Second this, there’s a lot of assumptions in the lore as opposed to just sticking to what’s confirmed.

Wikidot has a separate section for user theories, that might be helpful.

I looked a bit into it, I'm not a lore expert to call out if the sources are correct or not, but some of the edits in the main lore sections of articles seem to have confusing or no sources and use words like "perhaps implying", which is very frowned upon.

I'll check with other staff members before doing anything.

@9𐍃 Please do, I have been stating these wiki facts in friend circles only to be proven wrong.

Not to mention these users are putting their own interpretations in the articles. As I said, No one would say that Priscilla had children. People are just making some stuff by " joining the dots". But none of them are confirmed anywhere.

We concluded that speculation or theories anywhere in articles or references is not allowed. So if you see anything of the sort and is sure of it feel free to remove or report it to us.

Figuring out which references are or aren't speculation is more complex though, and the user mentioned in the post doesn't seem to be malicious and has done proper edits before, so I'll be reaching out to them to see what can be done.

Thank you for bringing this up.

@A.S. Raiyan

"And all of them have assumptions/interpretations some user came with and is labeling them as canon."

No, they are defined as such under the explict label of "Theories"

"WHERE DOES IT SAY GWYNDOLIN IS THE CHILD OF GWYN AND PRISCILLA"

Maybe, try to read below? Where there are four points with explicit sources and explanations to the points

"And I check the edit history and it is the same user AndreaPz01 who is using his headcanon and interpretation and using it as confirmed canon."

Please this is untrue and misleading

You seem to be confusing someone's else (without a profile) recent editing with my writing that has been going on for two years with a proper format and sourcing work.

I don't edit for wikia/Fandom anymore but just by looking around I can confirm that indeed this wiki's lore/story sections have been thoroughly vandalized with copious amounts of head-canon and logic leaps that rely on assumed linguistic nuances extrapolated from translated text, assumptions that fail to take into account what the original Japanese text looked like and lack the necessary cultural context as to what the choice of words in the original was meant to imply. And yes, this AndreaPz01 user certainly seems to be a major contributor to the problem, if not the source of it.

That user's "accurate translation" entries are clearly being put together by someone who isn't qualified to assess why certain terms were translated the way they were. For example Nito's "Gravelord" title is a more contextually accurate translation of 墓王 (romanized in this wiki as Hakaō, while it might as well be Boō) than the term "Tomb King" that said user not only introduced into that story section, but replaced the official term "Gravelord" with, using their own "accurate translation" in a different page as a source.

Moreover, much like what was happening with wikispaces/fextralife when Dark Souls II came out, a lot of egregious assumptions are being made regarding the connections between the games, especially between Dark Souls & Dark Souls III, as user A.S. Raiyan noted.

It is my opinion that:

> These misleading, self-proclaimed "accurate translations" should go away, as all they do is feed re-interpretation of terms that already exist within the game based on alternative wording and the semantics that occur. The original Japanese text is law, and should remain, translations labeled as "accurate" shouldn't.

> Story sections should be divided by game. Under no circumstances should speculation that arises due to an item description in Dark Souls III infect the information being made available to players in the original Dark Souls. Not only because parts of it may assume that the Dark Souls III story already existed when Dark Souls was written, but also because it may contain spoilers for a game readers haven't played yet. This will also help the moderation team and editors better isolate & combat problematic "information" as well as the cross-game "connect the dots" game that certain users might be playing.

> The moderation team should come to terms with the fact that these games tell a decent chunk of their story through speculation. Although unsightly, speculation distinctly identified as such is way less problematic than speculation presented as facts by prolific "I figured it out!" passive-aggressive conspiracy theorist types that seem to engage in edit wars and use themselves as a source. This is what someone trying to turn a wiki into their personal garden looks like and I don't think I've ever seen that end well.

That is all, thanks for reading. I do not envy the task of trying to figure out how to keep things like that in check in a light-handed manner. Good luck.

The Painter’s page is another page I’d like to throw in. Where is it confirmed that Priscilla is the Painter’s mother? The page asserts this certainly, and I’m not sure the lore has made that certain.

"this wiki's lore/story sections have been thoroughly vandalized with copious amounts of head-canon and logic leaps"

Im having a bit of fun because someone seems to be forgetting the state of this wiki three years ago with pages filled with incomplete paragraphs, 0 sources and youtube schizo lore theories passed as fact but let's forget right i guess it was perfectly fine the way it was before.

墓王 The title of Nito is literaaly "Grave/Tomb King" king because thats the same term used to referr to the "Lord" Souls (王のソウル ie King Soul) and Tomb because the Skull Lantern refers to the Tomb of the giants as Nito's domain.... he's literally the King of the Tomb... contextually accurately so

The "self-proclaimed" accurate translations corrects dozens of errors, at least a dozen "official translations" leave out entire phrases of the japanese text (How im supposed to use it as sources when they removed a phrase because the official translators felt like it or completely reshape reality... turning Gwyndolin into "a god of the old royal family" .... how do i use it as a source to say that indeed Gwyndolin became "Chief God" and not "a god"?)

"Story sections should be divided by game" and now im laughing... because good luck writing Gwyndolin page without the Inversal Ring description or Nameless King page without the things from the first game... but i guess you can try making a page for every single character from DS1 mentioned in DS3 with their separate section good luck in creating paragraphs that make any sense and you can start anytime all yours

(Now we're saying that the lore of the games is disconnected because of personal interpretations and "spoilers" as if the game hadn't been out for an entire decade and the lore section can simply be skipped over)

Things are not personal theories, enforced headcanons etc, everything in the lore sections has been directly sourced, things are there referring to direct descriptions and things present in the game.

I'm going to leave a link to the message I sent to AndreaPz01 a few days ago here, as it also applies but is pretty long.

As I stated before and in the message, the staff's consensus is that no theory or speculation must take place in text or sources. We will probably expand on that in the Manuals of Style that the wiki has, since the lore guidelines as of right now are not specific enough.

An issue is the lack of dedicated staff to manage lore, as even with lore guidelines people may not want to follow them and most probably will not know they exist, over time those edits pile up ruining lore sections. We had a content moderator but I do not know where they are now (and I always hated handling lore because of the chaos it is) so I guess that position may be open.

Also, as AndreaPz01 mentioned, not every speculative edit claimed was done by them, so we're sorry for any incorrect assumptions.

Staff did bring up the possibility of having a "theories" section in pages, and decided against it, since you can create your own lore/blog pages about theories already without disrupting the main reading experience and possibly starting edit wars.

Overall the way that the community is handling the situation is very good, and for that I am thankful. Any current and future suggestions are being considered and are appreciated.