I have been keeping notes on a small fan reference page and wanted to write down the checks that made it less fragile. The main lesson is that a reference page should not try to look bigger than the information it can verify. A short page with clear scope is more useful than a large page padded with guesses.
For game notes, I now separate three things before publishing: confirmed mechanics, change-prone observations, and open questions. Confirmed items can sit in the main table. Change-prone items need a date or version note. Open questions should stay out of the main answer until there is better evidence.
That process also makes updates faster. When a player reports a change, I can compare it against the current notes instead of rewriting the whole page. It is a small workflow, but it prevents the common wiki problem where old information stays visible because nobody remembers why it was added.
The current reference page I am using for this workflow is here:
A simple checklist I use before updating a page:
- Can this claim be checked from more than one source or direct play?
- Does the page show the limits of what is known?
- Are dates or version notes included where the information may change?
- Is the answer easy to scan on mobile?
- Would a new reader understand the next action without reading the whole page?
Small reference projects do not need heavy infrastructure. They need careful wording, repeatable checks, and a willingness to leave uncertain details unpublished until they are verified.
SOCIAL SHARE CARD GENERATOR