Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Haemo (talk | contribs) at 22:26, 7 September 2007 (→Arbitrary break for ease of editing, 7: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
< September 4 September 6 >

September 5

Template:Trivia

Template:Trivia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is divisive and inflammatory. There is no policy on Wikipedia that defines trivia. And there is no consensus on Wikipedia as to what constitutes "trivia." I submit that there CAN be no consensus because "importance" is a matter of opinion. There are no Wikipedia policies on "importance." The divisiveness associated with this template is clear on the talk page of this template and also the talk page of WP:TRIVIA which it refers to. Placing this template under headings that are not explicitly labeled "Trivia" is inflammatory. This template cannot be used in a neutral way because the labeling of information as "unimportant" is inherently POV, which is against the WP:NPOV policy. If this template is meant to encourage integration of information, then I suggest a Template:Integrate be created instead.. — Pixelface 20:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break for ease of editing, 0
  • Comment. Where is this word 'unimportant' you speak of? And it sounds like you're not raising an objection to its use in actual "Trivia" sections, just to certain uses of it, which should be addressed by editing the template documentation, the WP:TRIVIA guideline, or by removing it from non-Trivia sections -- not by deleting the template itself.--Father Goose 20:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • trivia: matters or things that are very unimportant, inconsequential, or nonessential; trifles; trivialities.dictionary.com. Trivia (singular: trivium) are unimportant (or "trivial") items, especially of information. Since the dictionary definition of trivia has to do with "importance", tagging any portion of an article as a "trivia section" (unimportant) is inflammatory. If an editor claims that the phrase "trivia section" is meant to refer to information commonly seen on quiz shows, that shows that the template is divisive because the word "trivia" also refers to "unimportant" things. Divisive and inflammatory templates fall under WP:CSD#T1 in the criteria for speedy deletion. --Pixelface 21:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have only cited the dictionary definition, not common usage. When I say trivia I never mean unimportant, no one I know uses trivia as though it ment unimportant. That is why everyone (including you) has to say trivial to show their point. Trivial is used as unimportant, trivia is not. Just look at the wikipedia article about the word Trivia; it states "In the late twentieth century the expression came to apply more to information of the kind useful almost exclusively for answering quiz questions". This is the common usage, also look at the answers.com page specifically the espindle word tutor. It says "Something of small importance, but possibly entertaining." which also refers to the common usage. Just because the dictionary says something does not mean that is absolute.--Kyle(talk) 00:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • To say that "trivial" means unimportant and "trivia" has nothing to do with importance is a stretch. The various definitions of "trivia" are why this template is detrimental to Wikipedia. If one group of users is using {{Trivia}} to label information as "unimportant" and one group of users is using {{Trivia}} to label tidbits on Jeopardy that they want incorporated into the rest of the article, there is an obvious difference in how it's being applied. The template can never be neutral because the label of "trivia" is biased. --Pixelface 01:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't disagree more with Pixelface's reasoning, but I always felt the trivia template was more bothersome than it was helpful. The trivia guideline says that trivia sections should eventually be integrated with other sections, but there's no time limit for this. Trivia isn't as concrete a maintenance problem as say, lack of references; rather, trivia sections can exist for an open-ended amount of time. In the meantime, this thing sits in the middle of the article, until who-knows-when. 21:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Right, that's the problem. As I said, trivia isn't the same as other clean-up problems, yet the template regards them that way. 05:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I couldn't agree more. Leaving the trivia template warning on pages detracts from the article, making the articles appear ametuer-like and unprofessional. Sometimes there simply isn't a way to integrate trivia items into the content of an article - and removing trivia entirely would cause encyclopedia users to effectively "lose-out" on prurient and interesting facts regarding the topic. Lincoln gb 14:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elaborating further, I can't but ask, what is the alternative? When a fact doesn't fit anywhere else (especially in regards to film articles), where does one put that fact? In the interest of consistency, I think we should delete the template - keeping it would (again, especially on films) cause content-creators to have to come up with some "other" section which would list facts that may be relevant, but cannot be incorporated elsewhere in the article (causing random, inconsistent section-headers). Instead, I would be in favor of deleting the template, but still discouraging trivia sections whenever possible. I do agree in many cases relevant facts can be integrated - a compromise would be best; just don't have any ideas what such a compromise would entail.Lincoln gb 14:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's another common misconception. What you mean to say is, "When I can't find a way to integrate an item into the article, it should be removed," but that's also wrong. If you can't find a way to do it, you leave it where it is and let other people try. The only valid reasons for deleting trivia items is that they are unverifiable, non-notable, obvious, or irrelevant. You're never supposed to delete items that are notable, interesting, relevant, unobvious, and verifiable, no matter how long it takes for someone to find a way to integrate them. 15:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with you in regard to your statement about indiscriminate facts - I think trivia sections should be discouraged whenever possible. My point is, on every page that has a trivia section, the trivia template warning just looks aesthetically bad, making an otherwise good article look sloppy (at least in my opinion). The problem is, if Trivia sections are eliminated all together, some facts which may be relevant to the reader would have no place - causing the readers/users of wikipedia to lose out. I am hoping someone can think of a way to "have our cake and eat it too."Lincoln gb 15:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly: just because I can't find a way to integrate an item into the article, doesn't mean that someone else won't find a way. That is why this template is so useful: an editor can give others an opportunity to integrate content before taking any possibly controversial action themselves. And if something can't be integrated into an article, it is irrelevant to the article. If a way to integrate it is later found, the fact can always be readded. Neitherday 15:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Before taking any possibly controversial action," meaning removal. But we just determined that good info shouldn't be removed -- only info that doesn't belong in the article at all. This template warns of nothing. There is no possible controversial action, because what you're really referring to is a wrong action. The criteria for getting rid of information is not "We've waited long enough and no one's found a way." Information needs to be judged on its relevance and notability, and that can be done on the basis of the information itself, regardless of how it's presented. 15:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Nothing could be further from the truth. Read the trivia guideline. Trivia sections are only a format of presenting information -- all kinds of information, not just the trivial. Information that can not be integrated could be irrelevant, but that's not determined from seeing if the integration happens. It's from judging the information on its own merits. Placement inside a trivia section does not say anything about that information. 15:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course, merely being placed in a trivia section does not mean something is trivial. And yes, each item should be judged separately. But, if no one can come up with any way to integrate an item, then that is a very good sign that the item is not truly relevant and should be removed. Again, if someone comes along later that can integrate the information, it can easily be readded. Neitherday 16:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong. That is simply not how you judge relevant information. There is no deadline for integration. If that's the only way you can judge the relevancy of information then you'd best leave the decision to someone else. 16:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Trivia sections naturally tend to grow rather than shrink. They get stuffed with irrelevant information. The burden is on those who want to keep the information to provide relevance. If no one can establish relevance, then it should not be included. This isn't for one editor to decide and that is why the template is there: to get other's involved in fixing the problem. Trivia sections are not the only place that irrelevant information is found in articles, but it is generally the only place it is actively invited. Neitherday 16:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The burden is on all of us, not the contributor who presented the information. Relevance is judged on the information itself. Relevance is not the result of integration. I'm sorry if you can't understand that. By the way, I just integrated one of the trivia sections you just tagged and left. See Shinzon for an example of just how easy it can be. This is the problem with the template. It creates precisely these misconception. This person has no idea what the trivia template is actually meant for. It's not a warning about eventual removal, at all -- not AT ALL. I suggest you read through WP:TRIVIA in its entirety before slapping down another tag. 16:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Then you're further proof that the template should be deleted :) 16:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please spare me the smiley. The template will not be deleted anyway. Please be civil and assume good faith with others. :) —AldeBaer 17:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It didn't -- this conversation did. I looked through your contribs, because I figured you for someone who likes to tag things rather than fix them. Then I fixed it to make a point. This template encourages your behavior -- the wrong behavior. If you see something that needs to be fixed, you see this as an opportunity to say "either fix it or it's getting deleted." That's not what this template is supposed to do, and that's not the practice described in the trivia guideline. Try fixing problems instead of telling other people to do it. If you're not willing to fix them, then you shouldn't be tagging them either. 16:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Tagging and assuming others will do the fixing for you wouldn't be bad faith. It would just be the wrong use of the template. And your use of the template, as you've explained it here, already describes the wrong usage. 17:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Did I say that I assumed others would do it for me? No. However, this template allows me to give established editors a chance to make the edits. And before you accuse me again of suggesting ad-hoc deletion of information, I'm not saying my edits would be deletion of the material. What I am saying is that I've been burned enough wikidrama to tread lightly when starting to edit a new article. If the article needs a lot of clean-up, I am likely to establish the problems first before butting heads with any resident editors. Neitherday 17:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not what you said before: "...if no one can come up with any way to integrate an item, then that is a very good sign that the item is not truly relevant and should be removed." If you've changed your mind about that then I guess we're done here. 17:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Equazcion - you assert that a trivia list is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Unfortunately, you are incorrect. While the policy against trivia sections is one about the style in which we present information, style policies/guidelines are rooted in the five pillars, just like anything else. The reason we discourage trivia sections and work to integrate them is because trivia sections are lists of information, and lists of information are not discriminate. There is no way someone could improperly add a factoid to a list of factoids. --Cheeser1 17:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Equazcion - You again accuse me of suggesting ad-hoc deletion anyway. I have tagged trivia sections and then ended up doing much of the integration (see Arlington, Massachusetts for just one example). I stand by my statement that if neither I nor anyone else editing the article can establish relevance or context, then the is a good chance that it is not relevant. Please start assuming good faith, I am not out to ad-hoc delete information in trivia sections nor am I a lazy editor. Neitherday 17:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you misunderstood what I was saying (Cheeser). I commented on the judgment of relevancy based on a fact's placement and stagnation in a trivia section as being faulty. That's all. As for Neitherday, all I just did was quote you. I did not state any interpretation of that quote. I'm sorry if your quote bothers you. If you've changed your mind about it since you said it, then that's a good thing. 17:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You are quoting me out of context and implying that I suggest the ad-hoc deletion of the content in trivia sections, when I have stated repeatedly and explained that I do not. I stand by what I have said. I have not changed my mind. I think my position should be clear to anyone reading through this thread. Neitherday 18:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if your position is all that clear. You've said that stagnation in a trivia section is evidence that an item is irrelevant and warrants its removal. Yet you seem upset by that implication. If that is your position then it constitutes faulty logic and improper use of the template. 18:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure, I said that stagnation in a trivia section can be evidence that an item is irrelevant, but I have never said it is the only determining factor. However, having evidence that the content is likely irrelevant combined with no evidence that the content is relevant is likely to lead to a consensus to remove those items. This template is a tool to help build consensus around making necessary edits to improve an article, be those edits removal or, more often, integration. Neitherday 18:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I would suggest that you attempt to make such clarifications earlier on when making statement on a controversial subject, as long arguments such as this one could then be avoided. As for the merit of your argument, I maintain my original statement, that the template is more bothersome than it is helpful. See my reasoning there. 18:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • So you don't like it because it bothers you. See WP:IDONTLIKE. It's there to encourage clean-up, like most templates. The fact that you consider templates to be as messy as the mess they're attached to is.. what's the word... trivial. --Cheeser1 18:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say templates. I said this template. Read my comment more carefully -- I pointed out a difference between this template and other templates. So no, it is not an issue of IDONTLIKEIT. And please tone down the sarcasm. It's not necessary. 19:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Arbitrary break for ease of editing, 0.5
  • Keep. The wording of the template is supported established guidelines regarding trivia - it's not divisive or inflammatorory in the slightest. What constitutes trivia often tends to be a heading called "Trivia", and that's what this template is for - drawing attention to these sections and encouraging their removal and/or integration into the main text of the article. There's nothing wrong with this template at all. PC78 21:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that {{Trivia}} is being placed under headings that are NOT titled ==Trivia==. The template is being used in an inflammatory way by labeling all the information in a section as "trivia" or "unimportant." Due to various meanings of the word "trivia" (unimportant/miscellaneous facts/quiz show material), the name of the template and usage of the template is inherently divisive. --Pixelface 21:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the template is being misused by some editors, then the problem is with them, not the template. Perhaps it needs a more clear definition of what the template is to be used for, but that's no reason to delete a highly valuable maintenance tool. And I simply don't agree with your belief that it's inherantly divisive. Trivia generally means unimportant or (in the context of Wikipedia) unencyclopedic; there is no significantly different meaning that I'm aware of. Such content needs to be identified for cleanup, and that's what this template is for. PC78 22:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The template is being misused because the name of the template is Trivia. What constitutes "trivia" is a matter of opinion. I have already mentioned the common dictionary definition of "trivia" as "unimportant information." Wikipedia has no policies on "importance." Importance is completely subjective. Labeling information as "unimporant" is inflammatory. The issue of importance is divisive. And the issue of whether or not trivia refers to "unimportant information" or just general knowledge is also divisive. --Pixelface 23:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • We do have both a policy and a guideline regarding trivia though, a fact which seems to elude you. Challenge these if you must, but I won't keep repeating myself; I don't agree with your reasoning, and neither it seems do the majority of people here. PC78 23:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm familiar with WP:NOT#TRIVIA and WP:TRIVIA and the disputes behind them. They may eventually be kept as a policy and guideline, but that does not change the fact that labeling information as "unimportant" is inflammatory. --Pixelface 00:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • They are policy and guideline. Nothing is inflammatory about the template. It quite cleary says "Trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines", i.e. it refers specifically to trivia sections per guidelines, and it doesn't label anything as "unimportant". Do you even know what you're arguing against here? PC78 00:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • The 1st criteria for speedy deletion of templates is "Templates that are divisive and inflammatory." Template:Trivia is divisive and inflammatory because the concept of "trivia" is inherently divisive and the common definition of "trivia" as "unimportant information" is inflammatory. "Trivia" can be used to show contempt for something, but it can also be used to refer to general knowledge. Which meaning "trivia" refers to is a divisive issue. The *wording* of the template is also contentious, as seen on Template_talk:Trivia. And the disputes behind WP:NOT#TRIVIA and WP:TRIVIA can be seen on their respective talk pages. They are both relatively recent additions to Wikipedia. Their place as policy and guideline is both disputed. --Pixelface 00:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Kindly get off your soapbox and stop trying to make a POINT - you've already stated your opinion repeatedly. It's not "divisive and inflammatory" just because you say so, and you were promptly sent packing when you tried to speedy this template. The guideline is over a year old - how old does it have to be in your eyes? - and disputed or not (as many things are on Wikipedia) it's still there, so deal with it. I have nothing more to say on the matter, and it's patently obvious that you don't either, so I shall end it here. PC78 00:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Equazcion. The template is unnecessary. If something is unencyclopedic and uncalled for, just use your own judgement and be bold. --Asteriontalk 21:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So if an editor does not have time to integrate the material they can simply delete rather then leave this template?Vegaswikian 22:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not what he's saying at all. If content is unencyclopedic it needs to be deleted. If it can be integrated then it should be integrated. 14:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but compromise. Believe a rewording might be in order, such as The article could be improved by integrating relevant items into the main text and discussing the remaining items. I think inappropriate does not assume good faith, but it's not a reason to delete. Also, {{trivia small}} should be included in this TfD, and I wouldn't be opposed to the small version becoming the primary version.—Twigboy 21:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the template, 'inappropriate' links to WP:NOT, so I take it to mean any trivia items in violation of NOT (how-to info, statistics, crystalballery, etc.) should be deleted, and this is reasonable advice.--Father Goose 22:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seems more like a mistake to me. The editor probably meant to point the link specifically to WP:NOT#TRIVIA, and I doubt anyone seeing this template would take it to mean what you're suggesting. This is a trivia template, not an appropriateness template. 01:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that will work since the wording has been highly debated for a long time and a basic consensus was only reached recently.--Kyle(talk) 23:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Twigboy, you have fallen into the trap that the template has set, which is that your proposal pre-supposes that any fact in a trivia item needs to be "discussed". This is not true. There are tens of thousands of useful and valid facts in Wikipedia articles that happen to currently be sitting in a section marked "trivia". Tempshill 23:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let me put it another way: first step is to integrate facts into the article. Those that do not find a place in the article could be discussed (or boldly removed). I do not believe that every trivia item needs to be discussed, however.—Twigboy 19:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the template is being misused to incite conflict, that does not mean there's anything wrong with the template. One could use almost any template to incite conflict. The wording is consistent with trivia policy, which clearly establishes that trivia is not important. That's the definition of trivia (see also: trivial). The template, if anything, is there to avoid problems, by giving editors a chance to integrate the content into the article before the trivia section is outright deleted. Trivia policy doesn't give a deadline, but neither does WP:RS regarding {fact} or {cn} or {unsourced} templates. The fact that there is no absolute deadline does not mean we need to bring it to the attention of readers and editors of Wikipedia. There is no need to rename the template "integrate" - it already encourages integration, and having that template there discourages people from deleting the content until it has been sufficiently integrated into the article. --Cheeser1 21:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The NAME of the template is TRIVIA. If "trivia" means "unimportant information", the name of the template is inflammatory. The importance of the information is irrelevant -- Wikipedia has no policies on "importance." The inflammatory name of the template is the cause of the problem. It is used to label information important to one or more editors as "unimportant." The definition of "trivia" is also divisive. "Trivia" can mean "unimportant information", it can mean information commonly found in Trivial Pursuit, it can refer to the knowledge of Ken Jennings, etc. If the purpose of the template is actually not to show contempt but to encourage integration, I suggest this template be deleted and a new template created from scratch called Template:Integrate. --Pixelface 22:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Unimportant" is not a pejorative or inflammatory word, in a vacuum. If the term is abused, it's abused. One could abuse the term "non-NPOV" or "original research." Please do not SHOUT AT ME (that's what caps mean) because I don't agree with your perspective. If you'd like to provide polite emphasis, try italics: The name of the template is trivia. If you think the term "trivia" is such a problem, your issue is not with the template, it is with the policies and guidelines that use the term already. --Cheeser1 05:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Those who have followed my edits around this topic may be surprised at this. There is definitely a need for a good, strong clear "Trivia" template, such as this one has been at various points in its checkered career. However, this is such a bone of contention, and has subsequently been so badly defanged, declawed, emasculated, watered down, neutralized and made nicey-nice tht it is practically totally ineffective, and probably more the object of mirth, puzzlement or scorn on the parts of whoever happens to see it in articles here, that it's time to put it out of its misery. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The original point of this template was to say "WTF! There is too much trivia! Get rid of it or integrate it!" hence the original name {{toomuchtrivia}}. That was really my only intent for the template. I don't see why they completely changed why it exists. MessedRocker (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, I think a template would be better suited to situations where trivia lists have gotten out-of-control. We don't need to call attention to every trivia section. 22:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know, I'm one to believe that one policy or guideline on Wikipedia should apply to everything, either all trivia should be integrated, destroyed or kept; or no trivia should be removed. --tgheretford (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template accomplishes two purposes: 1) Editors can work from the cat or template links to find pages that need trivia integrated, and 2) While it is present, it encourages users to work new facts into the body of the article instead of just adding them to the list of trivia. Very useful maintenance tag. -- But|seriously|folks  21:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I agree with Bsf's points for keeping the tag. Trivia sections pop up quite frequently, and for the sake of article quality I think that this tag is necessary.
      That said, I would support the creation of an Integrate template as a replacement. I think that such a tag would be quite able to provide the benefits of the current Trivia tag while avoiding the controversy over the term trivia. However, there is currently no generally accepted Integrate template, and until it exists I just can't support doing away with such an important template.Ricree101 05:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This template discourages random collections of facts and promotes their inclusion in the prose of articles. The template could always be revised or updated, but deletion is not necessary. Pats1 22:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this may be as surprising as some other !votes here, but I think the template is useful. I agree that relevant content from sections of miscellaneous material should generally be integrated. (I strongly support the inclusion of literary references and the like in separate sections--or articles when there are enough of them--but that's because I don't think they are trivia.) I have sometimes gone to pages marked with this template and integrated the good stuff and removed the junk. I think the wording is close to right. I think it would be useful to have the title changed, because then it could be used for other things: integrate seems a good choice. DGG (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and may I add that the problems with the template having "divisive and inflammatory" uses is usually a problem with the people seeing the template and getting their egos bruised, rather than the people putting the template there in the first place.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75th Trombone (talk • contribs) 17:15 7 September 2007
    • That is why the template should be deleted. "Trivia" means "unimportant information." The person who puts the template there is labeling all the edits that follow as "unimportant." It's insulting and it discourages new contributors to Wikipedia. That is the issue here. The name of the template is Trivia and the template cannot be neutral because "unimportant" is not a neutral word. Of course the editor inserting the template isn't offended -- their edits are not being labeled "unimportant." "Trivia" is a matter of opinion and there is no policy on Wikipedia that defines "trivia." There is not a ban on trivia on Wikipedia. --Pixelface 17:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break for ease of editing, 1
  • Keep. The definition of 'trivia' is a red herring: sometimes, editors add a random collection of facts on the end of an article, and use the heading 'Trivia'. This templatee goes atop of such sections to remind editors that this is not an encyclopaedic practice, and I for one entirely agree with it. Some of the information in these 'trivia' sections is actually important and can safely be incorporated in the text in its proper place; much is just rubbish and should really be culled mercilessly. This template is useful as editorial maintenance, guiding editors to sort the wheat from the chaff in the trivia section. Sam Blacketer 22:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The definition of "trivia" is not a red herring. The founder of WP:WPTCU thinks "trivia" should be banned from Wikipedia.[1]. This template may be useful to editors who attempt to integrate information into other sections, but it is also being used in an inflammatory way to disparage certain information or to indicate contempt for certain information. To label an entire section as "trivia" violates the NPOV policy (unless a heading is explicitly labeled ==Trivia==). --Pixelface 22:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bordering on Strong Delete. The template, because it exists, is applied often by "hit and run" editors, spying a trivia section and templating it. All that this causes is people naming the section as something else. Let's get back to real editing instead of application of labels. And let's lose this item as a start of that process. Fiddle Faddle 22:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme keep It promotes editors to get rid of pointless and random facts. This is an encyclopedia, remember? Many of the facts in a "Trivia" section are plain garbage that in no way need to be there. And in most instances, they are not sourced. Also, I agree with those above who say that it also promotes to put information that is (keyword) worthwhile into the main article and not a triv section. Codelyoko193 Talk HHC! 22:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: per, JFW, Nahid, Equazcion and others, Jza84 23:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per submitter. There is no real definition of "trivia". This aside, trivial items would be better if integrated into the article rather than belonging in a list, but this is not always possible, which is reflected in the WP:TRIVIA guideline. The template has been spammed across thousands of articles for whom a trivia section is perfectly appropriate. The worst thing about this template is that it encourages editors to remove good information because it's not in the desired format, which I think is a crime. Tempshill 23:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Acts as a good warning to both editors and readers that trivial content is unencyclopedic. Hopefully it also acts as a preventative measure for other worthless crap being added. The JPStalk to me 23:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I understand the reasons for the submitter's nomination. Notability is a matter of perception, and this template can easily be tacked on pretty much any section that someone feels is a trivia. And sometimes there is important data in trivia sections that just really doesn't fit into the other sections. However, the problem of placing the template on undeserving sections is the fault of the editors, not the template. The Clawed One 23:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I myself detest trivia sections because one can't tell if it actually is trivia or is it is WP:OR. And there actually is a policy that encourages the integration of trivia-related sections into its article, see WP:NOT#INFO. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sesshomaru, this comment struck me as very strange - why would a trivia section make you think that something's OR? OR is a universal issue and it doesn't seem to me that its placement could possibly make a difference. Tempshill 23:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that a list of trivia items is meaningless. Rather I'd prefer the trivia tag to maintain the status quo; trivial elements can be merged or removed. I've yet to see sourced/referenced trivia, albeit I think a trivia section is unneeded anyway. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Meaningless" is a strong term, isn't it? I mean, a trivia list might be a list of 10 interesting facts, which add to the reader's understanding of the topic. How is that meaningless? Tempshill 04:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete An opinion about Wikipedia policy masquerading as Wikipedia policy. Chubbles 23:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you elaborate on that? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just curious as to what you exactly you mean. 00:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Much less abrasive than the previous template. This change may also encourage readers to incorporate trivia items into the body of the article instead of outright deletion, as which seems to be the case more often than not. Reason turns rancid 23:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not belong in the article space. Readers may need alerting to accuracy or POV disputes, but they can make their own judgement on whether information is trivial or not (and on the appropriateness of its presentation). If templates are needed to catagorise 'problem' pages to be fixed, they belong on the talk page (and this template is written with article pages in mind). CarelessHair 00:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that it's misused cannot be used as a reason to delete it and neither can be a fact that some people who write worthless info have hurt their feelings by being told that they indeed write worthless info.--Svetovid 00:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful cleanup template that denotes there is a problem with the article that should to be fixed. Nominator's rational can be summed up as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Farix (Talk) 00:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I would say that the labeling of a given piece of information as "trivia" can be summed up as "I don't like it." You don't have to like a piece of information, and you don't have to think it's important. As long as the information follows the policies on no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view, it's perfectly fine for inclusion in Wikipedia. This template is not a neutral point of view and it can't be modified to satisfy that requirement -- because "trivia" is a biased term used to refer to information that is "unimportant." --Pixelface 01:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The template is primarily used on sections titled "Trivia" or arranged in a trivia format. Wikipedia's guidelines already state that such information should be integrated in with the rest of the article instead of listed as trivia and the template explains that fact. So putting this template onto a trivia section does not imply that the editor thinks the information in the section is useless, unimportant, or trivia — though some of it may be. But it does mean that the editor thinks the information is presented in an unencyclopedic format and should be fixed. --Farix (Talk) 02:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tempshill and CarelessHair. This template is defacing a large number of articles with no useful purpose. 6SJ7 00:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all the excellent reasons articulated above. Also, encyclopedias traditionally don't have trivia sections. The whole point of an encyclopedia is to provide information in a structured written format. If I want an incoherent, disorganized collection of random information, I'll read an almanac or play Trivial Pursuit. --Coolcaesar 01:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - What other encyclopedia has chapters/sections labeled "trivia?" This template encourages editors to get rid of "trivial" information that should be cited and integrated into the body of the articles themselves. Happyme22 02:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Template echoes the guideline (which is based on policy). More discussion could result in a change of policy but until then keep it. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 02:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Per farix, it's useful. The template is a less divisive option than immediate deletion or removal to talk pages, and with a date, allows easy deletion with validation after some time has passed without action. It also provides easy access to the relevant guidelines so that users can understand WHY the gtagging has been done. ThuranX 02:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, according to the guideline, you're not supposed to delete trivia just because a certain amount of time has passed since its tagging. I think this misconception is one of the reasons the template is counter-productive. Many people see it as a standard maintenance tag along the lines of {{unsourced}}, which allows deletion of the associated content after enough time has passed (regardless of changes to the template wording, it would seem). This isn't how trivia sections are supposed to be handled though. 02:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep A template should not be judged by its misuse (or potential for misuse). Used correctly, this template serves as a useful reminder and pointer for old and new editors that encyclopedia articles are stronger when composed in prose and that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Gwinva 03:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your first sentence there. If a "this is the rules" template is being flagrantly and continuously misused, then it is obvious that it needs to be modified, as the misuse is at least partially due to some misleading phrasing of the text in the template or some ambiguity about its reference to a policy or guideline. Tempshill 04:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my first sentence was clumsy. What I meant was let's not vote for keep or deletion based on use or misuse: ie. poor practice doesn't mean the idea was wrong. By all means modify the template, so it is less prone to misuse, and much more clear what it's really for. Gwinva 04:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The template works by alerting new editors and others that the information should be moved to other parts of the article and discourages WP:LISTCRUFT. -- Ssilvers 04:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I agree with the idea that it's not theoretically possible to reach a consensus on what constitutes "important", in relation to facts stated in an article. Trivia sections uniquely provide a place where relevant facts, which don't fit in well within the flow of prose in the rest of the article, can be enumerated -- thereby enhancing the article's usefulness to the reader. More information is always better than less information, in terms of encyclopedia articles. So I feel that trivia sections serve a unique and useful purpose, so I move to delete the anti-trivia template and mantra. I say that with one caveat: items listed within a trivia section need to be properly sourced/referenced, just like all other statements in articles. Piercetheorganist 04:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, as per Gwinva's rationale, a section "should not be judged by its misuse (or potential for misuse)." 04:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Ha! Well said. I'm not actually against a section where you can list/bullet those points which don't quite fit anywhere or have a gem of a fact that needs input from other people to really strengthen, but the problem with "trivia" sections, is that they invite the deposit of trivial information. So perhaps the section itself needs modifying to make it clearer what it's for? (ie retitling, or the template modified to explain what the section's for). ?? I don't know... Gwinva 04:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you (takes a bow)... However, again you're saying that their potential for misuse is the reason you're against them. Sure, things need to be done to prevent those sections from building up useless information; but then, you aren't actually against the section itself. Dare I suggest that you change your vote? ;) 04:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Arbitrary break for ease of editing, 2
  • Run a bot to remove all instances, and start over. This is my 2nd vote in the spirit of instant runoff voting in case my "delete" vote above fails, which it is going to. The "trivia" tag was actually spammed onto thousands of articles by a bot, including, presumably, thousands of articles where a trivia section is OK per the guideline at WP:TRIVIA. The effects of this bot need to be reversed. Let us editors tag the bad trivia lists by hand with this template, if it's going to continue to exist. Tempshill 04:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That has my vote. The only thing more unnecessary than this template was its automatic addition to over 5,000 articles by a bot. 04:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Mine too, I don't want the template to be deleted just because of its misuse by a bot some time ago. People may disagree about the wording/ existance of the Policy, but as long as it exists the template should stand , but be used correctly as with the guideline.--Kyle(talk) 04:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with this way forward, it allows for the editors to be able to objectively look at the trivia sections involved and decide if it is warranted, something a bot that automatically tags trivia sections cannot use. -- Sabre 10:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for usage in Trivia sections. It encourages editors to integrate the useful info into the article, but also discourages editors (especially new wikipedians who may not know the guideline) to add even more trivia to the list (which an 'integrate' template wouldn't do I think). Trivia sections derive from the article's value, makes it look more like a fanpage than an encyclopedia. Ninja neko 04:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very useful, albeit somewhat flawed. Find something better to replace it, and I'll go for that instead. But until then, keep. Jmlk17 04:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is totally absurd. This template is named after the sections it goes in. If there is a problem with the names of these sections then rename them. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as far as I know encyclopedias don't have trivia sections.. we already have WP:DYK where you can post these type of sections. Encyclopedias are or try to explain subjects deeply not vaguely.--F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 05:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It has been repeatedly asserted that the template is mean-spirited or in some way inflammatory, on the basis that "trivia" is a demeaning, inflammatory, or divisive word. While the term is not, on its face, pejorative, one claims that it is inflammatory to call contributions to Wikipedia "unimportant." However, this argument is being very selective about the definition of trivia. The definition, quoted by one advocate of such a position, is actually "unimportant, inconsequential, or nonessential". While this person bolded "unimportant," I would point out that "nonessential" is the interpretation at hand - trivia is information that is not essential to an encyclopedia - it is unencyclopedic. Nonessentiality is the basis for exclusion of trivia as unencyclopedic. I don't think one can compel deletion of the template because one choses to think that "trivia" is an inflammatory term because it might mean "unimportant" in some other context. Furthermore, "unimportant" itself is not really inflammatory unless one has presumed the bad intention of others. "Trivia" and "unimportant" are just as insulting as "unencylcopedic" "original research" "non-NPOV" etc. They could all be inflammatory or divisive, depending on the intent of the person who uses the term, and depending on how the reader interprets use of the term. Believing that this template is automatically inflammatory or divisive seems to ignore the fact that we should assume good faith. --Cheeser1 05:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The word "unimportant" is present in most definitions of the word "trivia."(wordnet.princeton.edu)(dictionary.com)(m-w.com)(cambridge.org)(encarta.msn.com) Even if one ignores the "importance" of a given piece of information, it's "essentiality" and "significance" is still called into question by labeling that information "trivia."(bartleby.com) There is no policy on Wikipedia on the "essentiality" of any given piece of information. Which edits are "essential" is subjective, and which edits are "trivia" is also subjective. In order to say that a statement has no sources, no opinion is involved. It either has a citation or it doesn't. However, to say that a sentence is "trivia" -- that is promoting the POV of one editor. The word "trivia" can NEVER be neutral. I assume good faith, but the founder of WP:WPTCU has stated that he thinks "trivia" should be banned from Wikipedia.[2]. Category:Articles with trivia sections is being used as a watchlist by a group of editors in order to delete anything they personally don't like. The label of "trivia" CAN BE inflammatory to some readers and it does not help Wikipedia. This template is being put under headings that are not labeled ==Trivia==. The template is being misused because the common definition of "trivia" is "unimportant information." The NAME of the template ({{Trivia}}) encourages editors to use it to tag any information they feel is unimportant. This leads to other editors being insulted because someone is calling their knowledge of a topic "unimportant." The template is inflammatory, divisive, and CANNOT be changed in order to comply with the NPOV policy because "trivia" is a loaded word. --Pixelface 15:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You say there is some group of editors out to destroy trivia, that the word "trivia" is pejorative and inflammatory, and that "trivia" = "unimportant" = nonNPOV. However, that does not make it so. No one is conspiring to destroy trivia. They are working hard to conform to policy, but tagging trivia sections and integrating their content into articles. Sure, people misuse the tag. Sure, some people are a bit too trigger-happy on the delete key. This is true of any question of inclusion on Wikipedia, be it WP:OR, WP:N, WP:NPOV, or WP:NOT#TRIVIA. Some people have a heavy hand, and some people can be a bit mean. That doesn't mean you should delete a tool that is generally (if not alway) used to constructively contribute to Wikipedia.
      • If somebody can't take things with a grain of salt and is offended or inflamed by the mere use of the term "trivia" - well, I think at that point there's nothing we can do. I don't like the term "original research" - when my contributions are labeled as OR, it's upsetting and inflammatory. Okay. So let's do away with WP:OR and have a free-for-all of nonsense? Or perhaps you advocate banning bots, since a bot did something bad with the trivia tag? I certainly hope not. Trivia is not something an editor "feels" is unimportant - it's something we, as a community, have decided is not worthy of inclusion. Hence the policy discouraging the inclusion of trivia. Don't forget, contributions to Wikipedia are subject to merciless editing. If something merits inclusion, it merits inclusion in the regular text of the article, not in a trivia section. If an editor is too lazy or busy to integrate it properly, s/he should drop a note on the talk page and ask someone else to do it properly, not create or add to a trivia section.
      • And finally, if you're going to quote dictionaries, you should read them carefully. Those definitions of trivia include "unimportant" as one of many possibile things, connected by an or. That means it does not always mean "unimportant". Like I explained, in this case "trivia" means "nonessential." Because it is not essential to Wikipedia - trivia is determined to be not appropriate for inclusion - it is unencyclopedic. --Cheeser1 03:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment there is some confusion here--this is not the discussion of whether or not we should have trivia sections. This is the discussion of a template to mark them. it remains for the talk page on the template to decide what it should say. I dont think there is much doubt that much of the material in most of these sections should be integrated or removed or reorganized. In fact, for those like me who think a good deal of the material is encyclopedic, this can serve as checklist for the ones that need improving to make that more evident. Scanning a number of these sections, there is a great deal of material in them which is simply there as a result of lazy editing, and could much better go in the appropriate portion of the article. DGG (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Tag is useful and is easy to remember. It is needed to add to "miscellany" sections in order to remind editors that information should be integrated into the rest of the article instead of being assembled in a hodge podge mess of a section. — OcatecirT 05:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break for ease of editing, 3
  • Keep The template is needed so that people are able to mark articles that contain trivia sections in them so that others can come along and integrate any facts that need to be integrated if the person who noticed the trivia section does not have the time to do it himself. --Credema 05:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though maybe reword. "Divisive and inflammatory" is irrelevant; people get upset with a whole load of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but it's not our job to pander to them. If the section is in fact trivia, then it deserves to be marked as such in order to encourage people to integrate it into the rest of the article. Sure, if I thought hard enough about it, I could imagine situations in which this template can be abused in a way that would be divisive, but getting rid of something because it could be abused is silly (in all the articles I have read, I have not seen one example of this being used incorrectly). Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 06:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- it was difficult to choose on this, but I veered toward keep because it encourages crap to be removed from the Wikipedia pages. I've been known to be a hit and run editor who deletes trivia sections tagged with {{triva}} completely. Usually the content is a bunch of crap or random unrelated information. The only thing I do not want to see is people integrating crap into the pages and say, "look, I integrated irrelevant crap into the page to suit the trivia section box -- woo and yay" -- Guroadrunner 06:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly even under WP:SNOW. If/Since the current wording sucks, it should be changed back to one of the previous phrasings. 17Drew 07:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Pixelface - by adding this template adding this template, information is labeled as unimportant, which is against WP:NPOV. --Qsaw (talk) 07:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- as long as we have a policy or guideline on trivia sections, we need an appropriate template (or three) for flagging things that cross those policies or guidelines. Studerby 07:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Divisive and inflammatory"? What the heck? "Divisive and inflammatory" would be "trivia sections f—ng s— and anyone who adds to this section will get harassed". I think the wording is quite reasonable in comparison. =) There's no guideline on what's trivia, but a trivia section has a quite self-explanatory meaning if you look at many articles (section titled "trivia" that contains bullet-point random facts, or something similar). Yes, the wording could use work, but that can be solved without deletion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivia sections work to store facts that have yet to be integrated into the main narrative of the article, and advocating wholesale removal/discouraging these sections may deter casual editors.--BigCow 08:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Trivia sections are better than no information. Sometimes there are useful information that can not be integrated in a meaningful way into continuous text. But if someone want to improve an article than just do it. There is no such template necessary. This template itself disfigure an article more than a trivia section and is itself a maintenance problem. --Lasttan 08:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To be honest, I do not really care. The problem is not the template but where, how and why it is used. However, as I have never seen it used in any sensible way ever, I go for Delete. Mlewan 09:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very necessary - • The Giant Puffin • 09:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not all trivia can be integrated to the prose (since paraphernal) and discourages addition of other interesting information. Pictureuploader 09:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the worst aspects of Wikipedia is the proliferation of "XYZ in popular culture" sections. It's impossible to take an article seriously when 50% of it is a list of mentions of the subject in American cartoons.
  • Delete or Change. You know, sometimes a trivia entry can be useful. Sometimes bits of information just don't fit into an article while leaving prose and readability in tact. I think that's more important than having the odd article with a trivia section.
  • Delete. The language in the current template makes it sound like it's prohibited to post trivia. A factoid every now and then is definitly fine. --Jack Zhang 10:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (to the last three "delete" responses): This is not a debate about whether or not trivia is useful or encyclopedic. It is not, according to Wikipedia's policy on the matter. This discussion is about whether or not to delete a template regarding trivia. --Cheeser1 11:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point, but you should be telling the Keep responders the same thing. 11:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Don't tell me what I should or shouldn't be doing - I am in no way obligated to make sure I respond to every single comment/vote to which my comment might apply. Furthermore, I feel like deleting a template for no reason is not the same as keeping it for no reason (since "keep" reflects the status quo, which doesn't necessarily require a reason). --Cheeser1 13:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Whoa there nelly. I was not commanding you to do anything, I was only making a point. Your comment was directed at deleters, when your reasons apply to keepers as well. Furthermore: Keep absolutely, positively, unquestionably does require a reason (at least, just as much as Delete does). Every !vote requires a reason because we are not voting. We are discussing. 13:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Changed my vote after I realized I had mistaken the template. But the rationale is the same. Content needs to be decided on the talk page, not through the use of the template. I also suspect that others are incorrectly voting on this. -Nodekeeper 09:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Way too many people here voting delete comment on the policy instead of on the template voted upon.--Svetovid 11:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Way too many people here voting keep comment on the policy instead of on the template voted upon.-- 11:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Relatively few compared to the delete voters.--Svetovid 12:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that both sides are guilty of the same thing. "You did it more than us" isn't a good argument. 13:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
So it's "them vs us" now? I don't subscribe to that stupid concept. Of course, all votes not commenting on the template, whether they are keep or delete, need to be ignored at the end.--Svetovid 14:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you meant by your "them vs. us" remark. I was saying that "You did it more than us" was your basic argument, not mine. Agreed on the rest of what you just said though. 14:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The template is box clutter. It's used in a "hit and run" fashion -- editors just add the box, instead of improving the article. I don't think that it's solving the problem that it's meant to address. It's just littering pages with boxes that rarely get removed. -- Danny (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly, but that means you're saying the way to deal with the hit-and-run clutter of trivia is to add even more hit-and-run clutter. The cure certainly shouldn't compound the problem. Also, this "hit and run" fashion is much more attributable to the template -- nothing could be more "hit and run" than a bot automatically tagging 5,000+ articles. 12:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I personally can't conclude that the template either adds to or lessens the problem. I have seen many cases of it prompting the process of thoughtful integration/deletion and I have seen many cases where it sits for months unheeded (and of course plenty of cases where it is simply deleted itself without any other change to the section). As for the bot example, surely we aren't going to delete a template because it can be abused, or wouldn't they all have to go? 74.134.255.99 12:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you should've said that to begin with, instead of effectively saying that trivia sections cause the same "problem" as the template does. As for deleting it for misuse, I'm not necessarily for deleting something because it has the potential for misuse; but the fact remains that this template was misused, and deleting it would correct that misuse. The only other solution is to run a bot that would globally remove it and allow individual live editors to place it manually, which I would be for as well. However I do have other reasons for thinking the template should be deleted; see my !vote, at the top of the page. 12:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
What does a work of a random bot have to do with the template per se? Comment on the bot, not the template. BTW, I've acted based on this template many times, which improved articles, and I presume others have as well.--Svetovid 12:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing, it has nothing to do with anything. I was merely responding to a comment, it was relevant to that argument and nothing more. If you want to see my reasons for thinking this template should be deleted, see the first vote, up near the top. 12:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Arbitrary break for ease of editing, 4
  • Keep. Trivia sections in articles definitely need to be tagged in some way to entice people to integrate them. These sections can often be far too long and almost unreadable, and thus they must be highlighted so that someone can integrate the listed facts that are referenced. Maybe the wording on the template itself can be changed, as already stated in the nomination. Eagle Owl 15:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Trivia sections cheapen Wikipedia, and I believe the trivia template serves as a good notice that Trivia is to be avoided, and trivia items should either be dropped or integrated into the main article. --Matt 16:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with a stick for rampant bot-driven abuse. Either that or require all placement to be by hand - David Gerard 16:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your suggestion that bots are overreaching their usefulness. I still think we should keep the template, but maybe create a (database) dump of pages containing the section Trivia and letting users tag as deemed necessary. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 18:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:NOT#INFO says "current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply...Trivia sections." WP:NOT is saying that articles should not simply be trivia sections (or "trivia collections" if you want to go by WP:5P), not that articles cannot have trivia sections. WP:NOT is saying that articles should have more information than just a trivia section. WP:NOT#INFO also lists Plot summaries and says A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. Plot sections are not discouraged on Wikipedia. It's just important that other information is presented along with it. Sections with the heading ==Trivia== can also be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic, and the presence of Did you know... on the Main Page supports that view. --Pixelface 16:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, you've very nicely clipped one sentence of two that are appropriate. The entire relevant part of WP:INFO reads: current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply trivia sections. Large sections of of indirectly-related details should be avoided as they diminish articles' overall readability and utility. Not only does it continue past what you said, to mention not just that an article shouldn't be entirely trivia, but that sections of trivia should be avoided. It links to WP:TRIVIA, which lays it out more explicitly: This is not "Don't include unimportant material." This guideline does not attempt to address the issue of what information is included or not, only how it is organized. Trivia sections need to be integrated. The point of this template is to mark them as needing integration, to help users find integrate them. If anything, Trivia policy and use of this trivia tag are saying that these contributions are important, because the point is to integrate them into the article. If the use of the term "trivia" is offensive and inflammatory to users who support including such content, why on earth do they post it under a "trivia" heading?? --Cheeser1 04:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but revise I like how the template has been changed to say that "Trivia sections are discouraged." That is good, but maybe revise the template so that it is less intrusive in the article, that way it won't be annoying until the trivia section gets fixed. -Freak104 16:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wish there was a better way to address trivia sections than spamming cleanup boxes in lots of articles, but I haven't seen it yet. The problem with trivia sections, in a nutshell, is that they invite rapid addition of poorly written, poorly organized, and poorly sourced content. I'd be fine with renaming this template to Integrate, but that's not what we are being asked to decide on today. Kingdon 17:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A section should not be judged by its potential for misuse, as a wise man once said. But we're here to discuss the template and not the section itself, and your comments on the former are valid. 17:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Regardless of what a wise man said, policy and guidelines say that such sections do not conform to the Wikipedia's style requirements (in part, for the very reasons Kingdon stated). And please don't misconstrue his statement about trivia sections to somehow say that he's not here to discuss the template - his comments were perfectly relevant to the issue (note "I wish there was a better way ... but there isn't" - a better way than using this template, he means). --Cheeser1 04:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remark: There's nothing like the proposed deletion of a widely-used tag to liven things up. This has attracted users from the furthest reaches of Wikipedia. Look how long this thing has gotten after just a day. I'm enjoying this :) 17:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Notice of the deletion is at the top of the template itself, and the template is on about 8,000 pages. No surprise at the amount of attention it's garnered.--Father Goose 17:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know, I'm the one who moved the notice down inside the box to make it more noticeable. Just observing :) 17:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This template's existence has been full of divisiveness. Surely there is a better solution. —WikiLen 17:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - trivia is defined and recommended to be integrated into the article or removed. This tag is an essential tool in controlling trivia. GlassFET 17:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question: There is a colleague template {{Trivia small}}. Does the result when this monster is closed affect that, too, or will that be a separate amount of controversy? Fiddle Faddle 17:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Farix and Coolcaesar. And no offense, Pixelface, but there's a difference between debating and whining. Anthony Rupert 18:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry; I didn't want to appear to make a personal attack. But I still stand by my initial vote. Anthony Rupert 18:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you can demonstrate how the word "trivia" can only be used in a neutral way, your input would be appreciated. --Pixelface 18:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since when does someone have to prove that something can only be used in a neutral way??? As far as I know, there are very few words that could be used only in a neutral way. Among them are "the," "a," and "an." There is no way you can expect Wikipedia templates to use words that can never be used in non-neutral ways. There are not enough words of that sort to construct reasonable sentences (especially about policies and guidelines, which are inherently judgmental in some way or another). The point is that editors should use their own free will to make effort to use the word "triva" (and the template of the same name) in a neutral way. Which can be done. The fact that it is not automatically neutral is irrelevant. And please do not tell a user when his or her input would be appreciated. That's not up to you to decide. --Cheeser1 04:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a necessary cleanup template Lurker (said · done) 18:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per points raised by many above - abuse of the template, and disagreement over the guideline, do not create a valid rationale for deletion. --Ckatzchatspy 18:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - better a trivia section than a load of meandering non-sequitur in the prose. I prefer Wikipedia to other sources of information specifically because it it a treasure trove of little-known and oddball facts - I can get the generic description of a thing elsewhere if that's all I'm looking for. Regarding the template itself: a trivia section should always be at the bottom, just above references. That way it doesn't interfere with the prose. Another salient point is that a trivia list allows users who haven't the time (or skill with the english language) to organize facts into prose to post their information. And isn't it better that the information be out there asap? This whole project is about collecting and disseminating information. Perhaps as a compromise trivia sections can be relegated to the talk page or a new tab of raw facts. Staypuft9 18:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what you're saying. Your argument seems to be in support of trivia sections, but you haven't said anything about the template itself, and voted to keep. Could you clarify your position somewhat? Are you aware that the template is the trivia notice itself, not the actual trivia section? 18:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - People keep saying the template encourages editors to do something, but what is the evidence for that? Slapping a tag on something is not a useful action. If you want work to be done, do it, don't slap an ugly tag asking other people to do it for you. Zompist 18:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, you win for best delete argument thus far. I wish I'd thought of that. Yes, just where the heck is all the evidence of the supposed good this tag is doing? And the categorization can be accomplished in a number of different ways that don't involve sticking a tag in the middle of the article, so that's no argument. Plus, like Zompist says, if you see work that needs to be done, do it. Tagging is way too easy and there's no evidence that it helps. 18:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Tagging isn't (or at least shouldn't be) so much asking other people to do it for you as fair warning. I've boldly integrated what is useful and deleted what is not from trivia sections in the past and as reward I've gotten fanboys aplenty howling about how I've ruined the article and reverting me en mass. At least by tagging the section and leaving a note on the talkpage you let regular contributors get involved in the integration process if they so choose to do so. that is where this tag is useful. I will agree though, drive by or bot tagging this article into every single article that has a trivia section and then never revisiting to clean up the problem isn't a very good use, but that doesn't necessarily warrant template deletion as much as it warrants a change in editor behavior.--Isotope23 talk 19:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, you are looking at this template completely out of context, this template does not label information as unimportant, but rather tries to state that such "points" should be integrated into the article, and not listed. A real encyclopedia does not list facts in such a basic, unprofessional way. -Sox207 20:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you saying that {{trivia}} is used to tag sections as important so the information can be integrated into the rest of the article? "Important trivia" is an oxymoron. --Pixelface 20:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since you're very invovled in this dispute, you should probably know that the point of the trivia policies and the point of the {trivia} tag is to help editors integrate important material into the article. Nowhere is anyone claiming the information is actually unimportant, but that is presented as if it were trivia (which is, as you've pointed out, unimportant, inessential, or otherwise not encyclopedic). We should present such material in an appropriate fashion (not as a part of a "trivia" or similar section, but as an integrated part of the article). See here before you claim that trivia policy and {trivia} templates are making claims about the importance of particular content. --Cheeser1 04:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and continue to tweak the template if needed to emphasize that this is about integrating useful text from self-described Trivia sections not deleting. This should be a positive message that you've got useful information, so integrate pleaseShawn in Montreal 14:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break for ease of editing, 5
  • Strong Keep Useful tag. Not only points out the problem on the page it is used on, but often serves to educate editors on the issues with trivia sections in general. Neitherday 19:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with another template explaining that the trivia should be integrated into the article, such as Template:integrate. The trivia is sometimes important to the article and shouldn't really be discouraged. --Jon Terry 19:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two useful purposes for this tag: indicating where lists of random facts could be integrated into the article, and discouraging the addition of/encouraging the pruning of lists of pointless mentions of a term "in popular culture", etc. There are a lot of articles on X where the attached pop culture includes tons of factoids in the form of 'there is a thing named X in some video game/book/movie'- despite the fact that the thing in the game shares nothing with the topic being discussed except a name. --Clay Collier 19:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then the useless factoids should be deleted. This doesn't mean that this template is useful. Tempshill 20:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In a perfect world, for every situation where there is a template an editor would just fix the article instead of slapping a template on the article. That isn't realistic; not everyone has the time, the expertise, etc. to fix every problem that they recognize. Templates like this one allow editors to quickly signal other editors interested in the article, or create reminders for later action. --Clay Collier 22:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-I can't say I like it, but I don't see a compelling reason to delete the thing. If its used wrongly, take it off the article. I never liked the whole "fire and forget" maintenance tag use either, I'd prefer editors fix an article rather than just slap a tag on it. That, though, is a problem that's hardly unique or limited to this template.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mostly due to the lack of policy support. The best we have is a guideline and that only recommends that it be avoided. Until a policy is established, and can provide support for the edits performed in it's name, there is no real use for this template. Suggesting that someone else do something is not a solution, give me the backing to edit it and defend my rationale. Padillah 20:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This template is widely and permiscuously misused. There is a distinct difference between facts that are important, interesting or entertaining, but don't happen to fit in easily to the body of the article, and "trivia". Rather than slapping on this template and running away, to would be better for editors to relabel "trivia" sections as "miscellaneous facts", and delete those entries which may be truly trivial. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 21:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point of the prohibition on trivia sections is one of style (see WP:TRIVIA). Wikipedia is not a list of facts, and regardless of whether a list contains important facts or not, it is a list of facts. It should be reformatted as an integrated part of the article. Renaming the heading does not change the fact that it is a list of facts. --Cheeser1 04:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What we are trying to do with the Triva template is encourage integration of that section into the article. There's no need to label something as trivia if that is the goal. Similarly, anyone else noticed the popping up of trivia-like sections under other names? By labeling trivia sections as needing integration, instead of giving editors a way of saying that information presented in that manner is needing integration, we are encouraging that kind of behavior. Walker9010 21:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point of labeling it is to help people find trivia sections. Please also note (see WP:TRIVIA) the whole point of trivia-related policy is to label things as requiring integration. Any other interpretation of trivia policies or {trivia} templates is misinformed. --Cheeser1 04:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Check out the WikiTrivia project. Sorry for the slightly off-topic comment, but WikiTrivia hopes to address a good number of the concerns that have been voiced here. 21:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - The content that is placed under trivia sections are nearly always better off integrated into the main article. Sections that contain a hodgepodge of miscelaney should be discouraged. Cacophony 21:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - or Change - I agree with Zompist's comment (a few sections above) because this is what I keep saying meself. Slapping down tags I feel is useless because more often than not, that tag will remain there forever. The tagger's usually won't take the initiative themselves to fix what they think is wrong with the article - usually because they might be knowledgeable with the subject and aren't sure what to change - and they hope the person or persons who wrote the article (who probably feel there is nothing wrong with it in the first place) will come by and fix it. They probably won't bother. So the tags sit, because one person sees something is wrong, but isn't sure how to fix it - or they feel someone will eventually come by and clean it up - but that can take months if at all and the ugly tags remain. There are a lot articles - especially for entertainment - TV shows, music and movie articles - where editors (including myself) like to add bits of "behind the scenes" info or interesting facts that I feel don't really fit in with the article's main text. These bits of info could simply be added to a small list which I see nothing wrong with. I know there are huge trivia lists on a lot of articles that are getting way too big, but perhaps we can permit small trivia sections - like 5 items at most. Anything that gets too long then add a tag to explain the section is getting cluttered and should be cut back to just the most important things. We could start fixing trivia lists by making sure everything is sourced. Unsourced statements should get deleted and I guarantee that will probably cut back most lists by over half. Cyberia23 22:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are plenty of editors wikignomes if you like) that systematically work through cleanup backlogs improving articles that have been tagged, so "slapping down tags" can be useful. --BelovedFreak 22:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOT#TRIVIA -- trivia-type sections should be discouraged based on their indiscriminate, unconnected, and frivolous entries. Any pertinent entries should be merged into the body of the article or place on the talk page for implementation down the road, and this tag helps identify these unencyclopedic sections. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, renaming if necessary. Very useful template which allows editors to find trivia sections, deal with them by integrating items properly into the article, and generally improve articles. Placement of the template within any particular article may be controversial, but then anyone can remove it if they think it's inappropriate. --BelovedFreak 22:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zompist.. this template is unnecessary and only causes problems. Plus, it's a dumb policy, but even if it was a sound policy, this template is bogus. DeusExMachina 23:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Penultimate Keep. this template is the most useful tool in wikidom for preventing runaway trivia sections filled with unsourced uninteresting, insignificant, and unencyclopaedic kruft, from overtaking articles. --emerson7 | Talk 23:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? "Penultimate Keep"? "...most useful tool..."? How does the existence of this tag prevent trivia sections from filling up? I have seen several trivia sections fill despite my best efforts to tag and empty them. If people are going to post trivia they are goingt o do it regardless of how many tags are displayed. Padillah 01:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Pointless tag, used mainly by editors who expect other editors to do cleanup for them. The trivia bugs you? Edit it yourself. Captain Infinity 00:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and rename if necessary. Trivia information doesn't belong to an encyclopedia, and useful info can be integrated elsewhere. If you delete this template, all articles will start growing with unorganized trivia sections again. ---Majestic- 02:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but perhaps rename, reword, and redirect to something like Template:Integrate, and come to a better consensus on how this tag should be used and applied, and when it should not be applied. I think the real problem is not this template, but that there is no consensus on the meaning of "trivia", and there is a variety of extreme opinions about what to do about such "trivia". There is also no consensus on whether all trivia sections should be eventually integrated or removed, or that in some cases a trivia section really is the only place certain types of relevant information could actually exist. The existing trivia guideline is a reasonable attempt, I believe, at compromise between the "all trivia is interesting and should be kept" and the "trivia is a menace to Wikipedia and must be eliminated at all costs" extremes. While I believe that this tag, like some other cleanup tags, serves little or no benefit to the reader (unlike a tag such as {{POV}} or {{unreferenced}}, which alerts the reader to reliability problems), I can see that there are many editors who want such a tag to assist in cleanup efforts. I do think though, that it would be better for such tags to be on an article's talk page, as they do clutter up the article as much, if not more than, the trivia section itself. (I'd say the same about tags like {{proseline}}, for instance.) I also think the template should be moved from the "Potentially unwanted content" to the "Style" section of the cleanup template page. Finally, I believe it is wrong for this tag to be indiscriminately applied (by bots or humans) to any section that happens to be called "Trivia". DHowell 02:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dy yol 03:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break for ease of editing, 6
  • Strong Delete. To me, most Wikipedia trivia sections are actually good things; they keep little minor details together without cluttering up the main text of the article. As someone else pointed out, the actual Wikipedia policy is a lot less anti-trivia than the template itself--even after numerous edits. I always thought the template was a form of "holier than thou", elitist intimidation; it needs to go!!! --RBBrittain 04:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the risk of infuriating some people, I agree with you almost completely. I'm glad someone said it, and I'm even more glad it wasn't me :) 04:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - This template is well intentioned, but more often than not, it and its parent policy are used to blank sections of articles deemed "trivia." More importantly, some especially zealous editors often remove information from an article based on what their own interpretations of trivia are and are not. If we are to keep this template, at least put some kind of instructions for proper use... if it isn't haphazardly pasted in a section of an article, sometimes it just gets stuck at the top of a page, somehow implying that the entire article is trivia - again an extension of editor interpretation. Boo. MalikCarr 04:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RBBrittain. —pfahlstrom 04:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, replace with some kind of Template:Integrate - While I'm not quite as infuriated at the way this tag is used as some people are, I do agree that the way it is worded is somewhat inflammatory. More to the point though is the fact that the narrow focus of this template -- so-called "trivia" sections -- could be dealt with better by a more general "this section should be integrated into the main text of the article" template. It would be a far less potentially inflammatory template and would be more appropriate for use in sections that are not explicitly identified as Trivia, but nonetheless should (at least in the tagging editor's opinion) be integrated or otherwise moved into other parts of the article. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 05:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. - If my above suggestion is what happens, I would also suggest that Template:Trivia redirect to the new template. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 05:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing the name of the template is not material, what the template displays is. Vegaswikian 05:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • An excellent point - the name of the template is essentially immaterial (if we wanted to rename it, this should be a move, not a TfD, right?). --Cheeser1 05:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not an excellent point, it's what everyone already knew. Most of the people here aren't even discussing the nominator's reasoning, because they generally agree it's not valid. There are other, better reasons the template should be deleted though. 05:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
          • If everyone already knew it, then why did someone make a suggestion that indicates that s/he did not already know it? You're not making sense. --Cheeser1 07:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • My my, I step away for a few hours and everyone completely misrepresents my words. My objection is not to the name of the template, but the wording therin. I was merely pointing out that if my suggestion was followed (creating a template more broad in scope) then the name for this new template would probably need to be different. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 09:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I said most of the people here generally agree the nominator's reasoning is invalid. By everyone I did not mean every single person. However most people assumed your "excellent point" without the need to explicitly point it out. Even my vote, which was the first vote, said it, in not so many words. 14:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
            • I see plenty of people voting "keep but rename the template." Why do you insist on badgering people about minutia like whether or not I'm allowed to say that this point is a good point? The three of us agree that renaming the template does nothing. Why badger me about whether or not it was a good idea to point that out? --Cheeser1 17:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • You seem to mistake my statements for implications about what you should and shouldn't be doing. This is a discussion and I am responding to those comments with which I disagree. I'm sorry if you don't like that or can't understand that. I am not telling you what you should and shouldn't be doing. I'm only arguing, just like everyone here is doing. Please get used to it, as it happens often in Wikipedia. 21:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Rename or even Disambiguate (complicate it) - it serves a necessary function, though its current naming has disagreeable connotations. Go with more neutral wording as has been suggested above, or fork into a small number of relevant templates for this template's most common uses. --The Chairman (Shout me · Stalk me) 05:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've never liked the whole taboo on trivia. As long as it is done in moderation, I think trivia is, contrary to the actual meaning of the word, a useful part of an article. Notwithstanding this, I also feel that this template would appear on way too many pages, so many pages that include trivia otherwise thusfar not integrated into the article. Valley2city 05:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Trivia sections call attention to relevant items that may be awkard to integrate into existing sections of the article. They add interesting items which may cause other editors to reasearch more sources to spur new content. By encouraging interest in the subject, they help recruit new editors to investigate the existing sources, and help articles grow. So, KEEP@ (anon voted twice; this comment was posted near the top of the page and appears to comment on why trivia should stay) Excellent addition to most articles. Commonly used for important items where the editor may not have enough sources to justify a longer section. Often relevant and informative to my interests in the article. KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.193.243 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, just stop changing the wording every five minutes. Every time I see it now it says something different. --Richmeistertalk 07:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - From my experience this template has proven useful a few times, the content of the template can be rewritten but I just don't see a real reason for deletion. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm surprised to see this has been put up for deletion. I use it all the time, and it serves an important purpose. It's essential not just because it is used so often, but because people need to be made aware that trivia sections or sections containing disconnected facts lacking context are not acceptable in a good article. Richard001 07:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but develop some better guidelines for its use. I've seen massive improvements on countless articles where this template was added. Unfortunately, I'm also starting to see it on articles with no more than one or two pieces of trivia that really don't need or deserve to be integrated. Overall, though, it's been (and will continue to be) a great benefit to Wikipedia; the fact that a few people abuse it does not change that fact. If used properly, it is not at all inflammatory, and there are many many templates which can be inflammatory if used improperly, so that's not a valid reason to delete. Xtifr tälk 08:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a necessary cleanup template. —Ppntori 08:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a debate about whether the template should be deleted, not about the presence of trivia on Wikipedia. People may not agree about things like the wording or usage of this template, but the point is that it does enforce a valid Wikipedia guideline and it clearly summarizes that guideline with the current wording. If people don't like how it's used, that can easily be rectified without deleting the template. Pixelface's contention that "importance" cannot be defined is an argument about is probably best suited to contesting the guideline itself. The template itself makes no reference to importance and does not say information is important or not important. I'm not convinced that the template itself is divisive and inflammatory, although I'm sure that the guideline is. The majority of the debate should be about the guideline, not this template. As some people say, "Don't shoot the messenger" and don't delete this template.--Jtalledo (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point. Let's keep the template and get rid of the guideline? I don't see how that helps. We need to gut the trivia handling and decide what we do or don't want in Wikipedia. Then we can establish a policy and a template that reflects the policy correctly. Having a template with no policy doesn't add anything. Padillah 12:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point was that if the policy is a problem, we should change the policy, then talk about removing this template. Obviously, if trivia policy is changed or removed, the trivia template will be changed or removed. But to simply say "trivia policy is unfair, it labels information as unimportant" would be no reason to remove this template, but rather, a reason to discuss the policy behind it. Policy has decided that trivia is not a part of Wikipedia - important information in trivia sections should be integrated into articles. The rest should be removed. That is policy. This is not really up for debate (not within the confines of the TfD, anyway). --Cheeser1 14:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break for ease of editing, 7
  • Keep I have used this template, and I find it useful. It helps organize problem articles into a cleanup category. Shalom Hello 14:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but compromise per Twigboy. However unlikely, the current wording could possibly incite a flame war over what is inappropriate and what is not. If at all possible, I'd rather this not happen. Rephrasing the template would avoid lengthy discussions over what "inappropriate" means in this context. Raan0001 16:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Related proposal: Wikipedia:Relevance of content is an attempt to better define what 'is' and 'isn't' appropriate.--Father Goose 19:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong speedy keep, of course. Trivia is not about accuracy or relevance, but about context. People who add trivia to trivia sections must not be given free pass to do so. It must be strictly discouraged as the laziness to really contribute which it is. Write consistently and coherently, or don't do it all. —AldeBaer 16:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The argument that all trivia should simply be removed at editor's discretion is not valid since there is often salvageable info in trivia sections. It must be added into the article however. Maybe a compromise would be to roundly move all trivia to the respective article talk page? That way nothing would be lost, and people would be given an incentive to contribute usefully by expanding the article with contextually integrated and balanced information. —AldeBaer 16:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
      • That was practiced at one point, but WP:TRIVIA now advises against it. 18:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
        • In that case, we do in fact need this maintenance template. —AldeBaer 19:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
          • ...because...? 19:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
            • As a simple straightforward maintenance template that draws attention to trivia sections that should be salvaged for useful information to be integrated into the article text. Further, as a display of Wikipedia standards, as an encouragement and an incentive to incorporate information into consistent and coherent, contextually structured prose, and to thereby effectively contribute to the article's quality which adding to trivia sections is not, at least in that it presents information out of context. [Clarifying for Equazcion] Apart from that (and, depending on your own opinion, in addition to it), speaking only for myself, I believe that [t]rivia sections are unprofessional, as evidenced by their average quality, and the types of articles that usually contain trivia sections in the first place. —AldeBaer 20:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
              • Unprofessional, as evidenced by their average quality? You're backing up one of your opinions with another of your opinions. 20:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
                • I believe you're trying not to understand. —AldeBaer 20:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
                  • I understand just fine. I'm not asking for clarification. I simply question the merit of your argument. 21:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
                    • You didn't question my two arguments, or at least you didn't reply to either of them. —AldeBaer 21:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
                      • Ok ok I won't torture you anymore. I can't type any more responses without going into hysterics. Let's just say you win and I lose. 21:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
                        • You're not torturing me, you're just not replying to my arguments. That's not losing, it's not trying. —AldeBaer 21:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. I understand the policy discouraging trivia sections, but I feel a lot of editors are quite overzealous in trying to exterminate it altogether, and this template just demonstrates the extreme interpretation of the policy. Yes, trivia is discouraged, but at the margins they are unavoidable, or else we could just say just get rid of trivia altogether. Placing a template gives the appearance of improper usage, whether avoidable or not. Even if the stance against trivia was stronger, it's my experience that the trivia template hasn't achieved its goals on the pages that I have observed. --Roehl Sybing 19:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not achieving the goals may be solely due to the fact that a bot added most of the current entries. If you add several thousand entries, manually or by bot, it is going to take time to address them. So I don't see this as a failure. Vegaswikian 21:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That particular problem is one of usage, a failure of whoever decided to make the bot. But the poster's reasons apply also to individual editors who are overzealous in their tagging. 21:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, but rename I think this template can be useful if editors don't overdo it. But it should be rename as the meaning of the word trivia is quite unclear. Chris! my talk 21:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Based on my, maybe rather limited, experience, the tag has disciplined editors to provide sources and create integration. It may not be the perfect way to encourage that behavior, but it seems to work.--HJensen, talk 21:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I already voted delete or change a while back, but I think the answer is to do both of those. What I propose is a template:popculture which says something along the lines that this one does except (politer, so not to get noses out of joint, and) under the sub-heading of "References in popular culture" in whatever-article. Also, I leave the comment that template:trivia be changed to something like "The trivia section for this article has more than ten items. Please try to integrate relevant entries into the articles main text or explain why the items are needed on this articles talk page".
  • Delete (or Change) This template is problematic and overly strong. I DO think there could be a template saying "Too much Trivia!" Often times stuff should be incorporated into the main article or deleted. However, there is also a sort of information that is relevant to an article but also best fits into a trivia section. I made a case for this in the talk section of the guidelines page. Comment:The guidelines to discourage trivia sections were made with a majority vote but not consensus. Compromise should have been reached to discourage over rambling trivia sections without being against their existence entirely. If the guidelines aren't changed to this kind of compromise, conflict will continue. Pigkeeper 21:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Equazcion, your ID pops up against pretty much every contributor to this deletion debate whom holds an alternative opinion to yourself; may I suggest you hang back a little now on the comments? I for one have certainly grasped now that you dislike this template, and I'm sure others have too! There is also a significant number of Keeps now, and your efforts, however noble, won't do a great deal of difference from here-on anyway. Just a point, 86.156.101.185 22:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- definitely a topical area for cleanup, and one which is definitely useful. The tag identifies a definite need for articles, when properly applied. --Haemo 22:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vietnamesename

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, early close due to falling under speedy guidelines. Wizardman 23:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vietnamesename (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Obviously a test of some sort, which has no transclusions and doesn't seem to do anything anyway. I tagged it for speedy deletion, but was told to come here instead. — PC78 14:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:StarCraft faction

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete per CSD G7; sole author requests deletion. — TKD::Talk 21:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:StarCraft faction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The template is not used (or was ever used for long), and is unable to provide real-world encyclopedic information. It was created by me for use on faction articles, but is no longer needed due to a change in approach to the treatment of factions. It also creates a sizeable blank area at the top of articles that used it. It should be deleted. — Sabre 13:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Dab-criteria

Template:Dab-criteria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused, too informal and rambling, no real use for such a template. — Jack · talk · 02:40, Wednesday, 5 September 2007

Template:Dabneeded

Template:Dabneeded (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Function better met by {{split}}. — Jack · talk · 02:33, Wednesday, 5 September 2007

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_September_5&oldid=156366321"