I've already brought this up on the talk page of RuneScape:Spoiler policy, but only one user responded to me so I figured I'd bring it here. This policy seems rather pointless. It states that there are "no warnings elsewhere on the wiki", yet on nearly every quest article we have spoiler warnings. Should we delete the spoiler policy? I don't see a need for it if every article that has content to be spoiled has a spoiler warning on it. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 03:54, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe this would help, it brings up the same arguement your making. scooties 04:02, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
Comment/Delete Did that ever come to a consensus? It seems that there was support for both sides of keeping the policy and deleting the policy. I personally think that a lot of material on this wiki could be considered a spoiler and people reading it already know it will contain the spoiler if they got to the page in the first place.10:53, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - It's useful for people who are interested in the history of Runescape and don't want to know what happens in a quest before the actually complete it themselves Swiz Talk Review Me 16:41, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - I think it should stay for things from Betrayal at Falador (I hated already knowing the storyline when I was reading it), but it's kind of obvious that quest guides contain spoilers. I think it should be removed for quest pages, but I think that it should be kept on BaF and similar articles. Oil4 Talk 17:03, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I'm not actually saying we should delete the spoiler policy, I was just asking what the best course of action was. There's really nothing to oppose or support.
Also, I'm not saying remove spoiler templates. I'm saying that the policy seems a bit useless currently. It says that there are "no warnings elsewhere on the wiki", which is totally wrong. We have several choices:
- Delete the spoiler policy, but keep the spoiler templates.
- Keep all of the spoiler warnings where they are and change the spoiler policy so that it doesn't have the "no warnings elsewhere" message.
- Remove all of the spoiler warnings from quest articles, but keep them in some other places such as the Betrayal at Falador article, changing the spoiler policy to reflect this.
- Remove all spoiler warnings from all articles and keep the spoiler policy as it is, but make it easier to find.
Personally, I'm in favor of the third option. When people search quests and see a section called "Walkthrough", there's really no need for a spoiler warning. However, in the Betrayal at Falador article, it seems that one would be useful. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 21:03, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
Support Kudos's third option - It really is pointless to have a spoiler warning in a walkthrough. It should be removed from all quest guides, but kept in BaF, and the spoiler policy needs to be changed. ~ Sentry Telos Talk 21:42, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Why not just reword the policy to there may or may not be warnings on other pages, read at your own risk or something?11:38, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - That's essentially option 2. However, to me, "may or may not" seems like a serious cop out. There are warnings on virtually every page that has anything worth spoiling. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 01:29, January 16, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - So does that mean that the spoiler warning at the top of King Vargas should be kept or removed?? It has been about 20 days since Blood Runs Deep was released. Evil Yanks talk 02:15, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
- I say it shouldn't have been there in the first place, because on a website like this you know you'll encounter information from quests and such. However, BaF does not give us general information, and most of the things we learn from it aren't used in a lot of articles - pretty much only articles about BaF stuff. That's why I think BaF spoilers should stay, but quest spoilers should go. Oil4 Talk 22:01, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
Support some warnings - I think if you're reading an article and there is potential plot spoiler information may be unexpected to some readers, a spoiler warning would be a good idea. The slayer master article is a good example of this. When people read a quest walkthrough however, I would guess that they expect to read spoilers along the way. NPC's such as King Vargas and Hazelmere are tricky, but I'd say leave the spoiler warning, since when people look up that NPC upon first meeting, they might not want to hear all the details about their roles in quests they haven't done yet. Perhaps we may want to write these articles with sections based on the changes that occur in each quest. That way if people haven't done BRD or WGS yet, they won't read that section if they don't want to know what happens in those quests. Just an idea. 07:58, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
- If they don't want to read stuff about an NPC, why would they look up an article about that NPC? I guess I just don't understand why someone would want a spoiler warning. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 01:29, January 16, 2010 (UTC)
Closing Spoiler warning was removed from quest guides--Degenret01 06:09, March 24, 2010 (UTC)