Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-24081824-20160305040159/@comment-24081824-20160312155825

That all being said, let's talk about those dandy standards to fight off the Sickle Reapers before they can approach.

I don't know how you guys would want to do that. Personally, I'm fine with keeping things simple and slaughtering all points that cannot be true without the use of weak words such as "may be" and "possibly" (inspired by). And then doing the same thing with uncomfirmed name-meanings trivia, including those that have useless information attached to the them, such as the example that Alchemist brought up. This eliminates half of Meta's trivia.

My problem lies with the points that would need to be discussed first. The ones that may have strong connections, but aren't exactly direct references. There would have to be a way to make sure it's clear as to why this one is okay, and the other one is not, despite the two points being unconfirmed. If our only reason is "majority said it was cool", we'd just have the same problem all over again, because that's exactly what we're doing now.

Which is why I'd be be fine with killing off those as well, if we can't find any strict way to differentiate the two.

And I suppose that would help in creating guides for new trivia as well.