Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-1738746-20150714113923/@comment-1738746-20150720112817

Bluesonic1 wrote: Ok so I'll take this moment to sum up the current proposed changes, and people can say if they disagree on a particular one:
 * All trivia of speculative nature must be referenced.
 * No big text chunks should go in the trivia section (referred to previously as "large fan theories") e.g. "Trivia points should be small facts or tidbits of information. If you find yourself writing a paragraph for a single point, it is probably too long for the trivia section and should either not be added or shortened down".
 * Trivia of speculative nature must be written in a style that makes very clear to readers that it is unconfirmed information, regardless of it having (a) reference(s).
 * The addition of an objective point to help prevent 'nonsense' or 'obvious' additions to the "Trivia" section e.g. "A trivia point should not be repeating things that are already written elsewhere in the article, and should contribute new information as opposed to highlighting information that is self-evident."

The following are ideas that have been floating around the thread so far, people can comment on whether it is something they want, like or dislike: Does this answer your question Emperor Maximus? :P Despite posted a while back, there hasn't been too much progress since so it's still valid. From the question section (last part), people don't seem to be too keen on the last two points (I agree on this too) and no one's commented much on the tag thing.
 * Usage of an unconfirmed information tag for trivia points of speculative nature? (This can be achieved by making a modified template of )
 * Change "Trivia" to "Trivia and Notes"?
 * Split "Trivia" and "Notes" into different sections, allowing longer pieces (referred to previously as "large fan theories") to be added to the "Notes" section and utilize a Show/Hide box for the "Notes" section much like the "Bug" section does?

Personally, I think the tag's unnecessary considering the piece should be written to demonstrates that it's clearly unconfirmed information, but I know some users aren't fond of speculation being there in the first place and seemed more comfortable with the idea of a tag like bugs do (this was from one of the original CTs by the way).