Tech, emailconfirmed, Administrators
38,265
edits
Forum:Temporary forums/Changing the Spoiler Policy: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forum:Temporary forums/Changing the Spoiler Policy (view source)
Revision as of 15:04, 14 February 2023
, 14 February 2023no edit summary
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 387: | Line 387: | ||
Alright people… final thoughts so we can wrap this up? [[User:Danniesen|Danniesen]] [[User talk:Danniesen|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 08:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC) | Alright people… final thoughts so we can wrap this up? [[User:Danniesen|Danniesen]] [[User talk:Danniesen|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 08:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC) | ||
: I want the spoilers. [[User:Cookieboy 2005|Cookieboy 2005]] [[User talk:Cookieboy 2005|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 14:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC) | : I want the spoilers. [[User:Cookieboy 2005|Cookieboy 2005]] [[User talk:Cookieboy 2005|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 14:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC) | ||
== Conclusion == | |||
<div class="tech"> | |||
Alright… this is going to be a long one. | |||
Few other topics are as divisive in a given fandom space as spoilers. This makes setting down any policy tricky, because true consensus is impossible — for any policy short of "no spoilers whatsoever anywhere", there will always be people earnestly distressed and outraged by whatever lingering presence spoilers are granted; and the reverse holds. Provided anybody's paying attention in the first place, I am fully expecting a minor but strident amount of outcry on Twitter or Reddit about our newfound spoileriness. This is inevitable and we should not worry about it too much. For better or for worse, '''we must accept that we can't please everyone, and just try to be the most useful resource we can to the highest number, while trying to be ''graceful'' about the ways in which we'll contradict the wishes of the more spoilerphobic side.''' | |||
And I think this thread makes clear that '''the editing community's consensus is in favour of loosening the [[Tardis:Spoiler policy|spoiler policy]] by a very significant amount'''. I am particularly struck by the way multiple people who describe themselves as spoilerphobes have come out in support of it. To be more exact, people are in favour of widening our coverage '''officially-released information about upcoming releases (e.g. BBC Press Releases, Arcbeatle Press's social media), but not leaks'''. | |||
As regards the much-debated point about giving BBC Press Releases special treatment vs. covering lower-profile official resources like DWM, I ultimately find Nate's point that… | |||
{{quote|…y differentiating between BBC announcements on the one hand and DWM announcements on the other, the existence of a /Spoilers subpage link would be a much worse spoiler than otherwise. In contrast, by adopting a "maximalist" view of what's covered on /Spoilers, we'd be diluting the meaning of such a subpage's existence and protecting spoilerphobes in the process.|User:NateBumber}} | |||
…to be the most persuasive. | |||
Some specifics: | |||
* Obviously, the hitherto-technically-policy-breaching existence of '''pages such as [[List of future releases]] is now enshrined'''. | |||
* As pointed out by [[User:NateBumber]], as per [[T:RUMOUR]] '''do actually seem to allow some unofficial spoilers on specific sections of series pages, with rigorous sourcing. This seems to have worked well so far, but should not be extended to the new types of spoiler pages except for the ones about individual upcoming works''' (which extend most naturally from the series pages that T:RUMOUR currently applies to). | |||
* The practice of '''{{tlx|spoiler}}-tagged pages about upcoming series''' should be '''extended to pages about individual works'''. | |||
* '''Pages about DWM issues, or other notable publications, which discuss spoilery information from a real-world perspective, ought to present the spoilers on the main page, but be tagged with a {{tlx|spoiler}} banner'''. | |||
* '''<nowiki>[[/Spoiler]]</nowiki> subpages ought to be created''' to document spoilers about real-world figures who already have non-spoilery relevance to the DWU, such as [[Catherine Tate]]. {{tlx|NateBumber/Spoilerlink}} should be moved into the main namespace to facilitate this. There seems to be some minor disagreement on the specific shape of this template; if people want to discuss at greater length whether the note, a collapsible box, a banner, a link in the infobox, etc. would be best, '''this can be discussed at [[Template_talk:Spoilerlink]].''' | |||
* '''Official spoilers are also allowed in Forum threads when necessary, but spoilery threads should be flagged as such'''. As [[User:Najawin]] suggested, within the limits of practicality, the thread title should additionally strive not to contain overt spoilers, and it should itself '''specify that the thread will contain spoilers'''. (For example, a thread to discuss ahead of release whether we should consider the 60th anniversary specials to be part of [[Series 14 (Doctor Who)]] could be called something like <nowiki>[[Tardis:Temporary forums/Slot 4: Spoiler: How to lump future specials and series]]</nowiki>, remaining as broad and possible instead of e.g. talking about "the Tennant specials and Gatwa's first series".) | |||
* Note that '''public statements by individual members of a story's production team can count as "official"'''; for example, posts onm [[Russell T Davies|Russell T. Davies]]'s or [[Ncuti Gatwa]]'s social media have clearly been part of the official promotional strategy for the 60th anniversary and Series 14, and we shouldn't act like it makes a world of difference whether a given information comes from RTD's account vs. the ''Doctor Who'' count. If there is ever uncertainty, a duly-tagged Forum thread can be used to discuss ''whether'' a given piece of information is fair game for spoiler-tagged pages, or if it constitutes a leak. '''A specific template to flag such threads as "even spoilerier than normal spoiler threads" should be created.''' (The point, made a couple of times, about [[Howling:The Howling]] ''was'' considered at some length, but ultimately, I think it would confuse matters to start carrying out policy-changing discussions on the Howling, which has always been more of a free-for-all fun-zone.) | |||
* '''Official spoilers are theoretically allowed on the main page.''' To what extent is a matter for [[Tardis:Temporary_forums/Slot_3:_Updating_the_main_page_%26_theme|the "main page" thread to decide]]. | |||
* Regarding trailers, '''images from trailers can be used on the appropriate spoiler-tagged pages'''. Trailers and other promotional pieces which constitute original fiction in themselves, and thus would warrant coverage aside from spoilers, '''can now have pages created about them even before the release of the thing they advertise''', but '''should of course be tagged as spoilery pages and kept out of Lists of Appearances until they are no longer spoilery'''. (Note that the specifics of this may, or may not, be revised by a future thread geared towards validating some narrative trailers. This would not constitute a [[T:BOUND]]/[[T:POINT]] breach.) | |||
* '''Spoilers, including leaks, are allowed on sandboxes so long as they are appropriately tagged, whether with {{tlx|spoiler}} or with the leaks-specific template discussed above'''. | |||
* As [[User:Tangerineduel]] stated: | |||
{{quote|Any pages that contain spoilers will need to be edit locked to unregistered users, which will slow down any speculative editing.|User:Tangerineduel}} | |||
Thank you to anyone who's read this far; and a preemptive thank-you, also, to everyone who'll participate in the work to overhaul the Wiki in light with these new and exciting times! [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 15:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
</div> | |||
