Forum:Proposed change to spoiler policy

Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → Proposed change to spoiler policy

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

While in general I've got no issue with Tardis:spoiler policy, there is one teeny section that worries me. Currently, it reads:

DO NOT create articles relating to in-universe elements or actors who will appear in yet to be broadcast or released stories. This information is often vague, inaccurate or contains spoilers.

If these articles are created they will be deleted. (emphasis added)

My problem is with the ban on making improvements to behind-the-scenes articles. Does anyone seriously doubt that Bill Pullman is in Torchwood s4? He's been so well-publicized, and by big, mainstream press articles, that even if he didn't appear, it would still be worth having an article on him to say why he didn't appear.

I thought it was disgraceful to have to wait until the day of broadcast to put up an article on Katherine Jenkins, when she was clearly all over the press and in trailers.

The thing is, the proper writing of an article on an actor or other BTS person takes a long time. A good article on these people is not just "<Actor's name> played <part> in <episode>." It's about finding all the little DWU connections, or finding quotes about their experience on-set. We should be able to get a head start on these articles without offending the spoiler policy.

Might I therefore propose the following:

DO NOT create articles relating to in-universe elements which have not yet been broadcast or published. This information is often vague and inaccurate. Using pre-broadcast "spoilers" about in-universe elements can often result in unnecessary work undoing what has previously been done. The most efficient course of action is merely to wait until broadcast and then write in-universe articles based upon what made it into the final edit of a story.

Real world articles about people who have been confirmed to appear in or work on yet-to-be-broadcast or -published stories are allowed, provided the following rules are observed:

1. The article may not refer to the story title or character name until the story is broadcast or published. Hence, you may say that Toby Haynes was a director on Doctor Who, but you may not say which episodes he directed until they are broadcast. Likewise, you may say that Bill Pullman appeared in Torchwood, but you may not say as what character or in what episodes until they broadcast.
2. The article must contain citations from reputable news agencies about the person's involvement in an upcoming DWU production. However, rule 1 must be observed. The citation can be used to back up an assertion that they are appearing in DW, but it cannot be used to say in which episode or as what character — even if the source actually gives that information. General statements like

   "[actor] appeared in series [x] of [programme name],"<ref>insert source of info here</ref>

   are advisable.
3. The primary focus of an article about a cast or crew member prior to the release of the story in which their work features must be about their CV/resumé prior to their involvement in the DWU. Emphasis shall be placed on finding any connections they have to other DWU personnel in other productions. See, for example, Bill Paterson.
4. Should the person fail to actually work on a DWU story, then the article may be converted into one on why, despite the wide publicity, they didn't appear in the series — provided reputable news organisations reported on it. If no reliable comment upon the person's withdrawal can be found, the article should be deleted.

Thoughts?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 

I'm worried about the having articles for people who didn't appear in DW etc, I think a lot of pointless articles may be created, especially around actors who were reported to be in the TVM back in the day.

I do agree that actors' article pages should be more than "Actor portrayed part X in story. IMDB link.".

I think there would still be be a lot of work in writing (and then re-writing following) an article prior-to broadcast, while using news and articles that have spoilers in them, while keeping the article spoiler free.

I'm really not really sure about this, in theory it seems an alright of an idea but in practice I suspect this will turn into a spoiler fest no matter the checkpoints put in place. Even the standard semi-protection would only help so much, and I'm not sure if the solution would be to create all these articles and then fully protect them as that would really sort of prevent any of the adding of any research suggested here. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:37, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from. But "even if he didn't appear, it would still be worth having an article on him to say why he didn't appear." is one bit I can't agree on. What about all the actors who were heavily publicised for the role of the Doctor? Should they not get a page then? If someone was reported and confirmed to appear in an episode or such, I wouldn't mind the article being created a few weeks prior to the appearance or immediately if they are in a trailer. However, actors can drop out of things, which is why until we see trailers and such, I wouldn't like the article to be created. Take Geoff Noble for example. The actor who played him passed away before the airing of series 4. If he hadn't been in The Runaway Bride, would we have had an article for him? I doubt it. We would have most likely just noted it on Wilf's page.

However, going back to the creation of articles, I think as long as they focus on past works it would be fine. The only thing that might happen with them is the inclusion spoilers. Their character's article won't be created (and it's best we don't leave a red link) so we should leave out the name and simply say "X will appear in series Y of Z". That's all that should be said on their appearance of whatever show they are appearing on. --The Thirteenth Doctor 16:49, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

The "reputable sources" needs emphasis. People keep sourcing private blogs, this is obvious if you look through the Series 6 reflist.--Skittles the hog--Talk 16:37, February 7, 2011 (UTC)