Ian Woollard wrote:
...Perhaps the real issue with trivia sections is that most of them are unreferenced as to their notability; while they clearly may be factually true, unless somebody has noted that they are important then they should be removed. Right?
So, taking this to the logical conclusions, perhaps we need a notability tag, where somebody has to reference that something is notable...
Comments?
Well, for one thing, we've got way too many of these cleanup tags already. See [[Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Editorial banners at the top of pages are annoying and irrelevant to subject matter]].
Second, I don't think the right standard for trivia is notability. It's "interestingness", which of course is a notoriously difficult concept to define. One editor's interesting trivia is another's banal fluff.
There's already a drive (accompanied by an annoying banner) to eliminate trivia sections entirely. I don't happen to agree with that drive, but it makes a "notable trivia" tag sort of doubly redundant: if the trivia sections are all eliminated, we won't need to worry about their verified notability, but if we asked for all trivia items to have their notability verified, virtually none of them would pass (how can you cite such a thing?), so they'd all be deleted, and we wouldn't need Template:Trivia.
(Anyway, aren't "notable trivia" and "notably trivial" both oxymorons? :-) )