced speculation. I'd say the uneven sides are more annoying, not to mention a burden on the maintainers of this template. --Kjoonlee 20:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It's deliberately broken. Any attempt to fix the template will be reverted back to it's broken state by one of at least two editors, who form a consensus. Get used to it. / edg ☺ ★ 21:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If what you imply is true, then that would mean those two editors are actually acting against consensus. --Kjoonlee 21:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not one of the editors who would war over it, but I understand the reasons behind it at least. The demonstration of stacked boxes will look different on different screens; for instance, on my screen (1024x768), when the date is added to the template, it spills over into three lines instead of two -- so the auto width does look better in that case, which happens to be the default case for me.--Father Goose 21:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Splash's edit to the template (moving the date to the first line) now makes it fit on two lines even at 80% width on 1024x768. So at least on my system, the auto-width tweak is no longer necessary. I don't know if there are other common setups where the auto-width still looks better.--Father Goose 20:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how common they are, but the automatic width still makes a big difference at higher resolutions. —David Levy 21:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Stating that the template is "deliberately broken" is a rather rude assumption of bad faith.

2. To which "two editors" are you referring? —David Levy 00:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

{{{text}}}

Trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines. The article could be improved by integrating relevant items and removing inappropriate ones.

Trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines. The article could be improved by integrating relevant items and removing inappropriate ones.

Trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines. The article could be improved by integrating relevant items and removing inappropriate ones.

Trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines. The article could be improved by integrating relevant items and removing inappropriate ones.

Um, no. With 1024x768 (I use the WebDeveloper extension for Firefox) the ambox-width versions are the cleanest. What's so bad about the split into three lines? Or is that unsourced as well? --Kjoonlee 21:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Smackbot always adds a date, so you'll only see the third or the fourth examples in the field. On my screen, the third is on two lines, the fourth spills over to three. If it appeared in a section with another template, I'd width=full it to make them align. In theory, a better option would be to remove some text from the template, but we've battled over that for months, and it's as slim as it's likely to get.

I'm all for template standardization (I participated in the project from the beginning), but the whole idea is that we want templates that look good. If we can improve the look of a template by selectively tweaking it (and turning off the tweaking when it causes a problem), I don't see why we shouldn't.--Father Goose 00:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

A consensus does not need to be a majority. The following reasons have been given:

1. This template is seldom stacked with other templates.
2. The tag's large size has proven unpopular with editors who object to trivia policy.
3. This discourages non-consensus placement of this box at the top of articles.
4. Editors who want this template to behave like other templates can add the width=full parameter.
5. Most people use display resolutions where this is not a problem.
6. If anyone fixes this, it will be reverted. Please don't start fights.
7. Arguments that this box should be fixed have no point.
8. /Archive_1#Too_bulky
9. /Archive 2#New format
10. #New_version_-_September_10.2C_2007

We must address all these concerns before we may have standing in this discussion. Otherwise, it is we who are going against consensus. / edg ☺ ★ 22:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"If anyone fixes this, it will be reverted. Please don't start fights." -- Yet more of ed's editorial twisting. This was from my last edit summary and it's not what I said. It's not what anyone said. My concern was that changes should be discussed on the talk page first rather than starting an edit war. ("Please don't start fights. If you have good reasons for a change then simply discuss them on talk page. There's even a section for the width issue there already.") The consensus was to keep the template width short, but someone changed it simply because of the ambox standardization and without discussing it on the talk page first. If he had been acting as the result of a consensus here then I would not have reverted it.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:00, 09/24/2007

Also, "The tag's large size has proven unpopular with editors who object to trivia policy." -- This is also an unfair slant. This is a way of presenting the reason so that people can say it's not a valid reason, since hiding the trivia tag for those who don't like it is no reason to reduce its width. The large size has proven unpopular in general, not just with those who object to the trivia guideline. If you have proof that the original consensus to keep the tag short was only the result of people who don't like the trivia guideline then I'd really like to see that. This list is intended to represent the argument for keeping the tag small in a way that's as easy as possible to refute.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:08, 09/24/2007

Here are some actual reasons for keeping the tag short, for those who are interested in hearing the non-strawman argument:

1. The tag is meant to go inside a section, not at the top of the article, where stacking usually occurs.
2. Stacking can occur in a section, but rarely does in trivia sections. People see the trivia tag as encompassing a host of issues. For example, editors who are particularly anti-trivia tend to point out that trivia sections are usually completely unsourced -- yet I've to this day never seen a single trivia section tagged with any kind of fact or unreferenced tag, or any other tag besides {{trivia}}, for that matter.
3. Keeping the tag smaller discourages incorrect placement at the tops of articles.
4. For the extenuating circumstance in which all of the above cases don't apply and there are multiple tags inside the section, there is the parameter width=full available to make the tags stack correctly with one-another.
5. It just plain looks better/less obtrusive.

Thanks for providing the reasons in list like this, as (to me at least) the benefits were not that apparent immediately. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, Bill. And I added one more.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:39, 09/24/2007

The above stacking demonstrations ignore the fact that the template rarely should be stacked with other templates and the fact that stacking is most likely to occur when someone incorrectly places the tag at the top of the article (which the nonstandard width is intended to discourage). —David Levy 00:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Date?

The template currently says "Trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines. (September 2007)" It seeems to say that they weren't discouraged before that date! Surely this is not what is implied. I propose a return of the phrase "this article has been tagged since..." but then again, I'm just an annon.--190.74.126.248 01:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure the date is needed. Trivia items/sections aren't scheduled to be removed/integrated after a certain period and the presence of a tag should be indication enough that action is to be taken, not the time it has been in the article. I could understand if this was asking for references and allowing time before information is removed, but this template just represents a style guideline and time is not asking for immediate action. I'd like to know if there's a practical reason for the date being displayed. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the main reason is that, without the date to segregate the tagged articles into different sections, any attempt to fix/manage them would be completely daunting and overwhelming. For example, how many of the 8000ish articles with the trivia template begin with the letter A? In this case, I think albhabetical organization would make the project suffer from the sheer number of entries.

At the very least, the dates give us a frame of reference to indicate how long the trivia tag has been there, and that so far no one has found a solution to integrate the item, or simply haven't bothered to look for one. And so if people have been working on improving, say, some articles from May 2007, then it would be reasonable to presume that the ones that still remain in the section will take longer to fix. Thus the dates give us a useful way to display the tagged articles, and a way to help stay on top of new articles as they get tagged. --Nick Penguin 01:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The categorization and the date stamp display are two different things. The visible date can be removed from the tag without affecting the categorization-by-date feature. There is no practical reason for displaying a date, as far as I can tell, and I would think it only leads to confusion over how to properly handle trivia sections.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 02:16, 09/29/2007

I would love to see the date removed. Leave the categorization by date but there is no need for it on the template. I have never actually seen the point to a date stamp. I do see a reason to categorize the articles that are tagged because of the rediculous backlog of articles though. --Kyle_(talk) 03:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, no date. The dated categories are fine; the date in the template itself is redundant, bloats the template to a third line at 1024x768, and makes no sense on the first line.--Father Goose 04:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually it does not cause a third line. And as remarked the categories may go soon. Agreed the place is at the end, where it is more obviously a datestamp like entity. Rich Farmbrough, 11:58 29 September 2007 (GMT).

Moved to end. Rich Farmbrough, 12:05 29 September 2007 (GMT).

I still see no reason for having the date stamp at all.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:03, 09/29/2007

The categories may go soon? As remarked where?--Father Goose 05:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That looked to me like a typo. For, as I outlined in my initial response, removing the categories would make this project a management nightmare. But I do see the other main point that the date isn't needed in the tag, because since there shouldn't be an implied deadline for "fixing" the trivia section, then we should remove the date to alleviate the confusion. Thus I would hope that the conclusion would be to remove the date from showing up on the template itself and ensure that the Doc page easily reflects how to use the datestamp in the template to ensure proper category sorting.--Nick Penguin 16:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems that most people believe that there should not be a date stamp, but that categorization by date is still necessary. Could someone remove the stamp? I would, but don't have a clue how to.--Kyle_(talk) 21:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the date stamp from the template. The categorisation still appears to work so I don't think I've borked anything. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bill. Looks good to me, I don't think you borked anything either.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 22:30, 09/30/2007

I added a short explanation to the documentation, just in case people get confused and think they entered the date wrong when they don't see it show up in the displayed tag.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 22:38, 09/30/2007

acceptance

I think the template as revised is acceptable as a compromise, and I too would rather improve articles than discuss the wording further. DGG (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a serious problem when, at last check, there were almost 9000 articles with this template on it. Regardless of what happens with the template itself, the fact remains that people need to start doing some grunt work and actually just start editing articles, not just talk pages. Fortunately, I find that often, pages with trivia lists contain duplicate sentences which are already in the main article, stuff that can be deleted outright, stuff that would make more sense in a different article, and the remainder is stuff that actually could be merged into another section. I think I am going to try and start an advice section on the talk page of CAT:TRIVIA, or some other more appropriate place. I have some tricks that can make working with trivia sections much quicker and less stressful, hopefully I can inspire some more like-minded editors to join me in my massive undertaking.

EDIT: I have created a list of ideas on how to deal with trivia section on the CAT:Trivia Talk page. Obviously my advice isn't policy, but hopefully someone else finds my advice useful and can contribute some good (and better) ideas.

EDIT again: At the advice of another user, I have also put my suggestions on the talk page of WP:HTRIVIA, since it is much more likely to be put to good use there. --Nick Penguin 14:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This template was spammed across thousands of articles (it exceeds 10,000 articles) by a bot that was written by an editor who hates trivia lists. This was when the template was edit-protected in a state with more inflammatory, and inaccurate, wording that encouraged deletion of information merely because it was in a trivia section. Now the wording is more reasonable and does reflect WP:TRIVIA, but the defacement remains on the 10,000+ articles. There are many Wikipedia articles for which a trivia section is OK, despite the guideline (which I agree with) that most articles would benefit by writing most trivia bullet points into prose. This all said, someone needs to write a bot to go through and wipe out the defacement of those 10,000 articles so that editors can start over, and add this template by hand, where appropriate. It is not appropriate to just stamp this template on every single article that has a trivia section. Tempshill 05:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This seemed to be a popular idea at the last TfD for this template; although with one small change, that the bot should only remove trivia tags that were placed by a bot to begin with. That seems both possible and reasonable, as the original massive automated tagging was seen as misuse/abuse by most of the !voters. I'd even go as far as to say there was consensus on that. Any thoughts on this?

Equazcion • argue/improves • 00:26, 10/1/2007

I have mixed feelings about considering untagging articles by a bot. Maybe it would just be better if they were untagged with a human? I have yet to come across an article where the trivia tag is used inappropriately, but if such an article exists and the tag hasn't yet been removed, then it could just as easily be removed when it is seen. It's not that it will take a lot of effort to untag via bot, it's that it'll take a lot of effort to find the sections again. And if the tag is almost always correctly flagging a trivia section, then why would you want to remove it automatically? Sure there are a lot of tagged articles, but I prefer to have them all identified now rather than have to rediscover them again later. Also, in general it's clear that there are a lot of articles that have been tagged with a trivia tag. But I think that just highlights the importance of merging/dealing with trivia sections, which are everywhere. At the very least the tag discourages people just adding to an endlessly lengthening collection of facts. --Nick Penguin 00:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well first of all let's try not to let this turn into a debate on whether or not the trivia tag is good. The argument for untagging via bot is that a bot doesn't necessarily know when the tag is appropriate. I believe it decided based mainly on the section title. There is also some disagreement as to where the tag belongs. There's no guideline to tell us how to use this template, so its placement is somewhat subjective. It's not the kind of thing that should've been left up to a bot to "decide", especially for something so controversial. And due to that same problem of controversy, the sheer massiveness of the number of articles it was automatically and suddenly placed on caused (and continues to cause) a divisiveness that's IMO not warranted. The problem that bot created outweighs the potential benefit.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 01:12, 10/1/2007

I apologize if it appeared I wanted to start such a debate, for I realize this is an inappropriate place. I was just trying to explain my more general position. But I should add, I do not even know where such a debate would best take place, for this template seems to be the only place with participating discussors when it comes to the trivia issue. If it is true that there is no policy on trivia, how could one begin the right kind of discussion to facilitate the creation of a concrete trivia policy? Once we have that, everything else should fall into place, including a decision on the bot and the articles that are already tagged. Back on topic though, I still stand by my original claim; a significantly large quantity of the tagged articles article I have looked at (and fixed) with the trivia template has been in a consistent spot (right under the ==Trivia==), and the tagged section contains a bulleted collection of facts. There have been a few odd balls but they too are easily fixed by hand. My most general position is that if this template is intended to tag trivia sections and impart a piece of advice to go about integrating/moving/removing the facts contained in that section, then I think it's doing the job perfectly. So I guess the question then is more "Is the template doing it's job too well?" --Nick Penguin 01:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the appropriate talk page for that, but the point we're currently on is whether or not the mass-tagging applied by the bot should be reversed. Those who think the trivia tag is a bad thing obviously will be for that, as they would rather the template be deleted altogether. But that's better left to TfDs. For the sake of this discussion we have to assume the template itself is legitimate -- we're only questioning the mass automated tagging.

As for a concrete trivia policy, we do have a guideline that tells us how to deal with trivia sections, however that guideline doesn't dictate how this tag is to be used, which is the point I was trying to make. If we had a guideline that said that every trivia section must be tagged with {{trivia}}, along with a concrete definition of what constitutes "a trivia section", then there would be no question -- the bot's taggings should stand. However that's not the case. There currently is no guideline telling us anything about how we should be using this tag, or even that it should be used at all. All we have are editors' opinions and discussions, which should be the way taggings are decided, but neither of which were honored for each of the thousands of automated taggings the bot is responsible for.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:35, 10/1/2007

The bot tagging was inappropriate for a template that is about a controversial topic. We should really be discussing the usage of the template. Personally I have a major problem with the use of the template currently. Since it was spammed across thousands of articles it seems to me that popular usage of the template is to just let it sit on articles until something is done about them, even if nothing can be done about the section. There are many articles that have a trivia tag on a section where the information is completely relevant and important (at least to me), but there is no way to integrate the facts into the article without adding more information similar to the fact. There is one problem with this, what if there is no more information that could be put into the article that even remotely relates to the fact. A major example of this would be articles about tv shows. A very large portion of articles about specific shows are basically maxed out on info. There is the plot, cast, advertising and critical reception and then there is not much more that could be added. If there is a trivia fact that should not be deleted, then what? The tag just sits there forever. This is a major reason that there is a backlog of articles. Trivia sections that nothing can be done about. That is why I say that we should be discussing the usage of the template and when it needs to be in a section(possibly on the trivia guideline page). Until we are absolutely clear about the usage we cannot remove the template from every article since people would just re-ad the template in the same basic manner that the bot did. It would be like having an army of bots that each tag a few articles. --Kyle_(talk) 05:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. The TV show problem is something I brought up a while ago, and it was dealt with by making an allowance for "Cultural references" sections, which had for a long time prior been considered trivia. That doesn't completely solve the problem though, since shows often reference themselves -- especially long-running shows, such as The Simpsons, where this issue comes up for a good number of articles. Of course there's the argument that a focused list could be formed for these, like "Self-references", but eventually you have to ask yourself how many focused lists it takes to equal one really crappy, pedantically-organized and non-intuitive article. This was a bad place to start a conversation like this, but I've said it before -- separate rules for trivia sections in media articles might be something worth looking into.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:09, 10/1/2007

Maybe in one of these: WP:TV#Project-specific guidelines with a link to the media-specific guidance in WP:TRIVIA. There's a surprising number of hard-liners among the ranks of the fiction Wikiprojects, however. I was just discussing Cultural references sections with a few of them over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup.--Father Goose 07:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That would seem to be the only way to do what I've suggested, but it also seems next to impossible. Not only would it be necessary to convince the TV project people that trivia sections have a place in episode articles, but then all those flexible folks at WP:TRIVIA need to allow a major exception to be added to the guideline. I might have an easier time starting my own encyclopedia.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 08:54, 10/1/2007

I've noticed the massive collections of trivia in TV and movie articles, but it has also been a huge contender in another kind of article; Baseball. And I'd like to draw some attention to baseball, because I think it reflects an interesting problem, since the sport consists almost entirely of a million different statistics and records. Most of the time when I see a trivia section in a baseball article, I can't begin to imagine how to resolve this issue. If you merge it in, you have three or four paragraphs of nearly incomprehensible (to non-baseballers) numbers and ratios. If you create it's own section called "Stats", that's just renaming the problem and hoping it will go away. So it seems clear that there really are some articles that have useful and relevant facts that are resistant to finding a better presentation method.

But in general I would be inclined to agree with bandaid/compromise solution; there are some articles that are better serve by preserving trivia sections rather than doing a half-assed job of integrating a handful of sentences. Perhaps at a later date the trivia policy could be reviewed and the articles would then have enough content to be dealt with. But I agree, it would be easier to create your own encyclopedia rather than convince everyone that the trivia tag is only ok in some articles rather than all, so how could we go about creating a guideline to indicate what sort of articles are better with than without trivia sections?. (As an aside: Maybe I've got some sort of idealistic view of the future, but if Wikipedia were ever to divide articles into "Reviewed and Locked" and "Testing", I would see the "trivia" section as the low-bar area to suggest/add new facts at an already massive/existing article. And it also feels to me that many contributors also see and use the current trivia sections in that way.) --Nick Penguin 15:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)