Forum:Temporary forums/Changing the Spoiler Policy

Right now, Tardis:Spoiler policy forbids any information about future releases from the wiki. The sole exception is series pages, where anything goes. But this approach is unworkably out of date for a few reasons:
 * For almost a year, the top trending search on this wiki was [REDACTED], an actor who we still don't even have a page for! By catering to extreme spoilerphobes, we're failing a vast majority of our users, who do want to read about future cast and crew on the wiki.
 * The BBC puts an enormous amount of effort into promoting these announcements. Someone who sees the end of The Power of the Doctor without knowing about [REDACTED] just isn't experiencing the franchise the way it's intended to be experienced; we shouldn't be bending over backwards to serve them to the exclusion of all others.
 * Regarding major character announcements, if I hadn't been spoiled by the news and the cover of Doctor Who Magazine, I'd have been spoiled by the ads and article links that appear in our own sidebar! When we got the point of building specific loopholes for Fandom, that should have been an indication that the spoiler policy needed a larger rethink.

That said, I don't think we should throw out the concerns of spoilerphobic readers and editors entirely. The solution can be achieved very simply by drawing a line between two types of spoiler: official spoilers, which come from press releases, Doctor Who Magazine interviews, and other official announcements; and unofficial spoilers such as rumours, leaks, sightings, off-the-record comments, and so on, even if these are reported in news outlets.

I suggest we allow official spoilers only on the following pages, each marked with :
 * 1) Pages for new cast and crew. If someone comes to the wiki and searches for an actor who hasn't debuted yet, they're looking for spoilers.
 * 2) "Spoiler" subpages for established cast and crew, using our new Tardis:Subpage policy.
 * 3) Talk pages for -marked pages.

Let me explain #2. An example would be David Tennant/Spoilers. That subpage won't duplicate any information from David Tennant; it'll only cover spoilery official announcements. When that information is no longer a spoiler, it can be copy-pasted to the main page. (If the subpage is then empty and no longer needed, a delete tag can be added, and an admin can merge the edit histories.) The subpage will be linked from the main page with, placed after the last paragraph of the article's lead section:

The advantage of using a subpage is spoilerphobes can still browse the wiki without fear. If we just put spoilers on the main page of a returning cast member, a spoilerphobe wouldn't be able to read David Tennant without spoiling themselves; with subpages, they can. Nor would the presence of the template and subpage link spoil that David Tennant is returning to the TV show: David Tennant/Spoilers might just describe an upcoming Big Finish appearance!

There'd still be no unofficial spoilers (rumours etc) on these pages, and like existing policy, absolutely no spoilers on in-universe pages. Thoughts? – n8 (☎) 20:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly agree with this proposal. I have two minor issues with it though: one, I think spoilers should be allowed in sandboxes, as it allows us to draft new pages. I received quite a shock when I found out that I couldn't do this. Secondly, I'm not 100% convinced about spoiler subpages, but I am willing to compromise on then if it means we can slacken our policies.
 * Furthermore, if this proposal is agreed upon, I have several pages I would like to be imported onto this Wiki about people like REDACTED. 17:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm only half in here. I do believe there should be pages for the incoming Mr. You Know Who and Miss You Know Who etc. (really I'm not sure if the publicly announced casting of new actors should even be counted as a spoiler). However, I don't think that Spoiler subpages are necessary. I'm not sure exactly how we would do it but surely there are ways to cover up spoilery text on pages as is done on numerous other websites (TVTropes for one). MrThermomanPreacher ☎  18:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The sole exception being series pages is not quite right, as we also do have List of future releases and List of future Big Finish releases, but that’s besides the point. I completely agree with this proposal. It’s entirely pointless that this wiki has to cater to spoilerphobes to such a degree that we can't cover something that we know happens in about a whole year’s time. Again, this is something that will probably only continue to be the case for this franchise as it grows bigger, and the old archaic system just does not work anymore. This system is flawed on multiple fronts. We need to keep up. Danniesen ☎  18:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, those two "list of future..." pages also violate our current spoiler policies. They technically should be deleted, which is just so, so counterintuitive. 18:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh never mind. 18:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal, and I agree it's rather mad we don't have pages for [him] and [her] - they've been announced, we even have photos (and video) of them in costume. People will be searching for information, even said information is sparse. We have a page for Series 14, which is in production, (and a page for Series 15!) so why not for the 2 leading actors starring in it? FractalDoctor ☎  18:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * (I think technically you're still not allowed to mention those two things by name in this forum. Which is ridiculous, but c'est la vie.)


 * As a procedural issue, obviously I would prefer if Czech were here to voice his own views, given he's the main voice against loosening the spoiler policy. But putting that concern to the side, I think I'm against spoiler sandboxes. Too often do I look at sandboxes of other users to get a feel for what their editing priorities are for me to think that other users don't do the same. And while I don't care about spoilers, I can't imagine that all others feel the same.


 * I'm also unconvinced about DWM spoilers. These are nowhere near as publicized as the "press release" style announcements and it's far from clear to me that the average fan is expected to know what's being said in DWM, while they're certainly expected to know about the four major [REDACTED]s, as well as some of the minor [REDACTED]s. While we can't see the more recent spoiler discussions, I note that Czech brought up a similar point in 2011 with no clear resolution.


 * Something not discussed is spoilers on forums. This is, quite frankly, imperative to our work, and it's stunning to me that people haven't discussed this yet. We will forever be playing a game of catch-up unless we can discuss stories and eras before they come out and can plan for them. Part of our discussion in Tardis:Temporary forums/Slot 3: Updating the main page & theme has stalled out because we simply cannot discuss updating the theme further without a reconsideration of our spoiler policy! (Do we update our theme for the thing happening in November now? If so, we need to discuss specifics on how to do so. Both things require tweaks to our spoiler policy. I think this is a really important question to answer!) Lest you think this is an isolated incident, let me assure you it is not. Can I Help You? was announced prior to our forums going down, and I asked an admin if I should make a thread about it at that time, since it had implications for our merchandising rules. I was told that if it was ruled to be a (valid) story in that thread we would have been retroactively been violating our spoiler rules the entire time. As a result it was put off, and here we stand, two years later. Najawin ☎  19:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Wup-up-up. Setting aside any wider changes, these "REDACTED"s are getting silly. I have half a mind to declare that, whatever other changes we may or may not create consensus around, this specific Forum thread might be exempt from normal T:SPOIL rules under the same terms as a series page with a banner, so that we can, you know, actually know what we're talking about. Does anyone here disagree with this?


 * I am mindful of the fact that this could potentially disincentivise any actual, personally-committed spoilerphobes from participating, which would not be ideal, but the fact of the matter is that I am not convinced we have any significant numbers of such people within the editing community in the first place, and tying ourselves up in knots to accommodate purely imaginary cases is sort of the whole problem here. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 19:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I pinged Shambala in discussions, and I know she doesn't see much point in changing the policy. But I don't think she's that spoiler averse? Up to you. I feel like I can understand everyone. Najawin ☎  19:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I support these proposed changes, and I second what Scrooge said. I'm not entirely convinced that these types of spoilerphobes actually even exist anymore, and even if they do, it seems ridiculous to center our spoiler policy around such a tiny group of people in the fandom. Pluto2 ☎ 19:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * As a casual reader of TARDIS Wiki, I've always thought the Spoiler Policy was bizarre and convoluted, so this would be a major improvement. It's massively counterintuitive to not host pages for future actors and crew. There should be a much more straightforward delineation between real-world and in universe articles, when it comes to the Spoiler Policy.


 * Imagine this hypothetical for a second: an actor gets cast as the Doctor, but then for some reason, are fired, and have all their scenes reshot. Would the original actor be forever ineligible for getting an article, because they didn't appear in a story? Or would they become eligible, due to no longer being 'a spoiler'? This is a somewhat contrived scenario, I'll admit, but then again, so is the policy. And I'm sure there's plenty of similar issues you can raise with it.


 * I've never seen the idea of a Spoiler subpage anywhere - though it could work, it may also become a lightning rod for bad faith actors, spammers, etc. Even if such pages were strictly managed, I'm unsure if it's in the wiki's best interest to facilitate a culture of leak-sharing. Why not just use notice templates, to sign-post spoiler-y article sections?


 * Another random idea I'll throw out there: what if articles about (officially announced) future characters were to be permitted, as long as they are exclusively written from a real-world perspective? This approach would have its own set of issues, no doubt, but I think it could work. And when the character makes their debut and the article type shifts, you'd already have a BTS section pre-written. Not an unattractive option, if you ask me. TheGreatGabester ☎  19:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * To answer Scrooge, yes I am for removing the Spoiler policy’s effects in this here space, The Forums. It’s ridiculous. Danniesen ☎  19:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

(Does the current policy prevent, say, the Russell T Davies page from mentioning that he's showrunner again? Because there's zero mention of it. Same with David Tennant and any mention of the 14th Doctor on his page. Again, information is somewhat sparse, but it'd be weird to someone looking on the Tennant page to not find a single mention of the fact he's the current Doctor again and will be for 3 specials, etc.) FractalDoctor ☎  19:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Okay, that's it, I'm implementing a T:SPOIL suspension for this page, effective immediately. Which will save me the trouble of having to redact User:FractalDoctor's comment above, because while you can discuss Tennant's return based on The Power of the Doctor (and arguably Davies's, insofar as he was technically the producer for those twenty post-regenerative seconds…), you wouldn't, in a spoiler-free space, have been allowed to discuss the existence of the three specials!

Now, as you were.Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 19:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, but thanks Scrooge MacDuck. Unintentional on my part! It does sort of highlight how bizarre the policy worked/works on occasion. Even if I hadn't mentioned 3 specials, it's common knowledge about Tennant and Davies (along with NPH and Tate) and I don't see why this can't be added to David Tennant's page, for example, even if it's literally just "David Tennant is the 14th Doctor and will star alongside Catherine Tate in the upcoming 60th anniversary specials." FractalDoctor ☎  19:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Further, even if you could not mention the 3 specials, you would still be fully able to talk about Tennant being the Doctor again going forward as well as RTD being showrunner going forward, outside of Power, as that is how it is currently. Danniesen ☎  19:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I disagree with @Najawin about excluding spoilers from DWM. The whole point of coming to a Wiki — aka an online encyclopedia — is to learn more information! Removing a great deal of it because it isn't as well-known... is frankly silly and goes against this Wiki's very remit. And besides, we need to allow DWM spoilers, as it is actively hurting our coverage of DWM itself. Look at lots of pages for the most recent issues, and you'll see that they're missing any cover images (because Gatwa and co. are on them) and half their contents are redacted (because of Gatwa and co.). Let's not start making up random middle grounds for officially released information, okay? 20:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. If we do this, we do it all the way. Danniesen ☎  20:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, calling DWM not as "well-known" as press releases, in my opinion, is incorrect, as Panini had supply issues due to the sheer demand of DWM 584. It sold out everywhere! I wasn't even able to get a copy myself. 20:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, I remember that. It was in stores for, what, 3 hours before everything was sold out… Danniesen ☎  20:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I fully support this proposal, including the caveat of not including unofficial leaks, and of putting all spoilers under tags and subpages. Besides improving the average user's experience (which is arguably the most important detail), this would also allow BTS sections of a couple of pages to not lie. For example, the BTS section of Man (The Daft Dimension 579) and the BTS section of The World Tree (audio story) would both, on a sane wiki, point out they were intended to be Ncuti Gatwa. (Wait, would we have BTS/Spoilers?)

Cousin Ettolrhc ☎  20:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Epsilon makes some great points. If news is announced via DWM, it's usually spread quite quickly over Twitter and social media, picked up by news sites, Radio Times articles, etc. The point is that news spreads outwards from DWM, and should also find itself here. FractalDoctor ☎  20:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don’t really see there being a valid alternative - accept all official sources, or don’t bother. Any attempt to figure out some kind of editorially approved middle-ground/strategy would probably lead to more confusion. Keep it as simple to understand, and enforce, as possible. TheGreatGabester ☎  21:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

So, I very much agree with this. The spoiler policies are actively inhibiting the wiki's purpose to have information for readers. Ncuti Gatwa (exhales) was the top suggestion whenever you clicked the search bar for several months, indicating that people were expecting information on him, yet we still can't have a page.

Additionally, most of this info is already prominent in the news and internet especially in DW circles, so we are catering to a hypothetical person who is interested enough in Doctor Who to use Tardis Wiki, but somehow has never heard of any recent Doctor Who news from anywhere else. I highly doubt such a person exists, but even if they do, if they care enough to avoid any news, it is their fault for visiting a Doctor Who-focused website in spite of this, especially when this website does provide spoiler warning banners. This also applies to the idea that "the existence of a spoiler warning is itself a spoiler", especially when we only allow "official spoilers". Any other wiki I can think of has a spoiler banner at the top of a page even if it already exists, it was the reader's choice to visit the website and their choice to scroll further.

Anyways, I agree this also should be extended to user pages and forums. As has been pointed out, we ought to amend T:SPOIL FORUM in order to discuss coverage of future topics. Obviously, such threads would have the banner and should have vaguer titles with something like [SPOILER] in them. And in-universe pages should not have any indications of spoilers. I also agree DWM should be counted as official, we already cite it plenty in real world articles.

There is one point I would like to raise, though: we must clarify to what degree conjecture is allowed for official spoilers. Thankfully I can use a real example here now. The trailer released on Christmas featured what very evidently appears to be the Wrarth Warriors and a Meep. I think this is fair to say on a spoilery page, especially since the newest DWM alluded to "characters familiar to DWM readers" appearing in the trailer, and I believe there was even confirmation from a crew member. (Though in general, I think most would agree simple crew member statements do not constitute official spoilers.) However, despite the conversation online and seeming likelyhood of this, it would be too speculative to say, as of now, that this Meep is indeed Beep. Since only real world pages would even have spoilers, this probably would only go on Series 14 (Doctor Who). With lack of absolute confirmation, even regarding if these species are what they appear to be, what would be appropriate to say on this page? Chubby Potato ☎  21:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Good question, Potato. Right now, both official and unofficial spoilers are allowed on series pages, as long as there's proper sourcing of course; so citing Radio Times: "Is Beep the Meep David Tennant's new nemesis?" would absolutely still be allowed on Series 14 (Doctor Who), but not on David Tennant/Spoilers, where frankly it wouldn't belong anyway.


 * Regarding user sandbox pages and forum discussions, I would personally prefer we not allow spoilers on those, for the reasons Najawin argued. Loosening the guidelines a bit doesn't mean we should actively turn it into a minefield for spoilerphobes (as has now happened to this thread). Instead the Howling namespace should be used for those use cases: that way the URL will make it very clear that spoilerphobes should stay away. There's already nothing in the current rules stopping us from using the Howling for discussions like Howling:How to cover upcoming story? and sandboxes like Howling:Ncuti Gatwa. – n8 (☎) 22:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Excepting that those Howling threads would not be binding forum threads, which is what's necessary for our work in the two examples I mentioned.


 * Re:DWM, may I remind people that the UK is not the sole country in the world, and actually makes up the minority of the show's fanbase at this point in its history? It's shocking, but true, and in the rest of the world DWM effectively doesn't exist. Even if it weren't the case, we're not just editing for the fan who goes out and buys DWM, we're editing for the casual viewer as well. With that said, I cede the point about the DWM pages themselves. Najawin ☎  23:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Even better! If DWM isn't available in certain territories, we are then spreading information in them to those readers. I feel that is actually a good thing to Wikify information that may be hard to come by due to region locking. 23:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Seconded! I know I’d like to know what the magazines have to say. Danniesen ☎  23:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, it exists, but it's digital only, and barely promoted, etc etc. But the point is that it's a distinct level of announcement from a press release. The average fan, indeed, the average viewer perhaps, is expected to know about Gatwa and Gibson, as well as Redgrave and wassisface. But I don't think they're expected to know about "Liverpool legions", or the mention of Mavic Chen. I don't see why we should conflate the two is all. Talk about it on the DWM pages with a spoiler template, sure. Off those pages? I'm less convinced. Najawin ☎  23:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the thing is that isn't really what the Howling is for. It just happens to be the only namespace allowing spoilers. I feel that necessitating that the title of sandboxes and forum threads contain [SPOILER] in their title, which should also obviously not contain spoilers itself, and the use of a warning banner would be adequate. We had to do it here after all. (By the way, when I said user pages, I meant sandboxes, actual User: pages should not have spoilers even with a warning.) I don't know if this is a great idea but since this whole forum system is built on subpages, perhaps there could be a spoiler area subpage of the forums (but the titles should still be censored).


 * [Update: Epsilon and Danniesen expressed the same sentiment as I wrote this]. To Najawin's point on DWM, well, I do not live in the UK and it is more difficult to find DWM here, which is exactly why I'd appreciate if it was covered on the wiki more. It is an official source even if it's less prominent than others, so I think it's a good idea to give it the same credence. I think both allowing spoilers on pages for its issues and citing it on real-world spoiler pages would be appropriate. Most of it would only also go on series overview pages anyway, which as Nate points out already contain unofficial sources that I would think, while noteworthy, are probably less important than DWM in terms of series info. Chubby Potato ☎  23:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I could potentially see that. But I'm going to have a hard time agreeing to create new pages for actors based solely on casting info in DWMs, for instance, or updating OOU pages outside of series pages/DWM pages with the info. (EG, suppose it said Wilf was secretly Frobisher the entire time. Would we update Bernard Cribbins' page to reflect this? I'm not thrilled with the idea.) Najawin ☎  23:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * This whole conversation about DWM seems like a category error. The point of the distinction between official and unofficial spoilers isn't "we should only cover announcements that everyone has seen", it's "we shouldn't cover leaks and rumours". Information from DWM, such as BBC press material like "Letters from the Showrunner", obviously is not a leak or rumour; therefore, it's official, regardless of who can read it. Remember that Big Finish announcements also counting as official spoilers is an important feature of this proposal, and we could hardly argue that those are universal in their reach. Literally what would be the harm of creating pages for actors based on DWM? Even if those only pages would only be relevant for our users from the UK, it's still important that we serve those users…! – n8 (☎) 00:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * In regards to Najawin’s points: I think there’s a distinction to be made to do with the volume of information involved, and how wholly new the relevant subject matter is.


 * If DWM says: “Newcomer Actor X is set to appear in the next series as "Character X”, there’s a very limited amount of official information to work with. Those nuggets are going to be the “bread and butter” - if not the entirety - of the new article, and even the justification for the article’s existence.


 * Existing articles are an entirely different kettle of fish, and should probably be treated differently, too. Maybe it would make sense to put some kind of protocol in place; maybe “announced-yet-spoilery” information about the nature of the character’s return should be handled more carefully, but merely stating that the actor will return as that character is a different case. TheGreatGabester ☎  01:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Opinion from a so-called a spoilerphobe (I like to be surprised, sue me): People act like it's so hard to avoid spoilers and that everyone must have seen x thing on social media, but it really isn't the case. Maybe in the UK, sure, but for the rest of the world, all we have to do is hide relevant Doctor Who pages and block tags. And that's even if we have social media in the first place. It doesn't seem fair to expect people to read the wiki with one eye closed when the majority of the site is there to cover nearly 60 years worth of media. I like the fact that this is the one place where one doesn't have to try to avoid spoilers.


 * Having said that, this proposal is not a bad one and is actually very considerate to those who do not wish to be spoiled. As long as it from official BBC announcements only - no tweets from writers or actors or anything like that - I would not be against it. I am dubious about DWM, though. If it is accompanied by a press release, sure, but if it's just a random interview, I don't think it should be mentioned anywhere other than pages specifically designated to spoilers, such as series pages. If people have to buy a magazine to know about it, it's not big enough to risk spoiling people.


 * On an unrelated note, but still relevant to the spoiler policy. Is there anywhere we can put a notice so that people in the discussions know how to use the spoiler category. So many people put them in the default "General" category, and I think it's just because they don't realise there even are categories. LauraBatham ☎  00:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It's good to hear an opinion from someone more sensitive to spoilers. As much as I think the policy needs to be relaxed, you voice it well that you still shouldn't have to try to avoid spoilers. But that's why I'm confused on your other remarks— the whole point is that any such information, e.g. from DWM, would be restricted to spoiler-tagged articles. Chubby Potato ☎  03:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Re:The accusation of a category error: Suggesting that a specific motivation, to whit,
 * The BBC puts an enormous amount of effort into promoting these announcements. Someone who sees the end of The Power of the Doctor without knowing about [REDACTED] just isn't experiencing the franchise the way it's intended to be experienced; we shouldn't be bending over backwards to serve them to the exclusion of all others.

Is applicable only to some official announcements and not others isn't a category error. I would also suggest that the third bullet point is in a similar boat, and I suspect that the first bullet point is more concerned with these major announcements than they are with the minor - as per the evidence stated in said bullet point! If these are the basis for which we're making the change we should think about what they actually entail. Najawin ☎  05:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for explaining. From my view those bullet points were motivations for why we should cater to audiences interested in spoilers rather than exclusively targeting those sensitive to spoilers. What it actually means to cater to audiences interested in spoilers is a different question, which I believe is inclusive of DWM etc. – n8 (☎) 05:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * But there are a variety of different types of audiences interested in spoilers. This isn't an all or nothing proposition, spoilerphobes or spoilerfriendly. For example, those who are aware of Gatwa's casting but don't read DWM, nor are particularly interested in it. I note also that if these bullet points were intended to argue that we should cater to audiences who care about spoilers, they don't do a particularly good job doing so. Bullet point three, for instance, only points to a failure of our current spoiler rules and how they're an unreasonable ask. It doesn't really address how we should handle our audience at all. If this is how we're to interpret bullet point two it's probably a non sequitur. I think the argument is much stronger if we interpret these as mere reasons to reconsider the current spoiler rules as being failures on a fundamental level, rather than reasons to retailor them for a new audience. But I suspect I'm out voted on this. Najawin ☎  06:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * As long as the information is limited to real-world articles, and is officially announced in some form, you’re still putting fairly hard limits on what can and can’t be spoiled. I think this is a pretty well-balanced approach. TheGreatGabester ☎  11:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I think perhaps the biggest issue for me is a DWM announcement concerning an already established person we have a RW page for. Placing a spoiler tag on these itself spoils things for those who are spoiler averse, and DWM is, again, lower profile than the BBC press releases. I think we can reasonably expect everyone browsing this site to know about Tennant, Tate and Davies, if not Redgrave as well. Again, it's how the BBC expects you to engage with the franchise. But I'm not convinced that if they announced that, say, Georgia Moffett was returning in DWM that we should put that on her page. On the series page? Yes. On the DWM page? Sure. On her page? This is rather extreme imo. Najawin ☎  14:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I don’t think it’s possible to perfectly cater to everyone’s preferences. If you start drawing lines in the sand about what kinds of official sources are and aren’t allowed, it will become overly confusing, which is one of the reasons to change the policy in the first place (to reduce confusion).


 * Also, I wouldn’t dismiss spoiler tags so quickly. Yes, in one sense, they themselves act like a spoiler, but if it alerts a reader to stop reading further and find out too many details for their liking, that’s still a solid outcome. Otherwise, they would still stumble across the info, so why not throw a notice in there?


 * But also, I just don’t understand the aversion to DWM; they are a proper publication with editorial standards - I think they do care about preserving the viewing experience, it’s unlikely they’ll start throwing random tsunamis of TMI everywhere. TheGreatGabester ☎  14:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

When Big Finish announce cast lists and future boxsets, information is added to the Wiki on select pages, so why not DWM? FractalDoctor ☎  14:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Najawin, you say "I'm not convinced that if [DWM] announced that, say, Georgia Moffett was returning in DWM that we should put that on her page." I agree: we shouldn't put that information on Georgia Moffett; instead we should put it on Georgia Moffett/Spoilers! As I explicitly addressed in the OP, the existence of a spoiler subpage does not itself spoil things, because Georgia Moffett/Spoilers might also exist simply because of her future roles in Big Finish or similar. I agree with TheGreatGabester that DWM is just as careful and responsible as the BBC Press Office and that splitting hairs this narrowly would defeat the purpose of the policy simplification. – n8 (☎) 15:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Apologies, had just woken up and had forgotten about that. Still unconvinced, but the most obvious question then is one of implementation. Is Georgia Moffett/Spoilers linked on Georgia Moffett? If so we have the same issue.


 * I note also that this is not particular reticence surrounding DWM. It's more that I'm in favor of substantial reform surrounding spoilers in the form of BBC press releases and find reform past that to be a less compelling case. (Were I to argue against my own position, I would point out that this could be construed as in violation of the spirit of T:NPOV. Which is... True, but unlikely to come up.) Najawin ☎  15:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * [Edit conflict] Having heard @LauraBatham's perspective on the matter as a non-UK reader, how the Wiki is one of the only places on the Internet that can be spoiler free, I feel that using subpages to contain spoilery info on is the best move. While integration onto pre-existing pages may good good for some readers, we can also serve readers who want to read about David Tennant without stumbling across spoilers for the sixtieth.
 * Also, we need spoilery sandboxes, I'm sorry, even if we HAVE to do something like User:Epsilon the Eternal/SPOILERS 1, so anyone about to click is warned.
 * Also, if we only put spoilery info on pages about upcoming things that haven't debuted/subpages for things that have/and series pages, I'm not sure why we would only put DWM info on the latter example. It just seems completely arbitrary. 15:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Re where to link subpages... firstly, not knowing where to put said link is not a compelling argument against subpages, secondly, I have three ideas; a template like that goes at the top of an article with a link to the subpage and a warning; a new field in an infobox, e.g., |spoiler = /Spoilers; and at the top of the main section detailing said actor's career relating to Doctor Who.  15:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Politely Epsilon, but, what? I didn't ask where we place the link to the spoiler subpage. My point is that including a link to it at all on the main page itself constitutes spoilers. If the page was orphaned and you had to actively go looking for it by typing it into the bar I could see an argument? Or having a hub for the pages? But I can't see a world where linking Georgia Moffett/Spoilers on Georgia Moffett doesn't cause issues. Najawin ☎  16:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I disagree even more with your clarification. Yes spoilers may constitute spoilers, but that is in the most technical way and is quite frankly pedantic. Obfuscating that there are even spoilers is going to far; I doubt any reader will be that ignorant or upset that an actor may be returning to the DWU in any capacity.
 * Saying "Georgia Moffett will have a future contribution to the DWU, here's a link to the content on a separate page but you don't have to read it if you don't wanna be spoiled" is not a proper cruking spoiler. 16:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is what I was getting at - any version of a spoiler policy will create its own set of issues, even to a small degree. It’s unavoidable, and that’s just how it is. The question is, which issues are tolerable, and which issues are not? - no getting around that, there’s no perfect one-size-fits-all solution. TheGreatGabester ☎  16:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)|

Moffett's perhaps a poor example for this because of Big Finish concerns, but, say, if Nick Hurran was coming back to direct I would see no daylight between "Hurran will have a future contribution to the DWU" and "Hurran is directing an episode in Series X". It's a distinction without a difference. Najawin ☎  17:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * That's a lack of imagination on your part, then. Russell T Davies/Spoilers in 2022 would have said he was coming back to showrun Doctor Who, but in 2017 it would have just said that he was doing illustrations for Now We Are Six Hundred! Sure, some cases may be more obvious than others, but I'll conjecture that the more obvious, the less people care – certainly, I can't imagine anyone leaving nasty comments about how it was ruined for them that Nick Hurran's name would be appearing in the credits. On other major Doctor Who communities such as the subreddits, behind-the-camera talent aren't even considered spoilers!


 * Regarding placement of the link to the spoiler subpage, as I discussed in the OP, I've already created, which I believe strikes a proper balance between noticeability and vagueness. – n8 (☎) 17:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * There's a reason I didn't mention Moffat or Davies! There are some situations for which there's ambiguity and some for which there isn't ambiguity. We need to account for the latter. I don't see why this is particularly controversial even, if this is honestly about striking a balance rather than a complete retooling towards those who want spoilers. Najawin ☎  17:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The wording in that “SpoilerLink” template is great, there’s your middle ground solution! Where would that go, at the tail end of the History section? TheGreatGabester ☎  17:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ve changed my mind, I get the appeal behind the Spoiler subpages now. TheGreatGabester ☎  17:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Cheers for the support! I suggest that it should go at the end of the real-world person's lead paragraph, since on many cast and crew pages we don't actually have Biography sections; but I'm definitely open to suggestions.


 * Najawin, the current state of affairs is that we frustrate spoilerphiles totally so we can satisfy spoilerphobes perfectly. My suggestion is that we instead frustrate spoilerphiles partially (by quarantining spoilers and not covering leaks) and frustrate spoilerphobes partially (by showing links to spoiler subpages). Would you care to propose an alternative for how we can satisfy both audiences perfectly? Because it seems like your criticism is that this proposal fails to meet an impossible standard. – n8 (☎) 18:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Quite honestly I feel the quarantining of spoilers and not covering leaks are lip service to the idea of "frustration". It's the barest minimum. I'm not suggesting that we satisfy both audiences perfectly. But I don't feel that this is a realistic compromise, in the sense that spoilerphiles don't lose anything meaningful from the ideal that we would cover as proper practice anyhow on real world pages. (That is to say, it would have never been appropriate to cover leaks on this wiki, unless these leaks were explicit production footage. I'm sure most of us are aware of the massive Timeless Child leaks, as well as the more recent leaks related to the specials. I don't think it would be appropriate for us as a wiki to cover this at all before the story has aired.) (With the caveat that this is stating proper practice of the wiki as the wiki currently exists, not some grand statement about my ideal view of the wiki.)

I want to stress again that I, personally, don't care about spoilers at all. It just makes me really uncomfortable when I know Czech had really strong opinions on this subject and he's not here to defend his position. (I know the three week time window was intended to make change happen quickly because we're so far behind, but in a way it makes me feel like we're not giving everyone a chance to respond, threads 2 years ago would be open for months.) Quite frankly I personally agree that crew shouldn't be considered a spoiler. But I don't think he would? There's a way to do this reform while minimizing the cross section of where spoilerphobes can actually interact with potential spoilers. And I don't see why it's controversial to try to be understanding of people who we know exist, even if we think they're unreasonable. Change the rules insofar as they prevent us from doing our jobs, sure. But as I said above, I just don't think the arguments presented suggest we should refocus our rules in favor of spoilerphiles, but rather that the rules as written are flawed. Perhaps that's the fundamental difference that we're just never going to overcome and we'll just keep talking past each other. Najawin ☎  18:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Unless I’m misunderstanding the proposal, leaks of any variety would still be completely disallowed on the Spoiler pages. However, those rules would need to be communicated: a template saying, “only officially revealed info may be added to this page”, something like that. Otherwise, some people might (understandably) get confused by the term ‘spoiler’, and start adding leaks everywhere. TheGreatGabester ☎  18:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Just to clear up any potential confusion, here's what T:RUMOUR says about the current scope of our policy on leaks / "rumours":

"Rumours are allowed on series pages, but they must be cited so that users can verify the page's claims. Citation of this kind is effected by reference tags around the source, like this: . All facts not confirmed by the BBC Press Office or members of the production crew in a formal interview must be placed within a section labeled "rumours" so that users may clearly understand what they are reading."

- Tardis:Spoiler policy


 * This paragraph isn't affected by my proposal, which doesn't change our treatment of series pages or allow rumours on any other pages. – n8 (☎) 19:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * To give my view as someone who is wary of spoilers, I support this proposal. Yes, to an extent the existence of a spoiler warning is itself a spoiler to some extent. But as others have pointed out, it doesn't give away what the spoiler in question is. And I feel that officially announced information should be on the wiki. The sub-page idea is a good way to do that in my opinion. Time God Eon ☎  21:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Another thing I’d mention: I’d say “the Howling”, if it comes back, should be totally devoid of spoiler restrictions. The name suggests that it’s supposed to be a bit of a Wild West, where anything goes - it’s a name which is rather evocative and cool - but it seems like that was never really the case(?) So yeah, maybe some specific rules concerning the Howling should be drawn up? TheGreatGabester ☎  17:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * User:TheGreatGabester my mentioning of leaks a la the rather infamous Timeless Child leaks was not to suggest we codify that they not be allowed, as if this was a damning refutation of the proposal. It was instead to point out that Nate's statement that they weren't covered wasn't ceding anything. So it simply wasn't a serious way in which spoilerphiles were being frustrated in order to satisfy spoilerphobes in his attempted compromise. And I'm still not getting any which way this can be the case. How are spoilerphiles frustrated on real world pages in this compromise? (Compared to how this wiki would maximally satisfy them in the first place. We do have some level of editorial standards.) They have to click a link on existing cast/crew pages to see upcoming releases, but are notified that these releases exist by the presence of the link, as well as the fact that individual story pages don't exist, only series pages. That's it, as far as I can see.


 * I again note that nobody has actually argued for a refocusing of the rules on the spoilerphile, (bullet points 1-3 do not do this), and that this is not a black and white dichotomy. I don't think it unreasonable to suspect that there are US fans who keep up with BBC press releases but have little interest in DWM. Those of us who edit the wiki are the minority. Najawin ☎  18:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * You keep saying or implying that T:SPOIL barred the Timeless Child leaks from being posted on Series 12 (Doctor Who), but I quoted T:RUMOR and it doesn't say anything of the sort. Anyone could have cited an r/Gallifrey thread and put it in the rumours section of Series 12 (Doctor Who). – n8 (☎) 19:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Najawin, I’d suspect people who are unbothered by BBC press releases and keep up with them, but are somehow bothered by tidbits from DWM, are themselves a pretty tiny minority. And the existence of a vaguely worded spoiler warning is surely better than no spoiler warning? Just because the rules might change, doesn’t mean the wiki will suddenly devolve into a cesspit of chaos. You can have faith that effort will be put in, to make sure the new system works. I’d argue that if there are ‘kinks’, you can’t iron them out of existence pre-emptively, and succumb to analysis paralysis : you actually have to let the process run its course, and then make tweaks along the way if necessary. TheGreatGabester ☎  19:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * T:RUMOR explicitly states that they must be sourced. There's some ambiguity as to what that means, whether that's just any person anywhere saying that, or a semi-reputable publication. In practice it seems to mean the latter, hence my reference to editorial standards, at least for the last 4 years. (See our rumors section on S12 not discussing those leaks and only citing one non professional publication. Or for S13. Albeit, S11 is more of a mix.) Indeed, one such rumor that went around social media was removed from the myths section of Revolution of the Daleks (albeit the justification was because it was unsourced). So at the very least the issue is murky, if not an outright T:BOUND matter.


 * As for the idea that the people in my hypothetical are a small minority, let me remind everyone that we are the minority. We are heavily enfranchised fans who care way too much about this show. Our experiences are not normal. I suspect that they are the vast majority. Najawin ☎  20:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, and what sources support this claim? Specifically, the claim that people who are unbothered by BBC press releases, yet are bothered by tidbits from DWM, are the majority? Sorry to be pedantic - I get how it feels when people are repeatedly disagreeing with you, and you want to stick up for yourself; I just feel that this point is rather tenuous. TheGreatGabester ☎  21:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I did say it's a suspicion. But I think it's a well founded one. The majority of fans are casual and aren't actively engaging with DWM, and, again, most of them live outside the UK. With that said, it's effectively impossible for them to avoid press releases. The one nuance is whether or not they're bothered by tidbits from DWM as opposed to simply not seeking them out. Your mileage may vary, but I know a lot of people who actively avoid spoilers for media and want to minimize what they know going in. Especially among more casual fans of stuff. Najawin ☎  21:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if there was quite a sizeable portion of casual non-uk fans who don't even know DWM exists. In Australia, it is not widely sold in newsagents, and even the ones who do sell it don't get every copy (though I imagine you could get them to order it in). I didn't even know Big Finish existed until I started editing this wiki, over a decade after the main range started. Now, I agree that there are probably very few instances of major spoilers being revealed in DWM that aren't accompanied by a press release, but in the case of returning cast members, it could cause problems. If we have a link, say, at the top of Richard Franklin's page that said "spoilers", it is not unreasonable to think that the majority of casual fans are going to assume that means he has an upcoming television appearance as Mike Yates. However, I do think that Epsilon's suggestion of having a link to the subpage in the infobox may be a reasonable compromise. People are less likely to notice it when they are just looking up to see if the actor is still alive or checking their date of birth or whatever. Although, including it in the external links could be a good idea, too. But then we run the risk of making it too hard to find. LauraBatham ☎  00:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I still can’t wrap around my head that we are seriously debating whether or not to cover Doctor Who Magazine equally to the rest of the spoiler information you can get elsewhere just because the magazines may or may not be limited to the U.K. population. That’s actually insane, to be honest. Danniesen ☎  09:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Nobody is suggesting that DWM uniquely be placed at a lower level of priority than other sources, the suggestion is that BBC Press Releases be given precedence over others. If this is unclear I apologize, but let's be very firm that this isn't the case. It's simply the rejection of the idea that DWM should have the same level of priority as BBC press releases. (Note as well that one of the arguments for this is that it's primarily a UK thing, but it is not the sole argument.) Najawin ☎  09:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * We are simply pointing out that DWM is not applicable to the second point in this proposal about "experiencing the franchise the way it's intended to be experienced". I don't think that is so insane. LauraBatham ☎  09:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I don’t think it’s right, for various reasons, to resort to using terms like “insane” to dismiss opposing arguments. Still, I maintain that the aversion to the harmless, carefully curated tidbits featured in DWM seems rather overblown. Especially since they’ll only br viewable in the spoiler-approved areas, anyway, and they wouldn’t be displayed in the proposed spoiler notice/link template. How is this not a decent balance? TheGreatGabester ☎  13:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)