Jump to content

Talk:Westworld (TV series)/Archive 6

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

Are we going to start the rfc all over again? For every spoiler in the cast and characters list?

Referring to this undo: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Westworld_(TV_series)&diff=803506694&oldid=803484259

The conclusion of the rfc was a broad consensus for no spoilers in the character list of this article. Besides Mconatus makes a good point that Bernard and Arnold are in fact the same character, just with different names and different physical compositions. And mentioning that the same actor plays both Arnold and Bernard still gives the plot twist away, which is exactly what was opposed in the rfc. Which, of course, also holds for William being the man in black. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 21:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I would hate for this to go to WP:ANI. So, yes, the RfC close should be adhered to. The edit in question shows what the RfC was mainly about. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Although i very much disagree with the RfC closure and the rationale behind it, the closing statement is clear and no spoilers should be included in this article's cast and characters section. This however, is another reason why i find the result so disappointing. -- (Radiphus) 21:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
With regards to the same actor playing both Bernard and Arnold, perhaps we can come up with a clever way of putting it that doesn't give away the plot point the way it used to. Not sure if it's possible, but let's at least try. I'm pondering on it. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 21:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
This (Wright also plays Arnold Weber, the co-founder and developer of Westworld alongside Ford) isn't a spoiler. The spoiler in question, which started the RfC, was including the words "host" or "android" in Bernard's description. The proceeding statement does not spoiler the fact that Bernard is a host, nor does it even reveal the relationship between the two characters, just the real world fact that an actor plays an additional character in the series. That happens many times on other television series, so it isn't like it's uncommon. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree that mentioning Arnold isn't a spoiler per se, but shouldn't there be an explanation why the actor plays two characters (which would probably require the inclusion of spoilers)? -- (Radiphus) 22:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
It's a strong pointer to the plot twist. Besides, Arnold gets very little screen time in the first season, so so far he isn't a major character as opposed to Bernard. How about mentioning Wright as Arnold in the list of recurring characters? This would draw a lot less attention to the link between the two, thus de-spoilering it for all but the most alert readers yet retaining the information that he plays Arnold. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 22:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't know... this RfC has complicated things. By the way, you might want to watch this video here to realize how much of Arnold we actually saw in the first season. Not that it matters, but something else i wanted to point out, is that the RfC closed in rough consensus according to the closing statement, not a broad one, as you 've mentioned in your first post in this section. -- (Radiphus) 22:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Going ahead and pinging Mz7, who closed the RfC, for his take on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
As I stated, the RFC was primarily for the spoiler of Bernard. It was not a license to remove everything that you personally believe is a spoiler; what constitutes a spoiler in the article is still up to community consensus and discussion. -- AlexTW 00:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
AlexTheWhovian, I reverted you per the RfC close. Stating "Ed Harris as old William a.k.a." and "Jimmi Simpson as young William" were one of the main issues at dispute. And Mz7's close was clear. If this keeps up -- retaining the spoilers that were quite clearly disputed, even after the RfC close -- I will be escalating this to WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
And I want to stress that the RfC question was "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?" The Man in Black being William and vice versa is a major spoiler/reveal. Same goes for Bernard being an android. If the Bernard material can be included without revealing or indicating that he is an android, then that is fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
And if anyone seriously doubts that the Man in Black being William is a spoiler, they can simply Google "Man in Black William spoiler" and see all of the reliable sources that call it a spoiler and/or reveal. Same goes for Googling "Bernard is an android spoiler." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
information Closer note Thanks for the ping, Flyer22 Reborn. I would encourage editors here to consider whether the information that are allegedly "spoilers" are really necessary to give readers a basic understanding of each actor and their overall role in the series. Remember, WP:TVCAST only requires a brief description of any noteworthy roles. Instead of debating the troublesome question "what is and isn't a spoiler", I would debate the more guideline-based question of whether these are necessary or unnecessary details to include for a "brief description" and whether these roles are "noteworthy". One framework proposed during the RfC was to describe each character in the way that they are initially presented in the series, i.e. on their first appearances and throughout many of the episodes in the series. Regarding the character of Arnold, my initial take based on the RfC is that it is okay to state that Wright plays both Bernard and Arnold in the same line, as long as there's no explicit mention of the connection between the characters. I don't really see it as "a strong pointer to the plot twist", just a coincidence that this actor plays two characters. The explanation for why Wright plays both characters (which, per the RfC, is the unnecessary detail) can be found in the plot descriptions later in the article. Mz7 (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
@Mz7: Since you seem willing to make some clarifications, i would like to ask two questions (more will probably follow). 1) is there a specific guideline that you believe supports the arguements of the users who were against the inclusion of spoilers or was this a case of WP:IAR? 2) have you watched the show and what is your personal opinion regarding the necessity of mentioning that Bernard is a replica of Arnold and The Man in Black is William at an old age to give readers a basic understanding of each actor and their overall role in the series? Thank you for taking the time to discuss here. -- (Radiphus) 02:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
@Radiphus: Sure thing. Regarding the first question, I do not see this as an IAR case. As I noted in another clarifying comment on my talk page, edtiors who opposed spoilers observed that WP:SPOILER includes cautionary language: When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served. and this does not mean such information must be included ... it should contain information appropriate to an encyclopedia article on the subject. My interpretation of those who opposed spoilers was that they believed them to add unnecessary detail to the character descriptions, beyond the point that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. They observed that spoilers are still being included in the article (in the plot descriptions later on) – in other words, by removing them from the character descriptions we are not necessarily sacrificing the "completeness" expected of an encyclopedia article, but instead increasing the quality and readability of our character descriptions.
Regarding the second question, I have not watched the show. However, from the perspective of someone who hasn't watched the show, I don't think I need to read that Bernard is a replica of Arnold to get a basic understanding of either character's role in the series; it seems, based, on the discussion, that most editors agree that Bernard's main role in the series is as head of the Westworld Programming Division and programmer of artificial people's software, and that the plot twist occurs fairly close to the end of the series (or at least the series so far). I also don't need to read that The Man in Black is an old William to get a basic understanding of the character's role as a villainous figure in the series. I understand, however, that some feel that we should include these details because they are important to each character, but I felt that that view wasn't the consensus. Mz7 (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
@Mz7: I can't speak for others, but i am pretty sure the main concern of those opposing the inclusion of spoilers was not that they considered them unnecesary; they were just concerned about spoiling the plot for "casual readers" who wouldn't expect to find any spoilers in this section. Think of it this way: if we had learned about Bernard being an android manipulated by Dr. Ford and Arnold's role in developing the androids in the first episode, would this information have been left out? If you were to ask anyone who 's watched the show (even those who voted "no"), i don't believe anyone would agree that describing Bernard as head of the Westworld Programming Division and programmer of artificial people's software would be enough to give readers a basic understanding of the character. The same goes for the Man in Black. I don't have the time to create a first season recap for you right now, but since you stated that this is a single-case thing, i believe you should have some understanding on the subject before making your desicion. It's passed bedtime for me, i might return with further comments regarding the necessity of this information tomorrow. Thanks again for answering my questions. -- (Radiphus) 03:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Don't speak for others in this case, lest you want me to ping them. You were on the opposite side of the debate. That the information is about spoilers was obviously a concern; that's what the RfC was about. But I objected because I felt that the information consisted of unnecessary spoilers. I saw others objecting on that basis as well. And WP:SPOILER is indeed against unnecessary spoiling. You seem to feel that the spoilers are necessary; we already know that. Editors disagreed. Mz7 had the difficult task of weighing both arguments and the strength of the arguments per WP:Consensus. Now it is time to abide by the close and put this matter to rest, not allow rebellion against the close because of those who disagree with it. We are not going to WP:Forum shop, or similar (for example, another RfC), until the supporters get the outcome they want. We are not going to allow WP:Gaming the system to take place via editors acting like the "Bernard is an android" and the "Man in Black is William" reveals are not spoilers. The series went out of its way to fool viewers into thinking that the Man in Black and William are two different people; time frames are based on it. Of course, it's a spoiler, a huge one, just like numerous reliable sources confirm. Time to abide by the close and move on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
This is not about the RfC anymore. It's about keeping faith to the concept and making sure that i am not part of something i might consider incosistent. Please don't tell me how and when i should express my thoughts on this matter that i feel has left Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone vulnerable. Thank you. @Mz7: Reading your recent messages i am wondering, shouldn't the closing statement read there is a consensus to include only spoilers that are necessary to give readers a basic understanding of each actor and their overall role in the series. I believe this conclusion is something everyone would agree with and it would allow users who have some undestanding on the subject to examine spoilers case-by-case. In case anyone thinks this conclusion is biased, i would have no problem with this closing statement either there is a consensus to not include any spoilers that are not considered necessary to give readers a basic understanding of each actor and their overall role in the series. On the other hand, just saying not to include spoilers without allowing a case-by-case examination violates WP:SPOILER, possibly setting a precedent. -- (Radiphus) 17:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
It clearly is still about the RfC. This section was made because of a failure to adhere to its close. And from what I see, you are trying to change Mz7's mind rather than accept the close and simply move on and/or you are trying to get him to change his closing comment so that you and/or others can game the system by debating what spoilers should and should not be included. If Mz7 were to change his wording to "there is a consensus to include only spoilers that are necessary to give readers a basic understanding of each actor and their overall role in the series," it would give you ammunition to challenge the removal of the aforementioned spoilers because you view those spoilers as necessary to give readers a basic understanding of each actor and their overall role in the series. Others clearly do not. So, no, I don't think that Mz7 should change his wording to your proposed wording.
You stated, "Please don't tell [you] how and when [you] should express [your] thoughts on this matter." Yet you began by stating "I can't speak for others," and then proceeded to speak for those others. You don't speak for me. And you don't speak for them either. So I'm pinging them now in case they want to challenge your characterization of their votes or anything else being stated in this section: Bremen, FP2C, PizzaMan. Jclemens, Gadfium, Sergecross73, Jack Sebastian, Aircorn, Softlavender, Cjhard, and SnowFire. You stated that you "feel [this] has left Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone vulnerable" and bemoaned "possibly setting a precedent." But Mz7, who you do not need to keep pinging, stated the following on his talk page: "The core of the result is that editors roughly agree that spoilers (i.e. information about characters/plot not immediately known to viewers) aren't necessary for this particular subject to provide the reader with a basic understanding of each character. For other subjects, spoilers might indeed be necessary for such a basic understanding, and that should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Essentially, the decision whether to include spoilers should be based on encyclopedic presentation (e.g. neutral point of view, tone, real-world perspective, concision), which is, in my view, the spirit of WP:SPOILER. I gave little weight to arguments that we should remove spoilers solely because they spoil, which is also, I believe, the spirit of WP:SPOILER. Perhaps, later down the road, the guidelines could be clarified to solidify this kind of thinking, but at the same time, I don't see this RfC as going against what they already say now." That is more than enough clarification on Mz7's part. Continuing to drag this issue out instead of simply accepting the close is not productive in the least. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn it was a really crass move to spam pings to everyone who agreed with you in the RFC. And you did so with zero justification. It's tempting to ping the opposite side, to counter the pointless noise you created below. In fact if you insist on disputing that their votes accord with not include any spoilers that are not considered necessary to give readers a basic understanding... you are setting yourself up to reverse the outcome of the RFC. The close is premised on the theory that those people were asserting that this particular information served no encyclopedic purpose here. If you (or they) argue to exclude things even if they do have encyclopedic purpose then the !votes lose weight. To me it looks clear that this debate is no different from people trying to find rationales for removing "naughty pictures". It seems that Mz7 is giving your side the benefit of the doubt that you made a genuine case that the "naughty pictures" served no encyclopedic purpose here. Alsee (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Nope, per above and below, I don't think it was. Radiphus was misrepresenting my and others' votes (although he thought better of it in one case), and we all had a right to defend our votes. Radiphus was not speaking of the supporters; so there was no need to ping them. The pointless noise has been caused by Radiphus, who repeatedly refused to accept WP:Consensus. As for your statement that I "insist on disputing that their votes accord with not include any spoilers that are not considered necessary to give readers a basic understanding... [I am] setting [myself] up to reverse the outcome of the RFC.", your characterization is off. Do cease the drama. Below, it appears that Radiphus has finally understood, and I am tired of Radiphus and/or any other opposer trying to drag out this dispute. It closed. Accept how it closed. And do not ping me when it is clear that I am watching the page. And there are no naughty pictures here, although the significantly experienced editors who argue for the removal of naughty images know that we should keep WP:Offensive material in mind along with WP:Not censored, much like some experienced editors here have given complex and/or nuanced reasons for removing the aforementioned spoilers. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC) 20:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
it appears that Radiphus has finally understood. Please don't speak for me, or i'll be forced to ping myself. -- (Radiphus) 19:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Updating response following Flyer22 Reborn's bad-faith-WP:REDACT (diff): That "one case" is the point where i decided to stop bothering talking to you, exactly because you are acting in bad faith. Now please stop mentioning my name. This is only creating animosity and as i said i have better things to do. -- (Radiphus) 21:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Stating that you appear to have finally understood after you stated "It wouldn't make any sense for me to insist further upon this issue. Thank you." is not really speaking for you. Certainly not in the way you proceeded to speak for others. Seems is the keyword of my comment. If you still don't understand, oh well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok, you forced me. I am officially pinging @Radiphus:. -- (Radiphus) 20:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Hey @Radiphus:. Thanks for the ping, but i have better things to do. -- (Radiphus) 20:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
This is in regard to Radiphus's "update" above: Pointing out that you thought better of misrepresenting me is not acting in bad. Like I stated before, you are acting in bad faith by not accepting the consensus and WP:Bludgeoning this matter, including on Mz7's talk page. Your WP:Bludgeoning has been mentioned below by an editor, and Mz7 also advised you to stop (below), and yet you persist. And let's not forget your initial biased wording when listing this RfC for closure. I am allowed to mention you when I am being addressed on a matter that concerns you -- in this case, you misrepresenting me and others. If you do not like the animosity that has been created, look in the mirror. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I am ending this here. If you have something to say to me personally, please do so in my talk page. Thank you. -- (Radiphus) 21:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
More unnecessary drama on your part. I moved my comment back where I had it and made your threading cohesive. You pushed my comment from where it was to make an update. For me to reply directly under that update, it would have made that reply come ahead of my "Stating that you appear to have finally understood" comment, which screws up the flow of the thread. Read WP:TALKO; I did not edit or move your comment to change its meaning. It was better placed where I moved it. And WP:TALK does state, "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed." I was cautious even simply moving your comment because I suspected that you would make a silly objection. As for talking to you further, no thanks. I see no need to do so. You have frustrated me beyond reason. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Excuse me, but i believe this move was made in bad faith, as it would seem that i was replying to another message and not the one i was intending to. If you really are as frustrated as i am, it would be better for both of us if you stopped repeatedly mentioning my name. The only reason i can see that you keep doing that is that you are trying to provoke me. -- (Radiphus) 21:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
There you go again with your asinine "bad faith" accusations and debating just to debate. While you are going on and on about bad faith, you need a lesson in WP:Good faith. We already know you need a lesson in WP:Dropping the stick. If you really had something better to do, you would not be bludgeoning matters. You couldn't even walk away after stating "I am ending this here." Look at the placement of your comment after I moved it. It has the same WP:Indentation level as your "Hey" comment, and it's clearly marked as an update. It does not make it seem like you are replying to any message other than an add-in I made. The only other message you could have been replying to is your own message, but the update part makes it clear that you were responding to an edit I made. As for repeatedly mentioning your name, I have only done that when necessary. You cannot point to one instance where I have mentioned you for the hell of it. You are doing the provoking time and again, with your silly "bad faith" comments (some of which you slowly redact as if I am to ignore them simply because you removed them) and unnecessary butt-ins. If you would learn what "stop" means, you wouldn't be having these issues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Please be careful with those "you need a lesson in", which i consider a degrading phrase and a personal attack. I said "i am ending this here", i wrote absolutely nothing about you, and you tried to take advantage of that by making unsubstantiated accusations just because you want to say the last word. Go ahead, write something insulting below and go on with your life. -- (Radiphus) 22:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
You wrote absolutely nothing about me? Unsubstantiated? Should I provide diffs for your "bad faith" comments that are very much about me? I think not since they are here out in the open just a little above and below. Be my guest and report me for a WP:Personal attack and see how far you get it. WP:The last word is clearly more your field of play than mine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Okay, let's see what each of those users you just pinged have said and what made me assume that "users who opposed the inclusion of spoilers where concerned about spoiling the plot for casual readers who wouldn't expect to find any spoilers in the section":

  • Bremen: it is the location of the information that is causing our problem [...] they will likely go to the cast section and will not expect such details/spoilers
  • FP2C: [not including that information] gives an opportunity to people who are trying to find out more information about the cast of a show before watching it to NOT have an important plot point immediately ruined
  • PizzaMan: This information belongs in the plot summary, where people expect spoilers
  • Jclemens: you'll note that WP:SPOILER differentiates plot, and distinguishes it as a place where spoilers are to be expected
  • Gadfium: 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
  • Sergecross73: 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
  • Jack Sebastian: 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
  • Aircorn: 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
  • Softlavender: There are ways to describe something, and/or places to put the information within an article, so as not to reveal things inappropriately
  • Cjhard: 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
  • SnowFire: hosts who are hosts-by-a-plot-twist is plot summary type information

How terribly wrong am i? -- (Radiphus) 19:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I had no idea this was still an ongoing dispute. Its rather sad so much time has been wasted on this, while the article remains in such terrible shape. Rather than get bogged down in all the "spoiler/no spoiler" stuff, I really think that improving the article would clear up this issue in the process. My main opposition to adding the spoiler information was the truly terribly writing and organization of the article at the time of me reading it. Regardless of whether its allowable to include spoilers, its awful writing both stylistically and conceptually to reveal a massive bombshell before the very basics of a premise is set up. That's why I came down on the exclusion side. If someone wrote some decent combination of premise/plot/story/synopsis type sections, and then dropped that bombshell, hypothetically, 2 sections in, 2 paragraphs in, 4th sentence in, then I wouldn't so opposed, because the proper context would be there. In the current setup, it just doesn't make sense to present the reader at that point in the article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any new arguments added to what was already discussed in the rfc. The discussion was closed by Mz7 with carefully chosen words. We still disagree on a fundamental level, but that's no reason to revert edits that are a direct consequence of the rfc, nor is there any reason to start the discussion all over again. We've all had our chance to put forward our position on this. It's really time to move on imho. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 19:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Radiphus, like I stated, "That the information is about spoilers was obviously a concern; that's what the RfC was about. But I objected because I felt that the information consisted of unnecessary spoilers. I saw others objecting on that basis as well. And WP:SPOILER is indeed against unnecessary spoiling. You seem to feel that the spoilers are necessary; we already know that. Editors disagreed." Of course spoiling readers was a part of the equation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, it was? Good. -- (Radiphus) 19:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, you missed where the RfC question was "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?"? I don't think you did. As for your interpretation of WP:SPOILER, we already know it. Again, others don't agree with that interpretation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
An RfC was started and it concluded with an experienced administrator weighing the arguments from both sides and closing the RfC; that's the way Wikipedia works. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. The RFC ran for a month, had a ton of participants from a wide variety of areas, and was closed by an experienced admin. Still pushing against this is getting into WP:STICK/WP:IDHT territory... Sergecross73 msg me 19:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Just perfectionism and an effort to deal with ambiguity in what i recognise as WP:POLCON-type case, where an admins strictly says that no spoilers should be included in a section, based on his/her interpretation of a guideline, which in fact states that when including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served, thus encouraging a case-by-case consensus. POLCON pretty much says that either WP:SPOILER or the RfC closure should be revised, since the closer has made clear that this is not a WP:IAR case. -- (Radiphus) 20:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
One more time: Various experienced editors (compared to your account only existing since 2015, and only being significantly active since 2016) do not interpret that guideline the way you interpret it. They also know that our guidelines are not policies and are not to be used strictly, and that there are other things to consider. Mz7 was clear that he focused on the "encyclopedic purpose is being served" and "this does not mean such information must be included" aspects of WP:SPOILER. Per the RfC discussion, it is clear that editors disagree on the "encyclopedic purpose is being served" part and they know that spoilers do not need to be included simply because they are spoilers. There is nothing to support Mz7 revising his close; there is only you being unable to accept WP:Consensus, which is policy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Its really not that serious. Its a singular sentence in one article. It doesn't need to have project-wide implications. Especially since, as I've explained already, if the article was properly organized and written to fictional media guidelines, I imagine the spoiler content could be re-added without much/any contention. The thing that needs fixing is the article, not the guidelines or the RFC results. You just need to pursue a resolution path that doesn't involve so much opposition baked in. (Or, drop it, if you're not interested in actually writing it yourself.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Sergecross73, the archive bot removed it recently, but i would have appreciated your input here. I would still like to hear from the closer that he/she doesn't believe there is a closure-guideline conflict and then i'll obviously have nothing more to say. -- (Radiphus) 20:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Since I've apparently been pinged, and Radiphus is apparently interpreting me as being a "but I want no spoilers" whiner... well, I said my piece above, which is not quite that. Read it again. Since it apparently isn't taking, let me make an analogy. Here's my proposed first sentence for Les Miserables:

Les Miserables is a novel by Victor Hugo in which Jean Valjean, Inspector Javert, Fantine, Eponine, Enroljas, and Gavroche all die, and Cosette and Marius get married at the end.

If I get reverted for this being a terrible way to introduce the topic, I can't just re-revert and say "hahaha WP:SPOILER says you're just being a whiner suck it." This information can be, and is, in the article. So all the citing of WP:SPOILER is non-responsive to the point; nobody is arguing to remove the information entirely, this is a matter of good presentation and placement of the information, and sticking this information in the "Cast" section sucks and is bad writing. Just as my hypothetical Les Miserables intro is crappy writing. As I said before, WP:TVCAST says "Try to avoid using the (cast) section as a repository for further "in-universe" information that belongs in the plot summary."  Well there you go. SnowFire (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Responding because of a ping. This is the first time I have read the discussion since my comment as an uninvolved editor at the rfc. It was an excellent, well reasoned and explained close, and I am not just saying that because it went the way I !voted. There shouldn't really be any confusion. FWIW I have no problems with editors spoiling away to their hearts content in the plot section. AIRcorn (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Responding to the ping. I have nothing else to add to what I said before, but if anyone would like to help me source and improve some Babylon 5 articles that aren't getting nearly so many eyes, I could use some help... Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added a WP:Hidden note about adding major reveals to the section. Well, I added on to the existing hidden note. I can only think of the Bernard and William matters, which were the heart of the dispute, as being the major reveals. I didn't specify that wording, though, because there may be something else that is considered a major reveal, and because I wasn't sure if specifying the reveals with a hidden note would also be considered as falling under the RfC ruling since editors or readers might edit the section and see the information. Then again, I could have stated "the Bernard and William reveals." I didn't state "Spoilers are not to be included" because, per WP:Hidden note, the wording for hidden notes should generally not be stern, and there may be some material in the future that leads to debate as to whether or not it is spoilery and doesn't add needed context for the Cast and characters section. The closer was clear that he considered more than just if the content was spoilery. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Further add here, per WP:Hidden note. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The RfC was about majors spoilers in general, and that's what users in favor of maintaining them were responding to. It wasn't about any specific character decriptions and the arguements of those supporting the inclusion of spoilers did not focus on how much necessary they are in order to describe each character on a case-by-case basis. Pinging Mz7 again, hoping he/she will be able to clarify this situation. I am not intending to restart a debate with users that i believe are acting in bad faith. -- (Radiphus) 19:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Did you even read what I just recently stated? Or are you attempting to echo my comment about major reveals? My hidden note does not state "Spoilers are not to be included." It focuses on "major reveals" because the RfC question was "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?", and Mz7 stated, "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." The Bernard aspect started off the discussion, but some editors, including me, were focused on more than that (such as the William aspect). Mz7 closed the RfC stating, in part, "[T]here 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." That, and the other things that Mz7 stated, is why I brought up "Spoilers are not to be included" when considering how to word the hidden note. I noted why I did not include that wording: WP:Hidden note does not want such wording, the discussion was mainly about the major reveals, and Mz7 noted that he considered more than simply excluding material because it contains spoilers. Furthermore, what is a spoiler can sometimes be debatable, which is another reason to not state "Spoilers are not to be included." in the hidden note. But there is no debating that the aforementioned reveals are major spoilers.
And if anyone is acting in bad faith here, it is you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Radiphus: I apologize for not being more responsive. I think your interpretation of my closing statement is mostly correct in that I don't believe anything in my closure prevents you or any other editor from continuing to propose the inclusion of specific spoilers case-by-case on the basis that they are necessary to describe each character—consensus can change. However, I think (based on the comments of others both in the RfC and in this thread) you will find that now may not be the best time to do so. To use your words, it is accurate that there is a consensus to not include any spoilers that are not considered necessary to give readers a basic understanding of each actor and their overall role in the series, but what I also meant when I stated there's a consensus "not to include spoilers" is that there was a rough agreement that, indeed, no spoilers are necessary to give readers a basic understanding of each character. In other words, I think you will quickly face opposition if you try to propose the inclusion of specific spoilers again now, so I would consider disengaging for the time being. Mz7 (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Mz7: Thanks for replying. My main concern regarding your closing statement, is that users will cite it in the future to prevent the inclusion of any spoiler they might think it doesn't belong in the cast section. Since you agree that spoilers could be included as long as they give a basic understanding of the character, this should be made clear in your closing statement, so that others won't be able to dissociate this side-note from the RfC. And of course, if you make this revision to your closing statement, the cast section will remain spoiler-free, until users reach a case-by-case consensus in discussions that will actually focus on that matter and not just "spoilers in general". Thank you. -- (Radiphus) 21:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Radiphus: I don't think such a revision to the closing statement is necessary. The current consensus, as determined by the RfC, is indeed not to include any spoiler in the cast section, so in the short-term it's reasonable to expect, whenever you propose to add a new spoiler, that editors will cite the RfC result to say, "Didn't we just decide this?". However, with time, as the article and the topic evolves, I think the community will grow more receptive to at least hearing you out for specific spoilers. The statement is already fairly clear that the reason why spoilers are not included is because they aren't required to give readers a basic understanding of each character for this particular subject, so you can cite that part of the closing statement in the future if you want to argue that a specific spoiler is required to give readers a basic understanding of a character. Mz7 (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Mz7: It wouldn't make any sense for me to insist further upon this issue. Thank you. -- (Radiphus) 22:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
My position has not changed on this subject. A casual reader who doesn't want the plot spoiled has only themselves to blame if they read the plot summaries. If the plot is ruined because they wanted to know who portrayed a specific character, that's on us and we shouldn't do that. Its one of the major plot points of the series. Be a little decent; the guidelines are there to keep us from ending up in a ditch. They aren't a suicide pact. No spoilers in the cast section, esp. if it is pathetically easy to write the section a helluva lot better than it is now while still avoiding ruining it for everyone. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with everything said by the user above. Apologies I haven't been around, but I have been very very busy with school. Bremen (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
"If the plot is ruined because they wanted to know who portrayed a specific character, that's on us and we shouldn't do that."
No, it's on them. Wikipedia used to contain a red spoiler warning in articles, but it was removed because it was a form of censorship. If somebody reads an article about a film, television series, video game or anything else after it has been broadcast or released, then it is reasonable to assume that the article will contain details of the plot. I haven't finished Assassin's Creed Origins, so I don't go to the article because it contains details that I don't (want to) know. If I go there and see something that I don't want to see, then it's my own fault. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Arnold in the cast list

Hi everyone. It's been pointed out to me on my talk page that Arnold Weber is a fairly noteworthy character in the series that we are currently omitting from the cast list. Would we be okay in returning him to the list? In my view, we do not have to explicitly explain the connection between Arnold and Bernard (i.e. that the latter is an android based on the former). Merely stating that they are played by the same actor does not necessarily spoil the series for readers—if this were not the case, then wouldn't viewers have been spoiled early in the season by just looking at the credits of the show? One alternative proposed by PizzaMan above is to place Arnold in the "recurring characters" list. Mz7 (talk) 06:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Mz7. Arnold is a main character of the show. It is possible that some people who've watched the show might have not realised that it was Arnold they were watching in so many scenes and not Bernard (both characters are portrayed by Jeffrey Wright and the scenes were not presented in chronological order intentionally). They could watch this video here (duration 94 minutes), where the first season is recut into a chronological timeline and –among others– includes scenes of Wright appearing as Arnold up until the 30 minute mark and him being introduced as Bernard at 40:48. As i 've previously said, character descriptions including spoilers should be discussed on a case-by-case basis. Users who have watched the show should be given the chance to reach a consensus in discussions that will actually focus on that matter and not just "spoilers in general". Mentioning Arnold in Wright's character(s) description(s) might not be a direct spoiler, but readers who will visit the article after having watched the first few episodes of the season will put two and two together and they will get spoiled, even without mentioning the fact that Bernard is an android. It's time to make up our minds and either try and maintain the article's encyclopedic tone by stating facts as they are in a complete and understandable way or decide that we are a fan service. -- (Radiphus) 12:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I'll repeat what I relayed on Mz7's talk page: In the RfC, I stated, "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." But I don't strongly oppose mentioning that Jeffrey Wright portrays Arnold. I understand why PizzaMan is concerned that this hints that Bernard is an android, but we can perhaps reach a nice compromise on this aspect. As for the rest, the RfC has already decided on the rest. Mz7 has been clear on that time and again. A number of experienced editors do not feel that the major reveal material is necessary for the Cast and characters section, and that's the way the RfC closed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks you all. I now understand how the mere inclusion of Arnold in the cast list would cause readers to be spoiled. My understanding of the consensus in the RfC is that spoilers should be removed because it was bad, excessively detailed writing, unbecoming an encyclopedia. However, if Arnold is a major character, then omitting him would result in an incomplete cast list, also unbecoming an encyclopedia. The spirit of WP:SPOILER, however, is that encyclopedic concerns outweigh spoiler concerns (the RfC concluded that the spoilers themselves were encyclopedic concerns), so I would still suggest returning Arnold to the cast list, even if it may be spoiler to readers, since it is necessary to include him to provide readers with a complete understanding of the cast. Mz7 (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Just repeating myself again: I think that if it's a new viewer simply looking for basic information about the cast, it's likely that he or she won't care much when seeing "Wright also plays Arnold Weber, the co-founder and developer of Westworld alongside Ford." They might not even remember reading it. If it's a new viewer further into the series, they will very likely catch on to the mention and deduce that Arnold is an android. It's certainly a surprise for viewers that Bernard is Arnold (a version of him). But either way, this isn't the same thing as stating "Bernard is an android," which a number of RfC participants were against including. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, per previous commentary, it's probably best to put the Arnold mention in the "Recurring" section unless it can be shown that Arnold is a main character. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Mz7, you've restored my faith. Since it's been established that this information is necessary to give readers a basic understanding of the cast, i would also like to know what do you believe regarding suggestions editors have made to avoid explaining why Wright plays two characters in the show or to try and "hide" this information in the "recurring cast" section. It's becoming obvious to me that the main concern was ruining the plot for readers and not that this information would be un-encyclopedic or un-necessary. WP:SPOILER is clear straight from the beginning that concerns about spoiling the plot must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality. Do you think there is a reason this doesn't apply in this case and are we still trying to "protect" readers? You can read the suggestion i had recently made regarding the phrasing of Wright's character description here. Is this something you would approve? Thank you. -- (Radiphus) 21:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
You keep stating that, despite the fact that Mz7 and others (including me) have repeatedly told you otherwise. There is no doubt that unnecessarily ruining the plot for others was part of the discussion. We've been over this. Unnecessary spoilers are not needed, plain and simple. There is also no doubt that your view has been challenged by editors who have far more experience than you and that you have been brow-beating your view to the point of insanity. The fact that you keep talking about what the voters "really meant" is exactly why I pinged those voters in the previous section. How many times must Mz7 defend those voters because of your mischaracterizations? You talked about me trying to provoke you, but it's become clear that you are trying to provoke me and others. It is also very clear that you are trying to get the entire RfC overturned. It's not about clearing up anything. It's about you wanting your way and your odd treatment of WP:SPOILER, as if it is a policy to be enforced with only one interpretation. If Arnold is not a main character, he does not belong in the "Main" subsection of the Cast and characters section. Currently, Arnold is not even included as a main character at List of Westworld characters. There, the focus is on Bernard, with a mention of Arnold. If Arnold is a main character (which a few reliable sources report), then include him in the "Main" subsection of the Cast and characters section. Your proposed character description, however, goes against the RfC consensus, since it states "a host created to mimic the appearance of Dr. Ford's dead partner, Arnold." Above, Mz7 supports including the mention of Arnold without stating that Bernard is a host. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
@Radiphus: My understanding of the RfC is that editors generally agreed that "information revealed to the viewer throughout the series (such as major plot points and reveals)" were excessive details for the brief character descriptions within the cast list. I think there were a small handful of editors in the discussion who did indeed argue that the spoilers should be removed to "protect" readers, i.e. solely because they spoil. However, I didn't see that as the most salient argument in the discussion. There is consensus that stating "Bernard is an android based on Arnold" is an unnecessary detail for the cast list (in other words, bad writing), but I don't see that as incompatible with stating that Bernard and Android Arnold are played by the same actor, which, if I am understanding things correctly, is an encyclopedic detail to include. I would suggest returning just the description of Wright's characters from Special:PermanentLink/803684189:
  • Jeffrey Wright as Bernard Lowe, head of the Westworld Programming Division and programmer of artificial people's software. Wright also plays Arnold Weber, the co-founder and developer of Westworld alongside Ford.
I mentioned the "recurring characters" alternative as another possibility that we don't necessarily have to follow. If Arnold is better described as a "recurring character" than a "main character", then I can see some reason for pursuing this option. However, as you noted, we should be careful that we aren't solely doing things just to avoid spoiling editors. If there aren't any objections, I'll go ahead and add the above description of Wright's characters to the article. Mz7 (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC), fixed typo 04:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I still have a different opinion but in the end it's your decision. Thank you for taking the time to discuss about the implications of this RfC. I strongly suggest that you make a specific mention about Arnold in your closing statement in the RfC, explaining why this information should be maintained in the cast section. Otherwise, many editors who haven't read this discussion will keep removing it and the content dispute will perpetuate. It would be nice if we could add a hidden note pointing to the RfC consensus as it has been determined. I am honestly impressed with how well you 've handled this whole thing. Thanks again. -- (Radiphus) 03:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
This is what WP:Hidden notes are for. That we can keep mention of Arnold, but without noting that Bernard is an android, is something easily added to the hidden note. There is no need for Mz7 to alter his close, especially since this aspect has only come about after repeated discussion by a supporter of all of the spoiler content.
Mz7, yes, I think it would be best if you made your suggested edit. Below, we can see that PizzaMan still has an objection, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Arnold is only mentioned and not portrayed for most of the series. Only at the end do we find out what he looks like and that he is the same persona as Bernard, with the latter being an android version. But even then he gets little screen time as Arnold, just some flash backs. It's information revealed throughout the series and therefore belongs only in the plot section or the current episode summary. Disclosing the information in the cast section at the start of the article is spoiling it in a place where people don't expect to get spoiled. That's imho why the majority of the rfc was in favour of leaving out such info from the chast list and restricting it to the episode / plot section(s). Mentioning that Arnold is portrayed at all isn't required for a basic understanding of the character, nor for Wright's role in the series. I feel we've been over this before. The cast list should provide a basic understanding, i.e. be based on the knowledge the viewer has at the onset of the story. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 04:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

PizzaMan, I agree. But I did Google if Arnold is a main character, and I came across a couple or few sources that call him a major character, such as this 2016 Business Insider source. Yesterday, I had found another source that calls him a major character, but I can't find it at the moment. It might have even been a slight copy of the Business Insider source. If it's only a minority of sources that call him a major character vs. more calling him a minor or supporting character, it is a WP:Due weight issue. But I can't find any sources calling him a minor or supporting character. That Business Insider source doesn't point to Wright, though. It points to a picture of who was believed to be Arnold at the time. This supports your argument because many viewers have no idea who Arnold truly is until Bernard is revealed to be an android replica of him (you know, two episodes after he is revealed to be an android). Before that point, they think that he is the guy in the photo. Indeed, that first source states "Actor unknown." This Romper.com source asks, "Who Is Arnold On 'Westworld'?" And this 2016 Polygon.com source sates, "We’re still left wondering who Arnold is and what, exactly, the Maze is? One of the biggest mysteries we’ve had this season is the identity of Arnold. Nolan and Joy have released the tiniest bit of information in each new episode, unscrewing the cap to let the littlest bit of air out before tightly sealing it again. With each frustratingly vague conversation, it’s up to fans to try and decipher what’s being said by Dr. Ford, Dolores, Bernard or any of the other characters who have some idea of who Arnold is." The source goes on to note that some suspected that Bernard is Arnold is (I'm one of the ones who suspected him while watching the series). This was called the "Bernarnold" theory. Either way, that Bernard is Arnold (a version of him) is a big twist, as noted by this 2016 Collider.com source. This 2016 Hollywood Reporter source states that the question of Arnold's identity "is the question at the heart of virtually every single one of Westworld's many mysteries, from the moment his name first appeared on the lips of a glitching host back in the premiere."
So although I agree with you, and it's clear that "Bernard is Arnold" is a major plot twist, it seems that mentioning Arnold in the Cast and characters section is the best we can do for a compromise. Otherwise, the desire to mention Arnold in the section might continue to be pushed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and just to clarify: Although there were times when I suspected that Bernard is Arnold, mainly because there was often a man that Dolores kept hearing and we'd hear Bernard's voice (even if we were supposed to think that it was just a part of her sessions with Bernard), I was still surprised when Bernard was revealed as an android. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I definitely see your point. I have difficulty interpreting those sources, because most of them aren't clear about the distintion: major character in terms of screen time or major character for the plot. Suppose Bernard wasn't Arnold, let's say Ford made Bernard to resemble a high school friend or something. Arnold would still be a pivotal character for the Westworld universe and for the plot. But he wouldn't be portrayed at all. There would be no actor who actually plays him. Thus he'd be a major character to the plot, without appearing in the cast list. Compare it to Sauron in Lord of the rings. He's a very major character to the plot, but in the books, he isn't (as far as i recall) portrayed in the sense that the reader gets to meet him. There's just a lot of mention of his powers. Major character, not in the cast list (except the movies chose to deviate from the books and actually portray him). Anyway, if we mention him as recurring character, it probably won't tick off most readers, so i'm fine with that solution. It also depends a lot on how much of Arnold we'll see in the second season. By the way, it must have been awesome to find out you were right about Arnold = Bernard ;-) PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 20:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
@PizzaMan: If you had watched this video here that i linked in my previous posts, you might not have said that Arnold didn't appear in the first season. Here are 11 scenes from that video, in which we see Arnold over the course of the series. Added together they sum up to more than 25 minutes, and that's without adding the present-day scenes in which Arnold's role as a the co-founder of the park is mentioned several times:
  • Scene 1: (00:52 - 02:16) Arnold greets Dolores for the first time
  • Scene 2: (03:17 - 05:00) Arnold analyzes Dolores
  • Scene 3: (05:00 - 07:40) Arnold analyzes Dolores
  • Scene 4: (07:40 - 11:38) Arnold expresses his concerns about the safety of Dolores to her
  • Scene 5: (11:38 - 12:01) Arnold conceives the "maze"
  • Scene 6: (12:22 - 16:04) Arnold analyzes Dolores and talks to her about the maze
  • Scene 7: (16:04 - 18:30) Arnold further explains to Dolores how the maze works and decides to prevent the opening of the park, realizing that she is alive
  • Scene 8: (19:30 - 20:10) Dr. Ford is enraged and goes to Arnold's office where we can hear them having a fight
  • Scene 9: (20:10 - 22:00) Arnold tells Dolores his plan to prevent the opening of the park which requires her killing him and destroying the hosts (Wyatt narrative)
  • Scene 10: (22:35 - 25:40) Arnold stands by while the hosts are being destroyed and is then executed by Dolores
  • Scene 11: (25:40 - 30:00) Dolores hears Arnold's voice several times in her head and meets his "ghost" in the analysis room. -- (Radiphus) 21:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
@Radiphus, Flyer22 Reborn, and PizzaMan: Based on your understandings of the show, do you guys think it would be better to include Arnold's name next to Bernard's in the "Main" section, or as a new line in the "Recurring" section, i.e. Jeffrey Wright as Arnold Weber, the co-founder and developer of Westworld alongside Ford.? Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@Mz7: Arnold should be listed as a major character (for me he is the most important character in the first season after Dolores) and also Bernard being a host should be mentioned to give the readers a basic understanding of the cast and the characters (especially since we are describing other characters as hosts and not doing the same for Bernard would imply that he isn't one). I stand by the character description i had suggested in August and that's because i am honestly concerned about the article's encyclopedic tone and not ruining the plot for readers, who may not know what an encyclopedia is. I believe my opinion has been stated clearly and there is no way it will change for the simple reason that i believe that the opposing arguements or any other middle-ground solution would be violating WP:SPOILER and WP:TVCAST. I am sorry but i can't keep repeating myself forever, and i'll never say that two plus two equals five. -- (Radiphus) 00:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
That's indeed more screen time than i remember. Probably because i thought i was looking at Bernard until the end of the season. I think in the case of this article, in it's current state, with the series ongoing and people not expecting the article to start off with a character list that contains spoilers, "a basic understanding" means state of a character at the onset of the story, saving plot developments for the plot/episodes section. So, mentioning Arnold as a portrayed character at all is not necessary. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 05:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
PizzaMan, above you stated, "I have difficulty interpreting those sources, because most of them aren't clear about the distintion: major character in terms of screen time or major character for the plot." Yeah, only the first source lists Arnold as a major character. I haven't yet come across any others that list him as a major character, except for the one I noted that might have been a slight copy. Otherwise, the sources treat the reveal as a major plot point/twist. A major character and major plot point/twist are obviously two different things. As for it being awesome finding out I was right about Arnold = Bernard, not really. It was an on-and-off suspicion that wasn't fully clicking for me. So when the reveal happened, it was like I was half surprised/half not surprised.
Mz7, I'm not sure which I would prefer. I mean, whether or not Arnold can be considered a main character is debatable, as this discussion shows. I think you should make the decision based on what we've stated so that we can end this. If needed, I'll amend the hidden note so that it's clear that the "Bernard is Arnold" aspect is an exception. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I’ve added Arnold to the “Recurring” section. Here, we have a few editors arguing that Arnold is a main character, and another arguing that Arnold isn’t worth mentioning in the cast at all. I hope this is an acceptable compromise for the time being. Mz7 (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Mz7. For the record, I wasn't arguing that Arnold is a main character. Rather, I was presenting what reliable sources state and commenting from that angle. Again, one source above lists him as a major character. The others are clear that he plays an important role in the series -- that he is a part of a major reveal (Bernard being a version of him). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Hidden notes seen with this edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It is insane that this is still being argued about. Had I not participated in the RFC, and come across this, I would have started doling out final warnings in regards to WP:STICK and WP:IDHT. The time wasted arguing on this is mind-boggling and completely unconstructive at this point. Focus your efforts on writing a plot summary, which is, not only exponentially more important than this single sentence/list entry debate, but would solve much of the issues anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I don't know if you're talking about me, but i have already told Mz7, I still have a different opinion but in the end it's your decision. I am not trying to force my point, i am responding to PizzaMan's incorrect arguement by his own admission that Arnold didn't get any screentime and i am answering to a ping. That's exactly why i had said that spoilers should be discussed on a case-by-case basis, to avoid drawing out the discussion that started almost 2 months ago. This is my last post in this discussion. -- (Radiphus) 13:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The current solution is still a spoiler, and thus goes against the majority of the rfc responses. I think it's more robust for preventing this discussion from starting all over again, here or on other wp pages, to clearly define "basic understanding" of the cast and characters as their status at the onset of the story, without major plot developments (such as Arnold being portrayed at all). However, it's the best compromise I could come up with and I'm pretty much done arguing about it. I hope we can put it to rest now. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 19:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
You can't just omit real world info such as an actor portraying a character, even in a case like this. The readded statement is the most basic way we can get this info included in the current state of the article without it be a spoiler. As I said when this discussion started way up at the top of it, if we said "Wright also portrays Arnold, the person who Bernard is based on" or something like that, then we've gone against the spoiler. But simply saying that Wright plays Arnold give no indication to the spoiler that Bernard and Arnold are virtually the same. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Like argued above: anyone reading the cast list will realise that there must be a reason both characters are portrayed by the same actor, especially in a high-budget series. In a world full of androids/hosts, it doesn't take a genious to add 1+1. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 08:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure that can happen, but we have not outright spoiled that conclusion for the reader. If they come to that conclusion themselves, that is on their own doing, not due to the portrayal of the info here blatantly giving that conclusion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
You're suggesting that people are cognitively able to selectively block their ability for basic reasoning. That's not how the human mind works. I doubt even hosts can actively suppress that ;-) PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 19:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
The result of the RFC was to not include spoilers, not to remove anything that could be similar to adding 1+1. If you want to do that, then you need to start a new discussion recommending we do so. Until then, the spoilers have been removed from the article, and thus, the result of the RFC has been conformed to. -- AlexTW 01:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Both sides have a point on including information that Wright portrays Arnold. Like I stated above with sources, who Arnold is does happen to be a major reveal (a.k.a. spoiler), but including that Wright portrays Arnold is not a blatant "we are spoiling you" thing. And it is pertinent cast information, even though there is disagreement on whether or not it needs to be in the Cast and characters section. Mz7 already addressed this above. It's a compromise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Your opinion has been noted, but your line of reasoning could just as easily be turned around. The result of the rfc was no spoilers. If you want to add information that adds spoilers in any way, start a new discussion. Until then, we conform to the rfc and don't add any spoilers in any way. See, are we having a productive discussion here? I don't think this is a productive way to discuss things. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 19:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

If you want to add information that adds spoilers in any way, start a new discussion.

Actually, it's Mz7 that added the information after he had started a new discussion. He even cited you by saying One alternative proposed by PizzaMan above is to place Arnold in the "recurring characters" list and you later said that it's the best compromise I could come up with and I'm pretty much done arguing about it. Where did this we conform to the rfc and don't add any spoilers in any way come from? Can we please put this matter to rest? Thank you. -- (Radiphus) 20:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm trying to point out. Since we already thought about this pretty well and found a compromise, i don't see where "start a new discussion" comes from or what the point of that comment was.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 20:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay i get it, but don't forget it was you who tried to make further changes to the article and then had a mini edit war with Alex. I don't agree with not listing Arnold as a main character and not describing Bernard as a host, but i am no longer insisting on my point (i had stopped arguing even before Arnold was added to the recurring characters). Please do the same with no ifs or buts. -- (Radiphus) 20:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I disengaged from that, even though i think it's pretty odd to undo an edit where i listed the recurring characters in order of appearance (like the main characters) just to draw more attention to Arnold and Bernard being played by the same actor. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 22:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I haven't checked in for a few days, and hopefully this is wrapping up. But I feel this seriously needs another comment.

We have an unusual situation here. From the perspective of someone watching the show, Arnold is a faceless mystery for most of the first season. The viewer knows Arnold is important to the plot, but Arnold has zero screentime up until the last episode or two. Up until the final episodes, Arnold is an almost non-existent character.

However the producers of the show played a deliberate game with viewers. They deliberately deceived viewers for dramatic purposes. In reality, Arnold had substantial screentime across many episodes. In reality, Arnold was an important and central cast member.

And here's the important point: We are an encyclopedia. We do not play games with readers. We do not deliberately deceive readers. We report the reality: Arnold was a major role.

No one here is a troll trying to spoil the show for giggles. We don't pointlessly toss out spoilers. Sometimes we can find ways to harmlessly restructure things to accommodate spoiler concerns. But we do not participate in any games or deceptions internal to the dramatic work. We do not deny readers the encyclopedic coverage we would provide in any other situation. There is something wrong when so many arguments start and end with "it's a spoiler". We're not producing a dramatic work, we're producing an encyclopedia. Bernard/Arnold is hardly the only game the producers played with viewers, and I have no doubt additional issues will arise next season. Let's try not to do this again. Alsee (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

"No one here is a troll trying to spoil the show for giggles."[citation needed]
I admire your optimism but you can't be sure either way. Anyhow, considering how much Wikipedia is dominated by deletionists it is very interesting to see a discussion at the whole other end of the spectrum. This looks like consensus to me, not a very solid consensus but hopefully enough that WP:SPOILER can be updated to urge caution about include plot or excessive detail in the Cast section.
Not that anyone cares but I'm against including excessive character details in the character descriptions, but if they must be included they should at least be included in some kind of chronological order so that you can at least read a sentence or two describing the character then choose to stop reading when you see "In season 2 it is revealed" or "In the season finale we learn" but I think that's just good writing structure.
It isn't a surprise to know Bruce Wayne is Batman, but it obviously isn't cool to explain who Kaiser Soze is in the cast list. I'm glad this all was resolved with some sensible restructuring. -- 109.79.168.244 (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I fundamentally disagree with Alsee's premise. Suppose a character is referred to as "Bob" for 80% of a work's narrative, and it is then revealed that Bob was really Prince Charlie or whatever. The "fan" perspective might be to rewrite everything that happened earlier as happening to "Charlie", but from a narrative perspective, this is wrong: he's Bob for all intents and purposes during this period. It's not even entirely clear whether it's Arnold or Bernard as often as Alsee thinks; possible some of those instances above are really Bernard, it's intentionally vague. But the point remains. (You can see an example of this at Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, which does not refer to the "true" identity of a certain character until it is revealed in the story, and when it would be confusing to a reader anyway without context that is built up during the course of the game.) SnowFire (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Westworld_(TV_series)/Archive_6&oldid=1137316183"