Lostpedia talk:Spoiler policy

From Lostpedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Previous discussion archived:

Archive 01 - November 2006 - May 2007



Contents

Policy cleanup

As per new action plan, I'm reopening discussion on this. To be honest though, I don't see the point - I think this policy is established enough already? --Nickb123 (Talk) 04:30, 12 February 2008 (PST)

  • Well I really don't think we should be making articles for characters who have yet to be on the American broadcast. They appear in the Recent Changes area and are juist as bad as when the spoiler sections used to have named sections. --   Dee4leeds  talk  contribs  all  08:08, 12 February 2008 (PST)
Its kinda necessary though, cause otherwise come game night, people are making articles under weird names and not properly structuring pages. However, I get what you're saying, and perhaps we should only include the names on these new characters on the episode article page itself. After Lost airs, these names can then be hyperlinked for all users to edit freely. This would solve problems --Nickb123 (Talk) 06:13, 13 February 2008 (PST)

A technical problem

I visited the "Recent Changes" page, and saw a spoiler in the "Summary" line about who will have a flashback/forward in the next episode (it was in season 4/spoilers page). any chance you can hide the /spoilers pages from the recent changes or something? --CharlieReborn 08:22, 12 February 2008 (PST)

I agree with some sort of hiding of spoilers on the Recent Changes page. I thought there was a policy to not type summaries when writing spoilers. I was also wondering if there's a way to stop spoiler pages from showing up when one clicks on the "Random page" link. I like to go through the random pages, but I do not like spoilers, and every once in awhile one shows up. Is there a way to stop this? -- WanderingMathematician  talk  contribs  email  08:31, 12 February 2008 (PST)
I'll be honest, I'm too lazy to check, but I thought there was policy about clearing summary sections when editing on spoilers. Dee4leeds raised this issue a while ago if I recall. With regards to your latter point, as far as I'm aware, there's no way of excluding particular select articles from the random page generator link - hence why you'll notice you get random theory pages A LOT. I will post your question though to other SysOps - perhaps one with more wiki software knowledge knows of a way. --Nickb123 (Talk) 06:17, 13 February 2008 (PST)
Thanks for considering it; I had doubts as to if it was possible or not, but it never hurts to ask. Also, I think your suggestion in the above section for avoiding new character names is a good one as well, though I see the rationalization behind the way it is done now. -- WanderingMathematician  talk  contribs  email  12:54, 13 February 2008 (PST)
From my perspective on spoilers is this: I would prefer to see no spoilers whatsoever on Lostpedia, the problem however is the very nature of the site being a wiki. Because anyone can edit it, without providing dedicated locations for spoilers, they are more likely to post them regardless, all over the site. As for filtering out the spoilers from the random pages, whilst awkward that they might appear, they are marked very clearly at the moment so you aren't likely to begin reading without quickly clicking random page again, we hope. But I agree it isn't perfect as it is and I'd like to see this worked out too, but it might take some closed-season work!  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  15:40, 13 February 2008 (PST)
Seperate Lostpedia site for Spoilers? www.spoilers.lostpedia.com? --   Dee4leeds  talk  contribs  all  02:40, 14 February 2008 (PST)
I just had a thought. Maybe we could have a check box on the edit page similar to the "This is a minor edit" checkbox. This would put a small s next to the edit on the Recent Changes page, and perhaps there could be a "Hide spoiler edits" option as well. This would be a voluntary participation sort of thing, of course, but shouldn't be too hard to input. -- WanderingMathematician  talk  contribs  email  21:13, 15 February 2008 (PST)
That's a good idea. I was wondering if maybe something could be done using namespaces. Now, I don't really understand this, so I'm probably talking nonsense, but on the recent changes page there is a drop down box where you can select which namespace you want to see the recent changes from. By default it is set to All, but is it possible to have a "spoilers" namespace and have that be exempt by default?--TechNic|talk|conts 03:40, 19 February 2008 (PST)
This thing happened again right now -- there's spoiler information on the recent changes page. My suggestion would be to override the summary message with a generic line if there is a spoiler tag on the page. Of course that would include a (I would assume trivial) software change, but if there is enough interest and if the SysOps agree I'm willing to volunteer for that. -- MacCutcheon  talk  contrib  07:53, 21 February 2008 (PST)
That's a beautifully simple and effective solution. Thanks.--TechNic|talk|conts 16:39, 21 February 2008 (PST)

Feb 16th changes to spoiler policy

After some SysOp discussion as well as looking at comments by other users, Santa has updated the policy, I have further refined the changes based upon these discussions, in order to take certain issues into account; for example the revealing of Michael's return at Comic-Con, which the producers were there for. Have a look at let us know what you think  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  20:23, 16 February 2008 (PST)

I noticed you added "regarding future episodes". Can you explain the intent? It seems superfluous. Robert K S 20:33, 16 February 2008 (PST)
  • Thanks Plkrtn, here is the rationale for the major change:
We need a change in policy that is clear as day. The current policy is confusing, and results in accidental spoilers throughout the wiki. For example, currently we allow creation of character and cast information released by ABC Medianet, yet we have no guidelines on how far these articles may go (e.g. cast member photos? TPTB sources?), and contradictory to this current policy we don't allow officially-released ABC Medianet still photography for future episodes.
Examples of where I have been spoiled include the articles of existing characters, when it is noted on their articles that they will recur in a future episode. Also, a photograph of an upcoming cast member on their cast article is spoiling, as are the ABC medianet episode synopses and character/cast lists. (Incidentally, any sysop moderating these articles will be spoiled.)
I don't believe a general user of Lostpedia deserves to be spoiled by visiting a seemingly innocuous wiki page on a flashback character where the infobox reveals FUTURE appearances. These characters may be in an unusual character connection (think Big Mike in Hurley's FF), or possibly even bigger surprises. A general of Lostpedia should also not be spoiled visiting the talk page of a user that has commented to them.
This policy should be updated.
Therefore I propose making the policy much clearer and more restrictive. In short, the only place for spoilers are the Season X/spoiler articles. The only exception are episode names and airdates as released by ABC Medianet, in which case the episode name and airdates are the only information to be noted: character, cast, crew, synopses, and photos are off limits throughout the entire site, even if released by ABC Medianet.
-- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 10:19, 17 February 2008 (PST)

Exceptions by TPTB

  • I'm having difficulty understanding or agreeing with my understanding of the caveat about official announcements from "The Powers That Be": The creators and executive producers. For example prior to Season 4, there were cast announcements (which included new cast and returning cast). I see no difference between this information being released by TPTB vs. ABC Medianet: They should not be displayed in Lostpedia. (The same problems of gray areas will occur). What is the rationale behind this exception? Is it storyline commentary like: "Carlton said Puragatory is not what the Island is about" -- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 10:35, 17 February 2008 (PST)
The primary issue for changing these items were things such as Comic-Con last year. TPTB announced a new Marvin Candle video and the cast announcement of Michael's return, things that I don't think we should consider spoilers, as even if we did, its not information any of us could a) Actually avoid, as it was all over the press (US and UK) b) Police as effectively as the other things we have specified. We have to try and strike a balance, as TPTB are the ones that decide what are spoilers and what aren't effectively... We just have to stick by their decisions.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  18:35, 17 February 2008 (PST)
  • OK agreed with that particular example, as well as The_Final_Episode_(parody). However at the same time I'm uncomfortable with the announcements of new and returning cast members that TPTB made prior to Season 4. Can we exclude announcements of cast by TPTB, even at comic conventions or other press venues, but accept releases of actual Lost media such as videos (which depict the fictional universe of Lost)? This would cover unannounced ARGs, mobisodes, deleted scenes, DHARMA videos, etc. as extensions of the Lost universe. -- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 15:02, 18 February 2008 (PST)
  • OK - We can always make exceptional circumstance waivers when needed, i suppose.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  16:03, 18 February 2008 (PST)
  • Whichever way we decide to do it, the bottom line is that it would be great to keep casting announcements off-limits. -- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 16:11, 18 February 2008 (PST)
Sorry, I'm having a little trouble following this conversation. Why should casting announcements made by TPTB be off-limits? They wouldn't really be spoiling elements of the show. There hasn't been an episode of Lost that didn't have a new character cast in it. Robert K S 16:24, 18 February 2008 (PST)
Its a question of what is considered a spoiler and not. In particular, the policy in regards to things like the announced return of Michael at Comic-Con 2007. Do we consider this a spoiler, even though it was announced at the largest film and TV convention around, and was released at the same time as a new DHARMA video, which we wouldn't consider a spoiler. Its not really about general cast changes, its about the big announcements like returning actors made by TPTB.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  02:49, 19 February 2008 (PST)
No discussion of the ComicCon event could ignore it, but no discussion of a pre-reveal episode could include it. The distinction is in-universe and out-of-universe, and this wiki has articles in both realms. Hence, the article about Michael couldn't and shouldn't include anything about his return until he has returned, but it ought to be allowed in the article about Harold Perrineau. My $0.02. Robert K S 12:25, 19 February 2008 (PST)


Titles are spoilers! (redux)

I'll post here what I've posted elsewhere: Basically for me (and probably for other people out there), titles for future episodes are spoilers. I would think that you should replace the titles of un-shown episodes by for instance "Episode 6" (even though the title has been confirmed, it doesn't mean it's not a spoiler!). I don't like to know the title of future episodes, especially episodes that's gonna be shown in 4 weeks and more! Just think about titles such as "The Other 48 days" and "the man behind the curtain", etc. All pretty spoilery titles! And I bet there are even more coming up in season 4. Therefore I think the titles should be replaced by "Episode #" or not linked at all (I'm obviously talking here about non-spoiler sections such as Season 4 in general, and the season 4 "menu" on top of the episodes).

I'm gonna add this:

And to further prove my point, I was gonna see the Economist page just for a little checkup and then BAM! The 407 title in my face. "But titles are not spoiler TheAma1! Stop whining." Oh, so a korean title is not a spoiler that says that 407 is about Sun and/or Jin and subsequently at least one of them is going to be an Oceanic 6?

Titles are spoilers. It's not a big deal to just put "Episode #" instead of the title on the top of each page!

- TheAma1 11:42, 20 February 2008 (PST)

I agree - There is one episode coming up this season with what appeared to be a Korean proper name. Now I may be wrong, but this appears to be a spoiler that this is a Jin/Sun episode. Other Jin/Sun centric episodes haven't been so spoiler-y (i.e. The Glass Ballerina) but I do agree that episode titles can be spoilers. I don't mind if there are pages about these episodes that are locked, but I don't like that the episode titles show up in the navigation template. -- WanderingMathematician  talk  contribs  email  11:54, 20 February 2008 (PST)
I'll agree that a title in korean is likely to be a Sun/Jin episode...but that doesn't mean that it's a flash-forward and that they are in the O6, does it? Is it really likely that the rest of the episodes this season will be all flash forward, meaning that the off-island content will be limited to 6 or so characters?
I think the episode titles can give away who is "centric" but I don't think any of them have given away any plot points (beyond incredibly minor stuff). --Minderbinder 12:11, 20 February 2008 (PST)
I agree with Minderbinder, We still do not know what the titles are significant to... for example, we don't know what the hell Eggtown refers to... who who Kevin Johnson is. I don't really think it is a huge spoiler... no harm done. No worries TheAma, no one is complaining about it. --     Nusentinsaino     talk    contribs    email   12:14, 20 February 2008 (PST)
We know that the O6 are revealed before 408, and by a simple deduction you can see that every oceanic character-centric episode will be about one of the O6. It's like in s2 when you knew a tailie FB episode was coming up soon (but didn't want to know when for instance) or a Ben FB (in s3) was around the corner. Perhaps some of the titles are not that spoilery, but it doesn't hurt to hide it for everyone else who thinks it does. - TheAma1 12:17, 20 February 2008 (PST)
Ama, The Man Behind the Curtain was an obvious referral to Ben... but did we know about Jacob and the Cabin? That was the mort important plot in the episode... The title gave away on who the centric is, but does not give away the plot. I know your point about the O6, but you do not know if it is a flashforward or a flashback... nothing is confirmed yet. Just don't worry about it. -     Nusentinsaino     talk    contribs    email   12:19, 20 February 2008 (PST)
If 407 is indeed a flashback and not a flashforward about another O6, then I'll retract my previous statement. But in the other case, I will be proven right. 8) - TheAma1 12:21, 20 February 2008 (PST)
"We know that the O6 are revealed before 408" Do we? As far as I'm concerned, THAT is a way bigger spoiler than any of the titles. --Minderbinder 12:27, 20 February 2008 (PST)
How would you explain otherwise that the 6 have been leaked not only months before the 401 aired but also months before the strike (hence the fact that the info was included in the first 8 episodes already writtent/shot). - TheAma1 12:30, 20 February 2008 (PST)
I'm not arguing whether or not it's true, I'm saying it's a spoiler. I don't think the average person (especially one who isn't seeking out spoilers) would have known that the O6 leaked before the strike. And even assuming you know that, there are five remaining episodes of those eight in which they could reveal the last two O6. Those reveals will be in one or two of those five episodes, meaning there will be three or four episodes that don't reveal them. We don't know which episodes have the reveals, what makes you sure that the "korean" episode is one with a reveal? Knowing that there's a XYZ centric episode coming soon doesn't mean it's a flashforward, and doesn't mean that character is necessarily in the O6. --Minderbinder 12:43, 20 February 2008 (PST)
I think its unreasonable to demand protection to this degree. The episode titles provide less information than ABC's own previews do and certainly less than the podcasts and other media sources. And we only put up titles when they are officially put into ABC's programming grid. If you want to be protected from spoilers absolutely, I would suggest not looking at anything from season 4 until after the season is over. Dharmatel4 12:33, 20 February 2008 (PST)
I'd tend to agree - I think it's good to leave off who is the "centric" character until it airs, but I don't think any titles have been real spoilers. If they ever do an episode called "The One Where Desmond Kills Sun" I'd totally support making a one-time exception...but I don't see that happening. --Minderbinder 12:43, 20 February 2008 (PST)
LOL. I see your point. And I realize that I am likely in the minority here, but I don't watch previews and do my darnedest to avoid all spoilers. I don't think that I should have to refrain from viewing any already aired content in order to refrain from being spoiled. Is there that much harm in simply leaving the episode titles off of the episode navigation template until the episodes are aired? -- WanderingMathematician  talk  contribs  email  13:29, 20 February 2008 (PST)
As a compromise, what about making the season 4 episode list template collapsible, defaulted to closed? It would hide potential spoilers, plus it would take up less space on articles that are usually pretty long. --Minderbinder 14:32, 20 February 2008 (PST)
I like that idea as well. - TheAma1 14:37, 20 February 2008 (PST)
I like this idea - I think that this could please both camps. It is also easily reversible at the end of the season. -- WanderingMathematician  talk  contribs  email  17:42, 20 February 2008 (PST)
Agreed. It's a fair trade. --     Nusentinsaino     talk    contribs    email   17:45, 20 February 2008 (PST)
Very good suggestion. While I don't think that most episode titles themselves are too spoilery it should be possible for anyone to view the season 4 episode pages without being forced to see them. -- MacCutcheon  talk  contrib  07:10, 21 February 2008 (PST)

It seems like there's some support for this idea, but unfortunately it looks like the code for collapsable content isn't included in the mediawiki software. Looks like it can be added to the site, but someone with some technical chops would have to do it, and there would have to undergo some serious scrutiny and approval before adding it. I'm not exactly sure where the discussion would best take place, but the wikipedia/wikimedia info on this feature is here [1] and here [2] if people want to start investigating the possibility. --Minderbinder 11:40, 21 February 2008 (PST)

There is a lot of support for this, understandably, and I would support a collapsible table for the current season. However I've tried to include this, but have found it very difficult to implement, if not impossible on this site. I'll have a word with a few people though, and see if its possible. However, don't have any hopes. If others want to have a go, they are welcome to. I also don't believe titles are spoilers by the way, and I don't think we are spoiling anyone more than ABC, TV Guide or even an electronic programming guide on my TV. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  13:11, 22 February 2008 (PST)
  • One related point, although not covering the entire scope of the "title" issue. The title of the next upcoming episode will always be revealed, because we have a "Next Time On Lost" section on our Main Page. Therefore this debate is necessarily constrained to future episodes not including the immediately upcoming one. -- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 11:48, 23 February 2008 (PST)
    • Moving from this idea, if the collapsable tables don't work, one alternative is to create rules for these future episode names beyond the immediately upcoming one:
      1. leave these episode names out of ALL articles except their own. Most significantly this eliminates these from the season 4 navigation (which is locked and securely policed)-- and also from Airdates, Portal:Episodes, and Season 4.
      2. OR: simply prohibit these episode names everywhere, including creation of their own articles. (We'll still have to create, salt, and lock these empty articles w/out edit summaries). -- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 12:03, 23 February 2008 (PST)
      To reiterate, the immediately upcoming episode is fair game for the nav, airdates, portal, and season 4, as well as article creation that includes only the title and airdate. The immediately upcoming episode will still be subject to the same prohibitions currently listed in the draft policy: no creation of new character/cast/event/etc. articles, and no listing of the episode name/number in existing articles.
-- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 12:03, 23 February 2008 (PST)
  • That's sounds good to me Santa. I personally don't mind knowing upcoming episode titles, but I don't think there's any harm to treating them as spoilers. Going with TheAma1's initial idea, I think we should use the "Season 4 Episode x" format in Template:Ep for future episode titles beyond the next one; after an episode airs, we just change the next episode template to the actual title. Whether we keep those episode articles up or deleted and protected, I don't care much either way. Overall though, we should be pretty close to having the policy be official I think. -- Graft   talk   contributions  13:59, 23 February 2008 (PST)
  • I think eliminating the upcoming episode information as revealed by ABC is going too far. There is value in echoing the non-full-spoiler promotional information that ABC issues for future episodes in the press releases because there are people who want to see that level of detail as opposed to full spoilers from unofficial sources. I don't care about the Nav templates but lets not go futher than that. Dharmatel4 14:18, 23 February 2008 (PST)
  • I agree that the upcoming episode title cannot be regarded as a spoiler. It's also featured in various places e.g. the podcast. -- MacCutcheon  talk  contrib  15:01, 23 February 2008 (PST)
  • I'm A-Ok with your propositions Santa. I also agree that the upcoming episode title is not a spoiler per se. - TheAma1 15:26, 23 February 2008 (PST)
  • Put me down in the "Titles aren't spoilers" camp. It requires a rather dedicated effort to shield yourself from upcoming episode titles and I don't see why the site should kowtow to the very small number of people who do this. Perhaps a poll could be taken? The episode titles give me something to look forward too and wonder about. I can understand not wanting to know the flashback, and I'm not big on spoilers, but really I think this is going too far.--Piscez 03:28, 28 February 2008 (PST)

Does official podcast info bust a spoiler?

I've cleaned up the "When is something no longer considered a spoiler?" section a bit. Should the section specifically include the Official Lost podcast as a spoiler-buster? Also, BTW, there is redundancy between the "exceptions" subsection of the "Information related to upcoming episodes" and the "When is something no longer considered a spoiler?" section. Both deal with admin consensus about media-busted spoilers from TPTB. Robert K S 15:16, 23 February 2008 (PST)

Yes I realised that redundancy. will fix it. It came from a change in the policy. As for official podcasts... No, if things are said on there that could be considered a spoiler, its things already covered by the policy, such as characters, future episode teases etc. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  15:25, 23 February 2008 (PST)
I'm confused by your edit that adds the "Exceptions to this are: ... Exceptional circumstances..." The section should state simply and plainly when information has no longer become a spoiler. How is the Lostpedia administrator consensus an exception to the airing rule rather than just another instance of when something is no longer a spoiler? Robert K S 15:33, 23 February 2008 (PST)
Its a clause which will allow us to continue to provide news links to major news items of Lost that could be considered a spoiler by some, but has hit major news outlets, such as newspapers or entertainment progammes that users could not reasonably avoid... The announcement of the return of a certain character to Season 4 that I saw in many newspapers and on entertainment news shows in the UK, let alone the USA is a perfect example. We have to balance the criteria so that we can still include this content in very, very exceptional circumstances. I am trying to word it in a less ambiguous way, and I do appreciate your concern on the current wording, but its still proposed. as SysOps, we don't want to be responsible for spoilers far and wide by any stretch of the imagination! -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  15:57, 23 February 2008 (PST)
  • So what are we going to do with official podcast pages and transcripts? Are we going to make an exception for them in the policy, or are we going to disallow them? I think the podcast transcripts are one of the great resources of Lostpedia; it would be a shame to lose them. -- Graft   talk   contributions  20:22, 4 March 2008 (PST)

Upcoming episode names

Right now the section restricts the information on the new episode pages to airdate and name. Current practice is that anything in the press release from ABC is allowed. The extra things from the press releases I would like to allow are:

- Guest Cast

- Writers and Directors

- ABC's episode summary from the press release (usually one line)

I'd also like to continue for people to be able to create spoiler-tagged character and actor pages based on the guest cast information in the ABC press releases. Dharmatel4 19:15, 23 February 2008 (PST)

But why? We've established that this isn't a spoiler site and that there are plenty of other places for people to go and find information about upcoming cast, characters and plotlines. Current policy revisions have been moves to help people avoid being spoiled. How does it benefit the encyclopedic nature of the site to have preemptive pages with minimal (and potentially inaccurate) information? My feeling is that it is better to add the information about the episode after it has aired. Not only does it avoid potential spoilers in recent changes and over-enthusiastic users linking current articles to events and characters that haven't appeared yet, but it avoids the regular renaming, moving and merging that inevitably happens caused by vague press release details.--TechNic|talk|conts 15:47, 24 February 2008 (PST)
I have to agree with TechNic. The idea of restricting those things that you wish to have, is to stop the spoilers on the site. We've always tried to be a site that avoids spoilers, and this new form of policy clears it up even further. By removing the potential spoilers, we avoid the consternation of users. If people want this information, it is available from the linked press release on the page itself, surely that is better than spoiling people?  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  15:50, 24 February 2008 (PST)
I can live with it if a link can be put up to both the scheduling grid and the press release. The policy page needs to be clearified that adding those two links is ok and not a spoiler. Dharmatel4 18:46, 24 February 2008 (PST)



  • Also agreed with TechNic and Plkrtn. We are not a spoiler site, and the /spoilers pages were initially created to constrain the posting of such material. Users of Lostpedia should be totally confident to remain spoiler free while browsing the site. However the issue became gray with ABC Medianet releases, to the extent that the unstated policy creeped to allow creation of articles. The result is a mess, with regard to realistic policing of minor and even major spoilers-- part of this is a sysop issue, but the other part of it is just practicality. Dharmatel if you've read the above, you haven't provided an argument to directly address this rationale, which is explained in more detail here, as well as in our "wiki" subforum where I haven't seen you participate yet; you've only expressed your personal desires here, and as well you know these discussions are not votes. The /spoiler pages can be adjusted to include all the information you wish to create articles for. One possible compromise I can think of is to allow for external URL links for upcoming episodes' excel grids and press releases on the ABC Medianet page. Also, as explained above, the episode name and airdate for the immediately upcoming episode is not a spoiler for the purposes of the Main Page. -- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 17:39, 24 February 2008 (PST)e

Status of this policy

I'm trying to figure out how close this policy is to a final version. From what I've read here on this discussion page there seems to be a certain degree of convergence, although I thought more people would care and get involved. To get an idea where discussion is still needed I'd like to suggest to point these things out so that we know when and if to move forward on this. -- MacCutcheon  talk  contrib  14:05, 26 February 2008 (PST)

Contents of unaired episode pages

So from my understanding of this policy, the information released by ABC Medianet (ie: casting, director/writer credits, episode name, synopsis) is no longer going to be included on the pages for unaired episodes? If I'm misunderstanding this, please let me know. Otherwise, I'm confused as to what actually will go on the pages for unaired episodes (like 4x06 or 4x07). Is there any information that could go there that wouldn't be considered a spoiler? If so, what is it? If not, then why would anyone go to those pages unless they wanted to get the ABC Medianet release information? Sorry if I'm coming into this a bit late, I'm just baffled as to why the pages for the episodes that haven't aired cannot contain officially released information about that episode. Jimbo the tubby 12:38, 27 February 2008 (PST)

I agree that the policy should clarify what is allowed on pages of unaired episodes. And right now it looks like the pages for 406 and 407 are locked with versions that violate this policy. I can understand the argument for leaving out synopsis, characters, actors, and flashcentric...but why are the writers and director a spoiler? --Minderbinder 12:52, 27 February 2008 (PST)
I personally don't understand the argument for leaving out synopsis, characters and actors. Don't get me wrong, I can see why people would be mad if those details were posted on some other page... But posting it on the page for that actual episode? That's like going to the Season 4/Spoilers page of your own free will and then being offended when you find out something you didn't want to know. I don't understand why someone would go to the unaired episode pages if they didn't want any information about that episode. Jimbo the tubby 19:44, 27 February 2008 (PST)
Because the information wouldn't remain limited to the episode page. For example, if a character is revealed called "Jacob's Mum", then someone would create a page for her. Then someone else would edit Jacob's page to mention he has a mum. Then a load of theories would pop up. Then a sysop would come along, point out that spoilers from unaired episodes shouldn't be posted and delete the pages. But by then it's already been all over a number of articles and popped up all through the Recent Changes list. Spoiler pages aside, it's so much simpler to say "This is what you can post and this is what you can't" rather than "this is what you can post here but not there, you can post that there but not here, and you can't post those anywhere."--TechNic|talk|conts 20:24, 27 February 2008 (PST)
That's right - basically, tightening the spoiler policy is a way to lessen ambiguity about where spoilers can appear and make it more difficult for them to disseminate on the site. This has all been said in the above sections, but LP is not a spoiler site, but they are allowed in specific areas - namely the /spoilers pages. If someone wants to know additional details about the episode before it airs, they can be found on there or follow the links provided in the episode article. As has also been stated, episode articles can show up on the random page function. -- Graft   talk   contributions  20:32, 27 February 2008 (PST)
Disagree, think it's overkill and that it would be better to just disallow the creation of pages for characters that haven't appeared (which, the current policy doesn't actually stop, it just means that the characters have to be looked up on ABC Medianet). But it seems I'm coming into the discussion quite a bit too late, so I guess I'll shut up. Although, can I just ask, do the spoiler pages (ie: Season 4/Spoilers) show up with the random page function? 'Cuz if so, then that kind of deflates the argument. Jimbo the tubby 21:19, 27 February 2008 (PST)
The draft policy does say that pages for characters that haven't appeared would not be allowed. And yes, /Spoilers pages can show up with a random page - it isn't perfect. But the point with the random page thing isn't that it's a perfect system, it's that it would be helpful to reduce the amount of spoiler content that would show up on that list. And btw, there's no reason you can't express your thoughts on the issue at any point. -- Graft   talk   contributions  21:52, 27 February 2008 (PST)
There are currently some very serious discussions occuring about the need to have the /spoiler pages also. We really want to tighten it down to having no spoilers on this site whatsoever, literally leaving information on the show (except the title of the next episode) till after East coast US airing and serving those people who wants spoilers by providing links to spoiler sites, but that would be it. We aren't, and don't want to be a spoiler site, so we're having these discussions to clarify the situation -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  03:44, 28 February 2008 (PST)

Nobody has addressed this so I'll bring it up again - I don't think the writers and director of a future episode are spoilers, and I propose allowing them on the future episode page. I can't imagine what they'd spoil (maybe certain writers tend to do flashbacks for certain characters, but that's pretty obscure if it's the case?), if there's something I'm missing please let me know. --Minderbinder 08:06, 28 February 2008 (PST)

FWIW, I agree, writers and directors of future episodes aren't spoilers. I also don't think MediaNet synopses and character lists should be prevented from being added to the encyclopedia ahead of an episode's airing, provided they are thereafter locked until the start of the episode's airing (US Eastern), which seems to be the current operative policy anyway. Robert K S 14:11, 28 February 2008 (PST)
Just to clarify my POV. Whilst I don't think writers and directors of an episode can be considered spoilers, the synopsis and guest cast lists are definitely spoilers. Whilst I understand the idea that once ABC have released it to the media, its no longer a spoiler. I would have liked to have personally been able to avoid the spoiler of Kates mother appearing in Eggtown. By linking to the ABC MediaNet release information, users have to actively seek out that information rather than being presented with it before the show has aired by us. I'd prefer that for all people and have those that don't mind knowing have to click on an extra link, than the spoil those that want to avoid them. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  20:35, 1 March 2008 (PST)

Poll of Opinion

Please let us know your opinion on the following. Please keep any reasons brief. Thank you -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  20:35, 1 March 2008 (PST)

Can you clarify as to whether we're voting for the below information only on their respective pages or anywhere in the encyclopedia? Robert K S 22:10, 1 March 2008 (PST)
Yes, plase do... Otherwise the results could be quite different depending. Jimbo the tubby 11:49, 2 March 2008 (PST)

Anywhere on the site... We want an overarching policy to apply to the site. A spoiler is a spoiler regardless of the page. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  16:41, 2 March 2008 (PST)

I think it's fine to create a basic page for an upcoming episode with all of the below information on it, and then lock it until the episode begins airing, but consensus seems to be that most of this info constitutes spoilers. I've just never felt "spoiled" by reading any of the television guide synopses. Robert K S 17:21, 2 March 2008 (PST)
  • IMO this poll is missing the point. It is NOT about splitting hairs about what is a spoiler and what isn't. We tried that, and such a policy is difficult to understand and difficult to implement without lots of errors over our user base. The purpose of simplifying policy is so that the issue on Lostpedia becomes black and white. Thus it is safer to say all upcoming information is prohibited, even if we acknowledge that, say, directors and writers are not spoilers. If the policy is not black and white, we get leaks into other articles, or creation of "outright-spoiler" or "spoiler-ish" articles by less familiar editors who see that "some" upcoming information is OK. Therefore these polls are beside the point. I'm tired of being spoiled browsing the site, and that is what will continue to happen if we have a hair-splitting case-by-case policy. That is why we have been proposing: 1) remove ALL upcoming information from all articles, or 2) remove ALL upcoming information from all articles except Season 4/spoilers (and related pages). That is a much more clear policy than the one we currently have, which has slowly creepd to treat ABC Medianet announcement (but not pics) as non-spoilers, but only in certain cases. -- C¯ _Santa_ ¯T 17:44, 2 March 2008 (PST)
    • For the record, I had the Snake In the Mailbox spoiled for me last year by the spoiler page, but I really just blame myself for going there against my better judgement. If you don't want to be spoiled, then reading through a page called Season 4/spoilers is clearly a mistake on your part. Likewise, if you don't want information about an upcomming episode, don't go to that episode's page. I don't think it should be problematic to post the ABC Medianet information on the episode pages because I don't understand why people who don't want to read it would be going to those pages to begin with. Keep in mind that this information is the same information you're going to get from your TiVo or any digital cable service, and I just don't see what the problem is. Jimbo the tubby 21:38, 2 March 2008 (PST)
    • I absolutely agree with Santa. These conversation have been going on long enough and we are just covering old ground. Both sides have made their cases and it feels like it's time for a decision. I propose that the Sysops and Admin now look at all the opinions expressed on this page and between them resolve the debate and set the policy.--TechNic|talk|conts 17:59, 2 March 2008 (PST)
    • I agree with you, Santa. I hate spoilers; which, if you have been reading this page, you know. However, I was under the impression that the information we are discussing below are things that are added by sysops to the episode pages when they are created and locked. So if things like directors and writers are added to specific upcoming episode pages and consequently locked, this is not spoiler information. However, other users adding this information to pages elsewhere in the wiki would be spoiling. So I think that disallowing all spoilers (except for Season 4/spoilers and related pages is the way to go. However, the exception of the creation and locking of upcoming episodes only by sysops would allow the acceptable information from our straw poll to be included. (2 cents) -- WanderingMathematician  talk  contribs  email  19:21, 2 March 2008 (PST)
    • I couldn't agree more, Santa. Black and white is what we need and disallowing all upcoming information does a good job to achieve that. -- MacCutcheon  talk  contrib  02:13, 3 March 2008 (PST)
    • While I don't consider writer/director to be spoilers, I'd be fine with leaving those out if it means the spoiler policy can be simplified to "no info on future episodes, period". If that is what ends up happening, then will there be any articles for future episodes at all - if they are allowed but locked, what info is included, title, air date? Call me crazy, but I don't even watch the promos for next week at the end of the show, or listen to the podcast until after the "prehashed" episode has aired since I think they spoil too much. --Minderbinder 12:40, 3 March 2008 (PST)
    • The point of this poll is to have a clear and concise guide to what the users of the site think we should do, and at least let the community have its feedback. We can't just carte blanche force a policy down on people without fear of alienating groups, so we have to give feedback on those things that are still minor but contentious. We will shortly be making a decision on it (next day or two) and it will be ratified... but the moment we do it, people will complain whatever decision happens, so by putting this straw poll of opinion up, we can at least say "well, we did ask..."  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  01:23, 4 March 2008 (PST)

Directors and writers are spoilers


ABC MediaNet Synopses are spoilers


ABC MediaNet Guest Cast announcements are spoilers

Final Draft

We have a final draft of what we expect the policy to be. I hope to confirm it as an official policy tomorrow, unless any major objections that haven't already been answered are brought up.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  08:42, 4 March 2008 (PST)

I felt the draft still needed a little cleanup and clarification, so I gave the whole article a once-over. None of my edits changed the content of the policy. In particular, I moved the spoiler definition nearer to the top of the article. I feel it's important to define "spoiler" early on in the policy. Robert K S 18:25, 4 March 2008 (PST)

Confusing paragraph

The "Spoiler definition" section has a confusing paragraph in it:
"Lostpedia administrators have determined by consensus that the information has been revealed by the producers of Lost to the mainstream media and is sufficiently widespread across mainstream and non-Lost related Internet media that it can no longer be considered a spoiler. Such information is not to be added to Lostpedia by users."
I'm not entirely sure what it's trying to say - partly because of the typo and clunky language - but mainly because it seems to contradict itself.--TechNic|talk|conts 18:43, 4 March 2008 (PST)

Realize that the paragraph is meant to be the completion of the sentence started before the beginning of the bulleted list. It effectively reads: "All information about Lost is considered a spoiler until Lostpedia administrators have determined by consensus..." I think the intention of the paragraph is to give admins leeway in determining what can no longer realistically be considered a spoiler. Robert K S 18:46, 4 March 2008 (PST)
My mistake. It does make sense, but I had to read it several times. I guess it's bedtime. Sorry.--TechNic|talk|conts 18:48, 4 March 2008 (PST)

It would seem that this section is still causing confusion (User_talk:CastorPollock#Spoilers for example). This is caused by the format of the bullet points giving the false impression that this statement not related to the " Information about Lost is considered a spoiler until (any of the following):" prefix. If you read "Lostpedia administrators have determined by consensus..." by itself and miss the prefix, it says that this a decision that has already be made.--TechNic|talk|conts 16:34, 8 March 2008 (PST)

If you read the part above the bullets, it ends with "until"... which makes it quite clear that the content bulleted continues from that prefix. If one particular user is trying to test how water tight our policy is, then thats a different matter! -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  14:38, 9 March 2008 (PDT)

I agree that it's confusing... The way it's meant to be read is definitely not the way I read it until I saw this post. Jimbo the tubby 21:24, 9 March 2008 (PDT)

podcasts?

I just read through the policy and think that it is wonderful, however, I did not see any mention of podcasts in any section. I noticed that the "what is a spoiler" section lists various media, in which the inclusion of any information is deemed to be no longer a spoiler. I also do take note that this list is not exhaustive. However, I feel that podcasts can fall into a gray area. Damon and Carlton often discuss things that I would consider a spoiler before the fact. I think that podcasts should at least be mentioned somewhere in the policy. 2 cents. -- WanderingMathematician  talk  contribs  email  13:54, 5 March 2008 (PST)

Yes, I agree; I would like to see official podcast pages and transcripts as an exception. I brought it up on this page way up here last night. I've also brought it up for discussion in the sysop forum. -- Graft   talk   contributions  14:03, 5 March 2008 (PST)
Sorry, I got excited and didn't see that section. -- WanderingMathematician  talk  contribs  email  06:53, 6 March 2008 (PST)
I've included a clause specifically for podcasts. Let me know if its a problem, but I think its inclusive enough.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  14:36, 9 March 2008 (PDT)

Plkrtn is referring to this edit, which certainly sorts out some of our problems. But I don't believe it is extensive enough. First of all, the new section does not change the definition of a spoiler, as mentioned by the OP (WanderingMathematician) when he mentioned "what is a spoiler". The new "Podcasts" section simply asks readers to refer back to the "spoiler definition section above" and the "guidelines of this policy". Secondly, the actual definition contains the words "including but not limited to" - I am very uncomfortable about putting those words, as the definition of "officially authorized spin-off media released to the United States general public" could be taken to be very wide, and certainly including podcasts. Therefore, I recommend either a) remove the words "including but not limited to" altogether, and make an ex