Forums: Index > The Wizengamot > Speculation

Just figured I'd ask - WHY all the speculation? Even if it can be mathematically or scientifically proven, it's still speculation. And some statements in articles use the most ridiculous facts for reference. And (I know, never start a sentence with and) some of the pages for film-people list them as appearing in the first film despite never being identified, simply because they had to have been there "because they were sorted in the books"! I'll be referencing what I can, but anything that can't be given a valid, canon reference ought to be removed. I'm posting here to see whether the speculation rule applies to mathematically or scientifically proven dates or timelines. Hunnie Bunn! 12:17, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

I generally agree that there's too much speculation, however, I've never minded the stuff about crowd scenes much. However, if you see other more ridiculous bits of obvious speculation, feel free to be bold and remove them. BTW, just curious, did you start this thread by typing a URL? Because the forum index has been broken for me for the past couple days. ProfessorTofty (talk) 13:26, March 8, 2013 (UTC)
I'll get on it, though I suppose we're keeping the crowd stuff and the mathematically proven stuff? And what's a URL? All I did was type in "Speculation" into the white box and hit enter. But the forum index has been broken for me as well. Hunnie Bunn! 13:29, March 8, 2013 (UTC)
A URL is the address you put in the white box to get to a webpage, i.e. "" But, okay. I didn't realise the white box was still working. Anyway, I contacted Wikia and they fixed the forum index issue. As for the speculation, yeah, I guess, though if you see anything related to "mathematically proven" that you're still concerned about, feel free to bring it up on talk. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:02, March 8, 2013 (UTC)
Unproven speculation really should be limited to the BTS section at most. I also agree that the whole crowd-scene / "well they were there in the book so they must be there in the film too" thing really isn't appropriate. Possible appearances should be limited to something a bit more well-founded. As far as the "mathematically or scientifically proven dates or timelines", could you cite an instance where you think this is an issue? - Nick O'Demus 09:35, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure whether this is an issue, I just don't think any speculation, mathematical included, should be allowed. But almost all of the birth years here (almost all of the ones that weren't in Wizard of the Month or on the Black Family Tree, actually) are based on "they started Hogwarts when they were eleven, which according to our timeline was in 199_, therefore that number subtract eleven is their birth date". Even more disliked in my opinion is the fact that we're willing to say "he was born before this date because he's using magic so he's older than seventeen" (as evidenced at least in the Bartemius Crouch Sr. page, unless I removed it). --Hunnie Bunn! 13:33, March 10, 2013 (UTC)