Board Thread:News and Announcements/@comment-26281589-20130801175742/@comment-1173941-20130801191243

Angren Túrë wrote: TUSF wrote: My personal idea, as many of you may know, is that speculation should stay OUT of articles. We have a forum, and we can make a section specificly for speculation. Owait. We do... I don't understand why we're assisting the spreading of misinformation, and information that just Isn't true. Take "Nero's name" for instance. That speculation is based on the speculation that the team he is in, is called "JAUN", and that he is in fact the last letter. The speculated name, is based off of speculation that the teams are named after their leader, which is based off the speculation that Ruby and Jaune are the leaders of their perspective teams.

In the end, I hope that Speculation remains in the forums. But I doubt I'd get my wish. All valid concerns.

But recall, there are already many instances where there are already speculations in the Trivia section of each article. This would separate the confirmed fact from the speculated fiction. And there will be no more than four theories on an article at any given time. Plus, the spec does link to the thread, or blog, from which it originated. For example:

"Beacon may have intramural competitions for team building. (see here )

And remember, as the show progresses, the Speculation subheading would become less common, as more theories are proven and disproven by released episodes. They aren't meant to be permanent additions. That's not a reason to keep speculation.

A wiki article shouldn't be about opinions. I think this is the only wiki i've seen that blatantly ignores the idea of objectivity, and follows the practice of promoting fictitious information. At the beginning, when there was nothing by trailers, speculating on things of the symbolism is fine. But now, most of the speculation is more along the lines of predictions of what may happen next, or assuming that a character is a different spieces, when all present evidence prooves the contrary. It's making claims towards things that have no backing, aside from something small. It's not proper editing.

Your example, about "intramural competitions" is one of them. If perhaps we were shown something, that hinted at this possibility, then yes, it would be acceptable. But at the moment its on the level of claiming physics allows us to travel backwards in time. An extreme example, yes, but still