Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-1738746-20150110031434/@comment-6858361-20150110184023

As someone else pointed out, Wikipedia points out a lack of a reference (with a brief hyperlink). I think that people are likely to understand what we mean when we do the same. The thing is, Wikipedia also uses hyperlinks to link to the source for SOURCED information, which we do not, that I know of. That makes our pages look really nice and clean and points out that we have so many good people working on this that we notice and correct errors without having to go through a damned review process. But the trivia section is highly disputed, so I think we should be open to changing our way of doing things for this section. I'm new to this format for the Wiki, so forgive me if I'm missing something, but where are the citations for anything in the article? That's something I'm stuck on, because if we don't site when it's confirmed by Bethesda, then how can we tell the difference between Bethesda-confirmed trivia and just something somebody wrote as a serious-sounding joke? I'm leaning the way of having a two-letter or three-letter superscript hyperlink at the end of a claim to designate "Bethesda-confirmed", "sourced", "unsourced", etc that will link to the source if there is one, because it's brief and informative. I also think that unsourced trivia should always be posted at the bottom of the trivia list.