Updating Spoiler Policy.

It's probably the most prominent one at the moment, but it's certainly not the only case. The Marvel Universe and DC Universe have the same issue in comics, and Star Wars and Star Trek are getting to that point as well. If the Gunn-era DC films are successful, I expect we'll see it there as well.

(And there are doubtless a few more examples I haven't considered)

It is an edge case, but it's one that impacts big, active, shared universe stuff that leans into the cross-continuity. Which generally means lots of individual works pages within that setting - and Characters pages that don't map to a single works page.

I don't think it's worth rewriting the Characters page spoiler rules as a whole, but I do wonder if it justifies some notes somewhere about how we handle that sort of scenario.

As mentioned above, the usual solution seems to be a top-of-page note with some sort of "all spoilers before [work name] are unmarked", which is fair enough.

The question is then how you get consensus on updating that every now and then (which goes back to GateStarX's original point), as you probably want to draw a consistent line across all character pages within the franchise - e.g. everything before Jan 2022 is no longer tagged.

Some of that can be done on discussion pages, but when you hit 30+ Characters pages for the same continuity (I think Marvel Universe is probably into hundreds) it starts to feel like a cleanup thread discussion instead?

Edited by Mrph1 on Mar 15th 2023 at 10:39:20 AM

We have an MCU cleanup thread and that’s where this discussion started, based on whether or not certain characters should have their folders use pseudonyms to hide a Walking Spoiler. Then there was disagreement about that idea and now we’re here.

We have a Marvel Universe comic cleanup thread as well, so it definitely sounds like they would be the right place to get consensus on updating the cut-off points for spoilers.

(Generally speaking, I suspect any franchise big + busy enough to generate this as a recurring question can also justify a cleanup/maintenance thread)

Well, the other thing: what constitutes a franchise messy enough to warrant spoilers-off in this situation: I assume a combo of age, length, nonlinearity, number of installments, number of creative teams on top of a significanceTVT presence. Would Star Trek count? Would the rebootquels be included? Do we trope Fantastic Beasts alongside Harry Potter?

It strikes me that if you want to enact spoilers off for a specific franchise's character sheets, that is fine and doable under the current rules (probably needs a lot more consensus than average, though). But that's not the same as rewriting the spoiler rules for the entire site.

Edited by Synchronicity on Mar 15th 2023 at 6:04:58 AM

Agreed. As mentioned above, I don't think it needs a wider change - but it would be good to see a few words about these scenarios in the Administriva Characters page guidance.

I might try and draft something (probably just a bullet) that acknowledges them and see if there's any appetite to add it?

Are we getting close to a consensus here? I’d like to get a crowner set up but before that happens what exactly is being suggested needs to be clarified. My views on the issue are clear but I can restate them if needed.

I have no clue what the options on this crowner would be.

Well it would most likely be a yes or no.

I’m thinking this.

Option 1: Amend point 4 to include a time limit of spoilers for major multimedia franchises with a large variety of works like the MCU, Marvel Universe, DC Universe, DCEU, Star Wars, Star Trek, and any other major franchises. Franchises that concern whodunnits would still use aliases for killers or criminals like “the killer” and stuff like that.

Option 2: Turn Character Pages into a moments style page like fridge and the like.

Option 3: Keep everything as is.

If I missed anything feel free to speak up. If it’s too early to set a crowner we can keep discussing, but I think these are the options.

I suppose a crowner can happen, but IMO I don't think it's necessary given most of the responses to this thread were against the idea of a change to the policy. Crowners are usually done when there's more contention and a lack of clear consensus in the debate.

Edited by amathieu13 on Mar 17th 2023 at 9:33:07 AM

Yeah TBH I’m not sure there was much support for your idea Gate (besides Karxrida).

I suspect we're going to end up closer to 'Option 1' - as some franchises already do this on Characters pages - but I doubt it's going to become a standardized "X months" rule across the site.

Tropers working on pages for each shared universe will decide if they want a spoiler time limit (rather than full spoilers off or normal works page spoilers), and what that limit will be (by date or by works), and each franchise may end up with a different approach to that rather than a single consistent rule drawn across all of them.

...because, at least unofficially, that's already how it's happening.

I'm personally ok with that inconsistency between franchises, because they're each dealing with different mediums, release schedules, connections between different works etc. I don't think we'd ever get a single workable rule for all of them.

For me, the relevant things are -

1. Any such agreement should be clearly documented on the relevant Characters pages (as a note for readers, not just a comment for editors), in the usual spoiler warning manner. (Whereas some of the Star Wars ones were editor-only comments until we recently changed them, which defeats the object of the warning)
2. Tropers know where to go (e.g. cleanup threads) if they want to propose a change to the approach or cut-off point for a particular franchise (which brings us back to GateStarX's original posts here & elsewhere).
3. There should, ideally, be some acknowledgment in Administrivia that this is a valid option between full spoiler tagging and Spoilers Off. It probably just needs a sentence or a bullet on the Characters page guidance, IMO.

Edit: turns out Administrivia does already reference this approach for single ongoing works and sequels, it just doesn't directly mention the shared universe scenarios.

Edited by Mrph1 on Mar 17th 2023 at 2:14:17 PM

How's this as a slight expansion of the existing Characters spoiler note on Administrivia:

• For ongoing works, it may be desirable to remove all spoiler tags before the current book/season/movie, in order to cut down on clutter. A similar approach can be used for pages covering a Shared Universe where characters appear across multiple works. If so, a warning that all spoilers before a certain point are unmarked should be added to the top of the page.
• Once a Characters page is live, any changes to its spoiler policy (or to the cut-off point for tagging spoilers, if it uses that approach) should be agreed on discussion pages or forum threads, not made unilaterally.

Edited by Mrph1 on Mar 17th 2023 at 2:14:58 PM

I agree with Mrph. Although I would like something in place if not a time limit then like maybe every 3-6 months the hidden characters are reevaluated.

Also I want a crowner because vocal minority shouldn’t decide things. There are probably a bunch of people who are watching this debate and just not chiming in. When there’s only a couple of people it’s easy to just end up two or three to one and nothing gets changed because the people who didn’t chime in didn’t get a say.

I really hate to be that guy, but to be honest, it really sounds dismissive when several people on the thread disagreed with you and you just refer to them as a “vocal minority”. If people want to chime in they are more then welcome to, but it’s really odd to just assume that there must be others who agree with you who aren’t saying anything and therefore your point is actually the majority.

There’s like 10 of us here and thousands of tropers. I don’t even care if I’m voted against. I’ll accept any verdict. But describing it like that is blatantly untrue.

As the saying goes, "decisions are made by those who show up".

I do think crowners often get slightly more votes that you'd otherwise get within a thread - even vs. the sort of simple "" you see in Image Pickin' - just because they're one click. That said, they're still a small proportion of the active tropers who are editing.

If folk don't want to engage with the forums on this stuff, that's their choice. And those who do engage with the forums will end up setting policy.

Also to me crowners are just more official when enacting policy change vs a bunch of people saying yes or no to things. It makes things official vs some people just saying no.

I mean, I don't necessarily disagree in principle but this seems at odds with your actions. If people haven't chimed in yet but want to, then we should let the conversation that has only started officially 3 days ago continue to give people more chances to voice their opinions rather than speed through a crowner. Because just as much as you think a "vocal minority" has come up to push back against your proposal, the same can be said about the proposal itself, i.e. a vocal minority is advocating for a change that doesn't seem desired by the majority of those who chose to engage, who have stated they're comfortable with the status quo.

Let the convo continue, I think you can even post about it on ATT to get more engagement. If more people don't chime in, then that means the majority of users don't really care. If people do chime in, then great we have more voices in the convo, regardless of which way it sways.

Edited by amathieu13 on Mar 17th 2023 at 1:35:34 PM

I'll compile what I got has been discussed into a potential crowner, but it's normally set up when the discussion is getting exhausted and a mod agrees it's warranted. I believe everything except the last one will get downvoted since we already have broader rules to seek consensus on major edits, but it'll be an official answer.

We'll see how we feel in a couple of days.

Edited by Amonimus on Mar 17th 2023 at 8:39:26 PM

I think we need a more centralized place to discuss spoiler cutoff points, but no more than that.

I may like it since the only thread on spoilers is Violations of the Spoiler Policy cleanup. (And the newly-made spoiler trope cleanup, but does it really count)

Edited by Amonimus on Mar 17th 2023 at 8:43:23 PM

For franchises where we've got an existing cleanup thread, I think that's the sensible place. The people best placed to pick a logical break point for Star Trek are probably the tropers who are actively following the franchise and editing the pages, for example.

For franchises and multi-part works with no such thread, I'm all for a "Character page spoiler decisions" thread, unless we want to fold it into Character Page Cleanup.

Edited by Mrph1 on Mar 17th 2023 at 5:55:45 PM

Like I said, I don't think a new amendment needs to specifically be made. People have mentioned page editors coming to a consensus on a spoiler cutoff point for certain franchises, which I believe is the best option.

(I do have issues with the overall current spoiler policy, but that's outside the scope of this thread.)

Isn't that exactly the scope of this thread? Irregardless of what some people are saying, I wasn’t advocating to just call a crowner and call it a day. If anyone thinks there is more to do then we should look into it. I just compiled what was the general consensus at the moment as I saw it. I figured the chat was winding down and everyone had made up their minds so I figured a crowner was in order to get a sufficient tally for everyone and allow people who have an opinion but don’t want to get involved in arguments between people a chance to vote too.

Crowners are generally introduced when the thread shows support for a change, not when it doesn't. Generally the "silent majority" tends to oppose any change no matter how clearly necessary it is, and while things are a bit different in this case since this thread is about codifying existing practice, if no one else is willing to speak up in your favor there isn't much of a leg to stand on. Introducing a crowner to gauge support for a proposal that one person has supported in the thread, because of the assertion without evidence that there just so happens to be a mass of people supporting it but none of them ever spoke up because they all "don't want to get involved in arguments", is not something that we really do. The forums work through discussion and reasoned arguments, with crowners as a sanity check and a way to gauge consensus beyond those willing to speak up, and if you can't convince anyone to actually speak up and say "yes, I think what you say is a good idea", enough of them that even the people who disagree with you acknowledge that it's a viable proposal and worth gauging the level of support for, you can't expect there to be enough support to actually enact it.