Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:Wookieepedia spoiler lockdown
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. EcksBot (talk) 21:08, February 1, 2018 (UTC)
If you post spoilers in this thread, you will be banned.
If you post spoilers on Wookieepedia pages before Friday, you will be given one warning and then banned if you continue.
Hello!
As of today, more and more people have seen The Last Jedi, and some have started to add spoilers onto the site. It's very important that we wait to begin adding spoilers to the site until Friday, after the movie has debuted in the entirety of the United States (that's most of our audience). I know that editors who have seen the movie are itching to begin adding information, but this is a site built for readers, and readers are going to want to check out Wookieepedia in the next few days to brush up on Star Wars. We need to make sure we are serving them as best as they can, so editors itching to add spoilers will just have to wait!
As a result, in consultation with admins, I've identified and locked a handful of pages on the wiki that are particularly sensitive to spoilers. You can see that list here—please let me know if you think any others should be added. Note that some of the pages in there are not necessarily reflective of spoilers. I have no idea. We just added some characters that, as a guess, could potentially be part of the film.
These pages will be unlocked Friday morning Pacific Time. At that time, to go along with our new Last Jedi-themed design for the wiki, we're also going to replace the word "Wookieepedia" in the page header (this is the text, not the wordmark) with "Contains Spoilers for The Last Jedi!" so it is clear on every page that there are spoilers on this wiki.
If any of the locked pages have any information you think should be added before Friday, please let me know and I can add it for you if you send me the text.
I know this will frustrate some people, so thank you for your patience as we focus on the reader experience these next few days. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 00:04, December 14, 2017 (UTC)
General discussion
- Not sure if anything can be done about it but the Snoke page has a spoiler on it --Lewisr (talk) 02:32, December 14, 2017 (UTC)
- Fixed. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 02:33, December 14, 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you! Was going to say about Supreme Leader but I see you already did so --Lewisr (talk) 02:35, December 14, 2017 (UTC)
- While we're protecting lightsaber pages, maybe Kylo Ren's lightsaber as well? ProfessorTofty (talk) 15:02, December 14, 2017 (UTC)
- P.S.: Sorry, not trying to open a floodgate here as far as suggestions. If you're happy with what's already been protected, then that's okay, and I won't offer anymore. ProfessorTofty (talk) 15:03, December 14, 2017 (UTC)
- I have a couple more, but I'm not sure if I should post them here since it could be spoilery. Should I just write them ?--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 20:05, December 14, 2017 (UTC)
- If you're concerned about posting spoilerly info, feel free to email me the links at brandon@fandom.com. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 20:10, December 14, 2017 (UTC)
- I have a couple more, but I'm not sure if I should post them here since it could be spoilery. Should I just write them ?--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 20:05, December 14, 2017 (UTC)
- P.S.: Sorry, not trying to open a floodgate here as far as suggestions. If you're happy with what's already been protected, then that's okay, and I won't offer anymore. ProfessorTofty (talk) 15:03, December 14, 2017 (UTC)
- While we're protecting lightsaber pages, maybe Kylo Ren's lightsaber as well? ProfessorTofty (talk) 15:02, December 14, 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you! Was going to say about Supreme Leader but I see you already did so --Lewisr (talk) 02:35, December 14, 2017 (UTC)
- Fixed. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 02:33, December 14, 2017 (UTC)
- Could the banner at the top please be changed so that it reads "Contains Spoilers for The Last Jedi!"? Sorry, but that's really bugging the grammarian in me. Titles are supposed to be italicized. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:57, December 17, 2017 (UTC)
- We had already planned on italicizing it, but the top bar doesn't accommodate text formatting. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:00, December 17, 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. Thanks for clearing that up. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:53, December 17, 2017 (UTC)
- We had already planned on italicizing it, but the top bar doesn't accommodate text formatting. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:00, December 17, 2017 (UTC)
- Should {{Moviespoiler}} maybe use a different quote, since the current one is a pretty significant, spoilery line from the film? Asithol (talk) 17:51, December 19, 2017 (UTC)
- It's in the trailer which means it's promotional material. Trailer content is not a spoiler. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 17:57, December 19, 2017 (UTC)
- Um, trailer content, by its very nature, contains spoilers. Hopefully only minor ones (though there have been egregious exceptions), but viewers who want no spoilers at all avoid trailers and other promotional material before seeing a film. Without context, the {{Moviespoiler}} quote reveals very little, but since this thread is about what best serves readers, it seems like a quote with no spoiler content does a better job of that than one with minor spoiler content. Asithol (talk) 18:43, December 19, 2017 (UTC)
- No online definition of spoilers, in any sort of spoiler policy, includes trailer content. That is all fair game information to post publicly. They're even shown on TV. If someone wants to avoid trailer information, it's incumbent upon them to avoid sites that will have it. No major media outlet or website or TV station considers trailers spoilers. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 18:47, December 19, 2017 (UTC)
- I won't dispute any of that, but I think it makes sense to be overcautious about spoilers in the spoiler warning. I also don't see the downside of changing the quote from something minorly spoilery to something not-at-all spoilery. But if no one besides you and me has an opinion, there's no point in pursuing it. Asithol (talk) 18:54, December 20, 2017 (UTC)
- No online definition of spoilers, in any sort of spoiler policy, includes trailer content. That is all fair game information to post publicly. They're even shown on TV. If someone wants to avoid trailer information, it's incumbent upon them to avoid sites that will have it. No major media outlet or website or TV station considers trailers spoilers. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 18:47, December 19, 2017 (UTC)
- Um, trailer content, by its very nature, contains spoilers. Hopefully only minor ones (though there have been egregious exceptions), but viewers who want no spoilers at all avoid trailers and other promotional material before seeing a film. Without context, the {{Moviespoiler}} quote reveals very little, but since this thread is about what best serves readers, it seems like a quote with no spoiler content does a better job of that than one with minor spoiler content. Asithol (talk) 18:43, December 19, 2017 (UTC)
- It's in the trailer which means it's promotional material. Trailer content is not a spoiler. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 17:57, December 19, 2017 (UTC)
- {{Moviespoiler}}'s usage statement says that only topics originating in the new film should use this template; ones originating in earlier works "continue to use {{Spoiler}}." This is being followed for Kylo Ren, but violated for most other major characters in The Last Jedi (Luke Skywalker, Leia Organa, Rey, Finn, Poe Dameron, etc.) Should these pages switch to {{Majorspoiler}}, or should that exception be removed from {{Moviespoiler}}'s usage statement? Asithol (talk) 19:42, December 19, 2017 (UTC)
- I was talking about this in chat the other day with someone. I think we may need to have a discussion about it, because it clearly hasn't been being used the way the policy is written. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:51, December 19, 2017 (UTC)
- The policy can also be revisited. It was based entirely on people not wanting to know if Luke, Leia, and Han were in TFA. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 21:06, December 19, 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, the template's usage description didn't even make clear whether that instruction was policy (that is, determined by consesus), or just someone's idea of how it should be used. The purpose Brandon mentions, however, is nonsensical: the header atop the article will either be the film-specific template {{Moviespoiler}} (e.g., Rey), or the generic {{Majorspoiler}} template with a parameter of the name of the film (e.g., Kylo Ren). Either one tells you that the film contains new information about the character. Neither one tells you whether the character appears in the film. Asithol (talk) 21:44, December 19, 2017 (UTC)
- Well, Majorspoiler can be used without any parameter if the idea is to not give away where the information is coming from. That was the idea I had. But in the discussion I was having the other day, it was pointing out that people are relying on that "The Last Jedi" spoiler to tag to specifically know which articles have information originating from the new film within them, and if they don't see it, they may just not pay attention to the Majorspoiler tag and read the article, and then be annoyed when they see spoilers for the new film. ProfessorTofty (talk) 05:07, December 20, 2017 (UTC)
- I agree; Moviespoiler directly states an article contains spoilers from a movie, while Majorspoiler is just too generic. I think Moviespoiler should be applied to ANYTHING that appears in a movie, not just stuff originating from it. -
AV-6R7Crew Pit 06:02, December 20, 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I say let's just be bold then and adhere to that convention, since that's what most people are doing anyway. And then we can ask forgiveness later if anyone objects (and if anyone's reading and you do, you should do so here.) ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:38, December 20, 2017 (UTC)
- The new template (VIIspoiler as it was called back then) was authorized at the May 2015 Mofference, where its usage was explicitly restricted to new characters ("This is for *subjects unique to The Force Awakens*. An example being Kylo Ren. If Darth Sidious happens to be in The Force Awakens, we would still use {{Spoiler}}." 02:11:42) 1358 (Talk) 22:49, December 20, 2017 (UTC)
- Is that an objection, or just a historical observation? :) Because I could read that either as a binding decision that would need to be overridden by current consensus, or as a decision pertaining only to The Force Awakens that is no longer relevant. If the latter, then I'm on board with the Professor's proposal that we make the template wording reflect current practice. Asithol (talk) 18:50, December 21, 2017 (UTC)
- The rules were made after The Force Awakens, so it's a rule for all new movies and would need to be changed by a new vote. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 19:12, December 21, 2017 (UTC)
- When a rule is made does not define its scope; the wording of the rule defines its scope. So to clarify this, I read the relevant part of the Mofference transcript (see 02:09:16 to 02:15:55), and the discussion concerned only The Force Awakens. The very first sentence, in fact, is, "This is a proposal to adopt a new spoiler template specific to The Force Awakens," and subsequent discussion never mentions future movies. Anyway, as Tofty notes, we're mostly ignoring that rule in current practice anyway, so striking the rule from the template instructions seems like the best approach. Asithol (talk) 17:57, December 22, 2017 (UTC)
- You're not going to get most people here on board with the idea of just changing the scope of the rule without a vote. We're better off having a vote to define the scope for the future. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 18:40, December 22, 2017 (UTC)
- You are so right. I've posted it as a vote. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:13, December 22, 2017 (UTC)
- You're not going to get most people here on board with the idea of just changing the scope of the rule without a vote. We're better off having a vote to define the scope for the future. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 18:40, December 22, 2017 (UTC)
- When a rule is made does not define its scope; the wording of the rule defines its scope. So to clarify this, I read the relevant part of the Mofference transcript (see 02:09:16 to 02:15:55), and the discussion concerned only The Force Awakens. The very first sentence, in fact, is, "This is a proposal to adopt a new spoiler template specific to The Force Awakens," and subsequent discussion never mentions future movies. Anyway, as Tofty notes, we're mostly ignoring that rule in current practice anyway, so striking the rule from the template instructions seems like the best approach. Asithol (talk) 17:57, December 22, 2017 (UTC)
- The rules were made after The Force Awakens, so it's a rule for all new movies and would need to be changed by a new vote. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 19:12, December 21, 2017 (UTC)
- Is that an objection, or just a historical observation? :) Because I could read that either as a binding decision that would need to be overridden by current consensus, or as a decision pertaining only to The Force Awakens that is no longer relevant. If the latter, then I'm on board with the Professor's proposal that we make the template wording reflect current practice. Asithol (talk) 18:50, December 21, 2017 (UTC)
- The new template (VIIspoiler as it was called back then) was authorized at the May 2015 Mofference, where its usage was explicitly restricted to new characters ("This is for *subjects unique to The Force Awakens*. An example being Kylo Ren. If Darth Sidious happens to be in The Force Awakens, we would still use {{Spoiler}}." 02:11:42) 1358 (Talk) 22:49, December 20, 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I say let's just be bold then and adhere to that convention, since that's what most people are doing anyway. And then we can ask forgiveness later if anyone objects (and if anyone's reading and you do, you should do so here.) ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:38, December 20, 2017 (UTC)
- I agree; Moviespoiler directly states an article contains spoilers from a movie, while Majorspoiler is just too generic. I think Moviespoiler should be applied to ANYTHING that appears in a movie, not just stuff originating from it. -
- Well, Majorspoiler can be used without any parameter if the idea is to not give away where the information is coming from. That was the idea I had. But in the discussion I was having the other day, it was pointing out that people are relying on that "The Last Jedi" spoiler to tag to specifically know which articles have information originating from the new film within them, and if they don't see it, they may just not pay attention to the Majorspoiler tag and read the article, and then be annoyed when they see spoilers for the new film. ProfessorTofty (talk) 05:07, December 20, 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, the template's usage description didn't even make clear whether that instruction was policy (that is, determined by consesus), or just someone's idea of how it should be used. The purpose Brandon mentions, however, is nonsensical: the header atop the article will either be the film-specific template {{Moviespoiler}} (e.g., Rey), or the generic {{Majorspoiler}} template with a parameter of the name of the film (e.g., Kylo Ren). Either one tells you that the film contains new information about the character. Neither one tells you whether the character appears in the film. Asithol (talk) 21:44, December 19, 2017 (UTC)
- The policy can also be revisited. It was based entirely on people not wanting to know if Luke, Leia, and Han were in TFA. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 21:06, December 19, 2017 (UTC)
- I was talking about this in chat the other day with someone. I think we may need to have a discussion about it, because it clearly hasn't been being used the way the policy is written. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:51, December 19, 2017 (UTC)
Unlocking
- Just curious, at what time exactly will pages be unlocked? I heard 5AM ET being floated around, but I'm not 100% sure. 1358 (Talk) 16:37, December 14, 2017 (UTC)
- 5am ET is the earliest it's appropriate, since that's midnight in Hawaii (which was chosen because it's the most western part of the United States). If someone is around to do the unprotections at that time, then that's the right time. Otherwise I'll do it around 8am or 9am Pacific time. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 17:32, December 14, 2017 (UTC)
- If it's okay with you, I'll go through all the protections and modify all their expiry dates to
2017-12-15 11:00:00(11:00 UTC = 5:00 EST). That way no-one has to go through them later on. 1358 (Talk) 17:34, December 14, 2017 (UTC)- That works. I couldn't find documentation on how to set exact timing so that's why I did it the way I did it. Thanks. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 17:35, December 14, 2017 (UTC)
- All done. To future generations: Please use cascading protection instead of mass-protecting pages. This has two benefits
- You don't need to protect a million pages separately; just transclude the targets in a page with cascading protection (User:Xd1358/test2 is currently locked because it is transcluded in User:Xd1358/test which has cascading protection.)
- Original protection levels are not lost. Once the TLJ protections expire, we're going to lose a bunch of [edit=autoconfirmed] and [move=sysop] statuses since I believe expiration means all protections are removed. This is not that big of an issue since we're not talking about that many pages. 1358 (Talk) 17:55, December 14, 2017 (UTC)
- Awesome, thanks! - Brandon Rhea(talk) 18:43, December 14, 2017 (UTC)
- All done. To future generations: Please use cascading protection instead of mass-protecting pages. This has two benefits
- That works. I couldn't find documentation on how to set exact timing so that's why I did it the way I did it. Thanks. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 17:35, December 14, 2017 (UTC)
- If it's okay with you, I'll go through all the protections and modify all their expiry dates to
- 5am ET is the earliest it's appropriate, since that's midnight in Hawaii (which was chosen because it's the most western part of the United States). If someone is around to do the unprotections at that time, then that's the right time. Otherwise I'll do it around 8am or 9am Pacific time. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 17:32, December 14, 2017 (UTC)