User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-8107636-20130607102031/@comment-8107636-20130607234334

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-8107636-20130607102031/@comment-8107636-20130607234334 Hello.

Thanks for the insightful responses. To start off on a somewhat irrelevant note, the Asylum of the Daleks page didn't actually spoil anything for me, though your apology was certainly appreciated, CzechOut. I've been following series 7 as it aired (and I must say I really respected the way you handled the 'leaked' DVD situation - very well), so no harm there. Can't remember what I was looking for on that page, but I checked it out yesterday, long after I'd seen The Name of The Doctor, but while it didn't actually spoil anything for me, it did feel a little jarring to read such a large reveal in such an incongruous place, and it may very well have spoiled the series 7 mystery for others, which is what brought about my posting this question in the first place.

Shambala108 wrote: From your post, it looks like you've only seen the recent forum thread warning against spoilers. The actual definition of our spoiler policy is here. Take a look at it; it will probably answer a lot of your questions. This is entirely correct, and I probably should have re-read through all of that stuff before posting. I have just re-read the spoiler policy, and I think it's pretty much spot on. I'd like to emphasize that I fully agree with the spoiler policy as it stands.

I guess I worded my question badly? I don't know. I did use the word 'spoilers' flanked by apostrophes, but since the episode has been released, I probably shouldn't have used the word spoilers at all, since by this wiki's definition, they aren't. I feel my point still stands, but maybe I should phrase it as: unnecessary spoilery information in odd places. That still sounds vague and rubbish, though. But perhaps it gives a clearer idea of what I'm talking about.

I remember a while ago reading a throwaway line or two revealing who River Song actually is, on a page that wasn't post-Almost People or a character page. Don't ask me to recall where this was, because I've tried, and I can't. But it serves to illustrate my point. Look again at the third sentence of the introduction to the Asylum of the Daleks page. I know I'm harping on about this, but it's the only valid example I've been able to find in the short time I've had since this started bugging me. Does this "spoiler" (for want of a better term) add much of value to the article? I posit you could truncate that sentence before the word 'albeit' and you wouldn't lose much (if any) clarity, with the benefit of keeping the series 7 finale unspoiled. Blurting out that information where it is just seems... I don't know, crass and unnecessary perhaps?

I understand there's a line to be drawn. And that it's a difficult line to draw. The planet Gallifrey was only named so during what, The Time Warrior, right? So naturally, it would be absurd to censor all mentions of Gallifrey prior to that, and not just because it's a major part of DW lore. I think this we can all agree on. I'm more talking along the lines of major plot points in unnecessary places. I suppose an example (perhaps a slightly over-wrought and absurd one, though) might be if I re-wrote the introduction to the Spearhead from Space page to read:

Spearhead From Space was the first story of Season 7 of Doctor Who and was the first to feature Jon Pertwee as the Third Doctor (who regenerates at the conclusion of Planet of the Spiders as a result of radiation poisoning).

As I said, perhaps a little over-wrought and dramatic, but serves to illustrate my point. I've seen these sorts of things in a few places on this wiki, although it didn't really bother me that much until I read that forum thread about spoiling upcoming episodes, then soon after read the Asylum of the Daleks page.

CzechOut wrote: And lest you think that Mister3hj's views are atypical, do remember there was a huge, multi-year debate on Wikipedia as to whether spoiler tags were required across all their fiction articles to protect people, even when the story was decades old. Your entire response is fair deuce, definitely. But I suppose in essence I'm arguing for a time and a place. To draw upon my aging example from above (but, again, it's not the only instance of this sort of thing), does that information about Clara really add anything important where it is? Is it necessary? I feel that information of that sort of gravity should be on her character page, and on the relevant episode page. It's very much obvious, superfluous information to anyone who's seen The Name of The Doctor or read Clara's character page; it's rather unexpected (and possibly unwanted) spoilers for those who haven't.

Or am I being overly pedantic, and chasing my own tail?