Please remember to follow the manual of style and code of conduct at all times.
Check BNN and Bulbanews for up-to-date Pokémon news and discuss it on the forums or in our IRC channel #bulbagarden on irc.systemnet.info.

User talk:Force Fire/Trivia Policy

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
< User talk:Force Fire
Revision as of 21:24, 28 February 2011 by Landfish7 (Talk | contribs) (Where Trivia should be Placed.: new section)

Jump to: navigation, search

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.

Ani299MS.png 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)

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)

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)