User blog comment:EmpyreanSmoke/Consensus of the Weaknesses/@comment-5619706-20151105133754

Empyrean, I haven't been responding to this because I am honestly tired of all this. Trip391's post here pretty much encapsulates the gist of my inclination towards the matter.

List only specific weaknesses and those we have seen used to effect. Weaknesses due to extremely powerful "wide-spectrum" artefacts (i.e., the Colt, the Scythe, First Blade) or species (i.e., Death, Archangel, Leviathans, Eve) do not have to be added if not relating to the subject matter's lore (i.e., the First Blade is tied closer to celestial and infernal beings, and not so much for monsters). Instead could be written as part of the strength of the artefact/superior species.

I prefer we state in the Scythe's article about its power rather than listing the scythe as a weakness FOR EVERY monstrous, demonic or angelic beings (again, unless very important to lore such as using it against Death itself).

The reason why I was advocating the use of citations in articles was to ensure that we, as a whole, are as impartial as possible, basing only on verifiable canon fact. Where canon is self-contradictory, retconned or vague, only then can we provide possible interpretations. Even then it has to be clear that the possible interpretations we have listed are as what they are--conjectural. Another reason why I created article banners that would warn readers if certain articles or sections of articles are wholly, partially canon, or non-canon. Any conjecture that serves only to create more confusion or are outright biased have to be removed from articles.

My only point of contention with Trip391 is that comics, as far as I know, are not canon despite being official.