Battlestar Wiki talk:Spoiler Policy

• Archive 1 (July 17th, 2005 to September 14th, 2005):

Complaints and Concerns, Spoiler Warning, What is a spoiler?, Vote, When does this vote close?

• Archive 2 (September 14th, 2005 to September 23rd, 2005):

Compromise #1, Discussion

External Links

Links to Wikipedia using the Wikipedia: interwiki namespace still show up inside spoiltext. Example

Spoiler follows, highlight to read.
Battlestar Galactica Google

Fix: add this to the CSS:

td.spoiltext_box a.extiw {color: #000;}

--April Arcus 18:29, 23 September 2005 (EDT)

It is now fixed... a year later. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 22:32, 15 October 2006 (CDT)

Shane.. fix the hover css Spoiler outside link code... Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 00:21, 1 January 2008 (CST)

Fixed. Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 00:35, 1 January 2008 (CST)

"Spoiler Boxes"

moved from Helana Cain

The spoiler boxes have a serious flaw--you can't see the "this is a spoiler" line at the top when you're using the Monobook skin. It's too dark to read. I highlighted and ended up seeing the spoiler, and I didn't want to. Of course now I know what the box is and I won't highlight it anymore, but I would appreciate it if the box could be edited to be compatible with all the skins. Thanks. --Fang Aili 00:16, 24 September 2005 (EDT)

I think oncer the "new" design is active, the CSS will be updated for a single skin and then that skin will be changed so CSS would be the primary way to color tables, instead of hardcoding values. The other skins joe should have deleted (as he did before the 1.6.x upgrade) to make sure we all worked from one skin when working on the site. So that's with the problem with the monoskin right now. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 01:15, 20 April 2006 (CDT)

Ron D Moore personally addresses the recent spoilers issue

Moved from Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad

I was in a discussion with Ron's wife Terry on the messageboard in this thread, when she then handed the keyboard over to Ron Moore himself and he posted the following messagee, about two minutes ago:

I want to ask all of you, and KoenigRules in particular, to please refrain from posting detailed spoilers about our upcoming season. It's only April, and we're a long way from the premiere in October, and it's frankly dispiriting and depressing to all of us on the production team to see spoilers appearing this early. We're all working very hard to provide the audience with a unique experience and it takes a lot of the joy out of our process when we know that people have already judged the work before it's ready. This isn't about secrecy or having a NSA-like production, it's about letting the artisans and craftsmen on this show finish their work before it's displayed. Short descriptions of scenes and storylines aren't the same thing as watching an episode of the show and by putting this material out there for everyone to chew over months in advance, it really only allows people to make up their minds about a piece of work that is incomplete by any measure.

I understand the desire to peek inside the tent. I've felt it myself about many projects from the Star Wars sequels to new episodes of Project Runway, and there's nothing juicier than getting the inside dope. However, there's a difference between that one on one insider knowledge and shared secret and posting it on the internet where it gets passed around literally the entire world or putting in on a radio show for all to hear.

There's nothing I can do to stop this kind of thing from happening. When I was at Trek, we tried every known method of encoding scripts and plots and they always got out. The only thing I can do is appeal to your sense of decency and fair play and ask that you not spoil the larger fan community that cannot help but be aware of these things as they get massive distribution through the message boards. Self-restraint on the part of those in possession of inside information is the best way to prevent this from happening all through the Spring and Summer, so I appeal to you as fans of the show to help me keep the cloak over this piece of art until it's been polished and ready to be presented to you, the audience.

I appreciate your consideration,

Ronald D. Moore

In light of this, I think we should change our decision. I originally had the lukewarm idea that if other news sites like Gateworld and Galacticastation ran one of these stories, we might as well run it too, but only if they did it first. However, I have now completely rejected this idea: we shouldn't post anything more than "generic episode descriptions" which don't actually give away essential plot elements. At first I thought it pointless to try to stem the tide as Gatewold and GS might just report it anyway, but I now really think it is our duty to set precedent on the matter and not post spoilers that are this sensitive, if they have been leaked from anonymous sources. Granted, if Lucy Lawless herself spills the beans in an interview with a magazine that's between her and the production team; moreoever, if they wanted her to stop they could hold up her Screen Actors Guild confidentiality papers and give her a warning. But any support, even tacitly, of these spoilers, I don't think we can or should do anymore. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 17:16, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

I think this pretty much sums this debate up. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 17:22, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

Here's the point where I feel I must play devil's advocate, as it were: Ron D. Moore doesn't run Battlestar Wiki. I appreciate the fact that he doesn't want story lines and important plot points spilled out. I can understand that. However, as long as we have the appropriate warnings in place, I do not see the point in not posting the spoilers. We're really not in the business of censoring information, just because someone asks us to do so. Am I wrong? -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 17:37, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

You are not wrong. But I been pointing to send posting anonoymous soruces as a legit way for referreces is not a good idea. People who are still in Season 2 (UK) have no seen three Episode names for Season 3. We need to just be carefull, if we allow anonoymous soilers and spoilers alike, that we be carefull that they be totallt seperate. And seasons that have not offically started keep out the "Episode Data" block also. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 17:44, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

Well I can understand why you're saying that Joe, but I've really got to differ on the matter. There's a difference in my mind between "an actor or crewman leaked this out, and if they wanted it to stop they could give them a warning" and "this person is anonymous, and thus is free from being punished by the production company for breach of contract or simply because they don't want people doing that". Lets see what everyone else thinks. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 17:47, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

I agree with Moore on this, as I did during our initial discussion of the spoiler policy many months ago. Nevertheless, this is a settled issue on Battlestar Wiki. Do we really want to re-open it? --April Arcus 18:29, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

Merv, your "stand" has changed four times and now this spans two pages so I am trying to "keep" the posted times right in my head. I think we need to really move these discussions to their own page so everything is together. Peter, I understand that this is a project of Citation and spolier poilcy, but this is becomeing to confusing on where everyone stands. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 18:50, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

It's very simple. The discussion on Citation Jihad is about whether we should allow anonymous sources. The discussion here is about whether we should revise the spoiler policy. The two topics may have originated with the same controversy, but they are not related, nor should they be confused. If The Merovingian wants us to revisit the horribly contested and partisan spoiler policy debate from last fall, this is the place he needs to propose it. --April Arcus 18:53, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

I admit it's a little confusing Shane: well, officially (as you can see above with the most recent thing): I do not think we should use anonymous spoilers information, because RDM implored everyone not to, and we're only aiding whoever the leak is; if they're afraid of revealing themselves because they think they're breaching a non-disclosure contract or something and thus doing something actually illegale, I don't think we should support that by reporting their information here. Further, it's not always right as it's based on early scripts. Well, that's where I stand on the subject, though I don't know how everyone else thinks. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 19:39, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

I agree that RDM request should override any other concerns for ethical reasons. It is analogous to insider-trading info. Remember the conversation between Apollo and Tigh about the black market. If we do it because everyone does, it doesn't make us right, just whole lot of people wrong. --Frankie Gouge April 26, 2006 21:40 EDT

I, myself, try not to read spoilers. Sometimes, I accidentally do while I'm editing a page or something, but I take that as my "fault" kind of, for editing that page. It happens and usually it's not a big show ruiner for me. I would not oppose re-opening this debate, but I don't know that we need to, either. My main concern about spoilers is that, even if they're from a citable, reliable source, they're often wrong (because they get changed before air-date or whatever). Also, I am kind of partial to the idea of doing as RDM asks because I respect him as a creator and he asked in a nice, mature, respectful (to us fans) way. I do, however, allow that a rational person could disagree. --Day ^{(Talk - Admin)} 00:39, 2 May 2006 (CDT)

Hey, this is Commander Me. I would be willing to help translate the Spoiler Policy page into German. Just contact me at my user talk for more info. --Commander Me.

check out http://www.battlestarwiki.org/de/w/Battlestar_Wiki:Spoiler_Richtlinien

Questions Section

I seen recently a lot of spoiler info come into these sections in the form of {{spoiltext}} for answeres, but with the BW:ES project, shouldn't we keep the real Answers, even in {{spoiltext}} out until the Episode shows IF the spolier comes from a known episode? --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 22:25, 15 October 2006 (CDT)

Provided that the Spoiler Policy and Citation Jihad are adhered to, then the spoilers should be encased in {{spoiltext}}, whether the spoiler is in the form of a question or an answer. Furthermore, we should probably go ahead and tack on the spoiler warning to the top of said page, provided that there are enough spoilers on that page to justify it. However, again, the policies need to be adhered to -- if the spoilers come from Joe Smoe and not an official source, then they should be eradicated with prejudice. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 23:10, 15 October 2006 (CDT)

I don't think a spoiler header is necessary - that indicates that the entire contents of the tagged page are spoiler material. --April Arcus 23:12, 15 October 2006 (CDT)

Ditto. Unforentently, StrayCat0's contrib, in Exodus, Part I brings this up. (Not singling out StraayCat, because it happened in previous seasons). No cite, so it fails that for right now, but in general, when we do mark these "Questions" answered, we usually go ([[Episode Here|Answer)]]), and leave it like this. I am going to created {{spoilli}} to work within numbered lists... {{spoiltext}} ruins a lot of formating. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 23:19, 15 October 2006 (CDT)

Actually, it can be read either way -- and after reading it, the connotation seems inconsistent to me, particularly the last sentence of the warning, so I've gone ahead and proposed a change in wording. As for spoiltext, I look forward to a better version of it. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 23:56, 15 October 2006 (CDT)

Will the Turkish translation of this article be visible on the main page? Or are we going to wait until we have our own tr.battlestarwiki.org domain? :) Redlinetheturk 09:23, 12 November 2006 (CST)

Spoilers in the examples

Should the example of using the spoiler tags really include a spoiler for those who possibly haven't seen that episode? FredTheDeadHead 15:33, 23 January 2008 (CST)

I have removed it, however, following the policy, it's not considered a spoiler anymore. Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 16:24, 23 January 2008 (CST)

Spoiler policy: please rethink

Having just joined the wiki a few minutes ago, I doubt my opinion will have much weight, but here we go:

I also am a recent fan of BSG. I got the box set a month ago and am now into season 3.

At the beginning, I made a habit of reading the relevant article here on each episode after watching it. That went okay, till Season 2, when out of the blue I find that two characters were revealed to be "Final 5" Cylons, a fact not revealed till Season 4, I think.

Of course when I read an article about an episode, I expect anything that comes up IN THAT EPISODE OR A PREVIOUS ONE to be fair game. I was not expecting facts from episodes broadcast two years later to be.

I guess your "anything broadcast is fair game" policy made sense back when the show was on the air, and most readers here were watching it on live TV.

Now, several years later, that is not the case. There will be people like me, starting the series from the beginning and watching it in sequence, on reruns or DVD or online.

The "Any spoiler anywhere" policy you have have means that I, and any other new viewer, will avoid this site like the plague once they've been burnt. I was very disappointed, as the contemporary quotes from producers and writers collected here was quite illuminating to read after watching. But not at the cost of having major future plot points revealed.

You may be fine with that, but this policy drives away new fans. AlanHK 11:06, 9 July 2012 (EDT)

Hi Alan,

Before I begin to address your concern, I wish to express my appreciation for the time and effort you took to bring up your viewpoint. As project leader, I do understand that there are doubtless folks that feel as you do. However, the intent of this website is to serve as a reference for everything that occurs (or is part of) on any of the Battlestar series.

The fundamental issue is that anything can be a "spoiler" depending on where people are in watching the series, and so protecting everyone from "spoilers" detracts from the project (which is to collect and disseminate information), because everything on here is a spoiler at one time or another. We cannot protect people from every spoiler, certainly, as "spoilers" are integral parts to the overall story.

Reality is that we only have a finite amount of contributors (less than 1% of the active fanbase), and the best use of their time is research and collaboration... not protecting people from spoilers. Yes, that's a bit off putting to some, but that's acceptable to me given reality.

I do understand that people may not visit the website until they've watched the series entirely, that's fine. If people do not use the website because of it, then that's up to them as well. We're like a library... you can use it, or you cannot. We leave that choice to our viewers. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 13:21, 9 July 2012 (EDT)

It's not true that "anything can be a spoiler". I'm not talking about the whole wiki, just the articles about specific episodes. If I look up Final Five, well, I'd expect to find out who they are, and it's my own look-out; but that fundamental "secret" if revealed earlier really, literally, spoils your experience of the show, and I was very pissed off when that happened to me when reading an article about a season 2 episode. Your wiki, your choice, but you are alienating any new fans from reading, let alone participating. I've just watched "Dirty Hands", I'd like to read some backgound on it. But I can't, here, without risking reading something someone added two years after it was broadcast that they thought was "ironic" in light of something that happened in the series finale. I want to read about the episode I've watched now, not months later when I've forgotten the details. I'm not a mega fan, when I watch a show I like to think about it about it, but after I've seen them all I'm not going to rewatch it and analyse it for years later.

So what I'll do is use the article history and read a version from shortly after the airdate. That will solve the problem for me, but few casual readers are likely to work that out. Really, if you want to grow your fanbase rather than just catering to a gradually declining number of original fans, you need to rethink this. The current fans of the show are less and less those who watched it on the original broadcast. AlanHK 23:40, 9 July 2012 (EDT)

I believe at least the episode summary should deal with present, and probably past, episodes only. The Questions section should also stay spoiler free by sticking to the established practice of linking to the answer in a future episode. The Notes and Analysis sections are the most problematic, as potential follow ups based on later aired facts has to appear in the context. It could be possible to hide those follow ups in spoiler boxes, but that would make the section(s) hard to read for the all those that have seen it all. (By the way, my biggest fear after discovering this site and the forum when I was still watching the episodes on television, on a domestic channel lagging a year or so behind SciFi and Sky, as opposed to the "alternative" I later switched over to, was forum signatures. In the end, I was betrayed by my own curiosity when I clicked into an article about something Cylon related and saw the Final Five listed among the Cylons in a box at the bottom.) Caldumidoan 01:25, 10 July 2012 (EDT)

Alan, Yes, it is true that "anything can be a spoiler"... For instance, if you didn't watch the second part of the Miniseries, the fact that Boomer was a Cylon is a spoiler. I do understand that there will be bleed over in facts, but that's the risk. We realize that we can't please everyone, because we are limited by various factors, including the fact that we don't have a lot of people contributing any more, and thus it's more of a task to change articles.

As for alienating people, people will be alienated no matter what you do... it's just the extent. Looking at the traffic stats, which have actually increased exponentially since the show stopped airing, I am completely correct in disagreeing with your assessment that our fan base isn't growing... since you do not have that data in front of you, and merely state that "belief" from emotion. Cold hard stats do not lie.

As to Caldumidoan's point, I do agree with most of what was said in their comments, and that there are some slip-ups here and there. It's the nature of the beast. The decision early on was to put the responsibility into the hands of the visitors as to what they want to view and see, and not hand-hold them, or at least limit the hand-holding to something more manageable for a staff that works pro bono. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 02:52, 10 July 2012 (EDT)

I don't know why you mentioned something in the miniseries being a spoiler for later episodes, I said very clearly what I meant, what most people mean, by a spoiler: Information from episodes broadcast LATER than the one under discussion. You talk about huge traffic, but also "we don't have a lot of people contributing". Maybe that's a sign of alienation? Who knows? I for one might have contributed. I've done over 6000 edits at Wikipedia, and I mod two forums, so I know all about "pro bono" -- about the only recognition I get is being called a fascist for shutting down flame wars, but as above, I won't be reading any current articles under your current "free fire zone for spoilers" policy, so that's out.

Okay, here's what set me off, in Fragged we have :

Could Ellen Tigh's attempts to manipulate the downfall of President Roslin be an indication that she is really a Cylon sent to spread chaos in the Fleet? (Partial Answer:She is a Cylon, but that might not be related to her actions.)

AND later

There is also the fact that the Colonial landing team includes a member of the Final Five: Galen Tyrol.

Why the hell was it necessary to put that in a season 2 article? Why weren't they linked as "Answers" elsewhere so the reader can choose whether they "want to view and see" it as you said? AlanHK 09:07, 10 July 2012 (EDT)

You'll have to ask Human Torch 2 about why the latter was added. It might have seemed like a facinating theory at the time that was added to the only obviously relevant page. The comment about Ellen's nature was actually originally an answer link, but R9tgokunks changed it for reasons unknown. The only thing the admins can answer is why it hasn't been removed or reverted. Caldumidoan 10:49, 10 July 2012 (EDT)

Alan, in case you did not notice, the Miniseries was split up into two parts: I mention the Boomer thing for that specific reason. I apologize if that confused you.

Regarding traffic: We've ever only had a small amount of contributors vs. a large amount of traffic. That hasn't changed at all. Has nothing to do with policy, it's just that really active/creative fans are always outnumbered by the passive fans 100:1.

As for the examples you mention, I can agree that those are a bit grievous, and should be corrected or reverted. So, addressing Caldumidoan's point, if you see something like that, feel free to change it. Admins aren't the only people to change or revert articles, you know. We encourage people to make changes, as so long as they are reasonable and that, should someone have an issue with it, it is discussed on the appropriate talk pages. If you think admins are here handhold, you are sorely mistaken. This is a community, and each person is empowered to make changes. If they're major changes then, yes, they should be discussed first and then, once a plan and agreement is put in place, you can then execute said changes per that agreed upon plan. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 12:41, 10 July 2012 (EDT)

I know how to edit a wiki, and anyway, under your current policy, I have no pretext to delete "spoilers", they are specifically allowed. The problem is I can't edit my memory. This is about policy, not asking you to "hold my hand". My experience of seasons 2 and 3 was literally spoiled by some asshole who thought it was cute to reveal that two characters were Cylons, facts not revealed to viewers for 40 episodes after the one under discussion. Looking at this talk page, while the series was still on air, the discussion was about preventing spoilers from being shown. When it was finished, it went to justifying why spoilers should be allowed. That suits old fans, who've seen the whole thing, but ignores new viewers. If you retain your "spoilers anywhere, anytime" policy, no one will fix these things -- those edits have been in that article for almost three years now -- and new fans, like myself, will find this wiki, instead of enriching their appreciation of the series, diminishes it. But I can see you are getting annoyed by my suggestions and I think it's time to end this discussion, as you clearly aren't receptive. AlanHK 10:16, 12 July 2012 (EDT)

Re-imagined Series definition: Battlestar Group ^{(TRS: "Water")}. It also doubles as an acronym for the television series itself.