Forum:Speculation references

I propose the idea to add into policy that, when a speculation or note section states that the article in question is a reference to something, it should be accompanied with a link to Wikipedia whenever possible to sate the curiosity of the reader. --TherasTaneel (talk) 03:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Often times it is, I'm not sure a policy is needed for that though. 04:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I know it make common sense, but for some reason easily forgotten. TherasTaneel (talk) 11:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggest it to people who aren't doing it.-- 16:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You'd like to create a policy based on a personal preference. What would this accomplish? It's not like banning non-complying contributors is an option here. I doubt anyone would revert edits adding such links, so it does not seem like a policy change would do much.
 * You may consider adding a note to the Manual of Style, but to me it'd fall into the general idea of "Use your better judgement to improve the article" &mdash; foxlit (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a guideline, a suggestion to improve, I agree that it falls into common improvement of articles, if stated some people who would otherwise forget how, would now have one more tool. But guess I'll take Sandwichman2448 idea would suffice. Never intended it to be a stern look but a helping hand. TherasTaneel (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't understand why linking to Wikipedia is at all relevant to Warcraft speculation. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If the editor feels that the article in question is a reference to something else, I would consider it like a fact-check. TherasTaneel (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly not all speculations require citation. For instance if the article's text already provides the info on which those speculations are based, it's pointless. Of course trivia and notes should at most times have references, unless an npc is called "Mikel Jec'son" or sth like that, which actually requires just a common sense to see:P But usually speculations are well speculations based not on hard facts but rather scraps of info which are often hard to cite. Therefore each and every case is separate and should be judged by the one who writes or edites such case, and not by a strict rule. 21:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I keep thinking I've explain my proposition wrong. Have you ever had a moment where you are reading on the internet, and keep clicking on new links to read more, an association in cyberspace if you will. I would just ensure that such a journey was not stopped by a non-existing next link. TherasTaneel (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I understood your petition mate, and I know the feeling you described, however usually people, when linking or referencing anything in these texts already use Wikipedia, making the usage of wikipedia links obligatory, wouldn't be viewed best, however. It would be neglecting other sources and in the end the only references would be those to wikipedia, which isn't the best idea. The only way is to actually monitor the links that are in the page from time to time, and check if they are still valid and active, otherwise you can change/edit them. Google'ing info when you already have some basic keywords etc, isn't as much of a problem, while forcing people to cite using only one specific source of information isn't quite alright. At least that's what I think. 19:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is usually, hopefully, source upon source, but you are right in the narrow part. meh. TherasTaneel (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)