This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Yea. jSarek 02:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

On our Main Page, we have "Warning: spoilers inside." That links to a short definition of spoilers, and then that links to Wookieepedia:Spoilers which says that we have no exact guidelines, and that more precise guidelines will be determined in the future." So isn't about time we come up with at least some kind of spoiler policy? I'd like to throw a few ideas around before starting the actual voting:

1) I think the first thing to do would be to make an official time limit for spoilers. As far as I know, the general guideline we go by is until 1 month after the release date. Is that amount of time good? Shall we make that an official rule?

2) What about making repeatedly allowing spoilers in edit summaries a potentially bannable offense?

3) What about not allowing pre-release novel spoilers (aside from excerpts and anything officially revealed online)? (Or have we voted on this before?) I realize this may not go over; I'm just throwing it out there.

4) Templates. Are the two we have enough? Should we always use both? Etc.

Just some ideas. Of course I don't want us to get too instruction creepy, but I think some sort of policy to reference would be good. —Unsigned comment by Ozzel (talk • contribs).

• 1. -Good idea.
  2. -Once again, good idea.
  3. -Nah, I don't think so. I for one like to know things as soon as possible, as I don't read the Legacy series.
  4. -I think so, assuming you mean the major spoiler and the section heading spoiler. *Chack Jadson ^Talk 19:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• 1. Good Idea
  2. Good Idea
  3. EXTREMELY Good idea. I know people want to be the first to post stuff. But it's technically illegal for a bookseller to let someone purchase a novel or comic before the release date. We shouldn't be supporting that. And it's gotten to the point that it's really ridiculous. For those of us who live in small towns with only one bookstore that is VERY good about following the rules and not putting new books on the shelf until they are officially published, it's agony trying to stay away from articles that are known to contain spoilers. And wanting to make valuable contributions to the wiki, it's also extremely upsetting when you accidentally come across a major spoiler in recent changes or in an article you didn't know you should stay away from. And also, for those of us who don't have the sources, we can't verify information that sometimes hits the site WEEKS before the release date. Inferno spoilers have been going up since around the 17th. Maybe a day or two ahead of time I can understand. But 11 days? I think pre-release information should be deletable until the official release day and repeat posting of pre-release information a bannable offense. Granted I know this won't be a popular opinion. But can anybody give any objections other than selfishly wanting to know every bit of info the second you can or having your name first on the edit history?
  4. I think the current ones are fine as long as they're actually used, which in most cases they are. Wildyoda 21:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• 1. Not so sure about that. International release dates are often staggered.
  2. Good idea.
  3. No, I'm not up for that. I don't think that by adding the spoilers, we support illegal sales. And as long as we can cross reference them, we should be OK.
  4. They're fine. Thefourdotelipsis 00:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• You see the header that says "Spoilers inside"? Make it larger, more noticeable. And have no other restrictions on spoilers whatsoever. It's silly to attempt to isolate spoiler content for an entire month, with MAJORSPOILER getting put on everything no matter how major or minor, with article titles and section names themselves being spoilers by their very existence in some cases and showing up in recent changes, with people asking spoiled questions in the Senate or Knowledge Bank. Even with policy, you're fairly likely to get spoiled anyway. We certainly can't guarantee anything. Hell, our page of things not to read if you don't want to be spoiled is a massive, throbbing spoiler by its very nature. So if you don't want to get spoiled, stay off until you finish the book -- or comic, or videogame, or whatever. We're an information center. We provide information. We're not in the business of catering to those who want certain types of information but want other types under lock and key. In an enterprise as large, fluid, and accessible as ours, it's a waste of time and energy trying to chain down spoilers just because some people just have to access Wookieepedia before they read the book. Well, I understand it's frustrating, but it's also unlikely to work, and it's not anyone's right to access Wookieepedia, the way they like it, at all times. This is the simplest, most effective way to do it. Havac 00:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• 1) Yeah, a month sounds good. 2) No. See later comments. 3) Not humanly possible as long as (Edit this page) exists for everyone. There is no way to restrict information on a freely editable encyclopedia and it's ridiculous to ban people for contributing to our project, even if they have advance copies and even if we didn't want to know the dirty little secrets of the latest book. 4) Yes, those two are fine. I only use {{majorspoiler}} for major points. For example, I would not count the mention of Kyle Katarn in Exile as a major spoiler. I would count the appearance of Lando Calrissian in Exile as a major spoiler. And always use the smaller spoiler tags. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 01:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Okay, maybe not currently plausibly enforceable for my rant on #3. But I say we at least discourage it. And the longer a policy (any policy) exists and the more people get used to it, the easier it would be to enforce. I just think we should at least say "Don't post until the publish date" and then as regular contributors, follow that rule, and anyone who doesn't, direct to the policy, and anyone who complains about the level of possible enforcement, direct to the spoiler warning linked from the main page. You're right, it won't ever stop, just like vandalism will never stop. But we make policies and we handle it. Wildyoda 04:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• 1)That's fine. 2)At least clear out the edit summary and and put "SPOILERS OMG!" in the summary instead or something. 3)I strongly oppose this. Seriously, people get advance copies of books early all the time, and warning them or even banning them for wanting to contribute info from their early copy (especially if they are new to the wiki) doesn't seem encouraging. This site, by its very nature, is one big spoiler in and of itself! If a trusted contributor or a reliable outside party is reporting on things from a leaked novel and people want to add that info, I don't see what the problem is. If it's canon and verifiable, then it belongs here. If you're squirmy about advance spoilers, then stay away from the wiki for a week or so before the release date. Then again, if you're editing here, you presumably have a high tolerance for being spoiled in the first place and are willing to take the risk. 4) They're fine. People seem to use both anyway for the most part. StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 09:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• 1) Ditto. It needed to be official to begin with. 2) Maybe not a bannable offense, but it would piss me off plenty if they posted the actual spoiler in the edit summary. I would then want some text indicating there was a spoiler, or better yet not because that spoiler indicator makes one think something's going to happen to them or be related to them. Either way, it might be better to just better enforce use of the standard summaries such as 2.2 Updated with new information, while at the same time having said user add the Spoiler Template, thus keeping those on the page informed and those outside oblivious. 3) As much as I hate hate hate hate hate having to avoid stuff before it's released *coughLegacycough*, its not worth banning the user either, if it is legitimate and can be referenced. But really, some people just can't find the newest Legacy issue every month so keep it to yourselves. Missing a week for that each month results in a lot of editing time missed. 4) The two templates could be better improved but correct usage of them is key. See 2). Btw, Ataru. Thanks for the spoiler. A better way to avoid that is to pipe the link as so.-- Riffsyphon1024 19:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Okay, for the first part: -- Ozzel 22:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Vote: Life of a spoilerEdit

A spoiler is considered a spoiler up to and until one month after the official US (or country of origin's) release date of the particular product. Therefore, any new information from said source must contain a spoiler tag until one month has passed since the product's release. -- Ozzel 22:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

YeaEdit

1. Ozzel 22:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 00:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Graestan ^{(This party's over)} 04:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
4. jSarek 05:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
5. 1 month seems fine. However, the major spoiler tag at top does not really fit minor stuff (use a plain spoiler template). -Fnlayson 05:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Jedimca0^{(Do or Do Not, There is No Try)} 14:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
7. As the recently added information from Inferno shows, a lot of this stuff is added before the book is even out, meaning that people could come here before it's out and not expecting spoilers and then be spoiled. -- I need a name (Complain here) 16:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Chack Jadson ^Talk 23:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Unit 8311 18:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
10. LtNOWIS 05:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Per the Hiromi. - Lord Hydronium 11:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
12. Craven 16:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
13. As someone from the antipodes, I definitely support this. --Eyrezer 06:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
14. —Silly Dan _(talk) 13:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
15. A good standard. Din's Fire 997 04:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
16. --Dark Lord Xander ^{(Embrace The Dark Side!)} 08:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
17. It is a good rule since it also gives enough time for we others to cross-check whether the spoiler is indeed accurate. Karohalva 17:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
18. Master Aban Fiolli ^{(Alpheridies University ComNet)} 17:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
19. Kuralyov 20:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
20. Admiral Carth Onasi 13:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

NayEdit

1. Everything on this wiki is considered a spoiler and therefore nothing is tagged. Havac 23:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Per Havac. --Imperialles 23:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Per Havac -- dmirableAckbar ^{(It's A Trap!)} 15:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
4. See above. -- Trip 23:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
5. After very little thought, yes. Yes to Nay. Thefourdotelipsis 11:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Per Havac.—Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 11:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
7. If this is the option that kills the spoiler templates. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 13:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
8. StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 17:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)