Thread:Alucard10001/@comment-4576906-20150902221211/@comment-4576906-20150903200708

Repeating and elaboration, again, are two separate things.

And, again, your definitions of what justifies inclusion in "formal writing" are your opinions, and carry no weight. You say that, "from what you can tell", we have the same formal writing standards...but I'm not sure what exactly you're actually using to draw that conclusion. Nothing in our writing policy prohibits speculation. This was a conscious effort to avoid the draconian standards that exist on other wikis which leave glaring plot holes. We attempt to draw a clear distinction between inductive reasoning and mere speculation on a case-by-case basis.

For what it counts, if that sentence were on Sesshōmaru's article, it would be stricken, because it is irrelevant. However, in the context of differentiating him from Menōmaru (in the latter's article), it is appropriate to point out, as a side note, our inability as editors to categorically reject the possibility that Sesshōmaru might have that ability, while asserting that it is for all purposes unlikely.

As to your point, yes, Inuyasha might have the ability to fly (earlier I had considered using a similar example of speculating Kagome has the ability to fire lasers form her eyes), but a) we have no valid reason from context to think that he can (as the ability to fly presumably would have come up at some point and been very useful), and b) have no valid reason to include that in the article. Speculative? Yes. Relevant? No.

To be fair, while I won't remove the sentence simply because it is speculative, if you can make some other case for removing it on different grounds (for instance relevancy, conciseness, etc.) I may consider removing it, provided we have an understanding that this is, again, being decided on a case-by-case basis and does not validate future removals of sentences on the basis of its perceived "speculative" quality.