Forums > Senate Hall archive > Speculation
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in new Senate Hall or Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. jSarek 09:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Due to the recent removal of fan speculation, no matter the amount of support given on the topic, in articles such as Haazen, Alek, and Zayne Carrick, should all such fan speculation be removed from articles such as Palpatine (regarding his name), Coruscant's population, Aayla Secura and Plo Koon's deaths etc?
I think if it is removed from some then any and all speculation should be removed. I thought I would ask first before deleting entire sections.
Purpilia 15:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Remove it all. No matter how much information is given. Speculation is still speculation. --Redemption
Talk 15:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- What about the BtS sections? Isn't a certain amount of information about common fan theories permissible? If not, this is a rather drastic change in policy/enforcement of said policy. There's TONS of articles with such information, many FAs, and personally I believe it makes the articles better. Din's Fire 997 20:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see the problem in mentioning widespread fan speculation in the BtS sections (if it's clearly stated that it's speculation), but it shouldn't be in the main text. KEJ 22:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said. I don't care where it is. Speculation is speculation. Any articles need to have that shit removed immediatly. I'm only one person. I cannot watch over every single article for speculation. And our policy is no speculation at all. Some of us obviously turn a blind eye towards this. And speculation is still speculation and thus it is fanon shit. If you want Fanon then go over to SW Fanon wiki. --RedemptionTalk 20:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Um, actually the policy currently says widely believed speculation is fine as long as it's in BtS. BryanG 04:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- In that case...my policy...which I hope will be agreed upon in a consensus. All or none. --RedemptionTalk 04:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the present Wook policy looks fine to me, so, as of now, I won't support your policy. KEJ 10:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I never asked for your support. --Redemption
Talk 14:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC) - *gasp* Men have been challenged to duels for lesser accusations! Sirs, the weapons are to be chainguns. Choose your seconds and then relocate to the duelling forum. This is a premature announcement. Please ignore. Karohalva
- Don't worry. Playing around with possessive pronouns and italics will not amount to a chaingun duel anytime soon. KEJ 12:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- I never asked for your support. --Redemption
- Well, the present Wook policy looks fine to me, so, as of now, I won't support your policy. KEJ 10:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- In that case...my policy...which I hope will be agreed upon in a consensus. All or none. --Redemption
- Um, actually the policy currently says widely believed speculation is fine as long as it's in BtS. BryanG 04:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- What about the BtS sections? Isn't a certain amount of information about common fan theories permissible? If not, this is a rather drastic change in policy/enforcement of said policy. There's TONS of articles with such information, many FAs, and personally I believe it makes the articles better. Din's Fire 997 20:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please let us remember that there is a difference between "pure" speculation and the kind which assumes what is implied. Karohalva the Infallible Pumpkin
- Well... on my humble noob opinion, fan speculation should be treated on a case to case basis, there are some articles that are actually complimented by adding a little sepculation at the Behind the Scence section, establishing connections that one may have not noticed before. O While on other articles they can lend themselves to "Fan specualte that Ayala Secura survived because she PWNS!". That's why I believe that even though they should be controled, banning them entirely is not a good idea. I mean, we are all sensible adults, we can recognize the diference beetween a valid off-side comment regarding a well backed Community speculation and sheer Fandomtown. Carlitos Moff 22:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Coruscant's population can be verified however. Its stated as different numbers in different books. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- in my opinon speculation has no place in articals but if its widley belived and "allowed" by current policy then it must be sourced from anumber of places to prove that it is widley belived or shouldn't be allowed on the page Dark Lord Xander (Embrace The Dark Side!) 03:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
