Wikia

Memory Alpha

Talk:Spoiler policy

37,512pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Revision as of 12:12, May 22, 2013 by Cid Highwind (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

No more upcoming episodes?Edit

I think this page needs a bit of an overhaul seeing as there sadly is no more un-aired trek. Any suggestions? Jaz 05:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily mean there won't be anymore un-aired episodes. ;) --From Andoria with Love 05:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope you right, but for the time being, perhaps it would be good to change this page. Jaz 05:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see a need to. Should there be any upcoming Trek in the future, we won't spoil it - if there isn't, there's simply no need to refer to this policy. -- Cid Highwind 10:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to talk about un-official spoilers in the talk page of the (hypothetical) upcoming episode? Not that it really makes a lot of difference now, but I'm just curious. ;)--Sloan47 03:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I've added upcoming movies, since for the time being at least, that is the concern. Koweja 04:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Do note that the last mention in this conversation was almost a year before your addition Koweja... -- Sulfur 19:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Forum:Spoilers in episode pagesEdit

I am currently watching all Star Trek episodes, beginning from the first episode of the original series. (I am currently at the third episode of DS9). After I finish watching each episode, I come to Memory Alpha and visite the page of the episode I jus watched for some background information. However, some references to future episodes on these pages tend sometimes to frustrate me. The latest was the big header about General Martok, on Way of The Warrior episode page, which was impossible to avoid and which spoiled a future episode for me. I am not against notations like "Lwaxanna Troi later visits DS9 in the episode xxxx", but i think that references like "It is later revealed that..." should be removed from episode pages.

-- Locutus 23:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Read Memory Alpha:Spoiler policy, young grasshopper. We would not be able to make a very good encyclopedia if we had to deal with constantly hiding or warning about spoilers. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely understand the spoiler policy, and I am convinced (really:)) that it is inevitable. However, in my humble opinion, episode pages should be treated differently than other pages. For instance, if I visit the "United Federation of Planets" page, I know that there will be some material concerning episodes I have not watched yet. On the other hand, when I visit an individual episode page, I want to be able to make the preassumption that there would be no references to future episodes, or that they would be contained in a special area. In fact, the solution in my head is to have hyperlinked references to future episodes that relate to the current one, instead of repeat future events on an episode page. For example, instead of "it is revealed in xxxx that General Martok is...", we could have something like "see episode xxxxx for further knowledge of General Martok's role in this episode". In short, all I am saying that IMHO the spoiler policy needs a little bit of revising when it comes to episode pages. I might also add that I am sorry if my limited knowledge on memory alpha policies leads to a non-sense discussion. I just like this site very much and wish to see it grow and become better.. Thanks --Locutus 00:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me put on my encouragement hat. There is nothing non-sense about what you are asking. I happen to disagree with your idea, but that is just my opinion. Here, Ten Forward, is where questions on, and proposed changes to, Memory Alpha policies is supposed to happen. Your using this for exactly what it was meant to be used for. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
God I know I'm late with this. But I completely agree with the people that put forward the complaints here. And the general martok one was exactly the last draw for me too. Can't we have a seperate background information for things that refer to future episodes? The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.104.14.66 (talk).
I know that it's important for an encyclopedia to not exclude information. But when it comes to episode pages, couldn't some of the more spoilery elements be pushed back to the episodes where they were revealed? For example, I just watched DS9: "Rapture" and there are not one, but two references (one in the Continuity section, one in the Behind the Scenes) section that likely (due to a change in uniforms), Bashir was replaced by a Changeling just prior to this episode, spoiling an episode later in the season. As it is not even canon, could both references not be moved to the episode in which those events are revealed? ("Given by the fact that Bashir is wearing the earlier version of the DS9 uniform, it was likely he was replaced at least before 'Rapture'.") This preserves the information, but moves it to a more tactful spot.
If the first reference is unmovable, the second is surely unnecessary: "Bashir's "Does my uniform look brighter?" line was a not-so-subtle way of drawing the audience's attention to the new costumes (actually spoken by a Changeling impersonating Bashir not wearing a real uniform at all)." The DS9 episode pages are littered with references like these, which do not add to our understanding of the series but instead are insensitive about spoilers. What would we have lost by deleting the area within the brackets? While sometimes spoilers are necessary to convey important information, I still think we should seek to be sensitive about them in episode pages and try to ensure that references to future episodes in Background sections are important and relevant to the episode on the page, not the episode whose details are being disclosed. Teambates 09:24, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I think we should avoid spoiling future episodes in background sections. Most of the time it is completely pointless like that Bashir note (someone was just being pedantic about the valid note about the uniform switch)
I think this is about making MA useful to our readers. Our background information sections on episodes are meant to be a guide to that episode, and its relation to previous episodes; I see no need to talk about future episodes as well; that's why those future episodes have their own pages. Most of these spoiler notes are DS9 related, and I don't think any of them are overly relevant to the episode pages they're on.
Consequently, I propose something along the following lines:
  • Episode pages - Information in the background section of a page on a Star Trek episode or film should avoid major spoilers for future episodes and films. Consider the relevance of the spoiler to the episode page, and other possible locations for the note. Instead of stating "In [a later episode] it would be revealed that...", put a note on the later episode explaining what it revealed about the events of prior episodes.
I don't foresee loads of notes being deleted under this, just a few blatant spoilers like the "X is a changeling" notes. – Cleanse 10:05, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
I agree that episode-specific articles are a specific context in which it is appropriate to mark references to future episodes, and that a primary usage of them is going to be for viewers watching episodes in order making it even more important to mark them. Frankly, these notes do not even need to be deleted, just marked or moved to a separate section. Everyone here but OuroborosCobra seems to agree, and s/he gave no reasons for disagreeing. I will be back to investigate the official mechanisms for changing policy, but I just wanted to voice my agreement ASAP... (four years after original thread or no :P) Jerodast (talk) 19:00, April 25, 2013 (UTC)
Cobra did give a reason, he said "We would not be able to make a very good encyclopedia if we had to deal with constantly hiding or warning about spoilers." 31dot (talk) 09:48, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

Novels, Comics, etcEdit

Hi OuroborosCobra. You just reverted an edit I made to the Sirella article, in which I removed a comment about her dying in the book The Left Hand of Destiny. I can't see anything in the Memory Alpha:Spoiler policy about novels - in fact, it seems to support the notion that only broadcast episode information is fair game on MA articles. The information about Sirella dying was a big spoiler to me, as I haven't had a chance yet to read the Left Hand of Destiny books. I accept the spoiler policy with regard to aired episodes, but surely more caution must be exercised when it comes to novels such as the DS9 relaunch novels because far fewer people are likely to have read them (even hardcore DS9 fans like me, for reasons of time, affordibility, etc). The info about Sirella dying may have a place in the article about the books themselves, which can easily be avoided by people seeking to avoid spoliers about the books' plot, but I think it's wrong to have it on the article about the character. -Taduolus 18:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

While the policy does not name novels, it does make clear that the only spoilers we are trying to avoid are those for upcoming releases, which this was not. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there no leeway in the policy for the application of common sense in cases where it can be justified, or must we stick doggedly to the rules no matter what? Or, put another way, while there is a good case to make as to why the information about Sirella dying would be better situated in the article about the book rather than the character, is there a good case (aside from unwavering adherence to a catch-all policy) as to why it should be in the article about the character? -Taduolus 18:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The death of a character is a major event in anything. I don't see a good reason to not include it. It would be like not talking about the death of Jadzia Dax, either in her article, or in "Tears of the Prophets". --OuroborosCobra talk 18:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
If I may interject a view to consider, at which point does a fact change from "Spoiler" to "Historical Event"? One could reasonably argue that information regarding USS Voyager succeeding in returning to Earth is a spoiler to anyone who hasn't watched VOY: "Endgame" yet, though it is openly referenced in the ships article. Perhaps this is something that should be considered as well. When ST:XI is released in theaters, I'm sure there will be articles added the moment the first watchers make it back to their computers, but would those be spoilers to those who havn't viewed the film yet, or not? Should there be a specific time moratorium before newly available information is added to Memory Alpha? Additionally, simply because you know of the death of a character, does that mean that reading the novel to discover the details is any less fulfilling? -- Kooky 18:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Kooky, that is the entire reason this policy was created. We simply can't follow our mission of being the most complete and comprehensive resource for Trek if we are worrying about whether people have seen something that is released. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess I was just trying to point out that this seemed like a pointless debate. Additionally, Memory Beta maintains a similar spoiler policy, so I'm still agreeing with you. (As well as opening my mouth before I did all the research I should have done.) -- Kooky 19:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with film spoilers Edit

Hi. I haven't been active on Memory Alpha for a long time, but I came back after seeing the trailer for the new film. The policy of keeping images and info from the film out of articles until the film opens is eminently sensible, but it occurs to me that a lot of fans are going to want to put tidbits in relevant articles like James T. Kirk, and a lot of energy will be wasted (both by those well-meaning fans and by the MA regulars reverting their additions). I have a suggestion for how to involve those new readers/editors more productively: create "spoiler versions" of relevant pages, where sourced information about the films can be added now before being taken to the "live" page after the film opens? Thus, for James T. Kirk there could be a page James T. Kirk/Spoiler, which would begin as a copy of the current article but could have things like this:

As a child in Iowa, Kirk once stole an antique automobile and drove it into a quarry. +ref to trailer

For all I know, this has already been proposed and shot down somewhere else. (As I say, it's been a long time since I was active here.) But if it is a new idea, and if anyone likes it, where would be a good place to propose it formally? —Josiah Rowe 22:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

One problem with that is... how much from the trailer won't actually be in the film? How much of what was in the teaser will be in the film? -- sulfur 22:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That is something that would have to be worked out... but an advantage of having these "spoiler versions" of the articles out of the mainspace articles is that if something is in the trailer (or is mentioned in pre-publicity) that doesn't eventually show up in the finished film, it can be removed before it ever shows up in the "real" article. We would, of course, have to develop rules for what sources are acceptable for these pages (interviews with production personnel? spoiler reports from early showings? and so forth), but that's a secondary question which can be determined if there's a consensus that this sort of subpage would be useful. (If people don't think it would be, there's no point in hammering out the details.) —Josiah Rowe 22:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If you think the current siteannouncement won't save anyone the energy, what makes you think anyone will adhere to using the new pseudo-namespace? --TribbleFurSuit 22:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Most people don't care and as a community we just need to enforce the standards we've set out before those who actually want to read what is allowed and what isn't. Spoiler versions are pointless because all spoilers are not valid until the film comes out and until then there's no way to validate anything - so - remove all spoilers and don't post them until after the fact. — Morder 22:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

To TribbleFurSuit's question: sure, there are some folks who would add spoiler stuff to regular articles regardless of whether there's an alternative. But there are also editors who might be drawn to contribute positively in the run-up to the film, whose energy and potential the current spoiler policy rejects out of hand. I'm envisioning this "spoiler space" as a sort of recruitment and training area for new editors, because the movie is going to produce new fans and re-energize some old ones who might be able to contribute positively to the wiki. The question I'm asking is what message the current spoiler policy sends to potential contributors, and whether it's a message MA wants to be sending. (If the message is "come back after the movie opens", do you think they will?)

As for the point that spoilers aren't valid until the movie opens, I suppose the question is whether there is more potential productivity to be gained from creating a page version in advance with a possibility for error (which would then have to be re-checked after the film opens), or from turning away edits with a possibility of being correct. If the percentage of "correct spoilers" is high enough, it might be more efficient to create a place for them ahead of time. If the percentage is low, or if the possibility of drama surrounding them is too high, it wouldn't be efficient to create such a place.

By the way, is this the best place for this discussion/proposal, or would it be better to discuss it at Memory Alpha:Ten Forward? —Josiah Rowe 02:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Good question, I think actually the proper place is Memory Alpha Talk:Canon policy. This isn't about spoilers. MA contains spoilers, and that's the way we like it, end of story. This is about non-canon information. You've seen our canon policy, I'm sure: Something that's not released is not canon, and that's the way we like it. --TribbleFurSuit 02:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry — where is it stated in the canon policy that material not yet released is not canon? If it will be canon come May 8, 2009, why isn't it canon now? And if a valid resource exists referring to the information which will be canon (such as the fact that this fellow will be played by this guy), why can't we have a version of the page Spock which contains this information? I don't see how Memory Alpha:Canon policy addresses this.

I can see the perspective that unreleased material is not canon, but it's also reasonable to say that unreleased material is canon but not yet completely known. It's like it exists in a state of quantum flux — it's real, but it can't be directly perceived. But it can be indirectly perceived, and evidence based on it could be presented. —Josiah Rowe 05:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Edited by Shran to remove spoilers.

Ah but there's the rub, how do you know it will be canon? What was released recently may not be made of any production material and could have been created exclusively for the trailer (for an example see all Pixar trailers) Canon is defined as what can be seen/heard on screen and since the movie has yet to appear on screen any information, no matter how reliable, isn't really permissible (when relating specifically to the movie and not production of the movie) As well, scenes may exist in the trailer that may be cut from the final version of the movie. (Such as Kirk's death scene in the Star Trek Generations) So basically any information added about the upcoming movie will be deleted because it's simply not canon. How much information could you glean from a trailer anyway as that would be the only permissible source for new material anyway. — Morder 06:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Perfect example the trailer for Star Trek: First Contact. It had USS Voyager in it. Definitely we can't allow information from a trailer and call it canon until we can confirm that information by watching the film. — Morder 06:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that half of the scenes shown in the first trailer for Star Trek Nemesis ended up on the cutting room floor -- in other words, they were non-canon. --From Andoria with Love 06:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I thought "dealing with film spoilers" was pretty well explained on the opposite side of this talk page...and works just like it did when ENT episodes were still airing. Taking this trailer thing from a different angle, we can only speculate on what we see in the trailers, vs. what it will be when we see the film as a whole, keeping in mind that everything shown there is taken out of context, sequence, and yes, may have even been cut. (For example: watched any "CSI:Wherever" previews lately? -- seems like every week they show someone from the main cast dying, but the scenes are shown out of sequence and out of context, and are totally misleading.) I really don't see the point of jumping the gun on something based on trailers and rumors when it's all going to be hashed over in much better detail once the film in released and we have a better grasp on the reality of what we were seeing. --Alan 06:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Many scenes in movie trailers – in the new one in particular – are not very clear-cut and all we would really be doing is speculating as to what we're seeing. So, we have non-canon and speculation: two things which are not wanted here on MA. --From Andoria with Love 06:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. 'Twas just a thought.

But what about out-of-universe information that's relevant to in-universe pages, like casting? What we see in the trailer may be misleadingly presented or changed in the final film, but they're not going to change the fact that this actor will be playing this guy. Is there an advantage in pre-creating a a link like this with images, or is that so trivial that we may as well wait until the film opens? —Josiah Rowe 06:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Edited by Shran to remove spoilers.

It's pretty trivial, since much of it would be speculation, anyway. We don't need to keep a log of what characters might do or are reported to be doing; we'll just take care of it when the movie opens. :) --From Andoria with Love 06:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I can see that point in regard to production POV articles. There's much hype and stuff happening regarding the film itself now, so it really would be a waste to not add that citeable stuff to articles now (and instead wait half a year to add it then). However, as far as any in-universe article is concerned, I don't see much of a difference between adding something now on a "/spoiler" subpage and adding it later.
Also keep in mind that many of us, including admins, don't want to be spoiled. Do you volunteer to police each and every of those subpages for vandalism, spam, definitely false information etc.? - because I surely won't, and many others surely won't, either. -- Cid Highwind 10:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Since I'm a spoiler junkie, I sometimes forget that others aren't. And no, I'm not volunteering for anything.

I see that the sitenotice has been changed to refer specifically to "in-universe content and images" only. The spoiler policy goes a bit further, saying that even out-of-universe content can be added only to pages written from a production POV. Should the sitenotice say this more clearly, or does the link to the spoiler policy cover it well enough? —Josiah Rowe 15:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Little imprecision in the notice, maybe? We don't actually have a "production POV", we have in-universe and real-world POV's. OK, besides that, now that you see what it is you persoanlly don't want to volunteer for after all, let me point out the single best reason not to temporarily maintain 2 versions of (or to "fork") any article: By six months from now, each version will have changed in different ways. When it's time to re-merge them, each fork will be significantly different in ways that are not solely related to the movie. Eliminating the extra fork without losing other contributions will not be a pleasant job for anybody. Multiply that by however many articles. In software engineering, "forking" is a permanent event. --TribbleFurSuit 15:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. Incidentally, I got the phrase "production POV" from the spoiler policy: "However, this information can only be added to pages told from a production point of view". Should that be changed to "real-world point of view"? —Josiah Rowe 15:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, "policy", sorry, that's what I meant to say instead of "the notice". --TribbleFurSuit 16:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Kind of splitting hairs here, but production and real world are pretty much synonymous...seeing as all information not pertaining to in-universe is production based...actors, writers, vfx crew, etc...and each of those are "real world" articles. Further, the site notice is written to be as concise as possible with regards to "in-universe", because those are the only true spoilers that really need to be immediately addressed. The "exceptions" can be found in the "for more information" part of the notice via the link. --Alan 16:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
The notice is fine the way it is, I made a mistake and am not talking about that.
What I'm saying is that I personally just think that we should call one POV by one name: "production" or "realworld".
Realworld gets my support because plenty of MA's valid info not pertaining to in-universe is not production based: see for an example from "Darmok": "This episode has been used by linguistics teachers to aid in students' understanding of how languages work and evolve [1]", and see for another example Fan fiction. Both legitimate MA content, both realworld, neither production. --TribbleFurSuit 17:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd say it is still a "production point of view", as in, "treating what we see as a tv production" in contrast to "treating what we see as a really existing universe". The two are really meant to be synonymous as far as MA's way of dealing with them is concerned, and both have been in use for years now... For what it's worth, I personally still prefer "production POV". -- Cid Highwind 21:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion at Talk:Doctor Who shows how there could be a subtle distinction between the two terms. A subject like "Doctor Who and Star Trek", or "Star Trek and philosophy", is not very relevant to the production of Star Trek, but it is relevant to Star Trek in the real world. (There have been at least three books published on the latter subject: [2] [3], [4].) If subjects like these fall outside Memory Alpha's purview, then perhaps "production point of view" is better than "real world point of view". Alternatively, if there's room for subjects like this at MA (that is, encyclopedic treatment of Star Trek as a cultural product, which can be done while avoiding original research), then perhaps "real world point of view" is better. —Josiah Rowe 22:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

STID UK release date Edit

Considering the film will be released in the UK on May 9, will the new canon information be considered fair game for the site or do we hold back until the US release? --Alientraveller (talk) 22:25, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

Standard last time around was US release. We may have to protect a large amount of things, or possibly the entire site, but that is not out of the question. -- sulfur (talk) 00:44, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
Aside: UK release date is May 17th. "Large format" (ie, IMAX) release in the US is the 15th. Germany and Switzerland are on the 9th (in German), Sweden the 10th (in Swedish). -- sulfur (talk) 14:58, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
Did you mean "US release date" there, sulf? The UK release date is the 9th, as Alientraveller said. -- Michael Warren | Talk 16:29, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
Is it? Everything I've seen lists the UK date as the 17th. Interesting. That could cause some issues... having everything locked down for over a week... not so good. -- sulfur (talk) 16:31, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what lists you're looking at :), but the official site, the official UK Facebook page, and TrekMovie all confirm 9th May. -- Michael Warren | Talk 16:43, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
It might be best to start thinking about how to deal with this then, if we're not already. Locking the entire site for the whole time seems like overkill, but that might still be the simplest option. Locking every alternate reality page, and most likely their prime counterparts as well, might come off as less draconian overall, but an admin from one of the "early" release areas would have to run interference, and most likely a page like Memory Alpha:Deleted pages for new topics. That, of course, doesn't stop spoilers in the edit summaries, pages we might not think about being added, and any other general asshatery that the time delay would allow. At the very least, the site should be locked for a period of time around the release so whatever anti-spoiler stuff we want to do can get done. - Archduk3 (on an unsecure connection) 15:36, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
Locking the entire site down (except for admins) is fairly easy... my worry is just doing it for over a week. We'd need to put up sitenotices/etc to make sure people know what's happening. -- sulfur (talk) 15:39, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
Is wikia even going to be on board with locking the site for that long? It seems like they didn't even want to do it last time, and that was a far shorter time frame. We might to check up on that. - Archduk3 (on an unsecure connection) 15:47, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
With my role as VSTF member with Wikia, it's far easier for me to convince them that I actually know what I'm doing. :)
Note: We can actually do it ourselves now, which we couldn't previously. -- sulfur (talk) 15:49, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
In that case, I'm for locking us down a few hours out from the "first" release date, pending any other, better ideas. It shouldn't be too hard to get the word out about this, even with site-wide notifcations ruined by wikia. If we go the route I mentioned above though, we could just add something to the AR banners. - Archduk3 (on an unsecure connection) 16:01, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, it ought to be either the US release date or the latest International release date (not including any releases that aren't part of the initial "roll out." I just read a spoiler for STID thinking there wouldn't be any spoilers here yet since the film hadn't even come out in the US yet. We're only talking about a week's difference anyway. Dr. Cheis (talk) 03:52, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

Spoiler protection for episode pages?Edit

I would like to propose a change that was brought up a number of years ago (see the old thread at the top of the page) regarding spoilers in the pages for each episode. The current spoiler policy makes complete sense for all other types of page - the wiki's goal is to describe the full Star Trek universe, and cannot restrict itself to awkward warnings or omissions of information beyond an arbitrary point. But the episode pages are an unusual case - a fact that has already been recognized in policy elsewhere, such as the Point of View Policy.

On such a page, the temporal point of reference is not arbitrary at all; it is clearly the release date of that episode. Furthermore, the bulk of its content, by the very nature of the page, would be unencumbered by warnings. Only bullet-point Background Information at the end of the article would be affected, so proper wiki writing style would not be compromised.

I would also argue that under the reader-usefulness principle, it is our responsibility to warn about spoilers in episode pages. As that guideline suggests, "consider your audience". For a general article, a given reader may be coming from any number of contexts. But for an episode page, the distribution of readers swings heavily in the direction of people who have just watched that particular episode, very often in the process of watching a number of episodes in order, and possibly for the first time. The new movies have sparked interest for newcomers to explore the DVD sets, and internet features are doing the same - for instance, the AV Club has reviewed TNG and is halfway through DS9. These new viewers realize they should not be exploring the wiki at large before finishing the series, but it's not unreasonable for them to expect to be able to obtain interesting background information on each episode as they watch them. In short, they are a primary audience, and they should be considered.

This change need not be drastic, both in policy terms and in page editing terms. In policy terms, there is no need to try to change everything overnight by requiring all spoilers be dealt with immediately - simply changing it to "optional" or "recommended" to mark spoilers would encourage archivists to be considerate when adding new trivia, and give editors like myself permission to make the proper changes to existing articles at a natural pace. In time, perhaps, it could be made official policy. As to the pages themselves, no radical restructuring is necessary. Most if not all Background Information sections are already divided into subsections, and it would be quite simple to make one called "Foreshadowing" or "Connections to Future Events" and simply move any relevant trivia there.

As I mentioned, this has been discussed before, in 2006 and 2009. Much of my reasoning was presented by others at that time, and the idea of warnings with a light touch seemed popular, with only one dissenter. However, no changes were made and the idea was apparently forgotten. I would like to either change the policy so I can begin making the wiki a friendlier place for new viewers, or get a clear decision (with clear reasoning) why that's a bad idea. I looked around the policy guidelines and don't see a clear official avenue for a "policy change" proposal like this, so hopefully posting here is the way to go - if not, please point me in the right direction!

Just to summarize, here are reasons to isolate spoilers in their own subsection, or otherwise mark them, within episode pages:

  • Episode pages are already acknowledged as special cases in policy
  • Spoiler warnings would be unobtrusive and not affect readability
  • On a per-page basis, would not require much work to implement
  • Would fulfill mission to meet readers' needs, in this case new readers
  • Would bring page in line with expectations of readers who assume a connection between the release date of an episode and the information presented on its page
  • Context of episode pages provides a very natural "cutoff" for spoilers
  • Received support from community last time it was brought up

I know admins are busy with many new movie changes right now, so I hope this can be addressed easily and simply. I'm happy to do everything myself if I can just get the okay! Thanks for advice on how to move this forward quickly.

Jerodast (talk) 08:49, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need a wholesale policy change here; we can deal with specific instances of this type on an as-needed basis. In some cases it may be hard to separate spoiler information from the rest of the Background information. A good chunk of it is in Continuity sections, but not all, and in some cases what makes the information "interesting" is that it deals with other episodes- which removes a reason for all people to read the episode article. Change how that is displayed and you change it for all people, even those not seeking to be unexposed to spoilers. New readers need to be considered, but so do existing ones. 31dot (talk) 09:25, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
I agree with 31dot, I too am not sure whether any policy needs to be rewritten for this suggestion. Copyediting episode pages is possible at any time, and if it is mostly a re-ordering of items in a specific section, it shouldn't be too controversial. I believe that the sections in question might even benefit from a chronological order, in which case an additional sub-header could be added in between without causing too much trouble. Perhaps Jerodast could identify 2 or 3 episode articles he thinks are the "worst offenders" in that regard, and we'll see how editing those pages could work. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 12:12, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki