What is trivia is not obvious, despite the assumptions of WP:TRIVIA policy. The template needs a link to the article's talk page so that the editor there may explain what he/she considers being minor fictionrefs. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 12:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the vast majority of the cases where this tag is used, it's blindingly obvious to anyone who has read WP:TRIVIA pr WP:ENC, or even with any common sense at all. I don't think it's necessary to insist that the person putting it there *has* to explain it, per a number of other templates of this sort, but a link to talk for those people who *want* to should be no problem. In most cases, though, it'd be "We;;, duh, just look at it." DreamGuy 18:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'll have to consider this... OK, I think I buy your opinion here. I'll remove my template improvement mark. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 06:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the template should have a link to WP:TRIVIA, instead of trivia. --Fukumoto (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this template take an extra parameter to distinguish between use directed at an article versus a mere section of an article? If it does, it's not obvious from the page detailing its use. 71.236.253.188 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]