Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-1738746-20150714113923/@comment-1738746-20150718130611

Emperor Maximus wrote:

As for speculative trivia always being sourced, I feel this needs to be more precise. If something has a visual resemblance to something else, should the source include comparative pictures of both the in-game thing and the real-world thing, or just a picture of the real-world thing? Well considering that the article generally has a picture of the thing you're writing the trivia on, it seems redundant to link to both. In this case, you just link out to the resembling image or even the website where you got the image and/or information from. For an example, see Soul Gem (Skyrim) trivia section.

Emperor Maximus wrote:

Another example is this: the story of the Chimer's exodus definitely resembles the story of the Aztec exodus from Colhuan, and there are many similarities (Veloth being like Tenoch, etc.). I wrote it down as something separate from the Trivia section, because it seemed more important, and was also quite a long paragraph. While this may seem like bad practice because it was still speculative in nature, I did source my material for the story of the Aztec exodus. Was that enough sourcing, or was I still being overly-specuulative? I don't know if what I wrote is still there, as I can't remember which page I wrote it on. If you feel like it's getting too long, then you need to shorten it down. Trivia is the only section where things of speculative nature can go, and it's not made to house full-blown fan theories. You can add as many references as you want (and I encourage so!) but at the end of the day, if Bethesda themselves haven't confirmed it, then it is still speculative in nature and must be treated as such. This is exactly the reason why the trivia policy is getting re-written; the wiki and its editors must not take speculative information so lightly (or treat it with great importance) as it can do great damage to the wiki's reputation; always keep in mind when adding things of speculative nature, and that you make very clear to your readers that it's unconfirmed information (again, regardless of how many refs you have).

The Rim of the Sky wrote:

I think it should be re-written. I just removed some long-standing speculation on the Karliah page about the Septim dynasty claim and the half-nord theory. That's what this CT is for :) Have a look at the points I've raised and questions posed so we can better narrow down what it is that needs to be re-written.

DarthOrc wrote:

As for speculation - to us, that is part of what a page's Talk page is for. It should go there. The CT has already passed in that information of speculative nature is allowed on the article's trivia section. This CT is to better re-define what the limits of said writings should be i.e. that they need to be referenced and not be paragraphs long etc.