Talk:Harvesting lightning energy

Include the example of Marty powering his time machine from lightening energy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.250.114 (talk • contribs)

hahaha... that's perfect, given the "technology" to harvest lightning is so impracticable its not worth discussing. Imagine a landscape covered with towers "killing birds" to power a couple light bulbs!!!! :D Borealdreams (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never say never ;) Postal2600 (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess someday in far future some future green-energy group will promote harvesting lightning in Jupiter. 21:10, 19 Augest 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.254.75.86 (talk)

thunder

We can store energy with the help of gaint capacitors.....but first we have equipments which have capacity to store huge energy in very small time.....but is is possible???? Vinnukanna (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia sections

Trivia sections are discouraged in WP, see WP:NOTRIVIA. A random list of appearances of X in the movies is not good encyclopediac content for an article on X. "In popular culture" sections are trivia lists, almost always. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That rather depends on whether sections on popular culture constitutes trivia. The policy that you linked to does not state that it is, so that can be dismissed. You then provide a malformed link to an essay. But essays are not policy just someone's opinion (whether right or wrong). There are so many articles that have sections on popular culture that it is fair to say that their existence has been de facto accepted as part of Wikipedia. 86.153.129.112 (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion as to whether 'popular culture' sections qualifies as trivia. However, they are so ubiquitous throughout Wikipedia that, if there is a genuine issue, then a fuller discussion is warranted. However, at present, all I see is a lone voice that has unilaterally decided that they should not included. This is not how Wikipedia works. I would also observe that both Wtshymanski and 86.153.129.112 are at 3RR (though not in 24 hours). In my view, any further reverts by either would warrant a complaint at WP:AN3 for slow motion edit warring. HasAnyoneSeenMyMarbles (talk) 11:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]