Ask The Tropers

Could you replace it with a descriptor? For example, in a murder mystery, instead of calling the killer by their name, you could refer to them as "The Killer".

I think spoiler tags are allowed on quotes pages. They just aren't allowed in page quotes since that's above the examples line.

Keet cleanup

^Spoilers Off disallows them, though.

1) Spoilers Off disallows them for "Quotes from a work", which is obviously incomplete information, since spoiler tags on example quotes are allowed. If the information is incomplete, can we really assume that it's referring not just to pagetop quotes but also to quotes subpages?

2) The rule about not having potholes in quotes seemingly only applies to pagetop quotes and not to quotes subpages, so it seems reasonable to assume the same as far as the rules for spoiler tags.

"Quotes from a work" is honestly really vague. Obviously pagetopper quotes are spoilers off, but I would like mod clarification on whether that means all quotes or not.

Anyway, to OP's question: I find hiding behind a descriptor as previously mentioned a good compromise, as it preserves the quote without looking Swiss cheese-y.

"Reverse Flash" could work as the descriptor.

I had a dog-themed avatar before it was cool.

^ I haven't seen the show, so I'll take your word for it.

I am however, interested in maybe eventually watching it, so can someone else take care of the edit?

Huh? No, it isn't. I see tropers making this mistake very often, but that doesn't make it right.

"Quotes from a work" isn't vague at all, it's more of unnecessary. It should just say "any quotes", for we don't spoiler tagged real life, including quotes, any way.

Edited by Kuruni

^Obviously quotes in trope examples are allowed to contain spoiler tags, since that's below the example line in the trope/example list, where spoiler tags belong.

Edited by rjd1922 Keet cleanup

^By that logic, every page marked with spoilers off/spoiler rotten is ok to have spoiler below the example line too, it's obviously not.

Seriously, what's confusing/vague about "quotes from a work" being Spoilers Off? Is there a quote not being from a work? (and before anyone bring it up, creators' quotes and such is covered by "spoiler-tag a fact") Something like a quote completely make up by a troper and claim to be from a character even if they never say it in a work? Why would we want to quote that?.

Edited by Kuruni

^ Not seeing your logic here; How does "allow spoiler markup in example quotes" translate to "allow spoilers everywhere even on pages that say "don't do this"? What's the actual harm in tagging these quotes? If they're Spoilers Off, fine, whatever, a rule's a rule, but why would it be a problem in need of banning and what's so wrong with suggesting they're alright?

Besides, that'd really change Wham Line, wouldn't it? The entire point is that they're lines that change the entire direction of the work or reveal a major twist. If a line is that powerful on its own, why wouldn't we spoil the quote? Or would it somehow be different if the quote was merely paraphrased and hidden behind spoiler tagging?

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I'm just stick to fact. They said "Obviously quotes in trope examples are allowed to contain spoiler tags, since that's below the example line in the trope/example list". But it is not allowed because it's Spoilers Off, being above or below example line doesn't change it (and "are allowed [...] since that's below the example line" is their logic, not mine).

And no, there's nothing wrong with "suggesting they're alright", but for now it isn't allowed. I'm just state the fact. If the policy has changed, then I'll just adapt. But it isn't yet, is it? Would it be better? Dunno, don't care. But I sure won't encourage people to ignore a rule now just because it might be better.

Edited by Kuruni

But it's ambiguous as to whether or not they are spoilers off is the thing. People on this very thread have expressed two different interpretations of the rule because it doesn't specify either way.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

No, the subpage is a continuation of the page quote. That's what "start a page for that trope in the Quotes/ namespace and move the extras there" means. Quotes Wiki; the rules for the page quote also apply to the subpage.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

The Season where this spoiler originated from is over 5 years old. I think it's ok like that.

Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% Scandinavian

I hate to say it but I still don't know whether to change it or not. For now I'll leave it unmarked because it looks better that way and seems to fit with the "no spoilers marked in pagetop quotes" rule but anyone else can change it if they want.

Edited by Troper48

^ "Reverse Flash" was previously suggested as a replacement for the character's name, would that work?

Honestly, it's a good rule of thumb to err on the side of least-spoilery. To someone who has seen the work or does not care about spoilers, it doesn't matter, but if Reverse-Flash is less likely to be an overt spoiler to the uninitiated, use that.

I apologize for derailing this query; I started a Wiki Talk thread for spoilers and quotes.

I think Reverse-Flash would be just as much of a spoiler unfortunately, maybe even more of a spoiler depending on who you ask.

Ok, spoilers for The Flash, for more info: Before this point, the name "Eobard Thawne" is only said once in the series, in the episode "Out of Time" which is two episodes prior to the one I quoted. It's revealed to be the true name of the scientist "Harrison Wells", who at this point is already revealed to be the Big Bad, Reverse-Flash. Then, in "Tricksters", the episode on the quotes page, flashbacks from 15 years ago are interspersed throughout the episode, starting with the reveal that the Reverse-Flash is just some random other guy, not Harrison Wells. However, this is followed with this guy spying on Wells and ultimately setting up a trap to get him into a car accident. This guy reveals that his name is Eobard Thawne, and he proceeds to use technology from the future to steal Wells's appearance and hide his body, acting as though he was simply in a car crash. Before he kills Wells is when he says the line I added to the page.

Edited by Troper48

Okay, I actually saw this years ago but forgot everything about it, so I'll leave these considerations for you:

Is it a spoiler that the villain's name is Reverse-Flash? Like, do we know this early on without the reveal of his identity? If the answer to the first question is no, then I would keep it as Reverse-Flash: you know Reverse-Flash exists, you're just not revealing his real identity to people who will care about spoilers for this work. Kill and Replace seems like a villainy thing to do, and the quote as currently laid out doesn't say who he's killing and replacing, since as you have noted it is a Stranger Behind the Mask.

Also, if the whole thing is a super-duper-ruin-the-plot kind of Wham Line, it is probably best to not list it out in the open on a subpage at all.

Edited by Synchronicity

Ok I'll go ahead and do that. It may be a Wham Line— I can't remember what effect it had on me the first time I watched it and the episode page doesn't list it as one, but it definitely feels like one to some degree.

Edit: I changed it back because now that I'm thinking about it I feel like saying "Reverse-Flash" is more of a spoiler for the series for readers of the page who aren't going to think about it that much. If you have a good memory then you might remember the name Eobard Thawne and know what was going on, but I think most people would not, and also by the time you watch the "Tricksters" episode, towards the middle you would probably know what was going on.

Edited by Troper48

I just found this which has a spoiler in the name of the person who says a quote. I still don't know what to do in this situation but just wanted to let everyone know.

Edited by Troper48