Board Thread:Lore Discussion/@comment-11458474-20130926235435/@comment-11458474-20130927214409

GarouxBloodline wrote: UselessArgonianMage wrote: Stop with the rubbish, MoS and Garoux both. The thread is about the possibility as Greybeards as an easter egg to other franchices. Garoux is right that speculation is not supposed to be on the page itself HOWEVER, it may be freely discussed on this thread. The "Discussion" section is on the page and may be clicked on for anybody who wishes to be indulged in Speculation, keep it to that.

Back on-topic now, don't derail threads with stuff that would better be discussed in other places. E.g. The General discussion board. I'm afraid that all was on-topic. If you read the thread, the original poster was looking for verification from other people who might believe in his interpretation so that he might add his speculation into our article-pages. That is what I was wishing to avoid by posting my response.

Bethesda makes hundreds of refrences to literature in their games. If you check the Fallout wiki you will see tons of refences to literature and pop culture, non of which is confirmed. But people who are inteligent enough to decipher the obvious references are the people who make edits to the "Behind the scenes" section on the pages.

Now the reason why people have to go research the works of literature to get an answer, as to weather or not its a refrence to literature, is because Bethesda is notorious for not revealing that type of info. So to say that you woun't allow people to post somthing if it is not confirmed by Bethesda, is to cut off a major amount of information that comes into your wiki; even though this information is a blatent refrence to a work literature.