[WikiEN-l] dueling templates

[Ray Saintonge]

Todd Allen wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>   
>> Brock Weller wrote:
>>     
>>> Trivia sections are not encyclopedic. 
>>>       
>> Bullshit!
>>     
> Aside from the fact they're not. Collections of random factoids are the
> very definition of "indiscriminate information".
>   
That jumps to conclusions.  As long as the trivia have some connection 
with the topic of the article they are more than random.
>>> We require non-trivial sources,
>>> and we shouldnt be one ourselves. If they dont fit elsewhere then they
>>> are rightly dropped. 
>>>       
>> The only ones who believe that are so pompous and self-absorbed that 
>> they have lost all capacity to determine what is important or 
>> interesting to readers?
>>     
> Or perhaps they're right. But it's far easier to attack people and
> speculate on their motives than actually argue against their position.
> Also, there is a lot of information which is interesting and perhaps
> even important, and still not appropriate for Wikipedia. I find the
> morning traffic report important and the lyrics to Stairway to Heaven
> interesting, neither are appropriate material for an encyclopedia though.
>   
Please show me a link where someone has included the morning traffic 
report as part of an article, or admit that this is only introduced as a 
straw man.  If the lyrics to Stairway to Heaven are deleted this has 
more to do with copyvios than trivia.

Rather than speculate on motives you can always ask them about their 
motives.  Fairly arguing against their position includes allowing them 
full opportunity to argue in favour of that position, and taking the 
time to develop a common position.  Robotically adding templates that 
threaten deletion and proceeding with that deletion after the specified 
time does nothing for the peace of the community.  Where "interesting 
and important" conflict with "not appropriate" the reason for deletion 
needs to very clear (as with copyvios and libel), or just maybe the 
robocrats should take the time to properly discuss each and every one of 
their proposed deletions.
>>> As for it being harder to re add them, good. Itll
>>> keep them out longer. The harder the crap is to keep in the pedia, the
>>> better off we all are. 
>>>       
>> So what you're telling me is that YOU are singularly equipped to 
>> recognize crap.  Do you have any other jokes?
>>     
> I don't believe the person you're responding to is the only person who's
> recognized that these are crap. (In point of fact, I can confirm that he
> is at minimum one of two such people.)
>   
I can concede that point.  But two people do not represent a consensus 
of editors, and a hardline position does not help in building a 
consensus that will satisfy a broad representation of Wikipedians.
>>> You can thank us for the usable encyclopedia
>>> later when you figure it out.
>>>       
>> Why should I thank anyone whose stated aim is to be destructive?
>>     
> Editing is not destructive. Good editors cut frequently and ruthlessly.
> You are not "destroying" a diamond by cutting and polishing it, you are
> improving it.
Editing is not destructive, but it is not what you are advocating.  
Editing the trivia sections is not equivalent to destroying them.

Ec