Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26066818-20151011135048/@comment-61022-20151112172318

Science: Well most scientific research is usually based on real world examples. It is relevant to the Wiki in the most general of sense. I think links to Wikipedia would be more appropriate than slogging down stuff here with information that is more accurately explained elsewhere. (A lot of the profiles I do with historical personalities I've done usually state that their lives are similar to that of their real world counterparts and link people to the Wikipedia pages for those individuals if people are inclined to read about that instead of rehashing it here, I would say that's a good way to play scientific terms and technical explanations. Keep the comic book relevant stuff on the Wiki and then refer people to the appropriate encyclopedia for real-world explanations)

Myth: Yeah anything dealing with different mythologies are a G-D trainwreck because of users who have have copied and pasted stuff either from the Appendix or other mythology sites with no rhyme or reason. They haven't bothered doing any research, they just assumed that because it's part of common mythology it applies (on top of the fact that they think plagiarism is okay as well) The stuff in the Appendix that is usually speculative they list in italics to fill in gaps where the comics and mythology take logical departures. I'd say that anything that isn't actually mentioned in actual comics or the handbooks is not appropriate for the Wiki. I think we should take a similar approach with those gaps as we do with anything that borrows heavily from real world things. (My Expanded History of Thor, which is a work in progress, includes such an explanation for example)