Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-24325144-20150106201659/@comment-24325144-20150109165113

Bluesonic1 wrote: EbonySkyrim wrote:

Bluesonic1 wrote: I really think speculative trivia could benefit from a similar template-tagging system that the Bug section is going to hopefully transition to- in that unconfirmed or speculative points get a kind of thing next to them so people know that it's an interesting point to read but it's also speculative in nature. That way it can stay on the article's page without presenting itself as 100% factual. Why should we even have speculation, no other wiki or even wikipedia have speculation. It needs to be confirmed until we add it to our articles. The trivia section is for facts and not speculation like this for example: this character is probably related to this character in another game. As Ghost say in his post.. it's removed for a good reason.. Several people have brought it up here so perhaps it's something you guys haven't considered. Speculation that is backed up by references is still valid information worth giving to our readers. You guys have pushed the Wiki to providing source material and references to everything we say, to which we do, but it's still not good enough? Do you want this Wiki to just be black and white and solely information strictly from the game only? That's so boring, and actually defeats the purpose of the Wiki. This place is meant to provide all the information it can, whether that be from official sources or not. It's funny that you Ghost, make comments like that, when you've left speculation I've posted (with references) on several articles in the past.

Perhaps you don't understand what I mean by speculation; information should still be referenced, and people need to provide links to the source material. But it would still be considered speculation because it was never officially confirmed by the game creators themselves. Doesn't mean that it's not interesting or a possibility to be honest. It's just sad to see the Wiki be so black and white and lacking in so much detail.

Upon later consideration, Wikipedia actually does include speculative information as well in their articles. And as I have suggested, they use an 'unconfirmed/unverified' tag for such information. Likewise, if an article on the whole is too speculative, they have a verification template to add to the top of the article. Yeah & several people here have also stated that it has no place here. I did that on one article, not "several" Ulfric Stormcloak. To which I might add, I said that you should source it, & also gave you the time to do exactly that, which you never did. It has nothing to do with what you think it was, if I just removed it right away, you would have never learned. That was the purpose of me pointing it out, & also giving you the time to source it.

Your idea of bland, is entirely opinionated however. This is a canon wiki, it exists to provide factual information, adding speculative or unfounded information to articles only hinders the wiki in that regard.