User talk:Force Fire/Trivia Policy
Cmments
I like it
Hat it
Could Improve
OTHER COMMENTS GO BELOW HERE
I like this a lot. One thing that bothers me is how you say "Information widely considered to be interesting...." What is the determinant of that? I'd like a better scheme, or at least a few more guidelines/criteria, because while I know what you're getting at this is so vague it can undermine a lot of the rest of the policy if someone wants to argue hard with it. -- evkl (need to talk?) 14:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think TROM added that one. What I think it means is, that the trivia may or maynot be interesting depending on others view.... You can add more if you want.--ForceFire 06:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that was mine. I was sure I'd replied to this too.... hmm..... Anyway, that remark was meant for the everyday, general trivia that one usually finds and has no problem with. Like I said (or meant, at least), the true trivium that has no place on the rest of the page. Administrators, and some of the more regular users, know what's suitable and not. I trust their judgment. If it's as contrived as hell, then of course it won't be accepted. —darklordtrom 04:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
So....
Is it any better? What else needs to be added?--ForceFire 10:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Headers
I don't want to touch your userpage, but you need to undo what you did to the headers. We don't use the level one headers, they're too big. Any page you see with those headers needs to be changed. --electAbuzzzz 11:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, right. You could've done it yourself if you wanted. I won't Bite.--ForceFire 12:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Sprite Trivia
What trivia is not worth mentioning?
Game-based trivia
Sprites: Just because?
There really needs to be a proper reason for this rule. There are some Pokemon that have very notable sprite trivia listed, which cannot be against a policy "just because". XVuvuzela2010X 22:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- From what I've been told, it's because readers can just look up and see the sprites to see the differences in some. We don't need to be told "The color changed between Generations" or something similar when we can just see that on the sprites (AKA: No need to state the obvious). :P I agree that Jynx would be an exception, and there are exceptions on occasion, but why Nosepass? ★Jo the Marten★ ಠ_ಠ 23:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Nosepass is mentioned because it was depicted as being gray, and round-edged in Gen III, and while its main sprites were corrected in Gen IV, its menu sprite was never changed, and still depicts this error as of Gen V.
XVuvuzela2010X 23:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, well it's that sort of thing that is considered obvious. People can see its color scheme was changed by just looking at it. :D I was saying Jynx was an exception because of the controversy that surrounded the Pokémon, that they changed her colors. ★Jo the Marten★ ಠ_ಠ 23:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- I did think that may be the case. But there are also quite a few pages that state if a Pokemon recieved a new sprite or palette change, for example, Forretress:
- Forretress is one of the few Pokémon not native to Sinnoh to have its sprite changed in Platinum
- We also mention Arbok and Mantyke's patterns, though these are also mentioned in their Pokedex entries. I just think that it would be best for the rules to be clearly state which things are and are not notable, to avoid users adding the wrong things. XVuvuzela2010X 23:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, well it's that sort of thing that is considered obvious. People can see its color scheme was changed by just looking at it. :D I was saying Jynx was an exception because of the controversy that surrounded the Pokémon, that they changed her colors. ★Jo the Marten★ ಠ_ಠ 23:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Laziness. that is all. I would've explained, but I was too lazy.--ForceFire 07:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Hierarchy
Should there be a rule stating which types of trivia are more important, and thus should be placed higher up than other pieces of trivia? Rather than just being jumbled up like they are now. XVuvuzela2010X 00:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Anyone there? It would certainly make it look more tidy. XVuvuzela2010X 13:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Where Trivia should be Placed.
I think it should also be mentioned where certain trivia should be placed. A great example is the fact that "Who's That Pokémon?" was skipped in BW003 should only be mentioned in the BW003 article rather than both the BW003 article and the "Who's That Pokémon?" article since the trivia is about something that happened specifically in BW003. Whereas, the fact that "Who's That Pokémon?" (finally) returns in the Best Wishes! series should only be mentioned in the "Who's That Pokémon?" article rather than both it and the Best Wishes! series article. Catch my drift? --Landfish7 21:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Just my opinion
Personally I love Trivia, I absorb it like a sponge, but even I agree with removing stuff like "generation x, x, and x, all introduced 5 pokémon that start with the letter q". It could cause someone's mind to explode trying to absorb all the useless trivia. I like trivia that compares the games to the anime, for example how a character seems to be like a certain trainer class, or how an anime character is in the games as a npc (not counting main characters and gym leaders which are obvious). Personally, this seems like a good policy, and should be implemented, maybe minor changes could be made, but with the large amount of Trivia in almost every article it needs to be implemented as soon as possible. (preferably before we're allowed to add Trivia again) I have a habit of wanting to post Trivia a lot, and once I can add it again, this would be really helpful to prevent me posting unnoteworthy Trivia. Angelicwitch93 20:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
A new rule?
Along with creating a userpage, adding trivia appears to be a main reason new users join Bulbapedia. So, in light of the current Trivia ban, I have an idea. Ban all new users from adding trivia. They can get to add trivia at the same time they are granted the ability to edit their userpage. When (or to be more realistic, if) the current trivia rule is removed, there is going to be a surge in trivia adding, due to its inevitible build up over the months. New users are supposed to ask on the talk page first, though they never do. If they violate the rule, be harsh and instantly block them for a day. XVuvuzela2010X 01:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Correction
I don't think bulbapedia will let this policy get away with using the word "stupid". Can you replace it with a word like silly? Mothim will rule all! 03:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC) 10:25 p. m. December 27 2011 ET
Mawhile
You need other way to do that, as "" make the thing don't show if you hover mouse over the text. Marked +-+-+ (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Protection
Force Fire, will you please protect your trivia policy and its subpages? --Cinday123 (Talk) 04:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Warning Template
Would it be useful to have a warning template that can be used to politely warn people when they are making too many unnotable or misplaced trivia edits? Or is this something we'd rather handle uniquely with violators on a case-to-case basis? With the wiki being open at the moment, and traffic being up, I couldn't help but notice an increase in issues with people adding bad trivia, and a simple and polite template to keep people on track I feel could potentially be useful in this situation. Landfish7 06:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
