Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections

Avoid trivia sections

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. We don't MfD active guidelines. Even if the guideline lost it's guideline status, it would be marked as historical. -- Ned Scott 05:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete because the costs outweigh the benefits. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it is distracting to have huge "This article contains a trivia section" boxes all over the place. Many authors have used trivia sections on a number of articles and each piece of trivia in the section may be informative, yet not warrant more than a random sentence TrueSilver 03:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Objection to the template notices does not invalidate this WP:MOS guideline, which descends directly from policy (WP:5P, WP:NOT). The guideline is fine, tho a bit watered-down these days from continued attacks, like this nuisance nomination. WP:SNOW this already. / edg ☺ ★ 04:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful guideline based on policy. Use of it will result in a higher quality article. The template placement has nothing to do with the guideline itself. ●BillPP (talk 04:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * speedy keep This guideline forms a useful part of the MOS. Newbyguesses - Talk 04:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Your objection is to the template, not the guideline. You've provided zero rationale for deleting the guideline -- you don't even mention the guideline. Your intention is good but misguided. The template has effectively banned Trivia sections, when all the guideline says is to avoid them. Therefore I agree that the template needs to go. Propose the deletion of the template and I'll back it up 100%. The guideline can exist without the template. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 05:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Snowball keep and reconvene at template:trivia... for another snowball fight.--Father Goose 06:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. TrueSilver has failed to raise any discussion on the talk page, where other people have raised similar objections and had them addressed. He also apparently doesn't understand the guideline he's trying to delete, which recommends integration and reorganization of trivia, not deletion of it. I'm not a big fan of the template myself but that's another matter altogether. Dcoetzee 17:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Snowball Keep. This is actually an objection to the use of the trivia template in articles, as everyone has pointed out so far. The trivia guideline should definitely stay.  The template issue is a completely different story and should be discussed on it's talk page first, but not here. — Becksguy 20:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per everyone else. Out of curiosity, has the template been nominated yet? — The Storm Surfer 21:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the template hasn't been nominated yet. I think we should probably wait until this proposal is closed before starting another one for something so closely-related, to avoid confusion. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 22:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep absolutely. It's difficult enough to beat back the tides of cruft as it is! Dybryd 22:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep if an editor doesn't like the template, then perhaps they could help improve it? The nomination consists of nothing but nonsense, and doesn't even refer to the guideline. It is a shame that now the guideline should have the "nominated for deletion" template. I move that this nonsense be stricken from the record, buried in a hole, and remembered only in shame. Actually, would anyone object to a Db-nonsense transclusion on this MfD discussion? ~ JohnnyMrNinja  04:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that considered a valid way to close an MfD? If not, then I might object. / edg ☺ ★ 04:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not yet, Edgarde, not yet... ~ JohnnyMrNinja  04:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.