Battlestar Wiki talk:Spoiler Policy/Archive02 - Revision history

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

2020-04-11T01:54:26Z

Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

April Arcus at 17:53, 10 May 2006

2006-05-10T17:53:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:53, 10 May 2006
Line 6:		Line 6:
	replying to if necessary. (See [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page\|Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page]].)		replying to if necessary. (See [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page\|Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page]].)

	Please add new archivals to the bottom of this page, or to [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Spoiler Policy/Archive03]] if this page exceeds 32 kilobytes. Thank you. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 14:36, 23 September 2005 (EDT)		Please add new archivals to the bottom of this page, or to [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Spoiler Policy/Archive03\|Archive 03]] if this page exceeds 32 kilobytes. Thank you. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 14:36, 23 September 2005 (EDT)

	----		----

April Arcus at 17:49, 10 May 2006

2006-05-10T17:49:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:49, 10 May 2006
Line 6:		Line 6:
	replying to if necessary. (See [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page\|Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page]].)		replying to if necessary. (See [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page\|Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page]].)

	Please add new archivals to [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Spoiler Policy/Archive03]]. Thank you. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 14:36, 23 September 2005 (EDT)		Please add new archivals to the bottom of this page, or to [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Spoiler Policy/Archive03]] if this page exceeds 32 kilobytes. Thank you. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 14:36, 23 September 2005 (EDT)

	----		----

April Arcus: Battlestar Wiki talk:Spoiler Policy/Compromise moved to Battlestar Wiki talk:Spoiler Policy/Archive02

2005-09-23T18:43:34Z

Battlestar Wiki talk:Spoiler Policy/Compromise moved to Battlestar Wiki talk:Spoiler Policy/Archive02

← Older revision	Revision as of 18:43, 23 September 2005
(No difference)

April Arcus: Archive notice

2005-09-23T18:42:30Z

Archive notice

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:42, 23 September 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
	: ''~~This page is now an~~ '''archive~~''' of discussions regarding~~ the ~~compromise in spoiler policy that was reached~~. ~~Therefore~~, the page ~~should not be edited unless necessary~~.''		'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

			This archive page covers approximately the dates between September 14th, 2005 and September 23rd, 2005.

			Post replies to the [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Spoiler Policy\|main talk page]], copying the section you are
			replying to if necessary. (See [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page\|Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page]].)

			Please add new archivals to [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Spoiler Policy/Archive03]]. Thank you. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 14:36, 23 September 2005 (EDT)

			----

	= Compromise #1 =		= Compromise #1 =

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: + note at top of talk page

2005-09-23T17:53:48Z

+ note at top of talk page

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:53, 23 September 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
			: ''This page is now an '''archive''' of discussions regarding the compromise in spoiler policy that was reached. Therefore, the page should not be edited unless necessary.''

	= Compromise #1 =		= Compromise #1 =

Zarek Rocks: Thanks a lot Joe

2005-09-22T04:44:18Z

Thanks a lot Joe

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:44, 22 September 2005
Line 109:		Line 109:

	:: Nice edit, Joe. I like it. I think this has been a good compromise. --[[User:Day\|Day]] 23:37, 21 September 2005 (EDT)		:: Nice edit, Joe. I like it. I think this has been a good compromise. --[[User:Day\|Day]] 23:37, 21 September 2005 (EDT)
			:::I appreciate the clarification, I think this spoiler policy is perfect now.--Zareck Rocks 00:44, 22 September 2005 (EDT)

Day: /* Discussion */ Good edit, Joe!

2005-09-22T03:37:52Z

Discussion: Good edit, Joe!

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:37, 22 September 2005
Line 107:		Line 107:
	: Michael, I agree with you that "Mecury-class" is a trivial piece of information, not necessarily a damaging spoiler as it doesn't reveal the fate of a certain ship or ships of that class. ''However'', on principle and in technicality I agree with the others: it constitutes as a spoiler, given that a spoiler is defined as anything established in an episode that has yet to air anywhere, despite its trivial and miniscule nature. While I agree with your determination that it doesn't constitute as a ''damaging'' spoiler, I wrote the policy to encompass ''all'' spoilerific information, so that we wouldn't have people trying to use the letter of the policy to defeat the spirit of the policy. Obviously, I'm not saying that you are, but you bring up a valid point about minor spoilers and I will be more explicit in this as well.		: Michael, I agree with you that "Mecury-class" is a trivial piece of information, not necessarily a damaging spoiler as it doesn't reveal the fate of a certain ship or ships of that class. ''However'', on principle and in technicality I agree with the others: it constitutes as a spoiler, given that a spoiler is defined as anything established in an episode that has yet to air anywhere, despite its trivial and miniscule nature. While I agree with your determination that it doesn't constitute as a ''damaging'' spoiler, I wrote the policy to encompass ''all'' spoilerific information, so that we wouldn't have people trying to use the letter of the policy to defeat the spirit of the policy. Obviously, I'm not saying that you are, but you bring up a valid point about minor spoilers and I will be more explicit in this as well.
	: Also, the reason I chose Friday to institute the new spoiler policy is because "[[Pegasus (episode)\|Pegasus]]" airs that day and the policy will prevent people from being spoiled from information added to this wiki regarding the second half of season two (starting from "[[Resurrection Ship]]" and the still unconfirmed-but-very-likely-to-occur season three. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin\|Joe Beaudoin]] 22:39, 21 September 2005 (EDT)		: Also, the reason I chose Friday to institute the new spoiler policy is because "[[Pegasus (episode)\|Pegasus]]" airs that day and the policy will prevent people from being spoiled from information added to this wiki regarding the second half of season two (starting from "[[Resurrection Ship]]" and the still unconfirmed-but-very-likely-to-occur season three. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin\|Joe Beaudoin]] 22:39, 21 September 2005 (EDT)

			:: Nice edit, Joe. I like it. I think this has been a good compromise. --[[User:Day\|Day]] 23:37, 21 September 2005 (EDT)

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: /* Definition of a "Spoiler" */ clarifying that ALL spoilers, regardless of perceived size or impact, are considered spoilers

2005-09-22T02:41:30Z

Definition of a "Spoiler": clarifying that ALL spoilers, regardless of perceived size or impact, are considered spoilers

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:41, 22 September 2005
Line 27:		Line 27:
	To a new viewer of any ''Battlestar'' series, everything is considered a spoiler. However, since this wiki exists as an information reference, we are not here to protect new viewers from information.		To a new viewer of any ''Battlestar'' series, everything is considered a spoiler. However, since this wiki exists as an information reference, we are not here to protect new viewers from information.

	Therefore a spoiler is one or more pieces of information from an episode that has yet to air ''anywhere'' in the world.		Therefore a spoiler is one or more pieces of information from an episode that has yet to air ''anywhere'' in the world, regardless of their perceived size or impact.

	Thus this spoiler policy '''protects viewers familiar with the series who do not want to be exposed to information from episodes that have not had a first airing'''.		Thus this spoiler policy '''protects viewers familiar with the series who do not want to be exposed to information from episodes that have not had a first airing'''.

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: /* Discussion */ reply to Zarek "Michael" Rocks

2005-09-22T02:39:36Z

Discussion: reply to Zarek "Michael" Rocks

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:39, 22 September 2005
Line 103:		Line 103:
	:: Beautious. It pays to be explicit, does it not? --[[User:Day\|Day]] 13:19, 20 September 2005 (EDT)		:: Beautious. It pays to be explicit, does it not? --[[User:Day\|Day]] 13:19, 20 September 2005 (EDT)

	Joe as of late I have one concern. From others that I have discussed this with I may be wrong and would like to run it pass you now. Several other BSG wikipedians and myself have been having a discussion on [[User talk:Spencerian]]out a spoiler on [[Mercury-Class]]. I feel that a trivial fact like Pegasus is a Mercury-class battlestar should not be considered a spoiler but others seem to disagree with me on principle or technicality as due to the definition of spoiler. I was wondering what you felt on the issue and if you decide that it is a spoiler I will resign the issue.		Joe as of late I have one concern. From others that I have discussed this with I may be wrong and would like to run it pass you now. Several other BSG wikipedians and myself have been having a discussion on [[User talk:Spencerian]] out a spoiler on [[Mercury-Class]]. I feel that a trivial fact like Pegasus is a Mercury-class battlestar should not be considered a spoiler but others seem to disagree with me on principle or technicality as due to the definition of spoiler. I was wondering what you felt on the issue and if you decide that it is a spoiler I will resign the issue.
	--Zareck Rocks 20:04, 21 September 2005 (EDT)		--Zareck Rocks 20:04, 21 September 2005 (EDT)
			: Michael, I agree with you that "Mecury-class" is a trivial piece of information, not necessarily a damaging spoiler as it doesn't reveal the fate of a certain ship or ships of that class. ''However'', on principle and in technicality I agree with the others: it constitutes as a spoiler, given that a spoiler is defined as anything established in an episode that has yet to air anywhere, despite its trivial and miniscule nature. While I agree with your determination that it doesn't constitute as a ''damaging'' spoiler, I wrote the policy to encompass ''all'' spoilerific information, so that we wouldn't have people trying to use the letter of the policy to defeat the spirit of the policy. Obviously, I'm not saying that you are, but you bring up a valid point about minor spoilers and I will be more explicit in this as well.
			: Also, the reason I chose Friday to institute the new spoiler policy is because "[[Pegasus (episode)\|Pegasus]]" airs that day and the policy will prevent people from being spoiled from information added to this wiki regarding the second half of season two (starting from "[[Resurrection Ship]]" and the still unconfirmed-but-very-likely-to-occur season three. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin\|Joe Beaudoin]] 22:39, 21 September 2005 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:54, 11 April 2020
Line 6:		Line 6:
	replying to if necessary. (See [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page\|Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page]].)		replying to if necessary. (See [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page\|Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page]].)

	Please add new archivals to the bottom of this page, or to [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Spoiler Policy/Archive03\|Archive 03]] if this page exceeds 32 kilobytes. Thank you. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 14:36, 23 September 2005 (EDT)		Please add new archivals to the bottom of this page, or to [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Spoiler Policy/Archive03\|Archive 03]] if this page exceeds 32 kilobytes. Thank you. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 14:36, 23 September 2005 (EDT)

	----		----
Line 65:		Line 65:

	::1.) This also bothers me. I think perhaps on regular articles, we could have a section below everything else for spoiler content. Episode pages for unaired episodes could just be flagged at the top, though.		::1.) This also bothers me. I think perhaps on regular articles, we could have a section below everything else for spoiler content. Episode pages for unaired episodes could just be flagged at the top, though.
	::2.) A link to an online source or should be adequate. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 01:23, 14 September 2005 (EDT)		::2.) A link to an online source or should be adequate. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 01:23, 14 September 2005 (EDT)

	::: Great points. I believe that articles, such as character ones, should have a "spoiler" section to them added to the bottom with the appropriate warning before the spoilerific information. I'll clarify in the draft. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin\|Joe Beaudoin]] 01:38, 14 September 2005 (EDT)		::: Great points. I believe that articles, such as character ones, should have a "spoiler" section to them added to the bottom with the appropriate warning before the spoilerific information. I'll clarify in the draft. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin\|Joe Beaudoin]] 01:38, 14 September 2005 (EDT)
Line 75:		Line 75:
	:::::I'm happy to use spoiler tags...keeps us from editing twice, and gives enough warning to those who hunt around the site. Looks good (although there are a quite a few pages to add the tag, starting with Pegasus-related data). [[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 20:06, 15 September 2005 (EDT)		:::::I'm happy to use spoiler tags...keeps us from editing twice, and gives enough warning to those who hunt around the site. Looks good (although there are a quite a few pages to add the tag, starting with Pegasus-related data). [[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 20:06, 15 September 2005 (EDT)

	::::::I also approve. As for the Pegasus stuff, that episode is only eight days away. This policy probably won't even be approved by then, so I suggest we start enforcing it on material starting with [[Resurrection Ship]], the first episode after the mid-season hiatus. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 20:59, 15 September 2005 (EDT)		::::::I also approve. As for the Pegasus stuff, that episode is only eight days away. This policy probably won't even be approved by then, so I suggest we start enforcing it on material starting with [[Resurrection Ship]], the first episode after the mid-season hiatus. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 20:59, 15 September 2005 (EDT)
	:::::::I approve also and I agree with the enforcement starting with [[Resurrection Ship]]. --[[User:Talos\|Talos]] 21:05, 15 September 2005 (EDT)		:::::::I approve also and I agree with the enforcement starting with [[Resurrection Ship]]. --[[User:Talos\|Talos]] 21:05, 15 September 2005 (EDT)
	::::::::I also agree with this policy and I think that it should begin with [[Resurrection Ship]]. --[[User:Zarek Rocks\|Zarek Rocks]] 16:12, 16 September 2005 (EDT)		::::::::I also agree with this policy and I think that it should begin with [[Resurrection Ship]]. --[[User:Zarek Rocks\|Zarek Rocks]] 16:12, 16 September 2005 (EDT)

	::As I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong, you're going to add spoiler tags to secions dealing with new stuff. Fine; the way it normally happens, information in articles is added fairly chronologically; i.e. if there are three episodes they've been in, there are usually three paragraphs ending with a ("Episode") link, so it would be easy to insert spoiler tages between the second and third paragraphs. This doesn't sound like too big of a change. *I think it would be too far to make a "Spoiler SECTION", just put spoiler tags between old and new information, without drastically altering the article's format. *This works so long as everyone is good and cites sources at the end of every large chunk of episode info; that is, adding the ("Episode") link. That could work, and it's not too big of a change. ---[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 16 Sept, 2005.		::As I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong, you're going to add spoiler tags to secions dealing with new stuff. Fine; the way it normally happens, information in articles is added fairly chronologically; i.e. if there are three episodes they've been in, there are usually three paragraphs ending with a ("Episode") link, so it would be easy to insert spoiler tages between the second and third paragraphs. This doesn't sound like too big of a change. *I think it would be too far to make a "Spoiler SECTION", just put spoiler tags between old and new information, without drastically altering the article's format. *This works so long as everyone is good and cites sources at the end of every large chunk of episode info; that is, adding the ("Episode") link. That could work, and it's not too big of a change. ---[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 16 Sept, 2005.
	:::In principle, I would be fine with that, but I don't like the idea of having to scroll past spoiler content to get to the "Notes" section, for example. Joe, would it be possible to good up a template to give us an inviso-text effect like some forums use (ie, black text on a black background, that you can highlight to read?) --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 15:46, 16 September 2005 (EDT)		:::In principle, I would be fine with that, but I don't like the idea of having to scroll past spoiler content to get to the "Notes" section, for example. Joe, would it be possible to good up a template to give us an inviso-text effect like some forums use (ie, black text on a black background, that you can highlight to read?) --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 15:46, 16 September 2005 (EDT)
	::::I agree with Peter, if someone really doesn't want to read spoiler information we should try to make it so spoiler information is covered, and if you want to read it then you can highlight it. I think this will help with editing too because then when the info is no longer considered a spoiler we won't have to move it but can just change the font color.--Zareck Rocks 16:13, 16 September 2005 (EDT)		::::I agree with Peter, if someone really doesn't want to read spoiler information we should try to make it so spoiler information is covered, and if you want to read it then you can highlight it. I think this will help with editing too because then when the info is no longer considered a spoiler we won't have to move it but can just change the font color.--Zareck Rocks 16:13, 16 September 2005 (EDT)
	:::I agree with Ricimer. I'm fine with the idea of spoiler tags in the middle of articles separating 'established' infor from 'spoiler' info, but I am opposed to the creation of a whole nother spoiler section. [[User:Kuralyov\|Kuralyov]] 15:49, 16 September 2005 (EDT)		:::I agree with Ricimer. I'm fine with the idea of spoiler tags in the middle of articles separating 'established' infor from 'spoiler' info, but I am opposed to the creation of a whole nother spoiler section. [[User:Kuralyov\|Kuralyov]] 15:49, 16 September 2005 (EDT)

	::In the event that we allow spoilers anywhere in the article, we should request that editors use SPOILER or something to that effect in the edit summary. This is a matter of courtesy to those of us who would otherwise check out the article's diff. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 16:48, 16 September 2005 (EDT)		::In the event that we allow spoilers anywhere in the article, we should request that editors use SPOILER or something to that effect in the edit summary. This is a matter of courtesy to those of us who would otherwise check out the article's diff. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 16:48, 16 September 2005 (EDT)

	I've created {{tl\|spoiltext}}, which can be used for spoiler information anywhere in the article. Usage: <nowiki>{{spoiltext\|Adama gets shot by Boomer}}</nowiki>. As for adding the word spoiler to the edit summary, I agree that would be a matter of wiki-etiquette as well and should, therefore, be encouraged in the policy. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin\|Joe Beaudoin]] 20:57, 16 September 2005 (EDT)		I've created {{tl\|spoiltext}}, which can be used for spoiler information anywhere in the article. Usage: <nowiki>{{spoiltext\|Adama gets shot by Boomer}}</nowiki>. As for adding the word spoiler to the edit summary, I agree that would be a matter of wiki-etiquette as well and should, therefore, be encouraged in the policy. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin\|Joe Beaudoin]] 20:57, 16 September 2005 (EDT)
Line 90:		Line 90:
	:Looks good: two concerns:		:Looks good: two concerns:
	#You can't break paragraphs inside the spoiltext template without using HTML.		#You can't break paragraphs inside the spoiltext template without using HTML.
	#We might want to consider having the template also insert some kind of "Spoiler, highlight to read" header. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 22:34, 16 September 2005 (EDT)		#We might want to consider having the template also insert some kind of "Spoiler, highlight to read" header. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 22:34, 16 September 2005 (EDT)

	::Excellent. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 23:43, 16 September 2005 (EDT)		::Excellent. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 23:43, 16 September 2005 (EDT)

	::Sweet! Joe's used the spoiltext in the [[Number Six]] page for those who'd like to see it in action. It works very well, although links do appear. [[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 23:53, 16 September 2005 (EDT)		::Sweet! Joe's used the spoiltext in the [[Number Six]] page for those who'd like to see it in action. It works very well, although links do appear. [[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 23:53, 16 September 2005 (EDT)
Line 102:		Line 102:
	::: td.spoiler a:visited {color:#000;}		::: td.spoiler a:visited {color:#000;}

	:::--[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 23:57, 16 September 2005 (EDT)		:::--[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 23:57, 16 September 2005 (EDT)

	:::: True. I planned to modify the main spreadsheet to do something of this nature. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin\|Joe Beaudoin]] 00:16, 17 September 2005 (EDT)		:::: True. I planned to modify the main spreadsheet to do something of this nature. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin\|Joe Beaudoin]] 00:16, 17 September 2005 (EDT)