Okay, I updated the Policies. I edited the portion I imported from Style pretty substantially, so by all means comment away. I have two reasons for wanting to include speculation and missing information:
1) People seem to want speculation, at least in cases where it seems clear what's going on. There was much ado over Hal Gardner's status as president (which many people, myself included, are taking as a given), when it seems to me we could easily split the difference and simply say that Bill Buchanan thought he would be sworn in soon. It's speculation, it's fact, it tastes great and is less filling.
2) I would like to include missing information because if it isn't there, people will make it up. Dwayne Thompkins (that fuckup!) failed to inform us how he managed to get ahold of a Russian terrorist to sell his girlfriend's brother's CTU key card. Did Ostroff scan the Crackhead Craigslist and get lucky? Did Dwayne contact his dealer, who contacted his dealer, who knew Erwich? Or my personal favorite, did someone in the White House plant Lynn at CTU, direct Dwayne to steal his card, and then connect him with Ostroff? If the article doesn't say that nobody knows what happened, people will forget that their pet theory didn't actually happen on screen and put it in. I was surprised myself when I went back and found that Lynn McGill was from District, not Division. It's not that people are dumb, it's just that memory is funny like that. Besides, like I said before, nobody should be wondering whether the article is done or not. --StBacchus 12:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- What's wrong with moving "It is unclear whether he set up the sale before or after the mugging" to its own section at the end headed "Trivia", "Background information", "Behind the scenes", "Plot holes", "Unresolved issues", or whatever you want to call it? Removing the sentence from its current position doesn't negatively affect the bio. Putting the sentence at the end (and possibly expanding up on it) makes the reader go "Ooh! Trivia!" and people love stuff like that. They've suddenly switched to an OOU mindset, which is fine now that they're done reading the character synopsis. Suddently pointing out plot holes or unresolved issues in the middle of a narrative can be very bothersome. I dunno, maybe it's just me. What does everyone else think? --Proudhug 15:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)