Tardis talk:Spoiler policy

As currently worded, the spoiler policy suggests that we can refer only to stories that have been broadcast or published in the UK, Australia, Canada, and the United States. Since US and Australia don't even have a broadcast date for the new series, I suggest we change the policy to "UK, Australia, Canada or the United States" -- unless I'm missing something here. --Josiah Rowe 22:25, 25 Mar 2005 (EST)


 * On this point can we just clarify what the position is. I am planning on putting all of the info up from Rose (which I thought was brilliant in case anyone is bothered) just want to check no one objects to this. It may not be fair that it isnt being broadcast yet in the US and Austrailia but I still think we should put up entries for these new stories. --Amxitsa 09:14, 27 Mar 2005 (EST)


 * As far as I'm concerned, once it's aired in the UK it's fair game. Nice work on Rose (TV story), by the way. --Josiah Rowe 17:03, 28 Mar 2005 (EST)

Spoiler policy
It would be a good idea to put the spoiler policy on the front page.


 * There is a warning, on the front page. "Warning: This wiki contains spoilers. Read at your own risk." --Tangerineduel 17:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Online media
What is the spoiler policy with online media (particularly Web of Lies)? The policy says, "not yet officially released in its entirety." While WoL is a whole story, it is being released in segments. Should we consider it to be spoilers until the last segment of the story is released for download? --Lenonn 04:19, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * The policy goes on to give a few examples, including:
 * "Next Time" trailers, teaser trailers, or anything similar
 * Information from an official website about a future episode
 * Now, you're basically asking what is meant by the phrase, "not yet officially released in its entirety", and these two points help us answer that question.  Information from trailers is forbidden, because they are just bits and pieces of an episode that has not yet been broadcast.  Sometimes, as was notoriously true of The Waters of Mars trailers, information was displayed which never actually made it to the episode.  Equally, official websites are primarily advertisements.  They aren't necessarily giving accurate information about topics, but ones which will entice you to watch whatever they're selling.  This series of DW, we've already seen how Steven Moffat has used the official website to deliberately push the lie that the Silence is a species.  This helped him wrong foot his audience in Let's Kill Hitler.  So basically, we don't trust trailers or online content about series currently in transmission.


 * As for Web of Lies, well, it's a narrative oddity that the policy doesn't specifically contemplate. It's a multi part story, much in the vein of the old Doctor Who serials — or, if you prefer,  The Infinite Quest or Dreamland.  I guess there would've been nothing wrong with adding to the Web of Lies page each time a new episode was made available, as long as you stuck to just what was revealed in the most current episode.  At this point, though, the story is nearly complete, and there might be some wisdom in waiting for the final instalment before doing a write-up.   If you want to get a head start on things, though, I certainly don't think it would offend the spoiler policy to write up the "story so far".


 * After all, the poilicy isn't saying that you have to wait until an entire series of Doctor Who is over before you can write up individual episodes. It's just saying that you can only write about an episode when it has been fully broadcast by the BBC, and that you must confine yourself to only what's in that week's instalment.   05:26:48 Tue 06 Sep 2011

Suggest addition
Under the prohibition on actor articles prior to broadcast, suggest specifying "including actors officially confirmed as playing companions" at some point, otherwise you'll have people wondering what we have against Jenna-Louise Coleman. 70.72.215.252talk to me 23:30, July 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * As well as a certain actor whose very mention is apparently a banning offence now. This must be spelled out as there is no reference to banning being a punishment under the Spoiler Policy and anyone kicked out for violating the edict in that little blue box on the edit page will be able to successfully appeal because there is nothing in Spoiler Policy that supports this level of punishment. If you're going to be Draconian about it, then have the guts to spell it out and make sure it is applied to everyone, whether they post a little item about some minor cameo appearance in Episode 3 of Series 8 or go whole hog and post stuff about the new Doctor. 68.146.70.124talk to me 15:24, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do you feel it's necessary to spell out "actors means everyone in front of the camera, up to and including the stars of the show"? An actor is an actor is an actor, aren't they?  Is there any doubt that Jenna Coleman is an actor?


 * As for this policy not explicitly saying that violators will be blocked, it's not really necessary, is it? Every single time you edit there's a warning that says, approximately, "If you want to keep editing here, don't spoil stuff".  Also, we spelled out punishments in 2013 very clearly in other places, like MediaWiki:Community-corner, a message that all registered editors are alerted to read, and Thread:126489, which was highlighted for a long time.


 * Of course, IP users can't see the latter two messages without expressly looking for them. But there's nothing we can do about that.  Membership has its privileges. The software gives greater levels of access to those who — to use your phrase — "have the guts" to register. If you're not going to register, you're going to risk possibly being less informed than registered users.  We made a good faith effort to explicitly set out punishments in very prominent places.


 * At the end of the day, however, it's not really necessary for us to say that a punishment will be forthcoming, is it? If we tell you not to do something, and then you do it, don't you logically expect some kinda punishment?


 * Still, as and when this page is refactored, I'll take a look at including specific punishments — mainly because the 2013 warnings won't apply anymore. 18:57: Sat 28 Dec 2013

Requested change to wording
I object to the unnecessary slam on DWM implied by the statement "If we were to believe Doctor Who Magazine, for instance, Oswald Danes would actually be Oswald Jones (DWM 427)." This makes is appear as if DWM erred in its reporting. In fact, DWM 427 was published in November 2010 (though likely circulated weeks before) and the story would have been written maybe in September, if not earlier given lead time. At that time, the character of Oswald Danes was Oswald Jones, but it was changed later (my guess is Davies realized he had too many Joneses). I just corrected the article on DWM 427 which suggested the article in question was full of errors when in fact it wasn't; in the fall of 2010 the character of Esther Drummond was Esther Katusi and remained so until a Caucasian actress was cast in the part in early 2011 (even then Alexa Havins was initially announced as playing Esther Katusi - the name Drummond never showed up in publicity until the trailers started airing), and the season was titled The New World until I believe well into 2011 when they changed it to Miracle Day. However, what is very correct, and should be emphasized, using this as an example, is the fact that even reputable sources such as DWM can contain information about upcoming episodes that ends up being incorrect because of the decision to change a character name, etc., even after production has began. Here's an excellent example: someone prematurely creating an article on Partners in Crime based on location reports, and writing that Howard Attfield was appearing as Geoff Noble, which ended up being wrong because Attfield got sick midway through production (and died shortly after) and they ended up hiring Bernard Cribbins at the last minute to play Wilf. Back to point, if an actual DWM error can be cited, no problem; I just don't like a magazine being criticized (even obliquely) for reporting things in good faith. 68.146.70.124talk to me 18:29, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * You're read of that passage is, I think, unusually harsh. Every news source is at some point wrong. That's simply a fact of life — nothing which impugns the integrity of the DWM staff. Indeed, the passage directly implies that DWM is a reputable source when it says:
 * And, indeed, even reputable sources occasionally gets it wrong. If we were to believe Doctor Who Magazine, for instance ...
 * So no wording change will be undertaken on this point. It's just not necessary.  18:09: Sat 28 Dec 2013

Hour:Minute
Erm why is everything done as 1900, 2100 etc, can we please change this to 19:00, 21:00 etc? -- slave (command•works) 00:21, November 25, 2013 (UTC)
 * Any particular reason you'd prefer this minor change? 18:36: Sat 28 Dec 2013