Forum icon  ForumsTen Forward → Spoiler Warnings (replywatch)
This forum discussion has been archived
This forum discussion has been archived and should not be added to. Please visit the Forums to begin a new topic in the relevant location.
Moved from Talk:Apocalypse Rising (episode).

There really should be some kind of spoiler warning in these episode articles, I'm not talking about facts regarding the episode in question (everyone probably already saw the episode before reading its article) but references to future episodes. I read the article on every episode right after I've seen it and, as in this case, finding out that Gowron gets killed in an episode I haven't seen yet is very frustrating. -- 06:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

See Memory Alpha:Spoiler policy. Memory Alpha could not function if we had to keep out spoilers, or had reduntant notices anywhere and everywhere. I suggest you also do not read Gowron, as that will tell you details on how he dies. His sidebar even includes the date of his death. In short, if you don't want spoilers, you really shouldn't be reading a database that cannot avoid having them in order to be complete. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why, putting a spoiler tag in front of any spoiling info you input (or simply leave that info out of the episode capsule completely) shouldn't be to hard. It often seems that wikis are obsessed with favoring as simple and uncomlicated policies as possible over reader friendliness, that is what I'm feeling now. In my oppinion, a wiki should be for and by the readers.
I guess Memory Alpha is only for people who have already seen every single episode and movie of the whole Star Trek franchise. I don't mean to be :rude or anything, but I just don't see these spoilers as an inevitable problem.-- 09:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Because everything, and I mean everything on the site IS a spoiler. Haven't watched TOS? Then the fact the Spock is the science officer is a spoiler. Haven't watched "For the Cause"? Then you don't know that Eddington is a member of the Maquis. EVERYTHING here is a spoiler, all of it. MA is one big spoiler. We can't put a note before every sentence, or on every page, saying "this is a spoiler". --OuroborosCobra talk 09:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I do realise that, and maybe I should've clarified that I'm only talking about the individual episode articles. That this kind of info would be found on the articles for Gowron, Spock etc is just logical.
If you can't include in the spoiler policy that references to plot elements in future epsiodes should have a warning (were they appear in an individual episode article), I think you should have a policy not to include any references to future episodes at all in these articles (afaik they only appear in the "Trivia" or "Background information" and don't really seem that important to me, is a back reference in the future episodes article not enough). This is just my opinion, not trying to be jerk.-- 09:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I've read the section of the article in which you specifically took issue, and frankly while I understand your disappointment, it seems as if you're having more of an emotional response, then you are making a logical point. The notation here explains the irony of a line of dialog, and frankly if we left out these sorts of thing, it would be to the detriment of Memory Alpha. I wouldn't be "happy" if this had happened to me, but I would grudgingly accept responsibility for reading a wiki page about DS9, while not being fully versed in it. You say "Wiki's should be by the people, for the people", of which I think part of needs to be a level of quality. We would be sacrificing the quality of the archive, simply for the people who have yet to watch the episodes. But seriously... I don't mean to make light of your situation. It sucks. – Hossrex 02:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I sympathise with your situation, I really do, but as someone whose input into Memory Alpha has been exclusively background details on episodes of DS9, I have to agree with the above comments - if you don't want spoilers, don't read the entries. DS9 is an incredibly intricate show and one of the things I've been trying to do in my background material is ensure this intricacy is recognised. For example, I did some work on the episode "Return to Grace" the other day and I was talking about how the writers always felt Dukat was evil. Then, to help illustrate the point, I mention that he does something truly evil in "By Inferno's Light". Similarly, in my background detail for "Broken Link", I mention that Odo regains his powers in "The Begotten". On the episode "For the Cause", I mention that Eddington gets killed in "Blaze of Glory". On the episode "Body Parts", I mention that the FCA ban remains in place until "Ferengi Love Songs". If we had to put spoilers on everything relating to future episodes, the background sections would turn into a shambles. If we weren't allowed to post information like that at all, I feel that the richness of the show would be neglected by a site that is supposed to be celebrating that richness. As I say, DS9 is too intricate a show to impose that kind of stricture. And whilst I actually agree with you in theory, that things like that should be marked, in a practical sense, it simply wouldn't work. As I say however, I do feel for you situation, but the fact is that if you want to remain unaware of what's to come, don't read the material on the site – Bertaut 04:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we don't need spoiler tags. But I don't think there should ever be a need for them anyway. An article should never reference the future anyway. A World War I article wouldn't say "It is interesting to note that the German's would also be a key party in World War II". A wiki page on the holocaust wouldn't ruin its' content by saying "this happened... like it did in Rwanda" or "Hitler, who would later die, signed the contract which would lead to millions of deaths". Any information on Hitler himself would be on Hitler's page. Any reference to an article outside of its' specification should be made on the future episode's page. Meaning that for example. This is the page for "Apocalypse Rising", an episode of DS9. All information on it should ONLY be something either obtained from the episode itself, or encyclopedias/books on the episode. The same way that information on a sort of new drive or machine would be on the machine's page itself, the best you could do is add links in "See also" or something indicating the plotline is connected to another. All of the "future" information have the tone of "It is interesting to note" or "in fact it does indeed happen later". Which are all subjective opinions of interest and MAJOR clues that that note does not belong here. This is an encyclopedia. When you go do research on let's say "The civil war", you wouldn't find information on what would go on to happen to specific generals, or how this war was like another. If you want to know what happens to General Lee after the war, or Gowron after the episode, go to their own entries. Someone should be able to see an episode of Star Trek, want to come and read the Background interesting information. And get background on THIS episode. The only exceptions are when an episode run later is set before something. Like on the enterprise borg episode have "This episode continues from the story of "Star Trek: First contact"(linked). Imagine this is a Star Fleet encyclopedia, and someone wanted to look up information on DS9 on this stardate. The following are things I removed:
According to the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion, it was writer Ronald D. Moore who suggested making Martok, rather than Gowron, turn out to be the Changeling, so as not to upset TNG fans. ([Ironically, however Moore himself would write Gowron's demise in the seventh season episode "Tacking Into the Wind".]) It was felt at this time however that revealing Martok to be a Changeling would give the episode a nice unexpected twist. As it turned out, the producers were so pleased with J.G. Hertzler's performance in this episode, they made it a point to have the real Martok return in "In Purgatory's Shadow" and become a much more prominent character in the series. As René Echevarria explains, "This is the show where we fell in love with J.G. Hertzler as an actor. It was like, 'Hey, this guy is terrific. And here we are killing him.' But actually we were killing a Changeling, which started us thinking, 'If he's been replaced, where's the real guy. Maybe he's not dead. Maybe we can find him'."
(Removed the "Ironically" part, keeping the information relevant and without personal feelings)

It is interesting to note that Gowron tells Worf that he will not get another chance to try to kill him insofar as Worf does kill Gowron, to stop his reckless attacks against the Dominion, in the seventh season episode "Tacking Into the Wind", ironically, installing the real Martok in his place.
(Not relevant to this episode, if someone is interest in Gowron, the Dominion, or Martok, go to their pages. There's that "it is interesting to note", which really means "I think it's interesting that". Discussion of what you liked or found interesting is best left to a forum, not an encyclopedia)

This is not the first time Rene Auberjonois has played a character who disguises himself as a Klingon. Colonel West, his character in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, did the same. Their intentions are precisely the opposite though: West was attempting to prevent peace with the Klingons, while Odo was attempting to prevent war with the Klingons.
(Information best left to Rene's page, not this one)

When we see Worf alongside Sisko, O'Brien, and Odo in Klingon Make-up, his full goatee is missing.
(Nitpicks aren't supposed to be on here)
I also changed some of the wording. Trying to eliminate personal thoughts and feelings from background informationSaphsaph 05:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Quite frankly, it's common sense. If you haven't seen a particular episode and don't want to know what happens in it, DON'T READ THAT EPISODE'S ARTICLE! As has been said, MA is a giant spoiler and it needs to be. We can't put up spoiler tags on every episode for the people that haven't seen an episode that aired 10 years ago! That would be ridiculous. Like I said, just avoid the bits you don't want to know about. -- TrekFan Talk 14:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, this is absolutely not what the OP is complaining about. What he is complaining about is being spoiled for episode X while reading the article for a completely unrelated, most often earlier episode Y, just because someone found something strange/funny/whatever when comparing the two episodes.
While we can't be completely spoiler-free, I agree with the suggestion made. Most often, this spoilerish material is just a nitpick or otherwise unsourced or "fan-invented". It should be removed anyway, in these cases. What remains should be located in the article about the "entity" in question, or at least in the article of the later episode (where we might want to assume that the content of the earlier episode is already known). -- Cid Highwind 16:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly what I meant (on my ridiculously long post... lol). There will always be spoilers, an article on Star Trek voyager episode with the Ferengi can say "These ferengi continue the story from the Tng episode and so on..." or something. But encyclopedias work in a linear format. Everything that pertains to a subject or episode happened either on the episode, or before the episode. Something that WILL happen does not affect the episode at all, so it shouldn't be on the page. For example, the "Encounter at farpoint" episode, should not have anything on what WILL happen to Enterprise-D. While Enterprise-D's page should have everything that happens to it. An article on a war will have what led to the war, but not what happens after it. If so I can have all of TNG's article's ALL in the first episode. I can start with what will happen to Enterprise-D, each cast member, Tasha's outcome, Worf's transfer, and everything else. But it wouldn't make sense because then it wouldn't be an article on the episode itself. – Saphsaph 21:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)