Spoiler policy and Dr. Horrible

Dr Horribles Sing Along Blog has, for a long time, contained naked spoilers with a big warning in the description. However, a troper just came along and spoiler-tagged a bunch of stuff anyway.

I reverted it and locked the article in order to confirm that it is, in fact, acceptable to have works pages contain untagged spoilers as long as we put the warning up.

edited 14th Jun '11 9:25:24 AM by Fighteer

I kind of wish works didn't do unmarked spoilers. I don't know what the policy is, but sometimes I want to look through a trope list to see if I'd like a work I haven't read/watched/whatever applicable verbed.

edited 14th Jun '11 11:00:06 AM by INUH

Ditto, I admit... reading trope lists is a good way to get a feel for stuff you haven't seen yet.

In fact, IIRC, Dr. Horrible's work page is how I heard about/got interested in watching it in the first place. I'm just so bad about procrastinating everything that I managed to forget most of the spoilery details by the time I got the chance.

edited 14th Jun '11 2:04:50 PM by Jeysie

Any more thoughts? I can rewrite the article to be less spoilerrific, but I admit to liking the way it allows us to avoid having to talk around the plot elements driving the tropes.

I can feel your pain... dancing around spoilers is annoying, but in a site full of several thousand different fandoms, I think it's better to the reader to try to not overdo it.

Plus, assuming I'm understanding the namespace right, wouldn't Analysis be a better spot for in-depth discussions of how a plot uses tropes, anyway?

I prefer plot sensitive stuff spoilered myself.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that we should have spoilers for major plot developments on everything that doesn't fall into It Was His Sled, at least on the main page. I mean, either You Should Know This Already or not - why have a category of "this stuff isn't common knowledge, but you should be punished for not keeping up with the cutting edge of culture"?.

It's a different situation with serial media, admittedly, because one series' climactic twist might be the next series' establishing premise.

edited 14th Jun '11 3:48:40 PM by johnnye

I'm with Deboss. Spoliers are nicer for if you haven't seen the work and are trying to decide if you want to.

I am usually pro-spoiler up until the majority of the world can get its hands on it.

Dr. Horrible went viral, which means as many people who were able to get it online, did get it online.

And at this point, it's also available on iTunes, via other downloadable means, and on DVD. So at some point the onus is on the viewer to stay unspoilered.

Plus, as a Joss Whedon vehicle, there are certain tropes the creator likes to use in everything he does, which means they are more You Should Know This Already.

Still, if they're trying to decide whether to see it or not, it's unfair to obligate them to see it before scanning the trope list.

After I gushed about it to my friends recently, I was kind of surprised at how many of them hadn't seen it yet (although they have now that I've pestered them >>). Never assume.

I think if there is a choice between writing the best article about a work and avoiding spoilers we should go with the former, and that a clear warning is sufficient. I wouldn't want to see a trope not included because it was a spoiler. That doesn't rule out puttin' major developments in the text of trope descriptions in spoilertext, but even there I think articles benefit from a sparing application of the markup.

I also believe a clear warning is sufficient.

On a slight tangent, is there a consensus on spoilering trope names? I'm all for it, there are tropes like Big Bad Friend that once you know they occur at all, you will immediately spot who it is, it will ruin a potentially massive twist, and no amount of spoilered example text will help. It's not like it makes it any harder to read than "Big Bad Friend: his best friend is the Big Bad".

I still think a dedicated "Inherent Spoilers" folder is the best way to deal with those.