Template talk:Trivia/Archive 3

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.

← Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4 →

Contents 1 Recent simplifications 2 Proposed Organisational Changes 3 Width is back to full? 4 Icon? 5 Wrong? 6 Proposal to modify or move template 6.1 Proposal 1: change wording 6.2 Proposal 2: move trivia tags to talk page 7 Requesting explanation of non-compliance

Recent simplifications

I'm all for simplifying the template, but we can't simplify it down to "integrate or delete these items", since that offers the choice of "Oh, fine, then, I'll delete them". I've restored the phrasing of "integrate relevant and delete inappropriate" but I agree we can do away with "into other sections".--Father Goose 05:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above, and was about to make similar changes for similar reasons. Thanks to Richard for the effort, but unfortunately the simpler text changes the message too much. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Some trivia sections can't be integrated, how else do you want it to be worded? "Hide this trivia information in the article, by all means do not delete it"? SpigotMap 01:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That speeks more to the guideline than the template. I'd love to get a bead on what exactly we are supposed to do with trivia items, but since there is no policy regarding triia we've got to do the best we can. Padillah 01:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If they can't be integrated but are relevant enough that they shouldn't be deleted, then leave it be. The article may be expanded later in such a way as to create appropriate integration point(s) for the remaining trivia items.--Father Goose 03:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Organisational Changes

It has been made clear to me from some of the comments I have read that dealing with the trivia pandemic would be made much easier if the tagged articles could be sorted into smaller groups. For example, I was just reading a section on the talk page of the Wikiproject Trivia Cleanup about "challenging the present role of this project." Some very good points are raised, and this I think it would be a good idea to discuss (and impliment?) some changes to how CAT:TRIVIA is structured. I don't want to create unnecessary work, and I realize there are other discussions looking at ways to deal with the 8000ish articles that are currently tagged. But looking towards the future, if trivia is going to exist on Wikipedia for a long time (indefinitely?), then I think we need a better way to sort through tagged trivia.

One suggestion that jumps out at me, as proposed by Freak104 is this: Is there some way to search by category the articles with trivia sections? If there was some way to automatically categorize tagged trivia sections based on what topic they deal with (music/baseball/tvshow/movie/comic/place etc) then it would be much easier for people to fix articles in their area of personal knowledge. Additionally, it would likely lead to smaller sections in CAT:TRIVIA that are more easily dealt with.

Problems with this: Clearly the biggest problem is that using a bot to add a genrestamp on trivia tags in articles would likely be difficult, because bots generally can't figure out context easily (maybe they could if the article has a stubtag/category tag, I don't know). Since I am not a programmer (only a programming background) I cannot say for certain, but it would certainly be a challenge to undertake this task. The other option, if the bot would not work for this, would be to have the already tagged articles retagged with an added genrestamp. This is a lot of work, but I think that this would help the overall aim of the project; people who know alot about movies would likely do a better job editing those articles than myself, who comparitively watches few movies.

Thoughts on this, or any other changes to CAT:TRIVIA that would be worthwhile?--Nick Penguin 15:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Width is back to full?

Why is the template back at the standardized width? I do not think that it has to do with the most recent change, but I am not sure. I suspect the ambox template itself, but in any case could someone fix it? After that long conversation about why the width should be different, it is a shame that it is back to standard. --Kyle_(talk) 02:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree this has something to do with a code change at ambox. I've implemented a temporary fix, where in the absense of the width=full parameter the box defaults to 40% width (used to be auto-width but that doesn't seem to work right now) and auto-margins for centering. If someone can make the box tight around the text without adding an explicit width then please feel free to do it. This could be a temporary bug at ambox so once they fix it we can revert.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:19, 10/16/2007

Well, as it so happens, I'm the person responsible for the changes to ambox this time. There were many calls to fix amboxes so that they wouldn't collide with other elements (pictures, infoboxes, etc.), and we implemented a change so that it maintains its width via 10% margins instead of a fixed 80% width. To keep all templates the same width so they look right when stacking, we made the text cell have width:100%.

To fix the problem on this page for now, I've made it use modified code derived from ambox instead of using ambox itself. Longer-term, I imagine the best solution is to add a parameter to {{ambox}} so that styles can be passed to the text cell (including custom width).--Father Goose 04:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I had a feeling it was you (especially after reading the discussion on {{ambox}}). Doesn't matter though, thanks for fixing it.--Kyle_(talk) 04:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I went back to auto-width, as it seems to work now that we're not using the ambox template.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:25, 10/16/2007

Well nevermind that, I didn't actually do anything, the box was at auto width already. I must be tired.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:28, 10/16/2007

K, now I did something -- I implemented the width parameter functionality again.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:34, 10/16/2007

Ah, I forgot about the parameter. I reverted the width change you made, as it was to the image cell (technically a div inside it), which needs to be 52px fixed so that icons & text line up correctly when the template is stacked.--Father Goose 04:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Icon?

Usually, I like icons in templates, however, with this template, I don't. My reasons:

• It makes the template stick out too much. Trivia sections are not content-issues and they're not there for the readers. They are style-issues that only concern editors.
• The broom isn't really appropriate. Pretty, but unnecessary. I think that icon's overused anyway.
• It will make the box smaller, which is preferred. Many users don't like this template, or would rather see it on talk pages, so by making smaller it's (maybe) somewhat of a compromise.

For now, I just made the icon a little smaller, in case the removal is contested. Please let me know. Rocket000 13:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted my edit. I forgot about stacking at full width. A smaller icon looks bad next to other icon-equipped templates. But my proposal for it's removal still stands. Rocket000 14:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the icon. When it was first added I felt it was unnecessary (it had a "sweep this stuff away" connotation), but then I got used to it. At this point, I could go either way.--Father Goose 17:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the icon really didn't send the right message.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 17:32, 10/16/2007

Much better. I just wasn't bold enough to just change it, with all the discussion taking place. :) Rocket000 18:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I kind of like it better with an icon. It does not necessarily need to be the broom since that does have 'sweep away' associated with it. What about the information(notice) icon since it really is more of an informational template describing a policy that is a little loose? It doesn't make the size all that much different and it really does look better. --Kyle_(talk) 22:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded a "list icon" for a trial. I don't care if it's used or not, I'm just offering it as an option. Feel free to edit the image itself if you like the idea but not the "artwork". ;-) --Father Goose 00:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Whenever I see the word trivia it always reminds me of trivial pursuit, so I figure why not play to that. This is my own creation, it's not great, and just like FG's icon, this is just an option; I don't care if it's used or not. PS although the icon itself isn't great I think the general idea has merit, so if anyone can draw a better-looking trivial pursuit piece, please feel free to upload it.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 01:31, 10/17/2007

I erased the background of the trivial pursuit image from Commons, cause I thought the original image looked too "real" and not "icon-y" enough. I can't decide which is better now though. What do you think:

1:

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

2:

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

Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:45, 10/17/2007

No background. I was just in the middle of creating a backgroundless version of the image myself.--Father Goose 03:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The concept of a trivial pursuit icon has a lot of problems:

• it is very bright and colorful and therefore distracting
• Trivial Pursuit is not likely to be a reference that all readers "get"
• Trivial Pursuit is a brand. We should not be endorsing brands, even implicitly, in a NPOV encylopedia.

I've reverted to a more neutral, understated icon for the moment (I don't have a horse in the "list" vs. "broom" debate). Brianski 10:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and would prefer the broom to the list. Lists are not always wrong, disorganised lists that lack context are. The broom is a general cleanup icon, which seems more applicable here. Melsaran (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I made a less-saturated version of the image, I think it's a lot less stand-out-ish.

1 (old):

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

2 (new):

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

As for the "endorsement", I don't really think this qualifies (NPOV is also just for article content, not tags or guidelines etc)... and Wikipedia has a lot of references that not everyone would immediately get, but I don't think that's such a big deal. I dunno.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:20, 10/17/2007

I don't know about the trivial pursuit icon, mostly because not everyone even knows what that is and so would see it as a random set of colors. I am not crazy about the list icon either (it just doesn't feel right). I would prefer the broom to either of these two things. For now I am going to go back to the broom (since it is the original) until a consensus can be made here.--Kyle_(talk) 01:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not particularly talented as a digital artist, but I was thinking that since the integration message is the primary goal of the template, perhaps someone could come up with an image that would reflect that ideal. I'm not certain how to visually represent taking a bunch of facts and putting them into different spots in the article, but if someone knows how, I'm sure your contribution would be appreciated. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 04:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong?

Shouldn't this template also state that, while trivia sections are discouraged, it also encourages the same information to be presented in an organised way? As stated on WP:TRIVIA. Kameyama 14:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the guideline actually states that the information should be placed into the rest of the article in an organised way.--Kyle_(talk) 21:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. But shouldn't that be encouraged, in stead of discouraging people to write about it at all? Kameyama 09:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The way I read the template, it does. It clearly states "The article could be improved by integrating relevant items and removing inappropriate ones." and that sections involving trivia are discouraged. To me this means that you should avoid placing information into trivia sections, but you still can if needed(hence "discouraged" and not "forbidden"). The second line explains how to place the information into the rest of the article. The template seems to go along with the guideline considerably well. Believe me, the current wording was chosen after a lot of discussion so that it went with the guideline closely.(see the archived talk pages).--Kyle_(talk) 17:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I see now. Thank you. Kameyama 15:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to modify or move template

moved from WT:TRIV on 2007-11-02T23:00:48 / edg ☺ ★

As per the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections, some seem to want a change but it's not clear what. I'm therefore making two alternate proposals - we could have one, or both, or neither (or something else, a variant, etc.).Wikidemo

Proposal 1: change wording

To make it less aggressive and more instructive. Change this:

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

To something like this (we can work on the exact workding):

This appears to be a trivia section. Please remove items that cannot be verified by a reliable source, and integrate the rest into an appropriate section.

• I Support this as the nominator. Wikidemo 22:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose this version because saying this appears to be a trivia section directly beneath a Trivia heading is just redundant and frankly stupid. Most of the people that see that will laugh and move on. It is the same as a previous version that stated "This is a trivia section". (That is actually the reason I came to this page). I have no opinion with the second line, the only thing I have to say on it is that this version is slightly longer than the previous and as such the template is larger. I know people wanted to keep it small.--Kyle_(talk) 23:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons as Kyle. The "This is a Trivia section" style wording has been discussed in the past and dismissed for this reason. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I'm being stupid, thank you. The tag is often applied to "popular culture" and other sections not entitled "trivia", in fact sections that are explicitly not trivia. In those cases the statement "trivia sections are discouraged" is misleading, confrontational, and actually not true. Where the section is not specifically titled "trivia" the point of the template is indeed a that a person is challenging the section or some of the material in it as trivia. Should we allow it only for sections entitled trivia, or have two templates instead? In addition, it is not helpful in the title line to link to the definition of what a guideline is. If you want to avoid all that, it should say something neutral and nonconfrontational like "Please help us clean up trivia." Wikidemo 23:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Trivia is trivia no matter what you call it. I agree that popular culture may require some additional consideration, but that is not a reason to change the template. Vegaswikian 23:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

that latest wording actually sounds good: to expand it a little "Please help us clean up trivia. Integrate appropriate material into the article, and remove the inappropriate." DGG (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be inclined to support something along these lines. Regardless of the specific wording, I do think it's important to make sure that the template reflects that it is the section itself that is discouraged by WP:TRIVIA, not the content that makes up the section. Thus, a certain amount of ambiguity should be desired in the suggested "solution". --Nick Penguin 02:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I was in no way implying you were being stupid and if you got that impression from my comment then I apologise. My point was that the vast majority of tagged sections are labeled "Trivia" which makes that wording redundant. The first paragraph of the guideline covers sections named other things but still contain trivial content. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I never said you were stupid, I meant that it sounds stupid to state the obvious. It is true that the trivia template is placed on other sections besides Trivia sections, however, it seems that most of them are under the heading trivia since that is the most obvious place the template should be. If we keep the current wording the template can go basically anywhere without sounding redundant. I have no problems with more suggestions, and I am open to a change, just not one that has anything too similar to "This is a trivia section". One thought I had was "Sections involving trivia are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines" with whatever second line you want. This can really go anywhere since it does not directly say Trivia section and could be placed under any heading without redundancy. I feel like I may have proposed this once before and was shot down, but I do not really remember and I do not feel like looking through the archives. --Kyle_(talk) 00:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support Seems like a great new version to me. -- Ned Scott 00:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose First line per above and previous discussion. Second line for confusing the point — there are multiple reasons an item might be inappropriate, and detailing them distracts from the instruction to integrate items instead of organizing them as a Trivia section. The current version is much better. / edg ☺ ★ 01:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• I can understand that concern.. Hmm.. it still might not be bad to think of another way to put it rather than saying "inappropriate", since this template has a tendency to be taken the wrong way. Just thinking out loud. -- Ned Scott 02:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion of WP:RS into the wording. RS does not acknowledge the permissibility of primary sourcing as laid out in WP:PSTS. Some primary-sourced info is crap but some is vital, and RS is blind to this fact.--Father Goose 05:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - while the wording of the new version is better, it still needs some work. The "This appears to be a trivia section" seems like stating the obvious, as all the sections labelled with this template that I have seen are entitled "Trivia". Also, I think the second line should be reworded to seem less strict, something along the lines of this:

This section contains a list of trivia. Please help improve this article by verifying the information, and integrating it into the article if an appropriate section exists

This would be my suggestion --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 16:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I like it, but I think the ordering should be switched around; since in this context trivia is a stylistic problem, the advice should be integrate first, source second, remove third. Something like this:

This section contains a list of trivia. Please help improve this article by integrating and verifying relevant information, and removing inappropriate items

My suggestion is almost the same as the existing template, although it is marginally bigger. And I'm not crazy about the first sentence, but adding in "verifiable" is a good contribution. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 16:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"Verifying" the information is a different and usually more complicated task. This imposes roadblocks to an organizational cleanup task by requiring the editor to perform research first. It's a separate issue, and should not be included in {{Trivia}}. / edg ☺ ★ 17:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, verifying is a more complicated task, but I think putting it in the template does highlight part of the trivia problem, which is a general lack of citations. Since trivia sections are discouraged rather than banned, requesting an improvement with citations would be good because a trivia section with citations is preferred to a trivia section without citations, and having citations before an eventual integration makes the facts less likely to be removed by another editor. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections often have multiple issues (which is a reason this template should be stackable, 'nother conversation), but lack of citations is another policy. There are several templates for it. As common as WP:V trouble is with the sort of drive-by edits Trivia sections attract, not every Trivia section has this particular problem, and putting WP:V on {{Trivia}} links these things unnecessarily, creating these problems:

• adding a roadblock to trivia cleanup, a highly-backlogged task,
• confusing the instruction,
• suggesting that verifiability is the standard for inclusion, which it is WP:NOT.

This does more harm than good. Keep it simple. / edg ☺ ★ 00:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, perhaps it is better to keep the issues seperate. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Verification is the hardest aspect of trivia cleanup, but (IMO) the most important part too. Aside from vandalism, unverifiable entries should be the first things removed. If you integrate without verifying, you're not necessarily doing the article any favors. We linked to WP:NOT previously as a relatively uncontroversial inclusion standard, but I'd say WP:V is an even more important one.--Father Goose 03:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Verification is not necessarily an aspect of Trivia cleanup, and some editors who are good at organization may not have a taste for fact-checking. Where a fact is not easily verified but does not appear to be WP:CB, then {{Fact}} tagging, integrating, and moving on is acceptable. (Did I mention Trivia cleanup is highly-backlogged? Yes.) / edg ☺ ★ 03:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, I like that one a whole lot. The "verification" portion doesn't come across as mandatory (any more removing and integrating do), and it lays out the three most important tasks needed to improve a trivia section: integrate, verify, remove any bollocks. I like the "list of trivia" first line too, but wouldn't insist upon it replacing the current wording ("trivia sections are discouraged"). Support.--Father Goose 19:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"This section contains a list of trivia" is the sort of language called stupid above. No offense toward the writers is intended by this, but many editors, especially those unaware of Wikipedia policy, will respond to that wording with What clued you in Sherlock, that the section is titled "Trivia"?.

Also, I don't see how the line "Trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines" can reasonably be considered aggressive, as the problem is described at the top of this proposal. Neither of the alternative wordings proposed here suggest that Trivia sections are not a standard part of Wikipedia articles — is that direction by itself what is being called "aggressive"? / edg ☺ ★ 18:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see how it could be percieved as a little passive aggressive, but I think that involves a confusion between what the "trivia" is supposed to be referring to. It is not making a value judgement of the section content, it is the expressing the idea that sections titled "trivia" are an unsatisfactory way to present otherwise valuable information. Maybe the first sentence would be better if it read something like "The content in this trivia section could be better presented" . --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, "discouraged" does suggest that they are nonstandard, but in a fairly low-key way. It doesn't capture the nuance quite right (there are a few cases where there's no ready way to integrate otherwise-good facts), but it's close enough that I'm not complaining.--Father Goose 21:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

By "alternative wordings", I mean the ones not in use. Neither of the two above proposals say "discouraged". / edg ☺ ★ 21:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the double negative tripped me up. My point is that "discouraged", while not especially aggressive, is still stronger than the more nuanced position contained in WP:TRIVIA: Trivia sections should be avoided, but if they must exist, they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined. But for brevity's sake I'll take "discouraged" as the wording used by the template unless someone comes up with a better way to put it.--Father Goose 22:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion which is less intrusive.- LA @ 16:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please help improve this article by verifiyng with reliable sources and integrateing the information in this trivia section into appropriate sections in this article.

I am not a fan, for two reasons. This version, though less intrusive, does not give any sort of a reason to do the suggested action, it just says do it. The template needs to give a reason. Also, the wording does not really make all that much sense to me (feels like a run on sentence, but I am not positive that that is the problem).-Kyle_(talk) 22:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is another wording. - LA @ 13:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The information in this section is considered trivia which should be verified with reliable sources and integrated into more appropriate sections in this article.

This wording has the same problem we have been continuously trying to avoid. It is not the section content that has been identified as the problem, it is the organization of content in that section. Important distinction. Once you start calling facts "trivia", then you are (perhaps accidentally) making a value judgment about the quality of those facts, and this is to be avoided in place of straightforward integration. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 15:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

How about something like this? It tells people what they should do without saying the obvious or making broad claims either way about whether the content is valid. Wikidemo 03:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please help organize this article. Information in this section should be integrated into a appropriate place, and if not already sourced, verified by citing reliable sources.

The first thing I notice is that it is missing a link to WP:TRIVIA, but that makes me wonder about something larger: what are the relevant guidelines and policies this template should make reference to? There's been a lack of consensus about the template linking to WP:RS and WP:V, and I think there should be some clarity about which guidelines are most relevant and most appropriate for the scope of this template. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 05:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Has everybody read this. I suggest completely eliminating the trivia template and use the citations needed template instead. Ozmaweezer 14:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

:I supportas a baby step toward something even better. I think the tiny text in the proposed template should say "Please provide a source/citation for all trivia bullet points." Ozmaweezer 15:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree since just providing citations does not help. The guideline says that trivia needs to be integrated into the article, just telling people to provide citations turns the template into one of the references needed tags. --Kyle_(talk) 01:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If it is the case that are other tags better suited for the specific issue of unreferenced material, then I think it would be best if the trivia template did not attempt to fix all the problems, and it sticks with the "integration" message. Thus I think it would be best if future versions of this template avoided including links to WP:V and WP:RS.--NickPenguin_(contribs) 05:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kyle and Nick. Integration is the main thing that the template needs to get across. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Other than missing a references to this guideline (which we could probably work in cleverly without making the comment longer or making the blatant "this is trivia" claim) is my most recent one on the right track? We might get some extra room to do that soon seeing that there's a proposal afoot to merge WP:RS into WP:V.Wikidemo (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I still have a problem with including a link to WP:RS in the template, as RS currently does not acknowledge when it is acceptable to use primary sources. Many trivia entries are simple descriptions of things found in primary sources, which is acceptable per WP:PSTS; the only problem is that PSTS is located in WP:NOR, and not in WP:RS, which thus gets it wrong.

I really hope we can sort that mess out one of these decades.--Father Goose (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Baby steps at a time, everyone. I suggest a single word modification. Just do it now, and then debate on further baby steps later. Mdrejhon (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Proposal 2: move trivia tags to talk page

Requesting explanation of non-compliance

Could somebody post a summary on the documentation page why the width is of the non-standard size? And why it deserves this special treatment more than other templates. —Dispenser 18:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Previous discussion:

• Here are some actual reasons for keeping the tag short, for those who are interested in hearing the non-strawman argument
• Ambox vs. non-standard width
• New format
• New version
• Too bulky

In my opinion the width is deliberately broken as an accommodation to editors who defend trivia sections and want to discourage use of this template. Perhaps I'm the only one here who thinks this. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Minimizing the size of this template has been a long-standing issue for at least some of the people involved with its oversight. Ambox customizations are allowed through its style parameter; unfortunately, this particular customization cannot be implemented via the table-wide style parameter, requiring a change to the text cell style.--Father Goose 19:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)