User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-6032121-20190917111635/@comment-6032121-20191020152759

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-6032121-20190917111635/@comment-6032121-20191020152759 Good point. In that case… let me see. The wording is currently:

"Trailers: Trailers — even the "Next Time" trailer that appears at the end of episodes — are considered spoilers here. They can't be cited before the episode they preview airs. And if they contain information which doesn't make it into the final cut of the episodes, that information is considered a cut scene, and therefore doesn't count. Examples: A couple of the The Waters of Mars trailers contained information not in the final product.  Also, you can't say, "The Tenth Doctor's TARDIS was pulled by reindeer," just because of the 2009 BBC idents Rules offended: 1, 3"

I propose we change it to:

"Most trailers: Trailers — even the "Next Time" trailer that appears at the end of episodes — are considered spoilers here. They can't be cited before the wider narrative they preview is released. Furthermore, because they're not stories, trailers consisting of a series of clips of the story being advertised are invalid, and if they contain information which doesn't make it into the final cut of the episodes, that information is considered a cut scene, and therefore doesn't count. However, trailers which craft their own self-contained narrative that simply ties into the work being advertised do pass Rule 1 and can therefore be valid stories, though usual Rule 4 concerns apply if they break the fourth wall. Examples: A couple of the The Waters of Mars trailers contained information not in the final product. So they're invalid. Nor can we say, "The Tenth Doctor's TARDIS was pulled by reindeer," just because of the 2009 BBC idents; they're clearly meant as unserious bits of fluff, not as actual narratives taking place in the DWU. On the other hand, something like Jo Grant Returns, which advertises a story by presenting a short sequel to it, is perfectly valid. Rules offended: 1, 3, 4"

The wording could use ironing out here or there, but does this basically look good?

Mind you, this is getting quite long for a mere entry in a table. I wonder if it mightn't be better to have "Trailers" as their own subsection of T:VS, so we can properly explain things like the T:SPOIL concerns separately from all the "once we're allowed to cover a trailer, when is it valid?" business, and offer a clearer breakdown of which trailers are vs. aren't valid.