Policy cleanup

As per new action plan, I'm reopening discussion on this. To be honest though, I don't see the point - I think this policy is established enough already? --Nickb123 (Talk) 04:30, 12 February 2008 (PST)

  • Well I really don't think we should be making articles for characters who have yet to be on the American broadcast. They appear in the Recent Changes area and are juist as bad as when the spoiler sections used to have named sections. --   Dee4leeds  talk  contribs  all  08:08, 12 February 2008 (PST)
Its kinda necessary though, cause otherwise come game night, people are making articles under weird names and not properly structuring pages. However, I get what you're saying, and perhaps we should only include the names on these new characters on the episode article page itself. After Lost airs, these names can then be hyperlinked for all users to edit freely. This would solve problems --Nickb123 (Talk) 06:13, 13 February 2008 (PST)

A technical problem

I visited the "Recent Changes" page, and saw a spoiler in the "Summary" line about who will have a flashback/forward in the next episode (it was in season 4/spoilers page). any chance you can hide the /spoilers pages from the recent changes or something? --CharlieReborn 08:22, 12 February 2008 (PST)

I agree with some sort of hiding of spoilers on the Recent Changes page. I thought there was a policy to not type summaries when writing spoilers. I was also wondering if there's a way to stop spoiler pages from showing up when one clicks on the "Random page" link. I like to go through the random pages, but I do not like spoilers, and every once in awhile one shows up. Is there a way to stop this? -- WanderingMathematician  talk  contribs  email  08:31, 12 February 2008 (PST)
I'll be honest, I'm too lazy to check, but I thought there was policy about clearing summary sections when editing on spoilers. Dee4leeds raised this issue a while ago if I recall. With regards to your latter point, as far as I'm aware, there's no way of excluding particular select articles from the random page generator link - hence why you'll notice you get random theory pages A LOT. I will post your question though to other SysOps - perhaps one with more wiki software knowledge knows of a way. --Nickb123 (Talk) 06:17, 13 February 2008 (PST)
Thanks for considering it; I had doubts as to if it was possible or not, but it never hurts to ask. Also, I think your suggestion in the above section for avoiding new character names is a good one as well, though I see the rationalization behind the way it is done now. -- WanderingMathematician  talk  contribs  email  12:54, 13 February 2008 (PST)
From my perspective on spoilers is this: I would prefer to see no spoilers whatsoever on Lostpedia, the problem however is the very nature of the site being a wiki. Because anyone can edit it, without providing dedicated locations for spoilers, they are more likely to post them regardless, all over the site. As for filtering out the spoilers from the random pages, whilst awkward that they might appear, they are marked very clearly at the moment so you aren't likely to begin reading without quickly clicking random page again, we hope. But I agree it isn't perfect as it is and I'd like to see this worked out too, but it might take some closed-season work!  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  15:40, 13 February 2008 (PST)
Seperate Lostpedia site for Spoilers? www.spoilers.lostpedia.com? --   Dee4leeds  talk  contribs  all  02:40, 14 February 2008 (PST)
I just had a thought. Maybe we could have a check box on the edit page similar to the "This is a minor edit" checkbox. This would put a small s next to the edit on the Recent Changes page, and perhaps there could be a "Hide spoiler edits" option as well. This would be a voluntary participation sort of thing, of course, but shouldn't be too hard to input. -- WanderingMathematician  talk  contribs  email  21:13, 15 February 2008 (PST)
That's a good idea. I was wondering if maybe something could be done using namespaces. Now, I don't really understand this, so I'm probably talking nonsense, but on the recent changes page there is a drop down box where you can select which namespace you want to see the recent changes from. By default it is set to All, but is it possible to have a "spoilers" namespace and have that be exempt by default?--TechNic|talk|conts 03:40, 19 February 2008 (PST)
This thing happened again right now -- there's spoiler information on the recent changes page. My suggestion would be to override the summary message with a generic line if there is a spoiler tag on the page. Of course that would include a (I would assume trivial) software change, but if there is enough interest and if the SysOps agree I'm willing to volunteer for that. --MacCutcheon Talk? 07:53, 21 February 2008 (PST)
That's a beautifully simple and effective solution. Thanks.--TechNic|talk|conts 16:39, 21 February 2008 (PST)

Feb 16th changes to spoiler policy

After some SysOp discussion as well as looking at comments by other users, Santa has updated the policy, I have further refined the changes based upon these discussions, in order to take certain issues into account; for example the revealing of Michael's return at Comic-Con, which the producers were there for. Have a look at let us know what you think  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  20:23, 16 February 2008 (PST)

I noticed you added "regarding future episodes". Can you explain the intent? It seems superfluous. Robert K S 20:33, 16 February 2008 (PST)
  • Thanks Plkrtn, here is the rationale for the major change:
We need a change in policy that is clear as day. The current policy is confusing, and results in accidental spoilers throughout the wiki. For example, currently we allow creation of character and cast information released by ABC Medianet, yet we have no guidelines on how far these articles may go (e.g. cast member photos? TPTB sources?), and contradictory to this current policy we don't allow officially-released ABC Medianet still photography for future episodes.
Examples of where I have been spoiled include the articles of existing characters, when it is noted on their articles that they will recur in a future episode. Also, a photograph of an upcoming cast member on their cast article is spoiling, as are the ABC medianet episode synopses and character/cast lists. (Incidentally, any sysop moderating these articles will be spoiled.)
I don't believe a general user of Lostpedia deserves to be spoiled by visiting a seemingly innocuous wiki page on a flashback character where the infobox reveals FUTURE appearances. These characters may be in an unusual character connection (think Big Mike in Hurley's FF), or possibly even bigger surprises. A general of Lostpedia should also not be spoiled visiting the talk page of a user that has commented to them.
This policy should be updated.
Therefore I propose making the policy much clearer and more restrictive. In short, the only place for spoilers are the Season X/spoiler articles. The only exception are episode names and airdates as released by ABC Medianet, in which case the episode name and airdates are the only information to be noted: character, cast, crew, synopses, and photos are off limits throughout the entire site, even if released by ABC Medianet.
-- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  10:19, 17 February 2008 (PST)

Exceptions by TPTB

  • I'm having difficulty understanding or agreeing with my understanding of the caveat about official announcements from "The Powers That Be": The creators and executive producers. For example prior to Season 4, there were cast announcements (which included new cast and returning cast). I see no difference between this information being released by TPTB vs. ABC Medianet: They should not be displayed in Lostpedia. (The same problems of gray areas will occur). What is the rationale behind this exception? Is it storyline commentary like: "Carlton said Puragatory is not what the Island is about" -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  10:35, 17 February 2008 (PST)
The primary issue for changing these items were things such as Comic-Con last year. TPTB announced a new Marvin Candle video and the cast announcement of Michael's return, things that I don't think we should consider spoilers, as even if we did, its not information any of us could a) Actually avoid, as it was all over the press (US and UK) b) Police as effectively as the other things we have specified. We have to try and strike a balance, as TPTB are the ones that decide what are spoilers and what aren't effectively... We just have to stick by their decisions.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  18:35, 17 February 2008 (PST)
  • OK agreed with that particular example, as well as The_Final_Episode_(parody). However at the same time I'm uncomfortable with the announcements of new and returning cast members that TPTB made prior to Season 4. Can we exclude announcements of cast by TPTB, even at comic conventions or other press venues, but accept releases of actual Lost media such as videos (which depict the fictional universe of Lost)? This would cover unannounced ARGs, mobisodes, deleted scenes, DHARMA videos, etc. as extensions of the Lost universe. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  15:02, 18 February 2008 (PST)
Sorry, I'm having a little trouble following this conversation. Why should casting announcements made by TPTB be off-limits? They wouldn't really be spoiling elements of the show. There hasn't been an episode of Lost that didn't have a new character cast in it. Robert K S 16:24, 18 February 2008 (PST)
Its a question of what is considered a spoiler and not. In particular, the policy in regards to things like the announced return of Michael at Comic-Con 2007. Do we consider this a spoiler, even though it was announced at the largest film and TV convention around, and was released at the same time as a new DHARMA video, which we wouldn't consider a spoiler. Its not really about general cast changes, its about the big announcements like returning actors made by TPTB.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  02:49, 19 February 2008 (PST)
No discussion of the ComicCon event could ignore it, but no discussion of a pre-reveal episode could include it. The distinction is in-universe and out-of-universe, and this wiki has articles in both realms. Hence, the article about Michael couldn't and shouldn't include anything about his return until he has returned, but it ought to be allowed in the article about Harold Perrineau. My $0.02. Robert K S 12:25, 19 February 2008 (PST)

Titles are spoilers! (redux)

I'll post here what I've posted elsewhere: Basically for me (and probably for other people out there), titles for future episodes are spoilers. I would think that you should replace the titles of un-shown episodes by for instance "Episode 6" (even though the title has been confirmed, it doesn't mean it's not a spoiler!). I don't like to know the title of future episodes, especially episodes that's gonna be shown in 4 weeks and more! Just think about titles such as "The Other 48 days" and "the man behind the curtain", etc. All pretty spoilery titles! And I bet there are even more coming up in season 4. Therefore I think the titles should be replaced by "Episode #" or not linked at all (I'm obviously talking here about non-spoiler sections such as Season 4 in general, and the season 4 "menu" on top of the episodes).

I'm gonna add this:

And to further prove my point, I was gonna see the Economist page just for a little checkup and then BAM! The 407 title in my face. "But titles are not spoiler TheAma1! Stop whining." Oh, so a korean title is not a spoiler that says that 407 is about Sun and/or Jin and subsequently at least one of them is going to be an Oceanic 6?

Titles are spoilers. It's not a big deal to just put "Episode #" instead of the title on the top of each page!

- TheAma1 11:42, 20 February 2008 (PST)

I agree - There is one episode coming up this season with what appeared to be a Korean proper name. Now I may be wrong, but this appears to be a spoiler that this is a Jin/Sun episode. Other Jin/Sun centric episodes haven't been so spoiler-y (i.e. The Glass Ballerina) but I do agree that episode titles can be spoilers. I don't mind if there are pages about these episodes that are locked, but I don't like that the episode titles show up in the navigation template. -- WanderingMathematician  talk  contribs  email  11:54, 20 February 2008 (PST)
I'll agree that a title in korean is likely to be a Sun/Jin episode...but that doesn't mean that it's a flash-forward and that they are in the O6, does it? Is it really likely that the rest of the episodes this season will be all flash forward, meaning that the off-island content will be limited to 6 or so characters?
I think the episode titles can give away who is "centric" but I don't think any of them have given away any plot points (beyond incredibly minor stuff). --Minderbinder 12:11, 20 February 2008 (PST)
I agree with Minderbinder, We still do not know what the titles are significant to... for example, we don't know what the hell Eggtown refers to... who who Kevin Johnson is. I don't really think it is a huge spoiler... no harm done. No worries TheAma, no one is complaining about it. --     Nusentinsaino     talk    contribs    email   12:14, 20 February 2008 (PST)
We know that the O6 are revealed before 408, and by a simple deduction you can see that every oceanic character-centric episode will be about one of the O6. It's like in s2 when you knew a tailie FB episode was coming up soon (but didn't want to know when for instance) or a Ben FB (in s3) was around the corner. Perhaps some of the titles are not that spoilery, but it doesn't hurt to hide it for everyone else who thinks it does. - TheAma1 12:17, 20 February 2008 (PST)
Ama, The Man Behind the Curtain was an obvious referral to Ben... but did we know about Jacob and the Cabin? That was the mort important plot in the episode... The title gave away on who the centric is, but does not give away the plot. I know your point about the O6, but you do not know if it is a flashforward or a flashback... nothing is confirmed yet. Just don't worry about it. -     Nusentinsaino     talk    contribs    email   12:19, 20 February 2008 (PST)
If 407 is indeed a flashback and not a flashforward about another O6, then I'll retract my previous statement. But in the other case, I will be proven right. 8) - TheAma1 12:21, 20 February 2008 (PST)
"We know that the O6 are revealed before 408" Do we? As far as I'm concerned, THAT is a way bigger spoiler than any of the titles. --Minderbinder 12:27, 20 February 2008 (PST)
How would you explain otherwise that the 6 have been leaked not only months before the 401 aired but also months before the strike (hence the fact that the info was included in the first 8 episodes already writtent/shot). - TheAma1 12:30, 20 February 2008 (PST)
I'm not arguing whether or not it's true, I'm saying it's a spoiler. I don't think the average person (especially one who isn't seeking out spoilers) would have known that the O6 leaked before the strike. And even assuming you know that, there are five remaining episodes of those eight in which they could reveal the last two O6. Those reveals will be in one or two of those five episodes, meaning there will be three or four episodes that don't reveal them. We don't know which episodes have the reveals, what makes you sure that the "korean" episode is one with a reveal? Knowing that there's a XYZ centric episode coming soon doesn't mean it's a flashforward, and doesn't mean that character is necessarily in the O6. --Minderbinder 12:43, 20 February 2008 (PST)
I think its unreasonable to demand protection to this degree. The episode titles provide less information than ABC's own previews do and certainly less than the podcasts and other media sources. And we only put up titles when they are officially put into ABC's programming grid. If you want to be protected from spoilers absolutely, I would suggest not looking at anything from season 4 until after the season is over. Dharmatel4 12:33, 20 February 2008 (PST)
I'd tend to agree - I think it's good to leave off who is the "centric" character until it airs, but I don't think any titles have been real spoilers. If they ever do an episode called "The One Where Desmond Kills Sun" I'd totally support making a one-time exception...but I don't see that happening. --Minderbinder 12:43, 20 February 2008 (PST)
LOL. I see your point. And I realize that I am likely in the minority here, but I don't watch previews and do my darnedest to avoid all spoilers. I don't think that I should have to refrain from viewing any already aired content in order to refrain from being spoiled. Is there that much harm in simply leaving the episode titles off of the episode navigation template until the episodes are aired? -- WanderingMathematician  talk  contribs  email  13:29, 20 February 2008 (PST)
As a compromise, what about making the season 4 episode list template collapsible, defaulted to closed? It would hide potential spoilers, plus it would take up less space on articles that are usually pretty long. --Minderbinder 14:32, 20 February 2008 (PST)
I like that idea as well. - TheAma1 14:37, 20 February 2008 (PST)
I like this idea - I think that this could please both camps. It is also easily reversible at the end of the season. -- WanderingMathematician  talk  contribs  email  17:42, 20 February 2008 (PST)
Agreed. It's a fair trade. --     Nusentinsaino     talk    contribs    email   17:45, 20 February 2008 (PST)
Very good suggestion. While I don't think that most episode titles themselves are too spoilery it should be possible for anyone to view the season 4 episode pages without being forced to see them. --MacCutcheon Talk? 07:10, 21 February 2008 (PST)

It seems like there's some support for this idea, but unfortunately it looks like the code for collapsable content isn't included in the mediawiki software. Looks like it can be added to the site, but someone with some technical chops would have to do it, and there would have to undergo some serious scrutiny and approval before adding it. I'm not exactly sure where the discussion would best take place, but the wikipedia/wikimedia info on this feature is here [1] and here [2] if people want to start investigating the possibility. --Minderbinder 11:40, 21 February 2008 (PST)

There is a lot of support for this, understandably, and I would support a collapsible table for the current season. However I've tried to include this, but have found it very difficult to implement, if not impossible on this site. I'll have a word with a few people though, and see if its possible. However, don't have any hopes. If others want to have a go, they are welcome to. I also don't believe titles are spoilers by the way, and I don't think we are spoiling anyone more than ABC, TV Guide or even an electronic programming guide on my TV. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  13:11, 22 February 2008 (PST)
  • One related point, although not covering the entire scope of the "title" issue. The title of the next upcoming episode will always be revealed, because we have a "Next Time On Lost" section on our Main Page. Therefore this debate is necessarily constrained to future episodes not including the immediately upcoming one. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  11:48, 23 February 2008 (PST)
    • Moving from this idea, if the collapsable tables don't work, one alternative is to create rules for these future episode names beyond the immediately upcoming one:
      1. leave these episode names out of ALL articles except their own. Most significantly this eliminates these from the season 4 navigation (which is locked and securely policed)-- and also from Airdates, Portal:Episodes, and Season 4.
      2. OR: simply prohibit these episode names everywhere, including creation of their own articles. (We'll still have to create, salt, and lock these empty articles w/out edit summaries). -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  12:03, 23 February 2008 (PST)
      To reiterate, the immediately upcoming episode is fair game for the nav, airdates, portal, and season 4, as well as article creation that includes only the title and airdate. The immediately upcoming episode will still be subject to the same prohibitions currently listed in the draft policy: no creation of new character/cast/event/etc. articles, and no listing of the episode name/number in existing articles.
-- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  12:03, 23 February 2008 (PST)
  • That's sounds good to me Santa. I personally don't mind knowing upcoming episode titles, but I don't think there's any harm to treating them as spoilers. Going with TheAma1's initial idea, I think we should use the "Season 4 Episode x" format in Template:Ep for future episode titles beyond the next one; after an episode airs, we just change the next episode template to the actual title. Whether we keep those episode articles up or deleted and protected, I don't care much either way. Overall though, we should be pretty close to having the policy be official I think. -- Graft   talk   contributions  13:59, 23 February 2008 (PST)
  • I think eliminating the upcoming episode information as revealed by ABC is going too far. There is value in echoing the non-full-spoiler promotional information that ABC issues for future episodes in the press releases because there are people who want to see that level of detail as opposed to full spoilers from unofficial sources. I don't care about the Nav templates but lets not go futher than that. Dharmatel4 14:18, 23 February 2008 (PST)
  • I agree that the upcoming episode title cannot be regarded as a spoiler. It's also featured in various places e.g. the podcast. --MacCutcheon Talk? 15:01, 23 February 2008 (PST)
  • I'm A-Ok with your propositions Santa. I also agree that the upcoming episode title is not a spoiler per se. - TheAma1 15:26, 23 February 2008 (PST)
  • Put me down in the "Titles aren't spoilers" camp. It requires a rather dedicated effort to shield yourself from upcoming episode titles and I don't see why the site should kowtow to the very small number of people who do this. Perhaps a poll could be taken? The episode titles give me something to look forward too and wonder about. I can understand not wanting to know the flashback, and I'm not big on spoilers, but really I think this is going too far.--Piscez 03:28, 28 February 2008 (PST)

Does official podcast info bust a spoiler?

I've cleaned up the "When is something no longer considered a spoiler?" section a bit. Should the section specifically include the Official Lost podcast as a spoiler-buster? Also, BTW, there is redundancy between the "exceptions" subsection of the "Information related to upcoming episodes" and the "When is something no longer considered a spoiler?" section. Both deal with admin consensus about media-busted spoilers from TPTB. Robert K S 15:16, 23 February 2008 (PST)

Yes I realised that redundancy. will fix it. It came from a change in the policy. As for official podcasts... No, if things are said on there that could be considered a spoiler, its things already covered by the policy, such as characters, future episode teases etc. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  15:25, 23 February 2008 (PST)
I'm confused by your edit that adds the "Exceptions to this are: ... Exceptional circumstances..." The section should state simply and plainly when information has no longer become a spoiler. How is the Lostpedia administrator consensus an exception to the airing rule rather than just another instance of when something is no longer a spoiler? Robert K S 15:33, 23 February 2008 (PST)
Its a clause which will allow us to continue to provide news links to major news items of Lost that could be considered a spoiler by some, but has hit major news outlets, such as newspapers or entertainment progammes that users could not reasonably avoid... The announcement of the return of a certain character to Season 4 that I saw in many newspapers and on entertainment news shows in the UK, let alone the USA is a perfect example. We have to balance the criteria so that we can still include this content in very, very exceptional circumstances. I am trying to word it in a less ambiguous way, and I do appreciate your concern on the current wording, but its still proposed. as SysOps, we don't want to be responsible for spoilers far and wide by any stretch of the imagination! -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  15:57, 23 February 2008 (PST)
  • So what are we going to do with official podcast pages and transcripts? Are we going to make an exception for them in the policy, or are we going to disallow them? I think the podcast transcripts are one of the great resources of Lostpedia; it would be a shame to lose them. -- Graft   talk   contributions  20:22, 4 March 2008 (PST)

Upcoming episode names

Right now the section restricts the information on the new episode pages to airdate and name. Current practice is that anything in the press release from ABC is allowed. The extra things from the press releases I would like to allow are:

- Guest Cast

- Writers and Directors

- ABC's episode summary from the press release (usually one line)

I'd also like to continue for people to be able to create spoiler-tagged character and actor pages based on the guest cast information in the ABC press releases. Dharmatel4 19:15, 23 February 2008 (PST)

But why? We've established that this isn't a spoiler site and that there are plenty of other places for people to go and find information about upcoming cast, characters and plotlines. Current policy revisions have been moves to help people avoid being spoiled. How does it benefit the encyclopedic nature of the site to have preemptive pages with minimal (and potentially inaccurate) information? My feeling is that it is better to add the information about the episode after it has aired. Not only does it avoid potential spoilers in recent changes and over-enthusiastic users linking current articles to events and characters that haven't appeared yet, but it avoids the regular renaming, moving and merging that inevitably happens caused by vague press release details.--TechNic|talk|conts 15:47, 24 February 2008 (PST)
I have to agree with TechNic. The idea of restricting those things that you wish to have, is to stop the spoilers on the site. We've always tried to be a site that avoids spoilers, and this new form of policy clears it up even further. By removing the potential spoilers, we avoid the consternation of users. If people want this information, it is available from the linked press release on the page itself, surely that is better than spoiling people?  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  15:50, 24 February 2008 (PST)
I can live with it if a link can be put up to both the scheduling grid and the press release. The policy page needs to be clearified that adding those two links is ok and not a spoiler. Dharmatel4 18:46, 24 February 2008 (PST)

  • Also agreed with TechNic and Plkrtn. We are not a spoiler site, and the /spoilers pages were initially created to constrain the posting of such material. Users of Lostpedia should be totally confident to remain spoiler free while browsing the site. However the issue became gray with ABC Medianet releases, to the extent that the unstated policy creeped to allow creation of articles. The result is a mess, with regard to realistic policing of minor and even major spoilers-- part of this is a sysop issue, but the other part of it is just practicality. Dharmatel if you've read the above, you haven't provided an argument to directly address this rationale, which is explained in more detail here, as well as in our "wiki" subforum where I haven't seen you participate yet; you've only expressed your personal desires here, and as well you know these discussions are not votes. The /spoiler pages can be adjusted to include all the information you wish to create articles for. One possible compromise I can think of is to allow for external URL links for upcoming episodes' excel grids and press releases on the ABC Medianet page. Also, as explained above, the episode name and airdate for the immediately upcoming episode is not a spoiler for the purposes of the Main Page. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  17:39, 24 February 2008 (PST)e

Status of this policy

I'm trying to figure out how close this policy is to a final version. From what I've read here on this discussion page there seems to be a certain degree of convergence, although I thought more people would care and get involved. To get an idea where discussion is still needed I'd like to suggest to point these things out so that we know when and if to move forward on this. --MacCutcheon Talk? 14:05, 26 February 2008 (PST)

Contents of unaired episode pages

So from my understanding of this policy, the information released by ABC Medianet (ie: casting, director/writer credits, episode name, synopsis) is no longer going to be included on the pages for unaired episodes? If I'm misunderstanding this, please let me know. Otherwise, I'm confused as to what actually will go on the pages for unaired episodes (like 4x06 or 4x07). Is there any information that could go there that wouldn't be considered a spoiler? If so, what is it? If not, then why would anyone go to those pages unless they wanted to get the ABC Medianet release information? Sorry if I'm coming into this a bit late, I'm just baffled as to why the pages for the episodes that haven't aired cannot contain officially released information about that episode. Jimbo the tubby 12:38, 27 February 2008 (PST)

I agree that the policy should clarify what is allowed on pages of unaired episodes. And right now it looks like the pages for 406 and 407 are locked with versions that violate this policy. I can understand the argument for leaving out synopsis, characters, actors, and flashcentric...but why are the writers and director a spoiler? --Minderbinder 12:52, 27 February 2008 (PST)
I personally don't understand the argument for leaving out synopsis, characters and actors. Don't get me wrong, I can see why people would be mad if those details were posted on some other page... But posting it on the page for that actual episode? That's like going to the Season 4/Spoilers page of your own free will and then being offended when you find out something you didn't want to know. I don't understand why someone would go to the unaired episode pages if they didn't want any information about that episode. Jimbo the tubby 19:44, 27 February 2008 (PST)
Because the information wouldn't remain limited to the episode page. For example, if a character is revealed called "Jacob's Mum", then someone would create a page for her. Then someone else would edit Jacob's page to mention he has a mum. Then a load of theories would pop up. Then a sysop would come along, point out that spoilers from unaired episodes shouldn't be posted and delete the pages. But by then it's already been all over a number of articles and popped up all through the Recent Changes list. Spoiler pages aside, it's so much simpler to say "This is what you can post and this is what you can't" rather than "this is what you can post here but not there, you can post that there but not here, and you can't post those anywhere."--TechNic|talk|conts 20:24, 27 February 2008 (PST)
That's right - basically, tightening the spoiler policy is a way to lessen ambiguity about where spoilers can appear and make it more difficult for them to disseminate on the site. This has all been said in the above sections, but LP is not a spoiler site, but they are allowed in specific areas - namely the /spoilers pages. If someone wants to know additional details about the episode before it airs, they can be found on there or follow the links provided in the episode article. As has also been stated, episode articles can show up on the random page function. -- Graft   talk   contributions  20:32, 27 February 2008 (PST)
Disagree, think it's overkill and that it would be better to just disallow the creation of pages for characters that haven't appeared (which, the current policy doesn't actually stop, it just means that the characters have to be looked up on ABC Medianet). But it seems I'm coming into the discussion quite a bit too late, so I guess I'll shut up. Although, can I just ask, do the spoiler pages (ie: Season 4/Spoilers) show up with the random page function? 'Cuz if so, then that kind of deflates the argument. Jimbo the tubby 21:19, 27 February 2008 (PST)
The draft policy does say that pages for characters that haven't appeared would not be allowed. And yes, /Spoilers pages can show up with a random page - it isn't perfect. But the point with the random page thing isn't that it's a perfect system, it's that it would be helpful to reduce the amount of spoiler content that would show up on that list. And btw, there's no reason you can't express your thoughts on the issue at any point. -- Graft   talk   contributions  21:52, 27 February 2008 (PST)
There are currently some very serious discussions occuring about the need to have the /spoiler pages also. We really want to tighten it down to having no spoilers on this site whatsoever, literally leaving information on the show (except the title of the next episode) till after East coast US airing and serving those people who wants spoilers by providing links to spoiler sites, but that would be it. We aren't, and don't want to be a spoiler site, so we're having these discussions to clarify the situation -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  03:44, 28 February 2008 (PST)

Nobody has addressed this so I'll bring it up again - I don't think the writers and director of a future episode are spoilers, and I propose allowing them on the future episode page. I can't imagine what they'd spoil (maybe certain writers tend to do flashbacks for certain characters, but that's pretty obscure if it's the case?), if there's something I'm missing please let me know. --Minderbinder 08:06, 28 February 2008 (PST)

FWIW, I agree, writers and directors of future episodes aren't spoilers. I also don't think MediaNet synopses and character lists should be prevented from being added to the encyclopedia ahead of an episode's airing, provided they are thereafter locked until the start of the episode's airing (US Eastern), which seems to be the current operative policy anyway. Robert K S 14:11, 28 February 2008 (PST)
Just to clarify my POV. Whilst I don't think writers and directors of an episode can be considered spoilers, the synopsis and guest cast lists are definitely spoilers. Whilst I understand the idea that once ABC have released it to the media, its no longer a spoiler. I would have liked to have personally been able to avoid the spoiler of Kates mother appearing in Eggtown. By linking to the ABC MediaNet release information, users have to actively seek out that information rather than being presented with it before the show has aired by us. I'd prefer that for all people and have those that don't mind knowing have to click on an extra link, than the spoil those that want to avoid them. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  20:35, 1 March 2008 (PST)

Poll of Opinion

Please let us know your opinion on the following. Please keep any reasons brief. Thank you -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  20:35, 1 March 2008 (PST)

Can you clarify as to whether we're voting for the below information only on their respective pages or anywhere in the encyclopedia? Robert K S 22:10, 1 March 2008 (PST)
Yes, plase do... Otherwise the results could be quite different depending. Jimbo the tubby 11:49, 2 March 2008 (PST)

Anywhere on the site... We want an overarching policy to apply to the site. A spoiler is a spoiler regardless of the page. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  16:41, 2 March 2008 (PST)

I think it's fine to create a basic page for an upcoming episode with all of the below information on it, and then lock it until the episode begins airing, but consensus seems to be that most of this info constitutes spoilers. I've just never felt "spoiled" by reading any of the television guide synopses. Robert K S 17:21, 2 March 2008 (PST)
  • IMO this poll is missing the point. It is NOT about splitting hairs about what is a spoiler and what isn't. We tried that, and such a policy is difficult to understand and difficult to implement without lots of errors over our user base. The purpose of simplifying policy is so that the issue on Lostpedia becomes black and white. Thus it is safer to say all upcoming information is prohibited, even if we acknowledge that, say, directors and writers are not spoilers. If the policy is not black and white, we get leaks into other articles, or creation of "outright-spoiler" or "spoiler-ish" articles by less familiar editors who see that "some" upcoming information is OK. Therefore these polls are beside the point. I'm tired of being spoiled browsing the site, and that is what will continue to happen if we have a hair-splitting case-by-case policy. That is why we have been proposing: 1) remove ALL upcoming information from all articles, or 2) remove ALL upcoming information from all articles except Season 4/spoilers (and related pages). That is a much more clear policy than the one we currently have, which has slowly creepd to treat ABC Medianet announcement (but not pics) as non-spoilers, but only in certain cases. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  17:44, 2 March 2008 (PST)
    • For the record, I had the Snake In the Mailbox spoiled for me last year by the spoiler page, but I really just blame myself for going there against my better judgement. If you don't want to be spoiled, then reading through a page called Season 4/spoilers is clearly a mistake on your part. Likewise, if you don't want information about an upcomming episode, don't go to that episode's page. I don't think it should be problematic to post the ABC Medianet information on the episode pages because I don't understand why people who don't want to read it would be going to those pages to begin with. Keep in mind that this information is the same information you're going to get from your TiVo or any digital cable service, and I just don't see what the problem is. Jimbo the tubby 21:38, 2 March 2008 (PST)
    • I absolutely agree with Santa. These conversation have been going on long enough and we are just covering old ground. Both sides have made their cases and it feels like it's time for a decision. I propose that the Sysops and Admin now look at all the opinions expressed on this page and between them resolve the debate and set the policy.--TechNic|talk|conts 17:59, 2 March 2008 (PST)
    • I agree with you, Santa. I hate spoilers; which, if you have been reading this page, you know. However, I was under the impression that the information we are discussing below are things that are added by sysops to the episode pages when they are created and locked. So if things like directors and writers are added to specific upcoming episode pages and consequently locked, this is not spoiler information. However, other users adding this information to pages elsewhere in the wiki would be spoiling. So I think that disallowing all spoilers (except for Season 4/spoilers and related pages is the way to go. However, the exception of the creation and locking of upcoming episodes only by sysops would allow the acceptable information from our straw poll to be included. (2 cents) -- WanderingMathematician  talk  contribs  email  19:21, 2 March 2008 (PST)
    • I couldn't agree more, Santa. Black and white is what we need and disallowing all upcoming information does a good job to achieve that. --MacCutcheon Talk? 02:13, 3 March 2008 (PST)
    • While I don't consider writer/director to be spoilers, I'd be fine with leaving those out if it means the spoiler policy can be simplified to "no info on future episodes, period". If that is what ends up happening, then will there be any articles for future episodes at all - if they are allowed but locked, what info is included, title, air date? Call me crazy, but I don't even watch the promos for next week at the end of the show, or listen to the podcast until after the "prehashed" episode has aired since I think they spoil too much. --Minderbinder 12:40, 3 March 2008 (PST)
    • The point of this poll is to have a clear and concise guide to what the users of the site think we should do, and at least let the community have its feedback. We can't just carte blanche force a policy down on people without fear of alienating groups, so we have to give feedback on those things that are still minor but contentious. We will shortly be making a decision on it (next day or two) and it will be ratified... but the moment we do it, people will complain whatever decision happens, so by putting this straw poll of opinion up, we can at least say "well, we did ask..."  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  01:23, 4 March 2008 (PST)

Directors and writers are spoilers

ABC MediaNet Synopses are spoilers

ABC MediaNet Guest Cast announcements are spoilers

Final Draft

We have a final draft of what we expect the policy to be. I hope to confirm it as an official policy tomorrow, unless any major objections that haven't already been answered are brought up.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  08:42, 4 March 2008 (PST)

I felt the draft still needed a little cleanup and clarification, so I gave the whole article a once-over. None of my edits changed the content of the policy. In particular, I moved the spoiler definition nearer to the top of the article. I feel it's important to define "spoiler" early on in the policy. Robert K S 18:25, 4 March 2008 (PST)

Confusing paragraph

The "Spoiler definition" section has a confusing paragraph in it:
"Lostpedia administrators have determined by consensus that the information has been revealed by the producers of Lost to the mainstream media and is sufficiently widespread across mainstream and non-Lost related Internet media that it can no longer be considered a spoiler. Such information is not to be added to Lostpedia by users."
I'm not entirely sure what it's trying to say - partly because of the typo and clunky language - but mainly because it seems to contradict itself.--TechNic|talk|conts 18:43, 4 March 2008 (PST)

Realize that the paragraph is meant to be the completion of the sentence started before the beginning of the bulleted list. It effectively reads: "All information about Lost is considered a spoiler until Lostpedia administrators have determined by consensus..." I think the intention of the paragraph is to give admins leeway in determining what can no longer realistically be considered a spoiler. Robert K S 18:46, 4 March 2008 (PST)
My mistake. It does make sense, but I had to read it several times. I guess it's bedtime. Sorry.--TechNic|talk|conts 18:48, 4 March 2008 (PST)

It would seem that this section is still causing confusion (User_talk:CastorPollock#Spoilers for example). This is caused by the format of the bullet points giving the false impression that this statement not related to the " Information about Lost is considered a spoiler until (any of the following):" prefix. If you read "Lostpedia administrators have determined by consensus..." by itself and miss the prefix, it says that this a decision that has already be made.--TechNic|talk|conts 16:34, 8 March 2008 (PST)

If you read the part above the bullets, it ends with "until"... which makes it quite clear that the content bulleted continues from that prefix. If one particular user is trying to test how water tight our policy is, then thats a different matter! -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  14:38, 9 March 2008 (PDT)

I agree that it's confusing... The way it's meant to be read is definitely not the way I read it until I saw this post. Jimbo the tubby 21:24, 9 March 2008 (PDT)


I just read through the policy and think that it is wonderful, however, I did not see any mention of podcasts in any section. I noticed that the "what is a spoiler" section lists various media, in which the inclusion of any information is deemed to be no longer a spoiler. I also do take note that this list is not exhaustive. However, I feel that podcasts can fall into a gray area. Damon and Carlton often discuss things that I would consider a spoiler before the fact. I think that podcasts should at least be mentioned somewhere in the policy. 2 cents. -- WanderingMathematician  talk  contribs  email  13:54, 5 March 2008 (PST)

Yes, I agree; I would like to see official podcast pages and transcripts as an exception. I brought it up on this page way up here last night. I've also brought it up for discussion in the sysop forum. -- Graft   talk   contributions  14:03, 5 March 2008 (PST)
Sorry, I got excited and didn't see that section. -- WanderingMathematician  talk  contribs  email  06:53, 6 March 2008 (PST)
I've included a clause specifically for podcasts. Let me know if its a problem, but I think its inclusive enough.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  14:36, 9 March 2008 (PDT)

Plkrtn is referring to this edit, which certainly sorts out some of our problems. But I don't believe it is extensive enough. First of all, the new section does not change the definition of a spoiler, as mentioned by the OP (WanderingMathematician) when he mentioned "what is a spoiler". The new "Podcasts" section simply asks readers to refer back to the "spoiler definition section above" and the "guidelines of this policy". Secondly, the actual definition contains the words "including but not limited to" - I am very uncomfortable about putting those words, as the definition of "officially authorized spin-off media released to the United States general public" could be taken to be very wide, and certainly including podcasts. Therefore, I recommend either a) remove the words "including but not limited to" altogether, and make an exhaustive list (which after all can be updated by admins at any time if they so wish) or b) make a specific exception in the spoiler policy for the podcasts. Kidburla 16:22, 18 March 2008 (PDT)

This request has now been actioned, thank you very much. Kidburla 18:01, 19 March 2008 (PDT)
At the Fuselage, everything that isn't an episode of the show itself is considered a potential spoiler if it might spoil a future episode. That includes the Mobisodes (Michael shows up? That means he's back on cast for the show. SPOILER!), the "Find 815" ARG (names and items from season 4 are included? SPOILERS!) and Via Domus (the ending - not necessarily considered a spoiler for those who haven't played the game yet, but a potential spoiler for the show itself). Personally, I think this is a little harsh - but then, the Fuselage staff actually went so far as putting the name "Naomi" into the autocensor and replaced it with "This name is a spoiler until it is said in an epiode" for two or three weeks until Naomi explicitly identified herself by name onscreen in "The Brig".--Nevermore 02:39, 20 March 2008 (PDT)

Episode credits

How does Lostpedia handle episode credits? Harold Perrineau was listed in the credits for all season 4 episodes thus far, despite not appearing until episode 7, "Ji Yeon".

Now, as far as I'm concerned, the argument could go both ways: It was a spoiler because it spoiled a revelation from a future episode (in fact, the staff at the Fuselage forums did consider this a spoiler and gave out infractions to everyone pointing out the credits); on the other hand, the credits are an inseparable part of the episode itself, as they're shown during scenes from the episodes themselves that don't exist without those credits, and you'd need to deliberately not look at the screen during the episode to not notice the name for six subsequent episodes.

This is not the first time this occurred: Michelle Rodriguez (who had originally appeared as Ana-Lucia in "Exodus, Part 1") was listed in the credits for "Man of Science, Man of Faith" and "Adrift", despite not actually appearing until "Orientation", thus giving away the upcoming appearance of at least one tail section survivor; and likewise, Terry O'Quinn, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje and Henry Ian Cusick were listed in the credits for "A Tale of Two Cities" and "The Glass Ballerina", despite not actually appearing until "Further Instructions", thus technically spoiling their characters' survival (in Desmond's case in particular, since it'd have been pretty weird to kill off a guest star in the season 2 finale and then add him to the main cast in season 3, even though he's dead).

So is there a clear policy for Lostpedia whether credits shown during the episode, despite spoiling things, are to be considered "fair game" or not?--Nevermore 05:24, 18 March 2008 (PDT)

I can't imagine a credit being a spoiler, or banning mention of it from the site. Everyone watching 4x01 saw Harold P's name, whether they made the connection or not. I don't see how that's a spoiler any more than Desmond telling Charlie he's going to die is - info given in an episode is by definition not a spoiler. The only exception I'd see to that is the promos afterward, which aren't technically part of the episode anyway. --Minderbinder 13:28, 18 March 2008 (PDT)
We should take a sensible line here. Including credited cast members in lists of credited cast members, without further comment, is perfectly fair. Speculating about the roles unseen credited cast members will play or when they might appear, or hammering such information into an article with malicious intent to spoil ("Harold Perrineau was credited in this episode, so Michael will be coming back this season!!!1"), is not fair and such comments should be removed. Robert K S (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2008 (PDT)
Agreed. The question to ask is, "What information were we presented with in the episode?" If the answer is that Harold Perrineau was credited, then that is the only information that can be added in a non-spoiler article. -- Graft   talk   contributions  16:29, 19 March 2008 (PDT)

An idea to solve all the problems with upcoming episode pages

How about this: New page for an upcoming episode may be created under the name "Spoilers: Episode 4x08", "Spoilers: Episode 4x09" etc. Same "no content details in edit summaries" disclaimer, same rules apply as for other spoiler pages. Any links to those episode pages from non-spoiler pages must contain a "spoiler warning" disclaimer. As soon as the episode aired, the page will be renamed. This would avoid any problems with episode names being shown on the "recent changes" page.

If absolutely necessary, this can also be done for new characters appearing in upcoming episodes. Page names might follow the "Spoilers: Episode 4x08 New Character (1)", "Spoilers: Episode 4x08 New Character (2)", "Spoilers: Episode 4x09 New Character (1)" etc. format.--Nevermore 05:50, 18 March 2008 (PDT)

I'm not sure that'd be a good idea, simply because you would get spoilers posted to the page, rather than just the ABC Medianet press releases. I know a lot of people (myself included) like to check out the releases without reading the spoiler information that you get from DarkUFO of Watch with Kristin. If you do want that information, then it's on the Season4/spoilers page. However I still think it would be best to have unaired episode pages with Medianet information on them (even if it's commented out like it currently is on Meet Kevin Johnson, because then it's just one click away). Jimbo the tubby 09:18, 18 March 2008 (PDT)

That seems redundant with the "Season x/spoilers" pages to me. I think it's better to have all the spoilers located in a central place, in terms of maintenance and containment - the less spoiler pages, the better, imo. -- Graft   talk   contributions  16:15, 19 March 2008 (PDT)

Unaired episode pages

Why can't pages be created for unaired episodes that link to the ABC Medianet press releases? I hate that I have to dig through the Season 4/Spoilers page to find this information and have to risk being spoiled by information that hasn't been released by the producers. I'm not asking for pages to have synopses, cast listings or anything other than links, just so that I don't have to visit the spoilers page. In my opinion, this crack down on spoilers lately is overkill in that we're not even posting links to information released by the actual showrunners. This information is in a complete other category from spoilers from places like DarkUFO because it has been released specifically by ABC, and I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to want one while avoiding the other. All I'm asking for is links, is this really so unreasonable? Jimbo the tubby 10:31, 15 April 2008 (PDT)

One reason I could see for not allowing episode titles far in advance would be where the title would somehow reveal a spoiler. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 10:36, 15 April 2008 (PDT)

Well, my response to that is that the stated purpose of this policy (as listed on the policy page) is that we avoid spoilers to stay in line with the wishes of ABC and the producers, but this information is being revealed by them so can we honestly say that their wish is to not have the episode titles revealed? Unless you can make that claim, then I don't think the spoiler policy really should apply to them. But beyond that, even if we just had articles named "Episode 10" or whatever, I'd be fine, I just strongly feel that the press release links need to be somewhere other than the spoilers page. Jimbo the tubby 10:48, 15 April 2008 (PDT)

Does ABCMedianet have an RSS feed? It might help you get the information faster. I'm in Australia, so I'm not being snarky, just uninformed. I agree "Episode 10" page would be preferable and suit your suggestion nicely. I was just worried about an episode title "The Return of Michael" or something similar, which would definitely spoil weeks in advance, regardless of ABC's intention. We've already seen what's happened with previews. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 10:58, 15 April 2008 (PDT)
The spoiler policy allows for a page to be created with links to the press releases for the next confirmed episode to be broadcast only. It wasn't done in as timely a manner as usual on this occasion mostly because of the break. The revised spoiler policy was discussed at length and everything that you brought up was brought up then. The policy is what it is now and we have to follow it. Dharmatel4 11:08, 15 April 2008 (PDT)
I think this is for the best. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 11:23, 15 April 2008 (PDT)

Proposed change

After some discussion with Dharmatel4, I'd like to suggest the following addition to the policy:

That the ABC Medianet page be allowed to link to the press releases for any unaired episodes, provided that the content of that press release (including episode name, cast, crew, summary and anything else that could be considered a spoiler) is not added to the page, only an external link to the press release itself.

I think that this is important because it will prevent people from having to visit the Season 4/Spoilers page in order to find the press release and risk seeing unofficial information that they may have wished to avoid. Note that I am not advocating that we publish this information on Lostpedia, only that we provide an external link to it for others who may be interested. On a personal note, I don't think that doing this would constitute a breach of the current spoiler policy, but there may be some who disagree with this. Thoughts? Jimbo the tubby 11:45, 16 April 2008 (PDT)

ABC trailers

Are the Next Week on Lost trailers spoilers? Because at the moment people are placing information about Keamy begin in the "Something Nice Back Home" trailer all over the place. --Blueeagleislander 19:27, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

Yes. Revert and notify. Politely ask offenders to take a look at the spoiler policy page LP:SP, which I've amended to make this point clear. Kindly introduce repeat offenders to SysOps. Thanks. Robert K S (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

I took a hit several days ago for making reference to the video content of a promo in a comment. I admit that I was in violation of "the letter of the law." However, I still think there's a difference between video and audio. "You will find out how the survivors leave the island," or something like that. Well, they've been telling us that for two months. I referenced that fact that Keamy had appeared in the promo for the week following the last smoke attack, thereby telling us that he had survived the attack. BTW, that's all history now, so it is Canon. I don't think the producers are spending a lot of money shooting fraudulent scenes to show in the promos. If it's visible on my TV, then it's an event that occurred in 2004-2007. Voiceovers are teasers. I thought that the character we now know to be Horace Goodspeed looked a lot like Roger Linus. If I had been allowed to comment on video, I might have said that. Of course, I would have been dead wrong, but "them's the breaks." It the promo for May 15 there's an image of..., well, nevermind! Conclusion, we should consider video Canon.--Jim 06:59, 9 May 2008 (PDT)

It's not a matter of the scenes being fraudulent. The fact of the matter is that there are a number of people who don't want to have any information about upcoming episodes in order to remain surprised at that episode's content. These are people who change the channel or close their eyes and hum every time a commercial for the show comes on. Because we want Lostpedia to be safe for them to read (ie: we don't want them to worry about falling on someone mentioning the content of an upcoming episode gleaned via the promo), promo material is considered a spoiler. Hope that helps explain it a bit. :)  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  12:16, 9 May 2008 (PDT)

It does! Thanks. 8<)--Jim 12:30, 9 May 2008 (PDT)

Season 4 finale

Can I just say, for the record, how awesome I think it is that the name of the episode following "There's No Place Like Home, Part 1" is currently considered a spoiler? That's just amusing as hell. ;)  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  21:28, 11 May 2008 (PDT)

Yeah. :-) Robert K S (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2008 (PDT)

Request for more discretion with podcast info/producer comments

For example, on the Adam and Eve page, I would consider the producer quote about the skeletons being related to time travel to be a spoiler. There is also another entry (I don't recall which at the time, sorry) that including podcast confirmation about additional Dharma defectors, besides Ben, helping with the Purge. I'm not trying to start a long debate about spoilers, I just think in general there should be more careful moderation on deciding when to put this type of info into episode/character entries. W9 10:19, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

I think it's still useful to be able to find the information. Maybe we could write something like Trivia: The producers discuss possible origin of Adam and Eve on the (podcast link) (Warning: potential spoilers). That said, it may be difficult to determine what is truly a spoiler and what is just clarification. I remember Ben himself talking about the other Dharma defectors. But i would support a note being added to the policy if links to the info are still available. --Jackdavinci 11:02, 16 May 2008 (PDT)
Edit - I looked at the policy and it seems this is already covered - see the sections about producer commentary and about podcasts. If you make a list of which articles you think have spoilery info on them I'll be happy to reword or link out the offending info. --Jackdavinci 11:10, 16 May 2008 (PDT)
Edit - sigh lol. I looked at the Adam and Eve article. Unfortunately my idea to link to the podcast page wouldn't work since this was from interviews and not a podcast. I'm not sure it really qualifies as a spoiler, but I can see how some people might think it gives too much away. Anyway, I removed the potential spoilers but left links to the two interviews with a spoiler warning. I hope that's a good compromise. I couldn't find your Dharma defector example though.--Jackdavinci 11:26, 16 May 2008 (PDT)
I do agree with the existing policy, and I believe the info should be available on the originating podcast/interview entries. I just meant that editors could be more conscious/careful about the inclusion elsewhere. Again I don't intend to sound accusatory. Sorry I don't have more examples. If I come across any, I'll list them here. Thanks W9 11:28, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

Spoilers through the end of season 4

Good call on locking down the spoiler page and no spoilers until the season is over. Now we know that everything has been leaked, it won't be fun trying to keep unspoiled and keeping spoilers off the site. --Minderbinder 12:24, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

Thanks for doing this. I couldn't resist otherwise. --Xmuskrat 16:00, 16 May 2008 (PDT)
Wow, things have gotten messy, looks like someone was posting spoilers all over the site. He's now banned, but going forward is there anything we can do to try and keep out spoilers? If the info he posted turns out to be true, I'm going to be REALLY pissed that I was spoiled for the finale. Unfortunately, it looks like the only safe thing may be to stop reading lostpedia (and all discussions on all LOST sites) until after the finale has aired. --Minderbinder 09:09, 19 May 2008 (PDT)

How to best contact an admin?

Twice today people have spammed as many articles as possible with spoilers. What's the quickest way to alert an admin so that they may block that user? Latest is "Fanny Mayhem", hasn't been blocked yet that I can tell. I'd recommend not looking at their list of contributions if you want to remain unspoiled. --Minderbinder 15:00, 19 May 2008 (PDT)

No spoilers whatsoever now?

When was this decided? Kidburla 14:23, 31 May 2008 (PDT)

Apparently the Sysops reached consensus about this in their secret talks. Although, a number have been inactive for some time now so it isn't clear how many were actually involved.--TechNic|talk|conts 14:35, 31 May 2008 (PDT)
I think it was basically when DarkUFO spoiled the remainder of the finale and there was nothing left to spoil. I don't know if the policy will change back as Season 5 starts up. Robert K S (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2008 (PDT)
Can I just say that I think completely locking down spoilers is a big, big mistake. I understand that spoilers for the finale were being spammed everywhere; but one of the great things about Lostpedia is that all the stuff from media sources online was collated here. I'm sure that the spoiler page was one of the most viewed pages on Lostpedia, so surely by effectively blocking that off, you are denying the wiki hundreds of thousands of hits - or is the intention? Almajir 08:06, 1 June 2008 (PDT)
I completely agree that no finale spoilers should be placed in the wiki. I don't mind a spoilers page for in-season spoilers as long as they stay on the spoilers page. I'm not fussed if spoilers are banned entirely for Season 5 though.--Baker1000 08:12, 1 June 2008 (PDT)
As Lost reaches it's end over the next 2 seasons the impact of spoilers will be greater with each episode. Just imagine if who Jacob is, what the smoke monster is and dare i say it - what the last scene will be were to leak all over the site. Furthermore given that the producers don't want spoilers we shouldn't host them. They have been great with all the copyrighted content we are being allowed to use and we should respect this. I would hope Lostpeida will therefore have a zero tolerance spoiler policy from here-on-in. Perhaps if we set the example, other sites will follow. --Anfield Fox 08:17, 1 June 2008 (PDT)
I think keeping LP spoiler free is a good thing. Trouble is that very little spoiling actually spilt over from the dedicated spoiler pages. Mostly it was vandals and trolls plastering them over the main site. So a clear "NO SPOILERS WHATSOEVER" policy helps to some degree, but will never solve the problem of malicious edits.--TechNic|talk|conts 08:30, 1 June 2008 (PDT)
I completely agree. Anyone that wants spoilers can visit DarkUFO. It's a great decision (especially morally) for Lostpedia to be a spoiler-free Lost site.--     c      blacxthornE      t     13:30, 1 June 2008 (PDT)
I agree also. We can't tollerate spoilers here, and not just for finales, for other eps also, because as seen through the years the big Lost questions aren't answered in the finales, but in in-season episodes. It would have been really cruel if last year (season 3), someone posted how Locke lost the use of his legs?, who was the "real" Sawyer?,where is Jacob? and what happend to the Dharma Initiative?. Actually I never saw any of the season 3 spoilers and I really enjoyed the season, yet I got really excited for the Season 4 spoilers page and I wasn't so excited for the show.--Orhan94 13:43, 1 June 2008 (PDT)
Who the hell do you think you are? It is the person's own choice if they want to look at spoilers, if they ruin for themselves then that is their own fault. They're confined to the spoiler section, there aren't any allowed outside of the spoiler section so who the hell is it hurting. All you are doing is pissing people off. This is the LOST wiki, dedicated to everything associated with Lost. Like it or not, spoilers are apart of Lost and have a place here. I'll be the first to say I told you so when you are plagued with people posting spoilers all of the rest of the wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deyve (talkcontribs) .
  • Actually, no, spoilers can never be "a part of Lost". Because Lost is a mystery show that has numerous plot twists, and spoilers kill mysteries and plot twists. So they're not a part of it, and if anything, they're exactly what should not be a part of it. They're kryptonites for this Supershow. They are damaging to the show, the writers, the broadcasters and the watchers. It's also ironic that even you refer to how spoilers are cancerous and damaging. There's always been debates over this matter, and many precautions were taken, but I'm glad that ultimately this wiki has decided that it won't allow it at all anymore. And please read the policy on basic courtesy.--     c      blacxthornE      t     17:24, 1 June 2008 (PDT)
Again, I think you're being overly sensitive. People can decide not to read spoilers if they so wish; it's not like it's being forced upon them. The wiki worked fine the way it was - all this new policy is going to do is incite trolls to post spoilers everywhere. I can understand that people don't want to be spoiled - but if the wiki works right, then it's simple - don't read them... Almajir 05:53, 2 June 2008 (PDT)
I understand the fact that you can choose not to read them, etc. That's why I said it was a great decision morally. I also said that it was damaging not only to viewers, but also to the writers, producers and broadcasters. I'm not talking about choice here; spoilers are definitely wrong for the producers and writers who want to keep things as secret and revelations as surprising as possible, since it is the nature of the show. Spoilers, not surprisingly, spoil it for everyone. It's a moral decision because it's what the producers want and it's important that we respect their wishes. Spoilers, especially big ones, also spread very fast, all over the net, hitting innocent bystanders who do not even want to read them. So everyone that publishes spoilers in anyway is damaging the show, no matter how they try to protect it--it contributes to the spreading of the spoilers, and I'm glad that this site has ceased its contribution to this Green Goblin.--     c      blacxthornE      t     06:10, 2 June 2008 (PDT)
Depends on what you define as a spoiler. Knowing it was Locke in the coffin was a huge spoiler - knowing that Jack's Mom is to reappear in a new episode isn't. Giving clues of what to look for in future episodes isn't spoiler material either - not all of us are geeky enough to remember every minor character, and sometimes it's actually a helpful thing to be told that you should look for *this scene* and watch carefully - because then it might make the viewer watch the show more carefully and pick up on more material that the writers wanted them too. I don't think that the spoiler policy is right, because you've made a black and white decision on it - a bit more discretion is advisable IMHO. Almajir 07:41, 2 June 2008 (PDT)
I disagree with User:Blacxthorne's comments above. First of all, spoilers do not "spoil it for everyone". At the very most, they spoil it for the people who read them. If people do not read them, then their enjoyment of the episode will not be affected. Secondly, LP was not creating any spoilers, only redistributing existing ones, so I do not think that your "spoilers spread fast" argument applies here. People who want to read spoilers will still go on DarkUFO and DocArzt. It'll just be harder, because all spoilers won't be consolidated in one place, which is why LP was so useful this season. Kidburla 16:18, 2 June 2008 (PDT)
Actually that was exactly what I meant by "contributing". We were contributing to the spreading of the spoilers, I didn't say anything about creating new ones. Besides, you're only looking at it from the spoiler reader's perspective. Spoilers are damaging to the show, and disrespectful to the producers' wishes. Think of it something like a copyright violation: It's redistributing material without the author's consent. Just because it's not covered by law doesn't mean it's morally right. It's not.--     c      blacxthornE      t     17:26, 2 June 2008 (PDT)

I too would like to see the spoilers policy reverted to what it was in Season 4. I liked reading the things on this website because it was nothing more than a collection of other media resources (interviews with producers, cast, etc.), as opposed to the damaging spoilers. I liked reading the casting info for the upcoming episodes because it lets me refresh on some of the minor characters (like Jack's mom in There's No Place Like Home, Part One...the only reason I knew that was her was because I saw she was cast to be in that episode). But, I think the "rogue" spoilers (last season's flash-forward twist, this season's man in the coffin) should be left OFF this site, and left for the DarkUFO's of the world that want to really spoil it. I can understand the spoilers pages going on lockdown if there's a major threat to the page, but I thought most of what was on the page in Season 4 was harmless, and actually made me a little more prepared for that week's episode.    AmarilloLostFan    talk    contribs    email   06:39, 2 June 2008 (PDT)

I totally support this. There will always be spoilers posted somewhere, but that doesn't mean LP needs to be a part of that. We'll have to see if this leads to more vandal posts, hopefully not. The site may need to block new account registrations at various times if we have problems like before. What about a page to report vandals? Also, it would be great to be able to completely wipe vandalism from a page history, but I suspect the wiki software makes that difficult. --Minderbinder 08:48, 2 June 2008 (PDT)
I'm not going to suck up to the admins like most of the others here; I enjoyed the spoilers page and the wiki is the best place to allow people to compile them. However when I say 'enjoy' it means I like reading minor spoilers, which is why I don't or at least didn't goto the spoilers page weeks before any season finale. Spoilers are my support between the seasons.--LOST-4 (Talk) 09:15, 2 June 2008 (PDT)
So anyone who doesn't agree with you is "sucking up"...nice... --Minderbinder 09:36, 2 June 2008 (PDT)
It's not about admins; it's about the show.--     c      blacxthornE      t     17:26, 2 June 2008 (PDT)
I agree with User:Almajir, User:Deyve and User:AmarilloLostFan above. I do think that spoilers should be kept out of the main wiki, but I do not see the reasoning behind deleting the Season 5/spoilers page. It is clearly marked as a spoiler page and people will only go there if they want to read spoilers. Personally, I found it very useful during season 4, as it summed up the media sources from the whole Internet, and as User:Almajir points out, this was a very popular reason for people to visit LP in the first place. I don't think that getting rid of the spoiler page stops people who would normally post spoilers on the rest of the site. In fact, I found it to be a useful outlet for people who do like to post such information. For example, this season, myself and a few other LP users would move a spoiler-based discussion page topic onto the Talk:Season 4/spoilers page, and then let the users involved know that their topic had been moved - this meant that they could carry on having their discussion, and other users reading the talk page would not be spoiled. Finally, I disagree with the method that has been used in making this decision: quietly and behind closed doors. While User:Plkrtn seems to indicate that the sysops discussed this, some sysops such as User:Robert K S above seem to think that the change may have been temporary, even though the policy edit was only made after the finale aired. Even if all sysops had been consulted, I still think that the fact that us "mere mortal" users were not consulted at all and seemingly disregarded, is wrong and we deserve an explanation for this. Kidburla 10:36, 2 June 2008 (PDT)
Here's an explanation: The creators of the show don't want spoilers to be published.--     c      blacxthornE      t     17:26, 2 June 2008 (PDT)
I think what we're trying to do is to create a difference between genuine spoilers and information that is made readily available by ABC and the creators/cast of Lost. Specific details, plot twists, etc. should be left to DarkUFO and those websites. But I don't think it's against the wishes of the show creators if we compile interviews with them and other cast members, or if we post information released by ABC (the episode's cast, sneak peeks, promos, etc.). To me, the policy should be simple: If it comes from the creators/cast or ABC it should be allowed. Those usually aren't spoilers, anyways, just teasers (like everything that will come out of ComicCon that will get posted on this site). So I think that we should allow information from the podcasts, ComicCon, ABC, ABC MediaNet, or any other media interviews with the cast and crew. To me, we're not stepping on any toes if they're the ones that originally put out the info. The "LostFan108" type of spoilers should be strictly forbidden, however.    AmarilloLostFan    talk    contribs    email   19:22, 2 June 2008 (PDT)
Seconded.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  20:03, 2 June 2008 (PDT)
"The "LostFan108" type of spoilers should be strictly forbidden, however." Exactly, no one is saying that the MEGA spoiler types should be allowed on here, but you can't say that spoilers aren't a part of Lost. Half the items in that section is information given directly from Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse themselves, so they can't be against it if they're the one's giving it. As long as it's policed correctly, there's no reason they can't be on the wiki. It's the person's own choice whether to view them or not and you have no right to tell them they can't. Deyve
I agree with AmarilloLostFan on this. Spoilers and teasers need to be defined. I never visited a spoiler page on Lostpedia so I don't know how much of it came from Darlton, but if it's half of it, then we keep that half. And we limit it. Some people don't want teasers either. The difference between them is that a teaser is "you're gonna know the identity of the man in the coffin this season" while a spoiler is "it's Locke and you're gonna see it on the final scene", or "the frozen donkey wheel is a literal wheel", the latter being revealed an unfortunate act of vandalism that I was exposed to, along with many people here on LP. Anyway all my arguments above were about true spoilers that Darlton didn't approve of, not teasers that they give themselves. However, I'm not seperating spoilers as Mega vs. Mini, all spoilers should be prohibited, since the Mega-ness of the spoiler is subjective to the reader. Promos should still be regarded as spoilers and not be allowed here since they're not canon and don't come from Darlton. The so-called teasers can be huge like "Someone will DIE!"--making you wait for that someone for the entire episode. A big no-no. --     c      blacxthornE      t     03:18, 3 June 2008 (PDT) PS. Somehow the page was saved while I was still editing, and now it's asking me about edit conflict (with my own edit). Sorry about the mess-up.
So basically, it's a case of we've decided this, nuts to what the rest of the Lostpedia community think? I think that really stinks, personally. IMO you've adopted some sort of holier-than-thou attitude about spoilers, teasers - whatever else. So you're not even going to allow teasers from Darlton themselves? Lunacy. Almajir 03:56, 3 June 2008 (PDT)
First, it's not a case of "we've decided this", since I'm not a SysOp and obviously I had nothing to do with the decision. Besides, there's no "nuts to what the rest think", you are discussing this, aren't you? Second, I'm not preaching; I'm just saying that ceasing contribution to the spoilers is what's best for the show. Third, I didn't say that we shouldn't allow teasers from Darlton; I was talking about including information from teasers, which are not canon since they do not come from Darlton. Fourth, I don't know why I keep having to remind this, but: Please be respectful to others and their opinions; it's not only site policy, but also common courtesy. --     c      blacxthornE      t     04:00, 4 June 2008 (PDT)
Whilst I said I would not get involved in this debate, and I won't. I'd like to clarify this. There is a clause which allows us to add information to the site that falls in that grey area that things like Comic-Con introduce.... "Lostpedia administrators have determined by consensus that the information has been revealed by the producers of Lost to the mainstream media and is sufficiently widespread across mainstream and non-Lost related Internet media that it can no longer be considered a spoiler. Such information is not to be added to Lostpedia by users."  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  01:31, 6 June 2008 (PDT)
Actually, User:Blacxthorne, I wanted an explanation from the sysops who made this decision without consulting us. In particular, at the top of Lostpedia:Spoiler policy is a template which reads "[This page] has wide acceptance among editors ... When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus", this statement may no longer be correct since (some of) the sysops decided to make an edit without checking it reflected consensus or was widely accepted among editors. Certainly there are several people contributing to this discussion who disagree with aforementioned edit. Kidburla 07:17, 3 June 2008 (PDT)
I'm sorry; obviously it was a misunderstanding. People kept saying "how insane is this" and they were just seeing it from the spoiler-reader's view and I was trying to give Darlton's perspective on the subject, so when I read "we need explanation" I thought it was about the reasoning, not the editing. You're right about that, but we're obviously discussing it anyway, and we always have that right on Lostpedia, constantly changing policies as we see fit. This one was obviously a security precaution because of the severely damaging spoiler experience, hence the speedy change I believe. We have all the time in the world to discuss it though.--     c      blacxthornE      t     04:00, 4 June 2008 (PDT)
I said I wouldn't get involved but I will give an answer. Lostpedia is a privately owned site. During the DarkUFO incidents, it was decided by the owner to lock down the site in order to avoid the Season 4 finale spoilers being posted on the site. We also posted a very critical commentary about DarkUFO's actions on our blog. At this point, as SysOps we had to discuss what the next move was, and the hypocritical stance we would have as a site if we criticised DarkUFO, but continued to allow spoilers on the main drawer of the site, the wiki. It was decided by SysOp consensus, after assessing the site users opinions by reading blog comments, talk pages etc, that we should remove spoilers entirely, to truely stick to the original vision of meeting and respectign the wishes of the shows creators. Official spoilers are dealt with via a clause in the policy which allows SysOps to take individual decisions on information that the producers of the show release before Season 5, at locations such as Comic-Con. The SysOps have to take a decision as a group on this though as to whether this content is considered too much of a spoiler or not before it can be posted. Whether this particular clause needs to be worked on is another matter, but thats what it is there for, and I would invite drafts to replace it. However, the idea that spoilers about episodes individually that are leaked will once again be allowed, especially at the business end of the show, is pretty unlikely.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  01:31, 6 June 2008 (PDT)
Well there's your explanation, great. So there was wide acceptance by that time. Anyway now even those who didn't accept it at first and those who did from the beginning kind of reached to a consensus about spoilers on this talk page. I think if we defined officially released canon information from upcoming episodes versus spoilers, it would be a little more solid, and everyone would be content.--     c      blacxthornE      t     05:24, 6 June 2008 (PDT)
  • That is my question: how do we deal with official spoilers from Darltons? For Example, in the podcast they say "the next episode will be Juliet-centric" or on Season 4 DVD they say "we'll show you the 4-toed statue in season 5". This has to be reflected in transcript, right? But isn't that considered a spoiler? I'm confused Malachi 03:26, 3 June 2008 (PDT)
That's basically the point that we're trying to make. Can we not define teasers (which would be allowed) and spoilers (which would not)? According to the current policy, the Orchid orientation outtakes wouldn't have been allowed on this website despite the fact that....THEY WERE SHOWN BY THE SHOW'S PRODUCERS! As we've been saying all along, things that are put out by ABC or the show's creators/cast are inherently NOT spoilers. Here's what I still think should be allowed on the "Teasers" page: podcast "reveals", ComicCon "reveals", interviews with creators or main cast members, ABC promos, ABC sneak peeks, and ABC MediaNet releases. If you allow that information, you're in no way compromising the integrity of the show (because the information is being forwarded by the show itself). And if you think that the information that I've listed would still spoil everything, I remind you that for all of Season 4 TNPLH Part 1 was listed as Claire-centric because her mother was cast, and that obviously wasn't true.    AmarilloLostFan    talk    contribs    email   04:32, 3 June 2008 (PDT)
While I agree that the site is better off without true spoilers (meaning leaks), I also agree that the site needs some way to deal with teaser spoilers from the producers themselves, promos, and ABC. If the podcast says the next episode is Hurley centric, it seems impractical to *completely* ban that info from the site...but on the other hand there are people who want to avoid that sort of info even if it comes from the producers. I definitely consider those to be spoilers - I don't see how coming from an official source makes info less of a spoiler. --Minderbinder 09:57, 3 June 2008 (PDT)
Well, that's why the "Spoilers" page is its own specific link, with a huge spoiler warning above it. Things that come from an official source cannot be considered a spoiler. It defies the very definition of a spoiler. I can understand why a lot of people would want to avoid it, and that's why that info is not posted on the actual pages of Lostpedia. Like I said several entries above, I like reading the cast list for an episode before it airs. It prepares me without actually revealing major plot lines. Keep the spoilers page, but only allow information directly from the cast/creators/ABC on the page. Actual spoilers belong on the other sites. I think stuff like Ausiello and Kristin should be left off as well.    AmarilloLostFan    talk    contribs    email   11:47, 3 June 2008 (PDT)
Why can't official info be spoilers? ABC posts plot summaries that include spoilers all the time. The same thing is true of movie trailers that give away major plot points (including endings). If something spoils the ending of a story, it's a spoiler, that's the definition of "spoiler"...I don't get why you think that the source is somehow a factor in whether something is defined as a spoiler. --Minderbinder 12:11, 3 June 2008 (PDT)
Now you're just arguing semantics. The fact is that our spoiler policy is in place to "respect the wishes of the show's creators". So when you're dealing with information that comes from those very creators, the spoiler policy doesn't apply. Out of respect to the people that wish to avoid them, I agree that we shouldn't post them haphazardly around the site, but there's simply no reason not to place them on the spoilers pages. The reasoning for leaving them off just doesn't apply, because the creators want us to have this information. (Note, I still think that we shouldn't post non-officially released spoilers, but anything from the creators or ABC is fair game for a spoilers page).  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  12:23, 3 June 2008 (PDT)
I'm not arguing semantics at all, and it sounds like you mostly agree with me. Whether something is a "leaked spoiler" or "official spoiler" is going to make a difference whether it's on this site at all, and if it is, whether it's on a main page or hidden away on a spoiler page. With official info, banning it from the site completely would not apply (or at least it seems like it shouldn't), but it would make sense to limit them to somewhere behind a spoiler warning - right now the policy doesn't seem to allow even that, which seems extreme. --Minderbinder 12:32, 3 June 2008 (PDT)
I do agree with you, I just meant that arguing over whether something that has been officially released is a "spoiler" or a "promo" or whatever isn't really relevant. For all I care, instead of pages like Season 5/Spoilers we could have Season 5/Officially Released Information, I just think it's important that the information be out there, regardless of what we call it.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  12:56, 3 June 2008 (PDT)
Agreed. I don't think Minderbinder understood that we were still talking about keeping the information on its own isolated page of Lostpedia (like it has been in the past). I agree that the rest of the site should be left pure of the released information, but like Jimbo said, "The fact is that our spoiler policy is in place to "respect the wishes of the show's creators". So when you're dealing with information that comes from those very creators, the spoiler policy doesn't apply." I think that's a perfect one-sentence wrapup of our argument.    AmarilloLostFan    talk    contribs    email   16:28, 3 June 2008 (PDT)

OK, so the debate here isn't about leaked spoilers - it seems clear that pretty much everyone agrees that these have no place on Lostpedia. It's about whether pre-released information (that can spoil the experience for some viewers) should be allowed. So we're talking about teasers, interviews, press release summaries, cast listings, titles, etc. There was a straw poll a while back where the community decided that such information should be considered spoilers and restricted to the spoiler pages. So really, it seems that this discussion is about whether officially released, but potentially spoily information should be posted in a controlled way on the spoiler pages, or not at all. Do people agree that this is a fair summary, and if so, shall we have a straw poll so that the SysOps can re-evaluate the policy based on that?--TechNic|talk|conts 00:49, 4 June 2008 (PDT)

  • Sounds about right to me.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  00:55, 4 June 2008 (PDT)
  • Sounds right to me --Almajir 02:37, 4 June 2008 (PDT)
  • Exactly. We should completely prohibit leaks, and limit canon teasers (that still count as spoilers, but are not against Darlton's wishes) to certain pages. We shouldn't name them Spoiler pages though, because that would attract people who want to read or add real spoilers. We could call it something else, but have a spoiler banner on the page itself.--     c      blacxthornE      t     04:00, 4 June 2008 (PDT)
  • Agreed. We can rename the page to "Teasers" or "Officially Released Information" or whatever. There's already a poll, and I think we're all in agreement anyways, that that info should be isolated from the rest of Lostpedia, it's just a matter of whether or not it will be allowed on the site. I think the current policy was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to the Season 4 spoilers coming out. I also think that the Season 5 "Teasers" page should only be edited by registered users at all times. The page can be policed, and if need be the site can go on lockdown again.    AmarilloLostFan    talk    contribs    email   04:13, 4 June 2008 (PDT)
  • Agreed - this info should be included, but restricted to spoiler page and podcast summaries. Malachi 04:53, 4 June 2008 (PDT)
  • Agreed - we should have a consolidated page similar to last year's, but we should perhaps restrict the types of information given on it. Yes - interviews, press releases, titles, podcasts, writeups in TV Guide, articles in well-regarded newspapers. No to things coming out of DarkUFO etc which are clearly leaked without the approval of the producers. This includes anything said by Lostfan108, or things seen by people who have been watching the on-location shoots, etc. I think the consensus is pretty much that such information should not be included, even though it was last year. So we really just need to clamp down on what is meant by "Official Information". However, personally I think this discussion is rather superfluous, because User:Plkrtn seems to be taking the attitude that since Lostpedia is a privately-owned site, the sysops decision on this stands regardless of what the users think. Kidburla 14:55, 10 June 2008 (PDT)
Well as the user base is split down the middle, then we have to take a decision on its behalf.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  08:23, 12 July 2008 (PDT)
  • If anybody has some proposed revised language for the spoiler policy that conforms to the idea above, please draft it in a sandboxed page (feel free to copy and paste the spoiler policy page and edit it in your sandbox) and then link to it here for review and discussion. Robert K S (talk) 11:05, 4 June 2008 (PDT)
Once again there is the clause that I had entered on this policy: "Lostpedia administrators have determined by consensus that the information has been revealed by the producers of Lost to the mainstream media and is sufficiently widespread across mainstream and non-Lost related Internet media that it can no longer be considered a spoiler. Such information is not to be added to Lostpedia by users."  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  01:31, 6 June 2008 (PDT)
This clause, as quoted by you, was about information added to main articles; therefore, the idea of having it vetted by sysops makes more sense. But we are talking about a Season5/Spoilers (or Season5/Official Information) page, separate from the main articles, which has less need for vetting, similar to under the previous version of the policy. Kidburla 14:02, 15 June 2008 (PDT)
I can't tell if this is a response to what I wrote or a response to something else further above. If it is a response to what I wrote, I don't think the "SysOp sanction" clause is particularly useful to the types of information we're under discussion in this thread: the weekly, officially-released information (casting, summaries, "Next week on Lost" trailers, etc.) that is blessed by TPTB for release but is still spoilerish. In that it is more regularly released, this is of a different nature than the "Harold Perrineau will be returning for Season 4"-type of announcement that the SysOp Sanction language was created for. Robert K S (talk) 07:24, 6 June 2008 (PDT)
Maybe I'm just easily confused, but isn't that policy clause contradictory? On one hand it seems to admit that the information at the heart of this dispute is NOT spoiler, but that the information is not allowed to be added? Does that mean it's not to be added to the regular pages of Lostpedia, or throughout the entirety of the site? It seems to me that there should be a page allowing such information.    AmarilloLostFan    talk    contribs    email   09:35, 6 June 2008 (PDT)
It takes a careful look to note that the complete language of the "SysOp sanction" reads: "Any and all information about Lost is considered a spoiler until ...[among other things]... Lostpedia administrators have determined by consensus that the information has been revealed by the producers of Lost to the mainstream media and is sufficiently widespread across mainstream and non-Lost related Internet media that it can no longer be considered a spoiler." Robert K S (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2008 (PDT)
That confusion is not new (see here}. It can be solved by adding the word "until" to the beginning of all the bullet points. "Any and all information about Lost is considered a spoiler... Until xxx, Until xxx, Until Lostpedia administrators have...". The "among other things" part seems to be unnecessary - List the other things if they exist, but actually the current statements seem pretty all-encompassing.--TechNic|talk|conts 11:53, 6 June 2008 (PDT)
Get rid of this clause altogether. Under what we're considering in this debate, it would no longer be necessary. It doesn't take a SysOp to decide that something was released by ABC, that's simply fact: either it is or it isn't.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  12:33, 6 June 2008 (PDT)

So there seems to be agreement that "teaser" info from podcasts, promos, and other official sources should be allowed on the site but somewhere separate from main articles like episodes and characters so that people can avoid them if they want. So the obvious question is WHERE should they go? --Minderbinder 07:06, 10 June 2008 (PDT)

I think the obvious answer is on the /Spoiler pages. We could rename them to /Official Information or something, but that's just semantics.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  10:49, 10 June 2008 (PDT)

So... is this being done, or...?  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  01:14, 29 June 2008 (PDT)

We're still waiting . . . Is someone going to respond to this discussion? Or is it just going to be completely ignored and quietly swept under the carpet? User:Deyve
Looks like it. Kinda proves a point - that people have made a decision without consulting the wider audience. Their loss Almajir 15:38, 7 July 2008 (PDT)
I don't understand the thing about "until" - it already says "until" and then the bullet points. Isn't that the same thing? About spoilers generally, to say that those who are pro spoilers are the majority is not helpful, there is no majority as Lostpedia has seen on a number of discussions. Furthermore, you can check out a moderated discussion we had on this matter, which is archived somewhere or other (though this was after our move to change the policy). At any rate, in that there was no consensus whatsoever, we had spokespeople like DarkUFO there too, it was a great civil discussion - as opposed to some of the spurious stuff some people here are coming out with. We made the decision that, even though spoilers on Lostpedia are popular, we can't forever stand on the fence, we had to pick a side, and we chose to side with the writers' wishes. Some people agree, and some people disagree, but the decision was made. And obviously we take everyones' opinions into consideration, but at the end of the day, Admin and the SysOps have to make the big final decisions I'm afraid. I've seen in this discussion already that there is no consensus, there's lots of comments here praising the decision. We pride ourselves on being the best Lost site, and while spoilers are big biz, there comes a time where you have to weigh that up with other things. --Nickb123 (Talk) 15:59, 7 July 2008 (PDT)
Oh and spoilers are still available on the Forum if needs be, but the rule is just to keep the wiki encyclopedic - which is what wikis do tend to be. --Nickb123 (Talk) 16:04, 7 July 2008 (PDT)
I know it's a long discussion, but if you read what we talked about above, the final consensus was to have a page for officially released "spoilers", such as interviews with cast/crew/TPB, press releases and promos. The argument that these things violate the producers' wishes is obviously moot as they are the same people releasing these things. And while you're correct that the majority doesn't settle a debate, there is nobody in the discussion who has been able to counter the points that were made in favour of "official" spoilers. So, with the consensus that has been formed, we ought to be implementing this. Unfortunately nobody seems to be doing so.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  18:51, 7 July 2008 (PDT)
Yeah me and long discussions, skim read. If that's the case then yes there is an argument there providing the rules are stringent. I would think though that the best way would be to have episode articles prior to release and then have a link to a page which referenced the press release and also had YouTube links to promos. I think cast/crew/TPTB words should perhaps be strictly confined to just what Damon and Carlton say about future episodes. I would not however class this as a spoiler page if we were to take it further, for simply the reason of not wanting to send out mixed messages. It could be deemed more a teaser, except not such a sucky name. The best location would be "Season 5/______" indeed, but not multiple pages of them. However, spoilers is the wrong word, as this as you say is different to what was on the old page. Also, you need a bit more admin support for such a change. Maybe try messaging a couple like User:Plkrtn, User:Santa, User:Jabrwocky7. They were big supporters of changing the spoiler policy previously. I know a discussion should be moderated by a SysOp but sometimes it is hard to notice it going on with no tags. I monitor over 4000 main articles, and then on top of that, sometimes miss what happens in the talk pages. Its not an excuse really, more advice - if you want some help/something done, ask for it. --Nickb123 (Talk) 04:30, 8 July 2008 (PDT)
Far from being moderated by the sysops, I think this discussion is being purposefully ignored by them. If you look further up in the discussion, User:Plkrtn actually says "I said I wouldn't get involved"; the sysops are taking the view that this is a closed matter and there is no point discussing it. Kidburla 18:56, 8 July 2008 (PDT)
Completely the opposite. I have been told by users in the past that I shouldn't get involved as I have a bias because of my SysOp work, so I am doing just that and not getting involved. I can't win whatever stance I take, apparently. I'm either too involved, or not involved enough!  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  08:23, 12 July 2008 (PDT)
I think that this should be implemented as well; the problem is, the sysops are the only ones who could make the change, and they seem to not care about the users thoughts on this issue. As I have stated before, perhaps the only thing we could push for is for them to remove the sentence "It has wide acceptance among editors" from the template at the top of the page, since this is clearly no longer true; the policy only has wide acceptance among sysops, not editors. Kidburla 18:51, 8 July 2008 (PDT)
Well the Sysops aren't doing their job then. I was unaware this was a facist site where only the leaders get any say whatsoever and completely ignore the masses who are the one's that are affected by this decision. And where was this decision made??? This is the Spoiler Policy page, if it is to be addressed anywhere, it is here. Heil Sysops!
To address a few comments earlier in the discussion:
Plkrtn: "and the hypocritical stance we would have as a site if we criticised DarkUFO, but continued to allow spoilers on the main drawer of the site, the wiki."
DarkUFO was criticized for the release of the MEGA spoiler, which Lostpedia never had any part in whatsoever. So to say that it is hypocritical to criticize that and have spoilers is a crock.
Blackthorne: "the latter being revealed an unfortunate act of vandalism that I was exposed to, along with many people here on LP"
This had nothing to do with the spoiler page, that was wanker vandals. They're completely different situations. Deyve
Erm, to the last two people who seem to be completely oblivious, I am discussing this with you and not ignoring you, and I am a SysOp... --Nickb123 (Talk) 04:53, 9 July 2008 (PDT)
My bad, I apologise for my oversight there.
Okay, so given that you're a sysop, then let me summarise: I think everyone is in agreement that our previous spoiler policy (e.g. for the most part of season 4) was no good. However, I think it is shown by User:TechNic's poll above that a lot of people believe that the current policy as laid down by User:Plkrtn in this edit is too strict. However, User:Plkrtn is taking the view that this is not even up for discussion (he says "I said I would not get involved in this debate, and I won't") and that the sysops have the right to do this without gaining permission of the users ("Lostpedia is a privately owned site ... It was decided by SysOp consensus ... that we should remove spoilers entirely ... the idea that spoilers about episodes individually that are leaked will once again be allowed ... is pretty unlikely"). However since the spoiler policy transcludes the Template:Policy template which states "It has wide acceptance among editors", I believe that the editors (who are mostly ordinary users rather than sysops) have the right to influence what goes on the page. So either (preferably) find some compromise between what we want and what the User:Plkrtn and friends want, or (last resort) I would ask that this template be removed or modified so that it doesn't look like the editors support this version of the policy, which they clearly don't. Kidburla 18:29, 9 July 2008 (PDT)
No I take the stance that as I get criticised for joining in debates, I'm letting the community talk this one out. Talk about it all you like!  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  08:23, 12 July 2008 (PDT)
Yes I think compromise is always a good thing, but I think generally Plkrtn is in a way half right. I mean, certainly, its not nice to say "well I'm a SysOp so what I say goes", but in saying that if Admin said "zero tolerance on spoilers" or "no cast pages as its an invasion of privacy", at the end of the day that's his decision as its his site. He does entrust the site to SysOps so in that way we run the site. Of course, any action that the wider community of editors dislikes is impractical to follow through, as of course we want people to be happy and involved, and indeed I am a normal editor most of the time. But on some matters of site principle like whether or not to allow spoilers, yes I do think SysOps have the deciding factor. This isn't dictatorial, its about the site's image as a whole when it comes to spoilers, something those who run it have to deal with. However, I agree that perhaps spoiler policy should be addressed on the angle of info released by ABC/TPTB. But, the point that should be discussed, irregardless of what YOU as an individual feel about spoilers (and this has to be put aside), does allowing things like ABC promos dilute the message of saying no to spoilers? I think for the most part, perhaps it does, and it may be easier to simply have it as zero tolerance. --Nickb123 (Talk) 08:12, 10 July 2008 (PDT)
The issue at hand, however, is whether or not officially released information falls under spoiler policy. Put quite simply, given the fact that the stated purpose of the policy is to honour the wishes of ABC/TPTB, and the fact that they are the very people releasing this information, then it's hypocritical to have a zero-tolerance policy that bans these things unless you change the intent of policy. There's been a consensus on the issue from pretty much everyone in this discussion, so unless somebody jumps in to argue against it, it ought to be implemented.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  17:54, 10 July 2008 (PDT)
Seconded. Kidburla 19:57, 11 July 2008 (PDT)
With regard to your question about "diluting the message", I think it is shown by the poll above that most people would answer "no" to your question. And to re-iterate for the umpteenth time, if as you say "SysOps have the deciding factor" then it should not say "It has wide acceptance among editors" at the top of the spoiler policy page any longer. Kidburla 19:57, 11 July 2008 (PDT)
You cannot claim that this discussion is complete proof against "wide acceptance among editors" - I understand it was a popular page but to say a few people complaining here (and also a few supporting it might I add) is clear consensus I really disagree with. However, as I have stated already "for the umpteenth time, I agree there is grounds for info from ABC/TPTB, etc - and so all I can do is put it forward and discuss it among SysOps, as I can't just suddenly change Lostpedia policy on my own opinion. And that's all there is to say really. --Nickb123 (Talk) 05:28, 12 July 2008 (PDT)
Unfortunately, there is no better way to gauge consensus (a.k.a. "wide acceptance among editors") on MediaWiki than doing a poll as User:TechNic has done above. Usually, consensus is determined by such a poll. If this is not what is meant by the phrasing of the template, then I don't know what it does mean. With regards to your view on the "official information" under discussion, I have taken notice that you (at least partially) agree with us on this, and indeed User:Robert K S is clearly open to discussion as indicated above. It is not "just" your opinion as shown by the poll. However, as User:Plkrtn completely refuses to even engage in discussion on the issue, or reach a compromise, we are at a complete impasse and I think that is grounds for removing a template which appears to claim that the policy has been developed by consensus among editors. Kidburla 08:04, 12 July 2008 (PDT)
Once again. I won't get involved because its not my place TOO get involved. I've been told by other users that I shouldn't get involved in this kind of discussion, and now I'm being told I should. So, in general, I let the community chew it out. If you look at the Suggestions forums however, you'll see a post saying "bring back spoilers" then another congratulating us for what we did, then another asking for them back. The general consensus seems to be no spoilers is a good idea, and as SysOps that is the decision we took.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  08:23, 12 July 2008 (PDT)
N.B. Additionally, the template also says "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." First of all, we are discussing on the talk page and have reached consensus at least among those contributing to the discussion. Secondly, the edit made by Plkrtn, despite being controversial, was not discussed first on the talk page at all (although "conveniently" the wiki was on Lockdown at that time). Kidburla 08:12, 12 July 2008 (PDT)
Oh, if you want me involved in the debate, why haven't you left me a talk page message in the last month asking me to be... Just curious like... Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  08:23, 12 July 2008 (PDT)

For example, how about this:

Blue check.gif This page is an official policy on Lostpedia. It has been ratified by the Lostpedia administrators (with some help from editors) and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision is approved by the administrators. When in doubt, discuss first with the administrators.

Kidburla 08:23, 12 July 2008 (PDT)

So... Like... We came to a consensus months ago about how nobody has a problem with officially released material... And then it just got ignored. Is there any plan to actually do anything about it or are the wishes of the community irrelevent? If you don't agree that there was a consensus, please take the time to read all the above posts and find me one that genuinely has a problem with material that has been officially released by ABC/TPTB.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  20:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler Policy Question

Over the last few weeks i have been editing a lot of old episode pages with trivia as i rewatch the previous seasons for the upteemth time. My question being when i edit these pages with trivia am i allowed to reference events in "future" episodes. Future being up to the end of season 4 of course. A popular one would be "Expose" which features lots of events that link to episodes from the first 2 seasons in particular.--Anfield Fox 01:19, 20 June 2008 (PDT)

Once an episode has aired, it is considered common knowledge and not a spoiler.
Yes. As long as its aired. I understand what you are thinking, that people who are catching up might read an article in say, Season 1 and find out something from Season 4. The wiki has always supposed to have been a cross reference tool that will be "complete" once the show has completed airing (unless they go into spin off media, obviously :) ). So, go ahead... Cross reference away!  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  11:16, 24 July 2008 (PDT)


The current "spoiler policy" seems to disagree with that posted to the main page (i.e.: There will be none). This project page can be made much, MUCH shorter.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:13, 19 August 2008 (PDT)

Titles (Part 3)

This will probably seem anal, but I just saw that titles are now considered to be non-spoilery.

The debate was settled last season, so what gives?

- TheAma1 12:12, 15 November 2008 (PST)

Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.