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 main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

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

Compromise #1

It has become apparent to me that no definitive consensus exists in relation to the Spoiler Policy. If I am to take the votes as proof of the views of all persons using this wiki, the user base is evenly split into two groups: for "spoilers" and against "spoilers".

To begin, the question that needs to be answered first is "What constitutes as a spoiler?"

To those who haven't seen either Battlestar series before, everything is spoilerific.

However, since we are here to report and analyze all things in the BSG canon, the definition I am going with follows:

spoiler (noun). Information on an episode or potential entry into canon that has not been officially released yet, whether in the form of a "first airing" or final public release.

Now, in order to not alienate anybody, I am proposing this compromise policy. You may vote for or against it at your discretion, or even suggest amendments or changes to it. If people like the policy's direction, a "final draft" will be written up and subsequently voted upon. Yours truly, Joe Beaudoin 23:53, 13 September 2005 (EDT)

Policy (Draft)

Note: Major changes worth noting are in boldface, so that people can see the difference from the current policy.

Overview

As an episode guide and encyclopedia (and to a lesser extent, a dictionary), this wiki may use information considered "spoilerific" in nature. This policy goes over the placement and verification of such information, as well as how the viewer can be forewarned when visiting an article containing such information.

Definition of a "Spoiler"

In fandom parlance, a "spoiler" is one or more pieces of information that may spoil the user's interest in an ongoing series, such as divulging future plot points or introducing new facts about previously established characters into a series' canon.

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, 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.

General Policy

This wiki recognizes that there are those who believe such information is detrimental to their viewing habits, while others are potentially apathetic to being "spoiled" as it does not affect their habits either way. Therefore, the following measures are to be adhered to:

Information on unaired episodes can be added to any article on this wiki, but shall be tagged with a spoiler warning message, {{spoiler}}.
- For articles completely relating to an unaired episode, the tag shall go on the first line of the article's text, before any other text and templates.
- For articles containing a mix of information from aired and unaired episodes, spoiler information should be encased in the {{spoiltext}} template. For example, a person would enter: {{spoiltext|Adama gets shot in the chest by Boomer in this final act of this episode.}}. This will effectively "black out" this information to the casual viewer, allowing the viewer to select the text should he or she wish to be spoiled.
- All spoiler information must have a source, whether in the form of a URL or a printed publication text, on the talk page of the spoilerific article. For printed publication text, a copy must be scanned and uploaded to the wiki in the form of a JPG or PNG, and posted on the talk page of the article containing the spoilerific content.
- Failure to follow the above procedure(s) shall result in removal of spoiler information. Should the behavior persist, consequences outlined further in this policy text shall be implemented.
Information located on user or talk pages does not need to be tagged with {{spoiler}}. These are "neutral zones", though it is suggested that users keep in mind other users who may not feel the same way they do regarding spoilers when adding content to both talk and user pages.
Once the episode has been aired -- or is airing at the time of a user's editing -- information revealed in that aired or airing episode can no longer be considered "spoilerific". This is regardless of whether or not the episode has yet to air anywhere else. (i.e. Episode 2.11 has aired in the United States, but not in England; just because it hasn't aired in England doesn't make the episode "spoilerific", as it has already aired in the U.S.)

Enforcement of Policy

Repeated failure to obey this policy will result in the user being warned on his or her talk page. Dismissal of the warnings may result in short-term or long-term banning, depending on the circumstances.

Discussion

Please add your discussion points here. Thanks!

I like it, but two things nag me. 1) If there's some leak that something will happen to soem major character, we then mark the whole article about them as spoilerific? B) Should we give any thoughts to verifying the, ah, validity of the information? I think that's about it. --Day 00:28, 14 September 2005 (EDT)

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. --Peter Farago 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. -- Joe Beaudoin 01:38, 14 September 2005 (EDT)

Clarification done. -- Joe Beaudoin 11:05, 15 September 2005 (EDT)

Sweet. I like it. I would vote for this. --Day 17:11, 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). 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. --Peter Farago 20:59, 15 September 2005 (EDT)

I approve also and I agree with the enforcement starting with Resurrection Ship. --Talos 21:05, 15 September 2005 (EDT)

I also agree with this policy and I think that it should begin with Resurrection Ship. --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. ---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?) --Peter Farago 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 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. 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. --Peter Farago 16:48, 16 September 2005 (EDT)

I've created {{spoiltext}}, which can be used for spoiler information anywhere in the article. Usage: {{spoiltext|Adama gets shot by Boomer}}. 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. -- Joe Beaudoin 20:57, 16 September 2005 (EDT)

Looks good: two concerns:

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. --Peter Farago 22:34, 16 September 2005 (EDT)

Excellent. --Peter Farago 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. Spencerian 23:53, 16 September 2005 (EDT)

This can be fixed by giving the td that wraps the spoiled content a class (<td class="spoiler">) and then putting the following lines into the site's css:

td.spoiler a:link {color:#000;}

td.spoiler a:active {color:#000;}

td.spoiler a:visited {color:#000;}

--Peter Farago 23:57, 16 September 2005 (EDT)

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

Modifications done. -- Joe Beaudoin 12:28, 20 September 2005 (EDT)

Just noticed: There isn't a specific note that says, "A spoiler is any event that has not happened on an episode that has aired anywhere in the world," which is, I thought, the agreed-upon definition. I don't want anyone to get the impression that we should be going back to Season 1 and spoiler-marking any of the surprises that occur. Maybe I'm mis-interpreting this thing, though. --Day 00:03, 20 September 2005 (EDT)

Check out the definition section now... -- Joe Beaudoin 12:28, 20 September 2005 (EDT)

Beautious. It pays to be explicit, does it not? --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. --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" 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. -- Joe Beaudoin 22:39, 21 September 2005 (EDT)

Nice edit, Joe. I like it. I think this has been a good compromise. --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)