Jump to content

Talk:Westworld (TV series)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

RfC on Potential Spoilers

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The purpose of this discussion was to determine whether spoilers should be included in the "Cast and characters" section of this article. The primary catalyst for this discussion, I believe, was a description of the character Bernard as a "host" or an "android", which is a major plot point that is not revealed immediately in the series and can therefore be construed as a spoiler. This was a lengthy RfC, and there was also quite a bit of background discussion; as a result, it took a while for me to analyze it, especially as I was unfamiliar with this TV series before now. I will now summarize what I believe to be the most salient arguments presented.
Those who support including spoilers in the "Cast and characters" section cite the relevant guideline, WP:SPOILER, which states that information should not be removed from an article because you think it spoils the plot, and that greater consideration should be placed instead on neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality. Supporters argued that it is necessary to include spoilers in the character descriptions in order to provide readers with a complete, encyclopedic understanding of each character and their role in the series. A few participants qualified their support of including spoilers, noting that they should only be included if the information is encyclopedically relevant or "if it is appropriate or pertinent".
Opponents to including spoilers in the "Cast and characters" section are not arguing that absolutely no spoilers should be included in the article – as the supporters correctly observe, that's clearly contrary to WP:SPOILER. Rather, they argue that casts and characters lists should instead be limited to a brief description that would give readers a basic understanding of the character, with additional details about plot and character development that would paint a more complete description to be included in the plot descriptions later in the article. Most participants agreed that this would be a more encyclopedic presentation and that spoilers aren't required to give readers a basic understanding of each character for this particular subject.
For these reasons, there is a rough consensus not to include spoilers in the "Cast and characters" section of this article. A few participants in this discussion were concerned that its result might set a precedent for other articles to follow. However, note that the result is based on presentation considerations specific to this article; different articles will have different things to consider, so the decision to include or not to include spoilers in the "Cast and characters" section of other articles should be made on a case-by-case basis. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 03:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Should information revealed to the viewer throughout the series (such as major plot points and reveals) be contained in the Cast and characters section of the article? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes: WP:SPOILER states that spoilers are no different from any other content and should not be deleted solely because they are spoilers. Also, WP:TVCAST states that the cast section should include information about how the character was created and developed over the course of the series, which clearly indicates the inclusion of "information revealed to the viewer throughout the series". Removing this information would undermine Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone, completeness and the article's quality in general. Good examples for writing the cast section, that are provided in the previously-mentioned Wikipedia guidelines, include the shows Fringe and Mutant X, which both include major spoilers, such as the death of a main character. Opposing the inclusion of this information suggests that the person doesn't have a complete understanding of either Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or the purpose an encyclopedia serves, as opposed to a regular fan site. -- (Radiphus) 12:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't really have an opinion one way or another, but I did want to counter-argue some points. Fringe and Mutant X are both shows that are past their original run. If you look at shows currently running (Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead), you can see they hold back information and reserve it for other areas where one might expect spoilers to be found. I know WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, but perhaps everyone should be focusing on where to put that info rather than if it should be included, since we know it shouldn't be removed for just being a spoiler. As a counter-example to my own point, Veep is very detailed in their character descriptions. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
nihlus kryik, thank you for your insightful comment. It is 100% the "where" not "if" that I'm concerned with. I would like to point out that Veep is a comedy while the others, Westworld included, are on the drama/thriller side of things. As we know, some of the basic principles of the thriller genre are suspense, surprise, and plot twists where the timing of information is essential to the story (ex. the 1999 movie, "The Sixth Sense"). For this reason, and seeing that including the information elsewhere still fulfills the requirement for encyclopedic completeness, I am of the idea that it should not be included with the brief introduction.FP2C (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the comedy point is definitely a good one. Thanks. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No: First off, no one has said that this information shouldn't be included, but it is the location of the information that is causing our problem. I think this information should be kept in the List of Westworld Characters page and of course should be listed on the individual episode pages and it can also be included lower down in the episode summaries of the main article. I think keeping the information in these sections makes the article complete and encyclopedic and avoids unnecessary detail that a casual reader would likely not be interested in. I do not think that removing this information has any effect on the quality of an article and in fact makes the article easier to read, less convoluted, more streamlined and it makes more sense. If a reader wants a quick summary, or to find information on who is in the cast and what role they play, they will likely go to the cast section and will not expect such details/spoilers. Some of the editors on this page seem to think that wikipedia's spoiler policy indicates these details MUST be presented in the cast section, but I believe that guideline is open to interpretation. Thank you. As an aside, I find the comment "Opposing the inclusion of this information suggests that the person doesn't have a complete understanding of either Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or the purpose an encyclopedia serves, as opposed to a regular fan site" rude and unnecessary, immediately trying to frame the argument as uninformed. I've read the spoiler policies, and I believe they are open to interpretation and that what I, and many others are suggesting, perfectly fits within the guidelines. Bremen (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I find the comment "[...]" rude and unnecessary, immediately trying to frame the argument as uninformed. Framing the argument? So, a bit like deliberately modifying a talk page header? Disappointing. -- AlexTW 16:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I apologized for that already, thank you. Bremen (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong No: I've made my full argument above so I'm not sure copy and pasting it in full again here does any good (though I'll be glad to if its required for RfC) but, summed up, I agree with Bremen that the information is relevant and definitely has it's place in the article but, given the precedent established by older articles, the fact Bernard is an android is plot related enough that it should not be included in the brief character description as it is not essential for identifying the character.FP2C (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No: We all agree the information should be included, just not in the character list at the start of the article. This information belongs in the plot summary, where people expect spoilers. The character list is used for reference by people who are still watching or reading a story. Just because we have the policy to not exclude information because it's a spoiler, that doesn't mean we have to construct articles in such a way that we deliberately put spoilers in a place where people who are still enjoying a story don't expect them. That's not free and open information, it's trolling viewers/readers. Information that gets revealed throughout a story, but isn't apparent when a character is introduced, is trivia in the context of a character list. And those who've seen the series or read the book, well they know already. So who are we really helping by putting spoilers in the character list? And does that weigh up against the spoiling? Especially in an ongoing series. In books, a character list is often included and it describes the characters as we know them at the start of the story. If characters marry throughout the story and thus change name, they are still listed in the character list with their maiden name. If you'd be consequent about adding plot developtments about a character in the character list, you'd even have to add "deceased" to those who died during a story. Wouldn't that look silly? In this article, it's even more complicated, because Bernard considers himself pretty much a humen, rather than an android, let alone a host. So his status is complicated. And we, as viewers, feel that way too throughout most of the story. We could call him Android, but that term is afaik never used in the series, so that's original research. It's too complicated to go into in a few words in a character list. Perhaps there are situations where a point can be made for including a spoiler in the character list, but we should strive to keep it as spoiler free as we can, and keep the spoilers in the plot summary, where everyone expects them. PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
So, reading that wall of text, and getting to your ending summary sentence... Your ultimate goal is to remove spoilers from the cast summary? -- AlexTW 16:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
No. Not all spoilers in every article. PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@PizzaMan: Apologies, but I had to revert your edit. Per WP:REDACT: "If anyone has already replied to or quoted the original comment, consider whether the edit could affect the interpretation of the replies or integrity of the quotes." and "Other than minor corrections for insignificant typographical errors made before other editors reply, changes should be noted to avoid misrepresenting the original post." Glad you understand. Cheers. -- AlexTW 18:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I added two sentences to clarify. You could have marked them in some way, but you chose for deleting them altogether, implying that i "affected the interpretation". How did the interpreteation change for you? PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Question should we clarify the spoiler policy page after this rfc is concluded? PizzaMan (♨♨) 23:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Yes: The basic reason for wanting to remove the content from its location is simply to remove the spoilers, and nothing else. Content can and does exist in two or more places at once. See the previous discussions for solid statements on how the series was spoiled for certain editors, that's why they wanted to remove it. We are not a fan service to pander for the reader; we are an encyclopedia that lists details. And the fact that Bernard is an android is an extremely important detail to his character, and were it not included, we would deliberately be omitting important imformation that very clearly expands upon the content in question. If we were to remove plot details from character descriptions, there would be no character description. WP:TVCAST states nothing about only keeping specific content, and complaints that the summaries are too long as "an android created by Dr. Ford" is literally six words long. Arguing that other stuff exists is not a valid argument per WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, so bringing up the same on article with similarities is barely helpful here. One of the above editors argued for it to be changed from a host to an android, an edit which was implemented, and now wishes to go back on this and not include it at all. Limiting it only to one article makes no sense. This character directly references the character, so it should also directly reference the important details about said character. Avoiding it simply because you don't like it is attempting to force the article to hide content that may spoil the viewing "pleasure" of a reader; again, we are not here to make the "casual reader" happy, we are here to list important content. The spoiler guideline may not demand that we add spoilers, but nor does it say that we should avoid adding "spoilers", which I personally believe is a pointless term anyway when it comes to such a highly-regarded collection of information. "Trolling" viewers? What a very un-editor-like description by someone who doesn't know how this site and the thousands of other television series' are run. -- AlexTW 16:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I would please ask that you refrain from using comments such as "this user doesn't know how these articles are run." Look at Game of Thrones Season 1. The cast list only states the names of the actors and the characters they play. There is a link to a very detailed article about all the characters that any reader can easily follow if they so wish. The same format could be applied here, so you don't need to act like the way it is on this page is some universal standard, when it is clearly not. Bremen (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Your personal request on how I word my personal opinions has been noted and immediately rejected. Again: you clearly have no idea on how these articles are run. Season articles have and have always had lists of actor/character names, and main articles have descriptions. Yet another example of what I said; I thank you for proving me right. Cheers! -- AlexTW 17:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Fine, if descriptions are the norm, you could also look at the main page for Game of Thrones, which does not go into the kind of detail here, and does not spoil character deaths, for example. Bremen (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is possible to be against both points so don't falsely equivocate the two. "Host" was an incorrect label that needed to be addressed in multiple locations and I'm glad that's been taken care of. The location of this information at present, as I've made clear from my comments, does a disservice to casual readers and people who are here for basic information about the series (such as cast and production notes) and to the creators of the artwork itself. I have still to read any comment explaining how having that information still available elsewhere in the article makes it any less encyclopedic and factually complete.FP2C (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
First off, why did you overwrite someone else's comment? Is this some tactic to force only your personal opinion, any not anyone else's? And the two approximately meant the same thing, so why did you not request it was immediately removed, rather than some straight two-way detour? And I already said: Content can and does exist in two or more places at once. I have still to read any comment explaining how removing that information in that particular location in the article would be beneficial to the site in an encyclopedic manner, rather than pandering to the odd reader. -- AlexTW 17:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I started my response but it appears that by the time I had finished typing and hit save, others had unbeknownst to me already commented so it saved what I had started writing WITHOUT the new comments. That's why I went back and rewrote it underneath. Please stop ascribing blame and trying to find conflict where there isn't any. Being combative accomplished nothing.FP2C (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Here is how that would make the article less encyclopedic: let's say someone is reading the Westworld article and would like to learn more about the characters' development. Where should he start reading? Should he have to read the whole article? -- (Radiphus) 17:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
If they would like to learn more they can click on the full character article. Bremen (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
That is for (almost) every character detail. This article is for important character details. Stating the the character being an android is not important is a complete sham. -- AlexTW 17:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I genuinely think it is not necessary for the casual reader, but for someone who wants more details, the full character article is available. Bremen (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I know that's what you believe. However, it's not what we personally want, none of us - it's what is important. -- AlexTW 18:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No and here I'm thinking about things like who dies when, who kills who, and who is, in fact, actually a host. This is specifically about the Cast and Characters section; you'll note that WP:SPOILER differentiates plot, and distinguishes it as a place where spoilers are to be expected. Starting of with "Bernard is a host who believes himself to be human throughout most of the first season" would not be encyclopedic; it would be tacky. By all means, reveal it in the plot, but not in the cast and characters section. Jclemens (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
You may have missed that on WP:SPOILER: plot summaries, episode lists, character descriptions, etc.—were already clearly named to indicate that they contain plot details. -- (Radiphus) 17:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
The policy clarifies that character lists can contain spoilers. It does not argue for always including all spoilers.PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I quoted this line, not as a proof of mandatory inclusion of spoilers, but to argue against Jclemens' opinion that spoilers are not expected in the cast section. I agree on the last part about not including "all spoilers". Just those that are important in describing the development of a character. Like someone being an android, instead of a human being, perhaps? -- (Radiphus) 18:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
The governing quote is "Wikipedia previously included such warnings in some articles, but no longer does so, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers." The fact that the later quote, cited above, expands the areas listed as containing potential spoilers merely creates a situation where two sections of the guideline differ and create ambiguity. I think it's a bad idea, should be harmonized, and spoilers should be restricted to appropriate plot sections. Someone who cares more than I can go back and track who added what when. Jclemens (talk) 06:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
There is no ambiguity in the guidelines. Neither the quote such as Plot or Ending limits the section headings that could contain spoilers to "Plot" and "Ending", nor does the quote plot summaries, episode lists, character descriptions, etc. limit it to plot summaries, episode lists and character descriptions. What these quotes really do is they tell us that we shouldn't care if something is a spoiler, as long as the inclusion of this information will help preserve Wikipedia's completeness and encyclopedic tone. For example, spoilers found in sections like "Reception" or "Home media release" would have to be removed. Not because they are spoilers, but because they would be redundant. -- (Radiphus) 09:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: In one case, we have one character who is an AI replica of another character. In the other case, we have two actors who play the same character in different ages. Both these cases happen to be spoilers. Would you say that mentioning them is necessary to have the reader understand the cast information? -- (Radiphus) 17:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I watch the show and have my television on the marathon right now; so, luckily, I'm not being spoiled via this RfC. I'm not sure that it's necessary to have Benard revealed as you know what. But when it comes to "two actors who play the same character in different ages," it may be that this is a spoiler we should retain; it's similar to content we retained in the aforementioned The Flash (2014 TV series) case. If we don't include it, we are neglecting to mention that the actor is portraying the older version of the character. But on the flip side, it is a huge spoiler and we get through most of the series just fine without knowing that he is the older version of the character, and this one spoiler would ruin the plot for many. Tough call. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I am surprised to read about "huge spoilers" and concerns of "ruining the plot" from you. Since the beginning of this discussion, i have kept in mind this line from WP:SPOILER, which should help us make an objective decision: It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality. Do you think this line doesn't apply here for some reason? -- (Radiphus) 18:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
If you read my commentary here, you should understand my viewpoint. If you do not, I can't help you understand it. Yes, I care about readers not having the entire story or a big part of it ruined for them. And so do many others, as a big RfC we had at the WP:Spoiler talk page shows; this RfC is linked in the aforementioned discussion. In that RfC, consensus actually was for generally not having spoilers in the lead. Unless it's the Plot section, I absolutely do not include spoilers unless I think it's necessary for the reader's understanding. Also keep in mind that WP:Spoiler is a guideline; it is not a policy. Guidelines naturally have more leeway. Either way, I am not here to debate this matter; I save that for the WP:Spoiler talk page. You wanted opinions; I gave mine. And as my comments in this discussion show, I am not completely opposed to having spoilers in the Cast section. I am conflicted on this particular case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
You said that you are conflicted on the case of Bernard's description. Could you please explain what makes this case special? I understand the reasoning of trying to protect the readers, though i do not accept it, but i do not understand how the spoiler about Bernard is different from the spoiler about William (or any other essential character description that contains spoilers on Wikipedia), in a way that makes its inclusion not necessary. Please excuse me if i seem a bit stubborn on this issue. -- (Radiphus) 19:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm conflicted because of the "two actors who play the same character in different ages" aspect; I don't know what else to state about that so that you can understand why I'm conflicted about that; I think the conflict is pretty clear in my "18:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)" post above. As for Benard, I just don't see that we need to state that he is an android. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry, i thought you were in favor of retaining the information about William, despite it being a "tough call". About Bernard being an android: correct me if i am wrong, but i believe the only reason you are saying this information is unnecessary, is because it contains spoilers, right? I just want to clarify that you do not consider the character of a non-human being portrayed by a human (Jeffrey Wright) as insignificant or self-explanatory. Otherwise you would also be saying that describing Dolores as a "host" is unnecessary. Now, about Jeffrey Wright; he plays two characters in the show: Bernard and Arnold. Shouldn't the cast description mention them both? Would you oppose that as "unnecessary" as well? -- (Radiphus) 20:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
In what way is it needed to state that Benard is an android in the Cast section? How does it help readers understand the casting? How is removing that bit detrimental? It is a plot point, pure and simple, whereas the William matter is the case of two actors portraying the same character. Apples and oranges. Dolores being a host is something we know from the start; it is very central to the casting information. Benard being an android is something we find out in the seventh episode, as a twist. Regarding the marathon I'm watching, that episode just went off; so my memory on that is refreshed. WP:Spoiler states than an encyclopedic purpose should be served when including spoilers. You can argue that including that bit is serving an encyclopedic purpose; I can argue that it's not needed. We don't include everything that is or may be encyclopedic; we also trim unnecessary detail. I do indeed consider the "Benard is an android" bit unnecessary. Cutting it doesn't diminish anything as far as a reader's understanding of the Cast section goes. From my point of view, it is simply there to spoil. I'm not going to repeat myself on the William matter again; I'm clearly conflicted on that bit, but I am leaning more toward inclusion of it. I stated that I'm not here to debate, and I mean it. This will likely be my last reply in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
One more thing: I have noticed that the section is not simply titled "Cast," but rather "Cast and characters." So if considering the section from an "also about the characters" viewpoint, I do understand noting there that Benard is an android. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, i was about to ask you what is so different between two actors portraying the same character and "one actor portraying two characters" in a cast and characters section. -- (Radiphus) 20:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Are you speaking of Benard? From what I see, the actor is only listed as portraying one character. And on second thought, I don't see that the "old William and young William" aspect needs to be in the section either. The section states, "Ed Harris as old William a.k.a. the Man in Black, the majority shareholder of Westworld; he is also a sadistic veteran guest to the park." But the section would be just as fine by removing "old William" and sticking with "as the Man in Black" instead. This is not the same thing as us noting Young Rose and Old Rose in the Cast section of the Titanic (1997 film) article. For the Cast and characters section of this article, it is not vital that readers know that the Man in Black is William; this is a plot twist that is not revealed until the first season is almost over, just like the Benard twist. Also, because of the credits, the section introduces Old William before noting who Young William is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I asked you earlier about Jeffrey Wright; he plays two characters in the show: Bernard and Arnold. Shouldn't the cast description mention them both? Would you oppose that as "unnecessary" as well? I would be very interested in your response to this description: Jeffrey Wright as Bernard Lowe, an android created by Dr. Ford to mimic the appearance of his dead partner, Arnold, also portrayed by the actor; Head of the Westworld Programming Division and programmer of artificial people's software. I can not follow your opinion changing so fast on both cases. The comments you made earlier about William (If we don't include it, we are neglecting to mention that the actor is portraying the older version of the character) and Bernard (from an "also about the characters" viewpoint, I do understand noting there that Benard is an android) is what i need to understand that this information is important for the Cast and characters section's completeness. Your concerns about spoiling the plot, interfere with Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone and completeness per WP:SPOILER, and are only highlighting the importance of this information. -- (Radiphus) 09:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. The Cast and characters section does not need that information for completeness. Characters die all the time as well. But, as Adamstom.97 notes below, including character deaths in a Cast section usually is not needed. And yet we get editors using the WP:Spoiler guideline as justification for including unnecessary death spoilers in the Cast section as well. I see the "Benard is an android" and "the 'Man in Black' is Old William" aspects similarly. I don't think that there is a need to note in the Cast and characters section that Jeffrey Wright portrays Bernard and Arnold. And, really, Bernard is, in simple terms, a different version of Arnold. As for my changing opinion, I've been consistent in understanding why these spoilers are included, but I have never stated that I think that their inclusion is necessary. Understanding why they are included does not mean that I agree with their inclusion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Flyer22. Note a subtle difference that in the Force Awakens page, the character list is after the plot summary, which would make a reader slightly more wary of spoilers. As far as i'm concerned, preferably no spoilers and if necessary then place the character list after the plot summary.PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
PizzaMan, I see that this article doesn't (yet) have a Plot section. It does have an Episodes section, which kind of serves as the Plot section, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No, but there's a spectrum of minor through major spoilers. Many of the hosts are not obviously hosts in the first scene we see them in, for example Teddy. I think it is appropriate to list him as a host because this does become clear fairly early in the series (the first episode), and it is at most a minor spoiler. Old and young William being the same person is not clear until near the end of the first season; I don't think it's a huge spoiler but would not object to this being kept out of the cast list. Bernard being a host is both late in the season and a very substantial spoiler, and I think including this in the cast list is entirely inappropriate. Readers of Wikipedia should be aware that articles contain spoilers, but it is usually safe to scan character lists to see the actor names, and I think we should continue this practice.-gadfium 23:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, as information should be included if it is appropriate or pertinent, regardless of its status as a spoiler. However, that does not necessarily mean that all spoilery details must be included. The cast and character section is not for plot information, so only significant plot moments that are discussed in terms of character development should be included. For instance, that one guy actually being a younger version of the old guy is a reasonably important part of their characters when looking at the overall scope of the show, so that should not be left out just to avoid spoiling some people who were intelligent enough to read the Wikipedia article before watching the show. Likewise, Bernard being an android is important to his character so it should be mentioned in the section. On the other hand, a character dying probably doesn't tell you anything about their character and so is just revealing plot information in the cast and character section for no reason, so I wouldn't include information like that. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Conditional Yes, if the information is necessary to identify characters or who plays them. Jeffrey Wright plays two different characters. William is played by two different actors. That the show mixes time periods doesn't change the need for a character list to fully explain those circumstances/identities. I waited a while before responding to reflect on this because I think it is unfortunate that anyone might have their viewing experience ruined by seeing this information but I think we need to write the encyclopedia article from the point of view of someone who wants the whole picture. Not fully explaining who the characters are fails to meet that goal. Also this is an ongoing series with another season coming, are we going to revisit what can be considered "early" versus "late" knowledge as the show progresses? All that said I do wish Wikipedia still had spoiler warnings so nobody accidentally walks into information they don't want to see. However the "guideline" is against them and I don't think we can fix that here by trying to circumvent the situation. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@DIYeditor: While i don't like endless discussions in rfc's, I think you make a valid point, and I'd like to respond. If it were up to me we'd indeed restore spoiler warnings for spoilers in unexpected places. But that's not an option. We could still strive to put as little spoilers in the cast/character list as necessary and use the plot or episode summary to paint the whole picture. As long as people stumble on unexpected spoilers, ruining a good story for them, something needs to be fixed. Are their expectations wrong if it happens time and again? Or is something wrong with the way these articles are ran if they're counterintuitive in where they put spoilers? Since a spoiler warning isn't an option, the least we can do is only put spoilers where readers expect them.PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
PizzaMan, was the story ruined for you by spoilers? Either here at Wikipedia or otherwise? I've learned to not read anything on Wikipedia about a series I'm interested in watching, or might be interested in watching, but a lot of our readers have yet to learn that lesson. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes it was. And it was such a brilliant plot development. I know that we're a community of autists who don't care about such trivial things as emotions, but just look at the number of people on this talk page alone who were so upset they bothered to come to this talk page just to express that. In contrast: no one actually came in here to complain that the character list was confusing to them or even uninformative, let alone that this upset them. Does everyone really have to find out the hard way that WP can spoil a good story in places were casual WP users don't expect it? If the policies don't make the world a better place, they may be broken. PizzaMan (♨♨) 21:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes - Editors need to remember this is an encyclopaedia, not a fansite, and encyclopaediae necessarily include spoilers as part of encyclopaedic treatment of a topic. In short, if you don't want to be spoiled, don't open an encyclopaedia. We do try to avoid spoilers in the lead of an article for the more sensitive among us but spoilers have to be expected anywhere else in an article. That said, every section has to be written appropriately. In the cast and characters section, if character is an android, or a doctor, or is an axe-murderer, that's a significant part of the character's description so it should be included. However, if the character wears glasses, or has his or her hair colour changed periodically, that's not generally significant to include. In short, use common sense. Doing so means that you need to expect spoilers. For anyone who hasn't, I suggest you thoroughly read WP:SPOILER. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No - that it needs to be how the character is first defined in the article, Yes that it should be covered somewhere, like in the plot/story section or wherever. Somewhere. (Feel free to bludgeon and badger me like most others in the discussion, but I'm well aware such a stance does not violate WP:SPOILER.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I've explained at the top of this thread how removing this information would violate both WP:SPOILER and WP:TVCAST. Which guidelines are you referencing to support your arguement? -- (Radiphus) 16:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, removing it completely would absolutely be against SPOILER. But that's not what I said. I'm referring to the part that goes: When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served. Articles on a work of fiction should primarily describe it from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance. The fact that he's an android or whatever is a very late in the season reveal. For most of the season, from a real-world perspective, he's not outwardly portrayed as such. If the show goes on for 6 seasons and he's portrayed as an android for 5 and a fraction of those series, sure. But right now, it's an WP:UNDUE issue. Similarly, its placement - first section after the lead, third bulletpoint - doesn't help the reader's understanding of the show's premise. It'd be like starting the body of the The Sixth Sense article off with a bulletpoint "Bruce Willis, the guy who was dead all along but didn't know it. Just because you can present spoilers doesn't mean it needs to be done so obtusely - introducing things like this early on doesn't help the reader understand the subject properly. Sergecross73 msg me 17:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
The section is titled "Cast and characters", so it's not meant to support the show's premise, regardless of it being the first second after the lead. The information is relevant to the character, as it was a major part of his development, hence its inclusion, which itself is for an encyclopedic purpose. If we remove an important part of a character's development, regardless of it being a spoiler or not, we would be deliberately going against the purpose of Wikipedia being an encyclopedic to list necessary information. And the reveal was at the end of the seventh episode - not overly late into the season anyways. -- AlexTW 23:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense in its current set up. This isn't the sort of detail that should be revealed before the basic premise of the show is described. My points still stand, but outside of any policy, it's just terrible writing, and it's absolutely baffling that experienced editors don't see this. Sergecross73 msg me 00:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
The fact that he's an android or whatever is a very late in the season reveal. - That's really irrelevant. That he is a host/android/robot and not human is a significant aspect of the character and inclusion of this information is encyclopaedic because of that.
Similarly, its placement - first section after the lead, third bulletpoint - Location is irrelevant. Spoilers (which don't really exist in an encyclopaedia) should be expected anywhere except the lead.
introducing things like this early on doesn't help the reader understand the subject properly. - This information belongs in the character description so where else would you place it? In a section titled "cast and characters spoilers"?
This isn't the sort of detail that should be revealed before the basic premise of the show is described. - The basic premise is outlined briefly in the lead, well before this information is provided: "The story takes place in the fictional Westworld, a technologically advanced Wild West–themed amusement park populated by android hosts. Westworld caters to high-paying guests, who may indulge in whatever they wish within the park, without fear of retaliation from the hosts." However, MOS:TV indicates that there should be a basic plot section before the cast and characters section. There is no reason why there can't be a basic plot section in this article.
Alex is quite correct in what he says, the cast and characters section is not supposed to support the premise. It's there to list information about, not surprisingly, the cast and characters. Based on my experience with TV articles, the section as it stands is as basic as it should be at this time but I do think it should be preceded by a basic plot section once episodes are split out to a separate article. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I know the premise is outlined first in the lead, but it's not at all mentioned prior in the plot/story section, which is what we're discussing here. Indeed, part of my hang up here is a character list comes before anything else in the body, which is part of the terrible writing in alluding to, because that mentions plot bombshells before the plot itself is defined. Re-ordering would help address some of my concerns at least. This situation still reeks of "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" though. It's like you're too preoccupied with defending SPOILER to a t, that you're losing focus on the overall goal, you know, writing an article that makes sense to any reader, whether they've seen the show or not. As is, you don't have that right now. Sergecross73 msg me 03:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Beyond the text in the second paragraph of the lead, here is the official logline for the series, which would be helpful in creating a "Premise" section that could go before the cast section: Westworld "is a dark odyssey about the dawn of artificial consciousness and the evolution of sin. Set at the intersection of the near future and the reimagined past, it explores a world in which every human appetite, no matter how noble or depraved, can be indulged." Source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Reordering is not really appropriate. The lengthy episode list should remain where it is. Normally there is no need for a premise section and an episode table, but I don't think it would hurt here. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes per Radiphus, AlexTheWhovian, adamstom97, AussieLegend, et. al. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes -- unqualified yes. NOT CENSORED is pretty absolute about these things. People read these sections for many reasons, and one is to get an overall view of ashow. Once the episodes have aired, the information is public. The overall description of the show or the series has to cover the entire content. It would be like covering an election, and saying, to see who won, read further. Or covering a year in a sports season, without saying in the summary who came out on top. An overview is an overview. People who want to avoid spoilers are expected to know how to do so. Someone coming to WP the first time for information about a show might be surprised at our policy, but after that, they'd know. And quite apart from WP policy, consider the actual expectations: Once I missed the first presentation of an episode of Game of Thrones--I made sure not to look at any news sources that might cover it until I had a chance to watch it. And if I watch Westworld again, I'll appreciate it all the more seeing how the progressive revelation of the nature of Bernard was done. It can help to know the ending. Trying to recreate one's first viewing to a time before the show was finished is expecting a sort of time reversal. If you watch something previously shown, you cannot expect to be have the same experience as an original first-time viewer. But even if someone watches differently than I do, the WP policy is meant to be encyclopedic , and both NOT CENSORED and NOT NEWS apply. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Once this RfC is concluded, and it looks like it's going to end up on the side of those who want all the info included in the character pages, then every character list on every TV show on the site needs to include every single death that happens to the main characters. Is that what we want? Bremen (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
This RFC is not binding to every television series article, only this one. Multiple editors have discussed why including the deaths of characters is irrelevant in comparison to including the details about the character, as it does not constitute actual character development. -- AlexTW 05:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
It could set a precedent. And how is a death not character development? It's the last character development the character will ever have. Bremen (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
A precedent is still not binding to every television series article. This RFC only relates to this article - if actions needs to be taken on other articles, then discussions are to be started on those talk pages. And I don't think that you understand what "character development" is. It's not everything that happens to the character; taking definitions from online dictionaries verbatim, it refers precisely to "the process of creating a believable character in fiction by giving the character depth and personality", and concerns "the portrayal of people in a work of fiction in such a way that the reader or audience seems to learn more about them as they develop". A death of a character satisfies neither of these, whereas a revelation of the character does. -- AlexTW 07:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Bremen, you said "every character list on every TV show on the site [would] needs to include every single death that happens to the main characters". No, the paradoxical answer is that unimportant trivia is generally doesn't need to be in an encyclopedia article. It's not particularly noteworthy when assorted evil-henchmen die in an action movie. However if something is an important point for understanding a dramatic work, if people are arguing to remove it as a 'spoiler', then the 'spoiler' argument itself demonstrates it is important enough to be there. The 'spoiler' argument establishes that a reader will be unable to fully understand the subject without that key information. Alsee (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Strong No This is a tricky one, but I think that our spoilers guideline is meant to not fuck over the casual reader, but to let them know that if they read the plot sctions of a given entertainment article, they do so at their own risk. I don't think that same caution is necessarily applied to the Cast section. I may want to know who portrayed that gorgeous, huge-eyed Ukranian woman, but I don't expect spoiler info in the cast section about how she is secretly an alien from Viltvodle VI. It shouldn't be there, esp. when the plot sections cover major plot points more than adequately. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian:Is it me or is this a response to the rfc in general which should be moved up another section? I put the question on his talk page. I can see how this proposal can be confused with the rfc question. PizzaMan (♨♨) 20:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
No response yet. I boldly moved this response to the rfc, to wich it's clearly a response. PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • No Not censured and spoiler guidelines are not ropes to hang ourselves with. They say that we should not simply remove something, but we are able to make editorial decisions in general whether to include something. And no one seems to be arguing to remove the info entirely, just its location, so basing arguments around this is even weaker. If the information can be presented better elsewhere then present it there. Also what benefit is it to us to piss off our readership who may just be curious as to who is in the show by providing spoilers in spots that they would not normally expect them. Per WP:ASTONISH, leave the spoilers in the plot section where they should be expected. Also as a general aside, why do we seem to have a proliferation of "strong" supports/opposes or yes's and no's at rfcs. Do editors really think adding strong should make their comment more influential? AIRcorn (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Well argued. And if strong opinions count double, I'd like to opgrade my No to a Very strong triple no with cherries on top ;-) PizzaMan (♨♨) 10:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • No per Aircorn above. There are ways to describe something, and/or places to put the information within an article, so as not to reveal things inappropriately. Softlavender (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No - there's a large difference between deleting spoilers from an article merely because they're spoilers and removing major plot twists from the first post-lead section, where readers go for brief overviews of the characters. Further, the WP:SPOILER guideline notes that it should be treated with common sense. Let's not forget that we are writing for an audience, and the information remains on the article. Cjhard (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Just letting you know that this issue of it being a post-lead section has already been covered by other editors; I recommend you read that discussion. Cheers. -- AlexTW 09:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • No, don't include. In general, the cast section should compose information about the characters in the state they are "introduced" in, not the state they "finish" in. For a very common example, suppose two characters get married near the end of a work. In general, they will not be presented as a husband and wife in a cast section, and the woman will have the name they use throughout the book/movie/etc. rather than the husband's last name (that never is used). Bernard is a bit of a borderline case, but I'd argue that a good dividing line is the first third, or maybe first half, of a series. Bernard's revelation, while not at the VERY end, is still definitely in the second half of the series, so best to leave it out. SnowFire (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
The distinction in Bernard's case is that he has been a host since the beginning, and this is the main determinant of his actions. This is not a Schrödinger's cat thing, where he becomes a host the moment we find out about it. -- (Radiphus) 21:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
This is unrelated to the point I was making, which was the narrative thrust. (And that's what Wikipedia should be interested in anyway, not the "in-universe" explanation.) Luke was Darth Vader's kid the whole time, but The Empire Strikes Back#Cast merely refers to him as a Jedi in training. So it's not things that happen in the second half, it's also things that are revealed in the second half. (With exceptions, of course.) SnowFire (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia should and is interested in the characters' development over the course of the series per WP:TVCAST. First half, second half... where did you see that written? -- (Radiphus) 22:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not saying it shouldn't be in the article somewhere. I'm saying that the cast section isn't the place for it. Also, are we reading the same guideline...? WP:TVCAST supports the opposers point, not yours, if anything... "Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" information that belongs in the plot summary." Hosts who are hosts-by-a-plot-twist is plot summary type information. SnowFire (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
In-universe information, is information referring to a perspective or view from the context of a fictional world, in contrast to a perspective from the real world. It doesn't have anything to do with the plot. I can not understand what you are basing your arguement on. WP:SPOILER says that spoilers are to be expected in character descriptions, and by definition spoilers reveal plot points and twists. Could you please cite a guideline to support your arguement? -- (Radiphus) 00:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
This discussion has reached circular levels of repeating ourselves. As I said before, I believe WP:TVCAST supports my position for the reasons stated above. SnowFire (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • No: As written this section is a low-effort troll that I'm feeding. "Bruce Willis as Oh Dae-su, the ghost's father all along": This is just a spoiler, with not enough context to make sense without actually reading the plot section (so it's redundant) or knowing the universe just enough to be spoiled. Please remove those lengthy character description from the cast section, "actor name as character name: initial relations with main characters. Other actor was considered" is plenty more than what's expected in this section. 37.175.70.254 (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
This editor has clearly not read the arguments presented above in opposition to this style of argument, which seems to be the main theme for all No !votes. -- AlexTW 00:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
This account owner clearly holds the belief that owning an account makes an answer worthy of addressing with "you", or that holding the same opinions as them makes someone "editor-like". 37.175.70.254 21:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
The question is not if they should be deleted, but if they should be moved to the plot section, where they are to be expected. PizzaMan (♨♨) 20:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
The specific spoiler already exists in the plot section (ep.7 summary). The question states: "should spoilers be contained in the cast and characters section". It's pretty clear what this is about. And yes, spoilers should be expected in character descriptions per WP:SPOILER which states Sections [...] such as plot summaries, episode lists, character descriptions, etc.—were already clearly named to indicate that they contain plot details. However, this is not just about following the guidelines, it's about being encyclopedic and respecting Wikipedia for what it is. -- (Radiphus) 00:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • YES. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to clearly explain the subject. We ran multiple RFC's and established the WP:SPOILER guideline to stop people from damaging articles trying to scrub 'spoilers'. Westworld is complicated enough, without well-meaning editors actively sabotaging the reader's ability to figure out what's going on. A character list is exactly the helpful scorecard needed to help the reader track when "two apparent characters" turn out to be one person, or when "one apparent character" turns out to be two different people, or when an "apparently human" character turns out to be an android. Those are all crucial for understanding Westworld, and they are exactly the points where the reader needs the most assistance & clarity to detangle what is going on. This is EXACTLY why spoilers-guideline exists. We do not undermine the reader's ability to understand the subject because somebody wants to "protect" the reader from the information they are seeking. Alsee (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
    Alsee, editors are concerned about unnecessary spoiling, like you were in this RfC. In that RfC, in the Proposals section, you proposed the following wording for the WP:SPOILER guideline: "The primary purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform a reader who is seeking information. Concealing important plot elements is incompatible with Wikipedia's encyclopedic purpose. A plot point commonly considered to be a 'spoiler' is likely an important element of the work, and as such it likely warrants inclusion in the article. However it also indicates that it is not commonly expected to appear in brief summaries of the work (such as the article lede), nor in locations where there is little purpose for inclusion."
    In this case, editors are arguing that these spoilers, which are huge spoilers and have ruined the story for people before, are not needed in the Cast section (or Cast and characters section). And per my commentary above, I see their point. You stated, "We do not undermine the reader's ability to understand the subject because somebody wants to 'protect' the reader from the information they are seeking." But I very much doubt that any of our readers would want to be spoiled on these Westworld matters. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
    Flyer22 Reborn, you never cease to impress, grin. I had forgotten about my proposed text from that RFC. Much like NOTCENSORED images, the guidelines and policies protecting the inclusion of controversial elements do not defend Pointy inclusion where they they don't serve a purpose. If someone adds a 'spoiler' to a basic cast list, that edit doesn't get privileged protection just because it's a spoiler. In this case we have a 'Cast and characters' section identifying who is host or guest, with a micro-summary explaining the role and significance of various characters. For Westworld, you really do need scorecard to track and understand the significance of the story. Inserting 'spoilers' here isn't some frivolous or pointy move. As for 'readers who don't want to be spoiled', I'd again liken it to NOTCENSORED images: If you don't want to see breasts then it's pretty dumb to look up 'breasts' in an encyclopedia. If you don't want detailed information on a TV show then it's pretty dumb to look up the show in an encyclopedia. This isn't a forum or fan site. Our purpose here is to provide clear, thorough, summaries and explanations. If you'll pardon a StarTrek reference: The ideal editor is a Vulcan compiling an 'Encyclopedia of Earth', and the presumed reader is a generic alien seeking to understand the particular subject. Alsee (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
    Alsee, that sounds quite theoretical to me. In practice a large part of the people who come here want some help figuring out who's who or who's the actor without being spoiled. But even if such an alien is the target audience: how would they learn more about our world? By reading this WP entry or by experiencing the excitement of a good plot unfolding? PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 18:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
    PizzaMan, my comment about a 'Vulcan editor' and 'alien reader' was certainly a philosophical idealization. I find it to be an excellent guide when dealing with NPOV, NOTCENSORED, or countless other policy and editing disputes. Regarding whether an alien would learn more by reading this WP entry or by experiencing the excitement of a good plot unfolding, that's trivial. If they want to 'watch the plot unfold' then it is necessary to view the work itself. If they have already viewed the work, or if they have no interest in viewing the work, then an encyclopedia article exists to provide the best tertiary source comprehensive overview that we can.
    Another often overlooked guide point is the 10 year test. (And the Recentism page as a whole.) The battle here is very clearly recentism, and badly fails the 10 year test. If you look at the issue from a point of view ten years from now, when the series is long over and someone wants to research it, the entire 'spoilers' argument fails into absurdity:
    Partially or completely concealing the most important aspects of the work undermines the very purpose of a reference work. Reference works like encyclopedias do not have 'spoiler' warning banners. They do not exclude coverage of the important aspects of the topic they are covering. And now the 'fallback' battle is whether we will sabotage portions of the reference work in a vain attempt to hide spoilers somewhere else. The answer is no. The purpose of the initial lead sentences is to identify the work and give a minimal overview, not to get into plot details. The various article-sections should each do the best job they can explaining their aspect of the overall topic. They fact that important information is buried on the sub-article for a character is not a valid argument for removing crucial information from this page. The fact that information is buried in some other section is not a valid argument for damaging a useful and important 'cast&characters' list. That section provides a critical map when trying to understand Westworld. Alsee (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for closure

A request for closure has been made; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Westworld (TV series)#RfC on Potential Spoilers. Permalink here. But like I stated there, I think that a new, neutral request should be made. SnowFire and PizzaMan, you two have been vocal in this RfC and your views contrast Radiphus's views. Any opinion on if Radiphus's request is neutral and if the request should be re-listed? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I have re-posted the request in the AN, as you asked. However, i do want to reply to the allegations you made. On August 25, the user who had 6 days earlier initiated the RfC, closed it prematurely as no consensus. Following this decision, i had this closure reviewed and reverted by other editors/administrators. Here is me telling Nihlus they shouldn't have closed the RfC so early in no consensus, and here is me requesting a closure review. As you can see, i was and still am against having this discussion closed as no consensus, believing that if the issue remains open without a clear answer, it is very likely that the content dispute will perpetuate. So, saying that i tried to bias the close by saying there is no clear outcome in the discussion is just wrong. Now, about me making the request prematurely. On September 1, when i made the request, there was an ongoing edit war on this article (take a look at intermediate revisions as well), until the page was finally protected on September 4. I believe the best way to put an end to this, would be to close the RfC with a clear formal answer as soon as possible. However, everybody knows that the adminstrators are the ones to decide when the right time is to close this RfC, which they haven't done up till now. It's not like i put a gun to anybody's head. I would really appreciate an apology. -- (Radiphus) 02:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I stated that your request for closure was not neutral and that you biased the request. Even if you did not try to bias it, you biased it. As for the premature close and drama on that front, I was aware of that as well. Anyway, it's good that you made a new request. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't expect any new arguments to be brought forward. I don't think the timing of the request to close was in bad faith. There is a clear majority for no spoilers with in my (involved) opinion good arguments. So, the phrasing of Radiphus that there was no consensus was indeed biased. That is fixed now, so as far as I'm concerned, there's no problem. PizzaMan (♨♨) 07:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I didn't fix anything. I am just sick of arguing about this kind of stuff. I told and proved to you that i am against closing the RfC in no consensus and you insist on saying that my request was biased... It was not biased, it just explained why an administrator should be involved, per WP:ANRFC which states that formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where consensus remains unclear. -- (Radiphus) 08:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
There is very clearly no consensus formed between the editors during the discussion. I don't see a new request would change this. As such, no changes should be made to the article and it should stand as it is with indefinite semi-protection to prevent edits against this -- AlexTW 07:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@AlexTheWhovian: i disagree. I believe consensus could be determined according to WP:TALKDONTREVERT which states: In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. -- (Radiphus) 08:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Have we not done that? Those parading for the removal of the "spoilers" will continue to do so. Look to the header of this talk page - there have been multiple discussions and none have resulted in any consensus to remove them. -- AlexTW 10:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Radiphus that i'd prefer to get concensus. This discussion is so fundamental that we might need to alter the policies a bit. It feels to me like they weren't fully adjusted to when we removed spoiler warnings. And in the rfc i've seen opposing interpretations, so if nothing else they apparently need clarification. Perhaps there's another place where we can discuss this on a policy level, rather than on an rfc level? I don't think we'll reach 100% consensus anywhere. The question is how an uninvolved admin will weigh the discussion from the rfc and if that's enough to clarify or, if necessary, alter the policies. In the end there is a clear majority for no spoilers. How about we remove the spoilers in this specific article for now, but seek a more central place to discuss this on a policy level? Edit: by the way, Radiphus, you were right in the sense that there was no clear consensus where everyone agreed, but imho it's an oversimplification to say that there is clearly no consensus at all. Either way, there's nothing wrong with the closure request as it's phrased now, let's see what an uninvolved admin thinks of it. PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@PizzaMan: I never said there is no consensus in my request for closure. I said it is obvious that there will be no clear outcome. Take a look at the first link i've posted in my response to Flyer22 Reborn. I hope i don't seem too stubborn, when i tell you that the guidelines are perfectly clear:
  • concerns about spoiling the plot interfere with the article's completeness and encyclopedic tone
  • spoilers are expected in character descriptions
  • the cast section should include information about how the character was created and developed over the course of the series
Disagreeing with those guidelines doesn't make them unclear or incomplete. You could always have the guidelines changed, but until that happens we have to respect the wiki-wide consensus on which they were created. -- (Radiphus) 01:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I have a different interpretation, but that's all been discussed in the rfc already. PizzaMan (♨♨) 05:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
We knew very clearly what we were doing years ago when we rejected spoiler warnings or omissions of the ending, though I agree we should emphasise this much more (and mark all the articles that need the plot to be completed). There is no imaginable need for a warning in an encyclopedia. Spoiler warning are appropriate when the accou t is in a medium where one normally expects not be told the ending, such as a newspaper review--when the review cannot be given understandably without revealing something about the ending, a newspaper usually says so-- but even here, the reviews are normally written before the actual release or publication, when the reviewer will have seen the work,but not the reader. Here, we write long after the release , for the permanent record, and the millions who have watched this show will certainly know the ending. There can be no other policy compatible with our most basic principle: WP is an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Westworld_(TV_series)/Archive_4&oldid=1090585706"