Battlestar Wiki talk:Spoiler Policy

External Links

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

Spoiler follows, highlight to read.
Battlestar Galactica

Fix: add this to the CSS:

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

--Peter Farago 18:29, 23 September 2005 (EDT)

"Spoiler Boxes"

moved from Nelana 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? --Peter Farago 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. --Peter Farago 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 == Welcome to Battlestar Wiki! ==

Welcome to the Wiki, Spoiler_Policy. Feel free to tell us about yourself on your user page. Before you get started on other edits, please read the Battlestar Wiki:Standards and Conventions, which details the policies we use in editing pages (this differs from many other wikis in consistent use of phrasing, abbreviations, format, and the like).

Also, if you have any questions or suggestions you wish to offer, please feel free to do so either on your user talk page, the Wikipedian Quorum or Administrators' noticeboard. Remember to sign your posts on any talk pages using four tildes (~~~~)! We look forward to your contributions to the community! --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 01:09, 18 July 2006 (CDT)