Template talk:Trivia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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:

2:

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):

2 (new):

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:

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

• 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 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:

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)

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)

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)

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)

Proposal 2: move trivia tags to talk page

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the placement of this template. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of this discussion was No support. Discussion closed after 1 week by request of the editor who made the proposal.

On theory that they're ugly, hurt readability, aren't something obvious to fix like lack of sources, etc.

• I am Neutral (as nominator), and include it to be fair because others support this idea. Although it would be nice to hide the distracting tags, it is most direct to put them by the section in question, something we can't do on the talk page.Wikidemo 22:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Doing this is a guarantee that the text will never be merged except for sections that are specifically titled as trivial. Most editors will not bother to list where the problems are in the article and even if they do, the comments would be archived by the bots before the work is finished. Also in looking at the lack of references for most of the stuff tagged as trivia, it is not a small problem. Most of this stuff is not referenced. That is an issue that needs addressing and the sooner the better so this cleanup is important. Vegaswikian 22:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Due to the poor quality of the content in the vast majority of (but not all) trivia sections, it is important to draw as much attention by editors to the issue as possible. Tagging the section directly will invite more work on it sooner and in my experience it does put off editors from adding to the section, as well as informs people about the guideline on trivia sections. Also I believe that this template is no more ugly than other section based tags. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. For everything that has already been said. Also, many editors that first come to a page don't check the talk page which means they would not see the tag and would not know there is a problem. Clean up templates should never be on a talk page.--Kyle_(talk) 23:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: In the few instances that I've actually come across this template on a talk page (only twice, I believe), when I looked at the actual article there was no trivia section to be found. Presumably, someone else had integrated the section, didn't notice the template on the talk page, and moved on. By keeping it on the article page, it allows the problem to be more easily identified and kept track of. --Nick Penguin 02:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - can we please close "proposal 2" now? It's clear it won't get consensus and nobody is interested in discussing it further. Thanks, Wikidemo 02:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

Summary of the trivia debate

I highly recommend everyone read this summary before discussing trivia in wikipedia. Ozmaweezer 15:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

applicability

I think there is no consensus that popular culture is trivia, and I suggest that therefore the template can not be applied to such sections.DGG (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Such sections sometimes get long, at which point they should be put in their own article; though what happens at that point is often unfortunate, it still doesn't mean WP:TRIV or the advice to "integrate" applies to popular-culture sections.--Father Goose (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

IPC lists formatted as Trivia sections should have this template applied.

• Bad IPC list: Broccoli In popular culture
• Good IPC section: Broccoli In popular culture
• Quiz: can you tell which item is trivia?

Is it really that hard to tell the difference? / edg ☺ ☭ 05:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently so, because I disagree with your claims in this regard quite often. Unlike trivia sections, pop culture sections are not necessarily discouraged, even when they're in the form of lists. The better examples of pop culture spinoff list articles are typically kept; one was even a featured list at one point. The same cannot be said for "trivia list" articles, which have no place on Wikipedia. Whatever material in them is worth keeping should be integrated into the original article, having no validity as an independent list. But pop culture lists are potentially appropriate as permanent forms of content -- sometimes needing cleanup, sometimes not.--Father Goose (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So does this go on "in popular culture" sections or not?

Because I keep coming across this template at the top of these lists, and I don't believe that is correct. This template currently suggests integrating trivia sections into the article proper, but I fail to see how/why IPC sections should be integrated. In popular culture are discriminate and selective lists (ie, list is limited to uses of the article subject in popular culture), as opposed to trivia lists, which are indiscriminate (ie, limited to anything tangentially related to the article subject). If there is no support for tagging IPC sections with this template, then the DOC page should be updated to reflect this. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 19:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Since WP:TRIVIA says focused lists are valid, then no, this tag shouldn't go in IPC lists. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:19, 1 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I updated the "Placement" section of the template DOC page, hopefully it's a little clearer about what should and shouldn't be tagged. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 22:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Subst

This template's Documentation states that "This template should not be subst'ed", however then states "The simplest way to add this template to an article is to copy and paste trivia|date=February 2008 or use subst:Trivia-now"

Should subst:Trivia-now be used?Wjw0111 (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Substituting {{Trivia-now}} should generate the code that corresponds to {{Trivia}}, not that which corresponds to {{subst:Trivia}}. So when you substitute {{Trivia-now}}, the substitution shouldn't pass through and cause {{Trivia}} to be substituted. Hope I'm making sense. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Still getting acquainted with how some of the markups in Wikipedia work. Makes sense to me now. Wjw0111 (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify that: Posting {{subst:trivia-now}} in an article is the equivalent of posting {{trivia|date=March 2008}}. Triva-now is just a "shortcut" to make the current date appear without having to type it. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:04, 1 Mar 2008 (UTC)

"and removing inappropriate ones"

Can we emphasize something about moving inappropriate ones to more appropriate articles? I think people are more agreeable and willing to accept content being removed from one article if it's kept in another. Wikipedia:Relevance_of_content#Interactions_between_subjects Wikipedia:Handling_trivia#Connective_trivia

• For instance, there's a South Park episode in which a space station falls on Kenny and kills him, and this gets mentioned in a "popular culture" section in the article about the space station. This shouldn't be mentioned in the article about the space station, but it certainly belongs in the article about the episode. Instead of just removing it, move it to the article about that particular episode, and say as much in the edit summary.
• Mention in an article about a movie that the characters have a scene in a park; don't mention it in the article about the park (unless it's the most notable thing that has ever happened there).

In other words, most trivial mentions of A, B, and C in article D should really be moved to articles A, B. and C. — Omegatron (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I basically like your concept of organizing information to the correct article, but I don't think that completely changing the word removing to moving is the correct thing to do. I think what is meant by "inappropriate" is that the information would not be good on any article. If it is not good in one article it probably shouldn't be in another. Therefore the information should be removed. This is not true for all information, however. There is some stuff that could easily be moved and then integrated. I don't like your examples, though. Basically your example would imply that the template should advocate removal of in popular culture sections, which I personally like. I basically like the idea of adding something about movement to other articles, but it is hard to see how that would work without advocating the keeping of bad information or the removal of in pop culture sections.--Kyle_(talk) 02:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

New wording

[1] - This change followed from a discussion at the bottom of this thread at WT:TRIV, as well as Omegatron's comment in the section above.

The rewrite is an attempt to better represent our guidance on trivia sections: they are discouraged, but for a specific reason, namely that they contain unsorted and possibly off-topic information. The prior wording was a set of awkward compromises -- simultaneously scolding and wishy-washy ("discouraged", but "could be improved").

I'd prefer language that says what it means. The new wording is actually more forceful than the old one, but instead of presenting it as a scolding (yet toothless) prohibition, it says "we don't do this because..." and leaves out all hype.

The old wording also needlessly dragged in WP:POL and WP:NOT; other cleanup templates don't have to say "OMG, it's a rule, dig?" and WP:NOT is well-covered by both WP:TRIV and Wikipedia:Handling trivia#Recommendations for handling trivia, the two links embedded in the template.

Omegatron made the good point above that some info is worthwhile but more relevant to a different article, so I reworded the template a bit to reflect that a good fact is sometimes not just in the wrong section but in the wrong article. I also stripped out the nonstandard width parameter... the whole thing is shorter now, and hopefully that parameter is now unnecessary.

I'm hoping enough time has passed that this issue and template has become less politicized, and that we can agree upon having simple template that says what the problem is, what should be done about it, and leaves it at that.--Father Goose (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This version I think is a step in the right direction, as it tells you what the problem is more directly, rather than just link to the guideline and hope everyone reads it. The template should say why this kind of a list is a problem (ie, this is an unselective and indiscriminate list) as opposed to implying that it is "trivia"/"trivial". --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The new version, however, removes all note that inappropriate items should be removed outright. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's at the very least implied: "any relevant information should be relocated", the implication being "irrelevant information should be removed". 'Relevance' is a temperamental word, but probably unavoidable; we ultimately have to rely on individual judgment and the consensus process for what's worth keeping and what's not. Anything that's total crap (i.e., WP:NOT material) is rightly removed from any part of any article, and I've seen editors of all stripes removing such material without needing to be told to do so. I believe we had NOT in the template for a long time as a compromise to avoid a more open-ended "remove anything irrelevant"; I think the new wording is more direct while still not overstating the case. It places more emphasis on fixing trivia sections than on wagging a finger at them.--Father Goose (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I like the current small type ("The article could be improved by integrating relevant items and removing inappropriate ones") but nobody even gets that far - I prefer the large type of Nick's version (this version) which reads "This section contains a collection of miscellaneous facts." The current large type is too strong for two reasons: 1. the term "trivia" is loaded and implies that material is not worthwhile and ought to be removed; 2. the reference to "Wikipedia guidelines" makes it sound like an appeal to authority rather than a style suggestion. The end result is that trivia fans read it as "Hey! We got rules against this worthless stuff," leading to an endless stream of misunderstandings of the guideline's intent. I suggest combining the current small type with the "miscellaneous facts" large type. Dcoetzee 06:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not exactly agree with Dcoetzee's reasons why the previous version was bad, however, I do think that Father Goose's new wording is an improvement for many of the reasons he stated. The only thing I want to make sure we avoid is stating the obvious. (Such as one previous version which stated "This is a trivia section".) This wording comes dangerously close to the obvious, but I think it is generally good. I am actually surprised no one suggested this sooner considering where the discussion was going here.--Kyle_(talk) 18:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

So far so good. Can we improve the second sentence as well? I'd like to make it more direct and succinct. "The article could be improved by" -- bleah. "Please" is nice and simple, and is what is used by most cleanup templates. I'd also like to retain Omegatron's suggestion of mentioning other articles (not just sections) since some trivia items are of use, but are in the wrong article.

Does the trivia template really need a link to WP:NOT? Trivia items can exhibit a variety of problems, but thankfully the template doesn't drag in WP:V, BLP, NOR, etc. The links to WP:TRIV and WP:HTRIV cover all of that; is WP:NOT some crucial portion of WP:TRIV that needs special emphasis? Again, I say that the more direct wording in the new version makes linking to NOT unnecessary.--Father Goose (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

OMGLOLBRBETC - This template will never end! It's a cyclical wacky adventure ride! I have brought something that might help -

Feel free! JohnnyMrNinja 22:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• I just changed the wording from "miscellaneous facts" to "miscellaneous information" because we don't know if all the information listed are fact; in fact, most of the trivia sections in articles have few or no sources. Anthony Rupert (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a good and neutral improvement. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 17:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The new wording stinks. "Collection of miscellaneous information." is an awful looking and sounding phrase. It sounds like something Willy Wonka would say. It's an unnecessarily complicated way of describing something that is so blatantly simple as "trivia".

The "discouraged" wording was a great compromise and really merited no additional change - it properly summed up a Wikipedia guideline and got the point across. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The new wording is wishy-washy. The older wording "Trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines" was much better. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Not too long ago there was a great deal of heated discussion about the word "trivia" and it's negative connotations, and indeed, I think everyone involved discovered it was not quite as "blatantly simple" as initially thought. "Miscellaneous information" more accurately (and neutrally) reflects the content found in these sections. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 21:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree completely with the new wording. From what I can see here there's a small group of people who wish to diffuse the strength of the wording, and I don't agree with that. The previous wording was infinitely better. Aaron Bowen (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a small group of people on both sides. This discussion does not have wide participation. The wording is too strong and its implications are out of line with the guideline that it cites. It's misleading and leads to no end of people on Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections expressing clear misunderstandings of the guideline based solely on the template, such as the conviction that it is compelling the removal of trivia sections. Revision is necessary. Maybe it would help to invite wider participation from Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections and the Village pump. Dcoetzee 22:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe the new wording should be something like:

This section contains trivia, a collection of miscellaneous information.

I understand some users don't agree, but it appears that that long wording is what it takes to get the guideline across. There are also such examples of this kind of wording for the peacock and weasel templates.

The only time I can see trimming down the sentences would be if it were used in conjunction with something else in the Articleissues template. Anthony Rupert (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe more like This is an unselective list of miscellaneous information? Right direction, wrong direction? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not quite sure what "unselective" means. Anthony Rupert (talk) 06:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Indiscriminate", which is actually a word. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• The reason why I suggested the wording like I did is because it states what trivia actually is, which is what many of the other templates are doing now. But apparently people seem to be more interested in the width of the template than what it actually says, so if no one objects by tomorrow, I'll change it back. Anthony Rupert (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If nothing else, I must insist that if the template is to continue using its current wording that it does not link to Wikipedia:Trivia sections, but rather to an essay describing the (evidently quite different) opinion of the people who created this template.

The fact is, the guideline doesn't discourage trivia sections in any meaningful sense - in fact, it recommends retaining them and periodically integrating information from them. A cleanup template should be possible to remove eventually - but trivia sections are useful to retain in perpetuity, and so these templates will remain indefinitely in the article, in contradiction of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references and other policy, which recommend the use of cleanup templates only during early article development.

Many times the guideline and its proponents have fallen under attack by people who read nothing but the template; there have been innumerable complaints on the talk page and even a spurious nomination for deletion. There have been enough clear misunderstandings that it's evident that it's our interposition that is poorly construed, and not merely the opinions of these trivia supporters. As a primary author and supporter of the guideline, I am extremely frustrated with the misapprehensions that this template promulgates. Dcoetzee 21:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Does this accurately reflect the trivia style guideline? If so, condense it into two easily understandable sentences, and there we go. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 22:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I like your wording, Nick, and would be satisfied to see that wording used. Mainly, I want to see the term "trivia" removed, as without the context of the complete guideline to explain it it's an ambiguous and inflammatory term. I also object to the "are discouraged" phrasing - it's far better to just say what they are, and give (in the small type) the recommended action, with details in the guideline. I would also prefer to see this become a talk page template, but that's a point I can concede. Dcoetzee 22:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to keep the word trivia out, but that's a little difficult when the template is (currently) called {{trivia}}! --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's fairly accepted to have Wikipedian jargon in template names (like say, all the speedy deletion tags) so I don't particularly object to it being in the wikitext, although a move wouldn't hurt. :-) Dcoetzee 02:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Dcoetzee, why should the template link to an essay instead of a guideline? The {{essay}} template says straight off that editors aren't obliged to follow them; whereas with a guideline, they are.

Another thing is that the reason why I changed this template to my suggested wording (This section contains trivia, a collection of miscellaneous information.) is because while initially there was some objection, after I suggested it again I stated that I wouldn't actually change the wording unless someone objection this time, and after a day, no one did. But suddenly I change it and now people object? If people weren't paying attention to the debate, whose fault is that? (And I don't mean to sound bitter; I'm just giving my two cents.) Anthony Rupert (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not making my position clear. I consider your edit an improvement and I supported your change and did not revert it. I preferred to omit the word "trivia," but I had already explained that and I'm willing to compromise on that point.

You also don't understand what I was getting at with my statement about linking to an essay - what I'm saying is that a template that says "Trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines" and links to Wikipedia:Trivia sections as "proof" or "further explanation" is deliberately misleading, because that guideline does not "discourage" trivia sections in any meaningful sense. I suggested relinking it as a way of insinuating that the supporters of this template, with its current wording, hold a very different position from the supporters of the guideline. Dcoetzee 17:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that the "discouraged" wording does not accurately describe the guidelines at WP:TRIVIA. By all rights the guideline is stating that trivia sections are not the best way to present information, which is the same as saying that the use of trivia sections as organizing tools is discouraged, which is basically saying that trivia sections are discouraged. This does not mean that the information in trivia sections is discouraged, just that the section itself is discouraged. If I have misinterpreted the guideline in some way then maybe it is a problem of the guideline not being very clear, however, it is extremely difficult to condense such a complex problem into a single line.

The more recent suggestions on how to do this are not really all that good, to be honest. Anthony Rupert's version does a great job of explaining what we mean by trivia, however, it does not talk about the real problem, that the information is in a trivia section. His version seems to attack the information and not the fact that the information is improperly organized. Just having the second line state what to do is not really all that effective. I believe that the first line needs to more directly state the problem and the second line should just be there to say what should be done about it. I know I previously stated that Father Goose's version was an improvement, however, after reading through all of the debate that has taken place since, I have changed my mind.

If people really think that the current "discouraged" wording needs to be changed, I would support wording along the lines of "Using trivia sections to organize information is discouraged" with Father Goose's second line ("Please relocate any relevant information into appropriate sections or articles.") --Kyle_(talk) 17:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I would also consider your suggested wording an improvement. The important thing is that we make it clear what action is suggested to be taken. Dcoetzee 17:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Sorry, Dcoetzee; I didn't mean for you to think that that second paragraph I wrote applied to you. But I do see your point. How about something along the lines of:

This section contains trivia, an unorganized collection of miscellaneous information.

Long, but clear. Anthony Rupert (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It still seems to be more about the information and not the section. My suggestion directly goes after the section and not the information.--Kyle_(talk) 21:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Defining "trivia" as "an unorganized collection..." is misleading; that's how we define "trivia sections", but it is not the normal definition of trivia. Furthermore, since what we mean is "don't do jumbles of information", I'm hoping to say just that and not bother dragging the word "trivia" into it. That was what I was after with my initial rewrite of a week ago.

As for going after the information or the section, it's really a third thing that is discouraged: the manner in which information is presented in "trivia sections". Again, making this clear is what I'm after. Kyle's suggested wording of "using trivia sections..." addresses this, so I support it (although it could perhaps be shortened a bit further).

Does anyone oppose Kyle's suggestion above -- "Using trivia sections to organize information is discouraged / Please relocate any relevant information into appropriate sections or articles."?--Father Goose (talk) 06:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

New wording Part 2

Kyle, I'm not exactly sure where you're coming from now. Anthony Rupert (talk) 03:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I completely understand why you are confused about what I said since I am confusing myself trying to figure out how to clearly state my position. So, let me try to reword and start over.

Basically, when I read your wording, and wording similar to it (which has been suggested for a while), I get a sort of "OK, so what" thought in my mind. All that this wording is doing is stating what the section has in it, which I do not feel is the most important thing to say in the first line. An early version of this template which made me get involved in this discussion simply stated "This is a trivia section." which is actually really similar to your wording. It is simply stating what the thing is, and not what the problem is. From what I understand after reading the guideline, the problem is entirely that the information is organized within a trivia section. It is not the validity of the information that this template is dealing with, it is entirely the place the info is located. As the guideline states: "Other policies apply." This is why I said that your wording seems to be more about the information than the section. The information is only made into "trivia" because it was placed in a Trivia section. If it is truly unimportant(as one definition of the word trivia implies), another policy (like WP:NOT) applies. If the information is random and interesting (as another definition implies), it can most likely be moved to another section or article, which can be said in the second line. Therefore, having the template say what the information is does not really say anything about the problem. The best way to express the guideline is therefore to go after the use of the "Trivia section." I hope I have explained my position, but, like I said, it is really hard to put into words that everyone can understand. As I have learned from the endless discussion about this template, everyone interprets things differently. --Kyle_(talk) 04:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason why I say I don't understand where you're coming from is because even if the wording stays the way it is now, it (or at least the wikilink to WP:TRIV) clearly states the problem with trivia sections and how to integrate the information given into the rest of the article -- but you don't seem to think it does, and I just can't understand why. Anthony Rupert (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I know the current wording states this, I was talking about the recent suggestions. By the way, I don't care whether or not the link explains it, I want the wording in the template to. The current wording, in my opinion, works just fine at explaining the guideline, i was entirely responding to your suggestion of "This section contains trivia, an unorganized collection of miscellaneous information." (and others like it). However, I think it is possible for the current wording to be improved and be more clear since, apparently, not everyone reads it the same way and some people think the template is suggesting the complete removal of trivia sections. I think my suggestion of "Using trivia sections to organize information is discouraged / Please relocate any relevant information into appropriate sections or articles." does this perfectly (though is somewhat lengthy)--Kyle_(talk) 17:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel similarly, Kyle: the "This is a trivia section"/"This section contains a misc. collection of information" wording doesn't really say anything. It has no teeth! People can tell it's trivia on their own, but that there should not be a trivia section needs to be made more clear. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Make the second line the first line, and come up with a new subtext? If the template is a cleanup template, then it might be better to link to WP:Handling trivia first and WP:Trivia second. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 15:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A revised suggestion. Which apparently doesn't draw quite right for some reason... But you get the drift. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 16:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think its ok, but I like mine better for some reason:

--Kyle_(talk) 17:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really like either of these. There's a good reason Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections was moved to Wikipedia:Trivia sections - because it's not so simple that it can be summed up by the word "avoid." I like the "this is a miscellaneous list [...]" formulations because they're informational and neutral, and the second line already explains clearly what action is suggested. If that's not enough emphasis for you, make the text in the second line the same size as the text in the first line.

We should avoid the term "trivia sections" because our definition of it is not clear or conventional and may be understood, like much WP jargon. I'd also emphasize that it really isn't enough to link to a guideline that explains it all; many people simply don't read the guideline and base their understanding on their conventional interpretation of the terms used in the template. Dcoetzee 19:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If "discouraged" is going to be the adjective of choice, then I think Kyle's is looking like the best bet thus far. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with much of what Dcoetzee says above, either of Kyle's or Nick's suggestions above are an improvement over the current template. I think a hybrid of the two is even better:

--Father Goose (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be totally happy to support either version here. To me, avoided and discouraged end up meaning the same thing and I do not really have an opinion on whether or not to include "trivia section" because I don't have any trouble understanding what is meant by it. In response to Dcoetzee, the second line does explain what to do just fine, what we need is a template that sums up the problem as well. The "this is a miscellaneous list.." formulations do not do this in an obvious enough way, in my opinion.--Kyle_(talk) 01:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Avoid kinda feels like "hey, you should stay away from that" while discouraged feels more like "hey, that's not what you're supposed to do, watch it". Even though it's a cleanup tag, with the word avoid in the tag, it gives a sense that the information in that section should be avoided. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the person. For me, the connotations of both words are basically the same.--Kyle_(talk) 03:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) All right, let's try another tack:

--Father Goose (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I like this one, it's good. I agree that any of the above are an improvement over the current version. Dcoetzee 04:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

My only problem with it is that it might be hard to understand what is meant by disorganized. I think I am actually leaning towards Father Goose's hybrid version now.--Kyle_(talk) 17:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I like this one too. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 05:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Father Goose - sorry, but I've swapped the "This is" text for the version preceding it ("Lists..."). I really think the "This is a collection of disorganized information." text is not right; to me, it focusses too much on the "This is a bad section" aspect and not enough on the "why it is bad." --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the case, I moved the wikilink. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Ckatz here, the "Lists..." version is much better.--Kyle_(talk) 18:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That's all right, I'm good with any of the variations we've been discussing in this section. They all do a better job of reflecting WP:TRIV than the prior version did.--Father Goose (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I also like the current version as compared to the previous version. I would still prefer "are discouraged" for the sake of avoiding "avoid," but no other complaints. Dcoetzee 01:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I am so tired of this tiny cadre of people who wishes to weaken the wording of the template, it was fine before. Please revert it. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 18:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tayquan et al, the previous wording was best and the most definitive. Trevor GH5 (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

In what way? Please describe your position with a bit more detail. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ; the previous wording was more "stern", but that doesn't mean it was more effective. People only follow guidance if they agree with it, and the new wording does a much better job of explaining why we disfavor trivia lists. The old version was a "nag tag" which people clearly didn't heed anyway. The hope is that with this one they're more likely to go, "Oh, okay, I see why this is a bad idea."--Father Goose (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Simply saying the previous wording was "fine" is not an argument; we've presented a number of concrete reasons why the previous wording was poor, and you are not responding to those points. This isn't a cadre of pro-trivia people trying to "weaken" the template - just trying to make the template more accurately describe the guideline that it claims to represent. Dcoetzee 07:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Myself and several other people disagree with the "concrete reasons". The worst offense of all is the complete removal of the word trivia from anywhere on the template, which removes any neutrality. "A rose by any other name is still a rose." Trevor GH5 (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I happen to think the opposite is true here: not all trivia is trivia, so the rewording focuses on what the actual problem is, instead of making unhelpful generalizations.--Father Goose (talk) 07:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Not all trivia is trivia? Do you understand what you're saying? I don't. The previous wording said that relevant information should be saved. I've rarely seen a response so bizarre. Aaron Bowen (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that I linked to two different pages in that statement; to write it out more explicitly, not all material found in trivia sections is trivial in nature. (Follow the links for an even more detailed look at the distinction.) And the template still says relevant information should be saved, just organized better: "Please relocate any relevant information into appropriate sections or articles." This is more or less the advice given by the old version, though the new one does a better job of explaining the underlying rationale and the wording is a bit less convoluted.--Father Goose (talk) 09:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This ignores the real-world usage of the template. In most cases the problem is not that useful encyclopedic information has been jammed into a bulleted list under a "trivia" header - it's that there's a trivia section at all, full of reference to characters in Saturday morning anime shows and continuity errors picked out by editors from the source. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If you believe this, you're entitled to create a separate proposal to engage this issue. The template should accurately reflect the guideline it links to. As it stands, Wikipedia:Trivia sections is primarily a guideline about article organization, and not about removing spurious trivia sections. I support the new wording. Dcoetzee 17:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the template should reflect real-world usage. The point of the template is to stick it on articles so that they get fixed, so it should be tailored to accurately reflect the stuff being tagged. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

We do have {{fictionrefs}}, which probably addresses the issue you have in mind. It can't really be helped if people add inappropriate or less appropriate cleanup tags tho. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 17:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, sometimes both are needed. In this particular example, the fictionrefs have been segregated (and tagged) separately, so the trivia section only contains the exciting personal insights. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) That's a pretty overgrown trivia section there in Hawaii Five-O, I must admit. But just putting the tag on it -- whether it's the old wording or the new -- is no magic bullet. And I don't see how the old wording more accurately reflects what should be done there -- "could be improved" was so wishy-washy, and much more than "inappropriate" (i.e., WP:NOT) items need to be removed -- a lot of the entries have only the vaguest connection to Five-O. However, several of them have reasonable relevance to other articles (like the actors' bios), and the new template wording specifically mentions that moving stuff into other articles is sometimes the best choice.

At any rate, rather than keep jawing, I'll start cleaning the list.--Father Goose (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the article itself is a mess, reading more like a narrative (without sources) than an encyclopedia article. I had to start in on some heavy rewriting before there were even useful places to move the trivia items.--Father Goose (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting the width issue

So this is constantly reverted with claims that the consensus is to keep this template nonstandard. Rather than just pointing to precedent, let's discuss whether there's actually any need for a width attribute here.

It has been claimed that the width attribute allowed the template to coexist better with images, tables etc. This is a limitation of the parent template, if at all, and I reckon most problems like this should be fixed now.

I think it's time to abandon the width attribute and always inherit from the parent template. Comments? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the reasoning is that this is a controversial template that was indiscriminately inserted into thousands of "trivia" sections by a bot, so we can at least make it less bulky/ugly. Given the fact that it usually appears alone, there's no harm in this (and the "width" attribute enables proper stacking in the small number of instances in which it's necessary). —David Levy 09:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

To emphasize, this template is almost never used with another one, so there shouldn't be a need for stacking. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 11:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone explain the "stacking" argument? David Levy says that the width attribute is needed for stacking, while you say that it isn't? I also don't really buy David's argument that adding dead air to the side of the template (and thus making it nonstandard) makes it "less ugly" in any objective manner; we shouldn't be adding random aesthetic markup to templates where we can avoid it.

I'm not going to address the issue of it being spammed onto articles, although I will say that trivia sections which bear tagging are a blight on most articles anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

1. NickPenguin and I are in agreement; the template is rarely stacked with others, so the "width" parameter is needed only in the rare cases in which it is.

2. You appear to be misunderstanding the situation. The version with the "dead air" (displayed when the parameter is utilized) is the standard ambox design. If we were to remove the special code, the tag would be displayed that way in all instances. —David Levy 12:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I would be misunderstanding. I want this template to default to standard ambox width, which obviates the need for a "width" parameter which fixes it to be so. I can't see any real rationale for this template to be artificially reduced in width: "ugly" doesn't cut it, being subjective, and evidently the "ugliness" of full-width hasn't prevented it from being the overwhelmingly popular choice for project banners. As the rationale for keeping this parameter (and the non-standard default) is split across several archives, I thought this would be a good time to discuss its removal in one place again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

1. There's nothing "artificial" about deviating from the arbitrary width specified by the parent template (which exists purely to enable elegant stacking, something that seldom applies to this particular tag). Template:Ambox contains code specifically intended to enable such deviations (which were envisioned to occasionally be desirable).

2. You're mistaken in your belief that "'ugly' doesn't cut it." Yes, that's a subjective assessment, but so what? The appearance of every template (including the ambox template) is based on subjective assessments.

3. No one has argued that the standard width is inherently ugly; we've opined that it's ugly (or at least less aesthetically pleasing) when applied to this particular template. Given the fact that the standard ambox width exists solely for aesthetic reasons, this opinion is a perfectly valid rationale. —David Levy 12:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I'll concede the point, but I would argue that if such "elegant stacking" (examples?) is rarely applicable here, then there shouldn't really be a need to keep it around in this template (let alone default it to nonstandard width).

2. Well, the point is that fullwidth is no uglier here than it is in, like, the thousand other amboxen on WP. You appear to have argued that this template is uniquely ugly because it got botspammed onto a lot of pages, but I can't see that it's uniquely so.

3. Well, why is it ugly in this particular case? I'm afraid that I really can't see the issue, other than that because the actual notice is pretty short it leaves a lot of dead air in the template. Anyway, I'm genuinely interested in discussing this point.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

1. In requesting examples of elegant stacking, you seem to imply that you're unfamiliar with the ambox template's purpose. Examples are located right at Template:Ambox and at Wikipedia:Article message boxes#Stacking demo.

The fact that the stacking issue rarely applies here is why it's okay to default to a nonstandard width; elegant stacking is the entire reason for having a standard width in the first place.

2. (reply to items 2 and 3 above) No, I'm not arguing "that this template is uniquely ugly because it got botspammed onto a lot of pages." That's why users complained about its ugliness and wanted to have it reduced in size (if not removed outright). It's one thing to have an uncontroversial tag appear in a small number of articles (most often at the top, where a standard width allows it to stack well with other tags) and quite another thing to have a controversial tag appear in thousands of articles (usually at the top of a lower section, where it very rarely is stacked with other tags, so the extra width accomplishes absolutely nothing of value). And yes, the tag's brevity (stemming from the same compromise that included the width reduction) creates a great deal of empty (and subjectively ugly) space for most users when the standard width is used.

3. What harm do you believe is being caused, and what benefit do you believe would be gained by defaulting to the standard width? —David Levy 16:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Oh right, yes, I get you. But stacking isn't the sole reason for standardisation; standardisation is pretty good in itself. I'd argue that in absence of a proper rationale, doing what most other templates do is the right idea.

2. & 3. Well, people complain about the ugliness of amboxen all the time. It's not particularly hard to complain about things. However, this template isn't unique in that it's used in a lot of pages, nor is it unique in that it's usually used alone, nor is it unique in that it's usually used in subsections. Other templates appear to cope with being used in such a way without defaulting to being of nonstandard width. And while "the extra width accomplishes absolutely nothing of value", nor does it appear to have any detrimental effect. It's just a box, and if it's not page-width then there's a bunch of dead air where there would be bits of dead tag. Just using the standard width would (a) allow for this template's code to be simpler and (b) make Wikipedia's amboxen a little more consistent. I'm quite big on consistency. I figure that if we're going to have cleanup amboxen on the articlespace in the first place, that we're only making things worse to make them arbitrarily inconsistent. And it's not like {{trivia}} is some minor tag which uglies up article sections: it's a marker for what is usually a clear and obvious MoS violation in the form of fancruft or dazzlingly unimportant commentary. People who are worried that such sections are marred by a big template would be best solving the root problem and rewriting the section. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Indeed, there were multiple reasons behind the standardization, but the standard width exists solely to enable elegant stacking. There is no other reason behind it, and it carries some disadvantages.

The opinion that the encyclopedia's appearance is improved is a proper rationale (given the fact that improvement of the encyclopedia's appearance is the entire point behind the ambox design's existance). You're entitled to disagree with said opinion, of course.

2. If there are other tags that contain this little text and are used alone with such frequency, perhaps they should be made smaller too.

3. "Allow[ing] for this template's code to be simpler" is a non-issue. The tiny bit of extra code isn't harming anything.

4. A great many trivia sections contain encyclopedic facts that merely aren't ideally organized. We encourage users to contribute without worrying about mastering the proper formatting, and there isn't anything remotely resembling consensus for the notion that we're better off without this information than we are with trivia sections.

The tag's purpose is to provide a simple notice and categorization, not to distract readers (who are under no obligation to edit) or annoy editors into fixing the problem. It was agreed upon long ago that this issue is relatively minor, and therefore warrants a small, succinct tag (at most). The subsequent ambox standardization was not intended to indiscriminately supersede such decisions; exceptions were envisioned and planned for.

5. The extra width's "detrimental effect" is that it makes the pages look worse to many people. You, conversely, believe that the current inconsistency makes the pages look worse. Both are valid (albeit subjective) opinions, but only the former has been expressed by many individuals and used as part of the basis of a compromise that helped to resolve a heated dispute. Consensus can change, of course, so initiating this discussion certainly was reasonable. —David Levy 23:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You've made good points, so I'm only going to address 5.: that was indeed the reason I brought the issue back up, to have precisely this kind of debate. I still reckon that standardisation is the better call here, but it's obviously up to the community as a whole to decide to make that change at this point. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Derail, and question. Do all other section maintenance templates use ambox and a standard width? If only some, then I'm not sure what the argument is. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the project has been trending towards this for years, yes. Certainly the majority of cleanup templates (section-specific or otherwise) default to full-width at this point, and did they not then I wouldn't be here arguing the consistency point. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

So if everyone else is doing it, then why should this template cling with tooth and nail for the sake of clinging? And if you look at Category:Articles with trivia sections, the number of newly added templates per month has been chopped almost in half from this time last year, so the template is not nearly as ubiquitous as it once was. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 22:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"For the sake of clinging"? Did you read my above explanations? —David Levy 23:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Some people don't like whitespace, some people aren't bothered by whitespace, some people prefer multiple implementations, some people like standards. If no one gives in, then this issue is going to come up over and over, and if many (most?) other templates use standardization, then I think that is a good direction to move in. With standards, at least problems get treated equally different. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a valid opinion (with which I disagree). I only object to your previous assertion that the style was retained "for the sake of clinging." —David Levy 17:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. But this issue keeps coming up, and standards are a way to improve quality through consistency. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 19:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that (and strongly supported the adoption of this and other template standards), but I also believe that exceptions are okay when backed by consensus. (And keep in mind that the ambox design was never intended to be immutable, so the underlying code was deliberately written in a manner that enabled such deviations.) Should the longstanding consensus to keep this template as compact as possible be displaced by consensus that the standard width is preferable in this instance, I would, of course, respect and abide by that. —David Levy 20:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well maybe we can have some different people chime in with their thoughts. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 22:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally do not have all that much of an opinion on the width of the template since I can't really say it looks better (or is less noticable) one way or the other. However, I support keeping the template at standard width since we cannot seem to agree on it. The debate seems endless since it is entirely up to personal preference on what seems better and there is no real way to compromise (unless we feel like slightly widening the template to bring it closer to standard while still keeping it non standard to please everyone else). The only way to really end the debate is to just say that there is not enough support for nonstandard width and therefore leave it as standard. As far as I remember, there was not exactly a strong consensus for going non standard in the first place.--Kyle_(talk) 17:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The automatic width already is a compromise (given the fact that it appeased users who wanted the template to be completely removed).

Also note that many of us who supported the adoption of the ambox design (the aforementioned standard) did so with the understanding that it would not be deemed sacrosanct.

Regarding what "looks better," I ask that you please view this comparison (based on my display configuration) and share your opinion. —David Levy 05:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I supported having the nonstandard width previously because the wording we had agreed on just barely caused the second line of the template to spill onto a third line (on my computer, anyway). Now that the wording is shorter overall, the template is more compact and it is my feeling the custom width settings are no longer needed.--Father Goose (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You're basing this assessment solely on how the template appears on your screen. On mine (and many other people's), the reduced text made the situation worse, not better; there now is even more empty space than there was before. (Here is a comparison.) As there are many display variables (operating system, resolution, browser, text size, et cetera), some users were placed in the same position that you were in before (with the text barely spilling onto a third line). —David Levy 05:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Does it really do full width like that, not 80%? The standard ambox width is with 10% margins on either side. Do all other amboxes of standard width look terrible too?

I know there are many display variables. Just as my assessment is based on what's on my screen, yours is based on what's on your screen. How does it look for users other than you and me?

Mind you, it's not a hugely important issue for me either way. However, I did want to explain that with the smaller text, I have moved from "in favor of nonstandard width" to "neutral, leaning toward standardization".--Father Goose (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Does it really do full width like that, not 80%? The standard ambox width is with 10% margins on either side.

That is 80% width. (My screen resolution is 1400x1050px.) Here is an in-article comparison.

Do all other amboxes of standard width look terrible too?

No, because most contain significantly more text.

I know there are many display variables. Just as my assessment is based on what's on my screen, yours is based on what's on your screen. How does it look for users other than you and me?

It automatically adjusts to match everyone's display settings. (The box always is slightly wider its contents, no matter what width that amounts to on a given screen.) If not for the stacking issue, all of our messageboxes likely would be configured in this manner; the desire to have the templates stack elegantly (something that seldom applies to this tag and can easily be toggled in the rare instances in which it does) is the only reason why we have a standard width.

Mind you, it's not a hugely important issue for me either way. However, I did want to explain that with the smaller text, I have moved from "in favor of nonstandard width" to "neutral, leaning toward standardization".

Because it now looks fine on your screen? —David Levy 19:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Is 1400x1050 a common screen resolution? I consider myself to be a bit of a tekno-geek, and my monitor only goes up to 1400x900 (although it's a widescreen). I suspect that you may be in the minority when it comes to having difficulties with viewing this template. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 22:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

1400x1050 is the most common widescreen laptop resolution these days. I had a 1400x1050 laptop five years ago. (I should point out that I use widescreen monitors of that resolution or higher most of the time, and I'm an favour of full-width here.) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never been much for laptops, can't fix them. But I would imagine that not all the people who browse Wikipedia have the same technical specs as the people who edit Wikipedia. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

More laptops are sold than desktops these days, and 1400x1050 is commonly available on entry-level machines. Just pointing out that your assumption here is wrong. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so if the majority of users will experience this formatting problem, is there a way to both implement the standard while at the same time reducing visual issues? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a good question to which I don't know the answer. Regarding the percentage of users with a high enough resolution for this to be an issue, I don't know that either. I do know that the automatic width is designed to display as intended for everyone (so the template looks as good for you as it does for me), and the only downside seems to be that it doesn't conform to an arbitrary standard that was never intended to be immutable and that exists solely for a reason that rarely applies to this template. —David Levy 00:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is it said that standard width exists solely for stacking? That doesn't sound any more plausible than the idea that infoboxen have standard widths because someone might want to stack them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The ability to elegantly stack templates was the reason behind the selection of a standard width (and one of the main reasons behind the creation of Template:Ambox). I don't recall any other rationale being discussed, and the only one that I see now is that we should use it because it's the standard. —David Levy 12:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Size

I think it should be more like this if you wish to complain on how big it is:

why not make it like this? ViperSnake151 01:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. —David Levy 01:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Urgh. Please no. Making the text difficult to read is not the solution here. And frankly, what with the lack of current participation in this discussion from the part of the community making the "it's too large" claims, I'm beginning to wonder whether deference to them should be a factor any more or not. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

1. The text size is exactly the same as that currently used for the second line. Are you suggesting that's it's okay for some (but not all) of the text to be "difficult to read"?

2. Huh? You know that these users exist. Since when are they required to preemptively monitor the talk page of a template that already reflects their concerns to ensure that a longstanding compromise (not deference) isn't overturned in their absence?

3. Does the bottom example in this image look good to you? Does it look better than the top example? —David Levy 10:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

1. There's precedent for allowing the "cleanup" text to be small, but the "policy" text should be regular. We should either follow that example or err on the side of readability.

2. I know that they exist. I do not know in what numbers they exist. They aren't contributing at all currently, and yet are being treated as a majority in that we've begged the question of whether consensus is to have a small template.

3. I don't feel that the difference is significant enough to outweigh the other factors involved. I also feel that we've rather been led up this path by taking as a given that the cleanup text has to be as terse as possible.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

1. So...it's okay for half of the text to be "difficult to read" because "there's precedent" for that?

Well, "there's precedent" for this template to be smaller than most. We agreed on that as an acceptable compromise quite some time ago, and most users seem to be okay with it. For some reason, you now wish to undo the compromise, apparently on the basis that a standard (which was never intended to be unconditionally applied) somehow dictates this (not because of any actual problem that exists).

2. And people have come out of the woodwork to demand that the size be expanded? I count six participants in this discussion, with the vast majority of comments coming from three of us (NickPenguin, you and me), despite the fact that several others have participated in the wording discussion.

I don't know why you would expect users content with the status quo to suddenly show up and defend their position.

This isn't about which binary option a "majority" prefers. It's about a longstanding compromise that helped to settle a heated dispute and evidently satisfied most users (and now is contested because it deviates from a standard created for a reason inapplicable to this template).

3. You didn't answer my questions, though I would like for you to expound on these "other factors involved."

I certainly don't believe that we should "take as a given that the cleanup text has to be as terse as possible," but that's where consensus has led us thus far. —David Levy 15:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Well... yeah. I've said all along that I'd rather we were as standard as possible. If everyone's singing off the same hymn sheet, it makes things much easier to bulk-change in future. For instance, it could be that {{mbox}} could in future be altered to use a "policy" attribute for the first bit and a "cleanup-instructions" bit for the second instead of the random bolding and small text that's used just now. But I also said there that I'd rather that we erred on the side of readability rather than aesthetics if we have to compromise. (As for precedent, my understanding was that precedent was taking other cases into consideration. Falling back on old talk on this template is inertia. but that's not important.)

2. No, but at least we're here now. I've no problem with waiting for external comments. I'm not trying to ram changes through. I raised the discussion here.

3. I hate to be accused of ducking a question. :) obviously the auto-width version has some additional appeal in that its left and right padding with regard to the text is symmetrical. But given the other factors (summarised: consistent default appearance, minimalist elegance of template code, less options to remember) I don't feel that this is a sufficient benefit. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

1. "Precedent" refers to "any act, decision, or case that serves as a guide or justification for subsequent situations." In this instance, I'm referring to the pre-ambox decision and its impact on any post-ambox decision.

2. I realize and appreciate that.

3. I disagree with the "consistent default appearance" rationale on the basis that the template's wording already causes it to deviate from the appearance of most otherwise similar templates (and on the aforementioned basis that the usual default exists for an inapplicable reason).

The template code issue seems nonexistent to me; the current code hasn't posed a problem (and is far simpler—on both the back and front ends—than that of many other commonly used templates).

The optional parameter is rarely needed, and if it accidentally is omitted in such an instance, the result is no uglier than how the tag otherwise would look in the vast majority of cases (IMHO). —David Levy 16:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of this text. Too small and thin, it looks out of place when considered with the other templates. At a certain point, asking "why" does reach a practical limit. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 11:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"Why" what? —David Levy 15:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, to me, the text size here seems smaller than the second line. Something about having the whole thing small makes it seem even smaller and actually hard to read. The second line on the current template is easy to read for me, but this is all slightly difficult. --Kyle_(talk) 17:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, why not this? ViperSnake151 15:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me.--Kyle_(talk) 16:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. —David Levy 19:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Gary King (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've implemented the above layout. Hopefully, this addresses everyone's concerns. —David Levy 01:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I can dig it.--Father Goose (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks, folks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

← Actually, any thoughts on this, to better standardize with other templates?

Gary King (talk) 06:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That's, err, exactly how it was before. That's what got us into this whole "width" argument in the first place. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see that now. Okay, I won't touch it – there certainly is a lot more discussion for this particular template than other cleanup templates. Gary King (talk) 07:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Small date

{{editprotected}}

Small date please, by replacing:

{{#if:{{{date|}}}|''({{{date}}})''|}}

With:

{{#if:{{{date|}}}|<small>''({{{date}}})''</small>|}}

To conform with other templates. Cheers. Gary King (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done Please doublecheck my work. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks good, thanks! Gary King (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection icon colour

{{Editprotected}} The template is fully protected, but the protected-template icon in the upper right is coloured gray, and would be somewhat confusing for others to think that it was semi-protected, which the template is not. SchfiftyThree ^(talk!) 17:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Y Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, what's the name of the template, please.

And how could I find or know it? -DePiep (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Trivia template variation for "In popular culture" sections

NOTE: Please do not add discussion here. This is meant as a link to a discussion on another talk page. Comment on the main discussion at Wikipedia talk:"In popular culture" articles#In popular culture template.

The Trivia template is used on the "In popular culture" sections of many articles. Since the trivia template calls for all information in the section to be relocated to other sections or deleted, it does not really address the problem of a "In popular culture" section which is too exhaustive, but should still exist in a condensed form. I believe a variation on the Trivia template should exist for such "in popular culture" sections with the text somewhere along the lines of:

This "In popular culture" section may contain trivial information. Please remove non-notable entries.

On a related note, I propose that a hidden comment like "<!-- "In popular culture" sections summarize notable appearances in popular culture and are not meant to be exhaustive. Please do not add any trivial items and provide sources for any items added. See [[Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles]] for more information. -->" becomes standardly added to the beginning of in popular culture sections.--Marcus Brute (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Section/Inline

Is there a section and/or inline version of this template? 65.93.13.60 (talk) 05:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a section template. In-line trivia should be removed, not labelled, surely? Rich Farmbrough, 15:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC).