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 {{spoiler}}, {{endspoiler}} used to mark off spoilers, {{majorspoiler}} used at the head of articles with major spoilers for recent products. No firm consensus on what counts as recent in this thread: one or two months? See also Forum:CT Archive/Spoiler tag for Revan.—Silly Dan _(talk) 21:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This is broken up into the general discussion on our use of spoilers, the applicable templates (if we choose to use any) and the timing of their use. Please place your thoughts and ideas below. SparqMan 18:28, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

General Spoiler decisionEdit

We have three basic routes for handling spoilers:

1. Decide that users come to Wookieepedia in search of information and acknowledge the possibility of spoilers, therefore we do not use any warnings.
2. We apply general spoiler warnings to material from new sources up to a certain time limit.
3. We apply specific spoiler warnings to material from new sources up to a certain time limit.
   1. We use source specific templates.
   2. We use a parameter for the source (and maybe the date).

DiscussionEdit

I guess we should also discuss what sources are applicable for warnings. All sources? Just books? Everything but games? Etc. --SparqMan 03:11, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• I'd say everything that has a story tied to it, such as novels, comics and most games. Reference books and such that just contain historical information shouldn't be included. --MarcK [talk] 09:25, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• I am a fan of option 1. It's certainly the reason I come to Wookieepedia, there's a warning on the front page, and it's a drag to have to put up all those spoiler tags. Kuralyov 03:43, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • I lean that way too; I don't even think the front page warning is necessary. For example, I haven't read any of the Dark Nest articles, so I'm trying to steer clear of them where possible (I don't mind spoilers anyhow, but you get my drift). The OS offers spoilers without any warning. --SparqMan 08:36, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • I should put my name down as agreeing with these guys. Spoiler tags are a lot of work for something that only benefits people too dumb to know better than to read an article on something they haven't read/seen yet. The main page warning is plenty. CooperTFN 18:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree that spoilers are only to be anticipated, however, I would suggest as a courtesy that users be encouraged, not required, to tag highly expected materials (e.g. Betrayal, Outbound Flight) with a spoiler tag just to be sure. As soon as a month or so has passed, that tag should be removed--Erl 00:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler templatesEdit

I am making an educated guess that we will be most interested in the third option. The strength of specific templates is that when the deadline arrives, it will be easy to use Special:Whatlinkshere&target= to find the spoiler tags and remove them. The strength of a parameter template is that users are unlikely to remember the shortcuts for specific source spoilers, unless we make them very clear. For fun, I've thrown together some samples of both varieties. Ignore the style for the moment, as I designed them to be different than our current spoilers to avoid any confusion. Note: The inclusion of the date note can be removed as well.

{{Testspoiler|The Swarm War|30 January 2005}} Template:Testspoiler
{{Testspoiler2}} Template:Testspoiler2

DiscussionEdit

{{testspoiler}}Edit

• I'd say {{testspoiler}} would be the preferable template, if only because we may find ourselves with lots of different spoiler tags if we were to make one for each upcoming source. --MarcK [talk] 18:25, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• My primary concern with {{testspoiler}} is that it allows for inaccuracy and inconsistency in the way they format the source title and the date. I would prefer this because it is simpler, but at the same time, there are not that many new sources coming out. Are there? --SparqMan 23:26, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Answer to my own question: about six novels in 2006, another five in 2007 and two in 2008. Plus a handful of new comics, The New Essential Guide to Droids and Empire at War. --SparqMan 03:52, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • It looks fine to me, and yes there will be that many new things releasing soon. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:46, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• I like this one better. It's more convenient that creating templates for every new release that comes out. StarNeptune 13:50, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks good.—Mirlen 21:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

GeneralEdit

• A good idea, although changing it to "will expire on <day month year>" would be preferrable. - Sikon [Talk] 18:37, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Ditto.—Mirlen 21:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

TimingEdit

We have two major considerations for the timing or spoiler warnings, and three primary options for each. Obviously there is a fine gradation available for the length, but these are the three easiest choices. Feel free to add other relevant options.

Length

1. 30 days after the chosen release
2. 2 months after the chosen release
3. 6 months after the chosen release.

Deadline

1. U.S. release
2. International release
3. Full release (eBook, audiobook, where applicable)

DiscussionEdit

• Several of the Legacy of the Force books will be released within three months of each other, which would create two instances of spoiler warnings in some articles, so avoiding anything more than three months seems desireable. While 30 days seems nice and quick, it might be too brutal. Even some diehard Star Wars fans can't find the time to purchase and complete a new novel within a month. Two or three months seems ideal to me. --SparqMan 05:11, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Two months is great, I think. Tam 18:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• A month seems fine to me, but I guess 2 months might be better, to be safe. -LtNOWIS 03:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Two months.—Mirlen 21:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• One month, as is the accepted policy already. Kuralyov 00:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• I also say two months. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Two months is safer. After US release. - TopAce 10:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• It seems like the majority is for two months. Should we add this to the one of the Help pages?—Mirlen 14:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)