Forum:"Spoiler" and "Canon" policy fixes

RE: Memory Alpha talk:Spoiler policy - This will come up again. In fact it just did. So, let's update these 2 policy pages so that the gaps are filled. I think the part of the spoiler policy about upcoming releases should be updated to link to the Canon policy, because it's actually not the Spoiler policy but the Canon policy which requires not adding in-universe info from unreleased productions. I see this part of the Spoiler policy as just a what-not-to-do guideline, since the Spoiler policy here is... spoilers are totally allowed. And the Canon policy should be updated to make clear that something unreleased is not canon. Right now it's just "what is seen and heard" - well, bootlegs, trailers and exclusive sneak previews are seen and heard... by somebody, anyway. Here are my proposals:

For the Spoiler policy:
 * Information about upcoming movies (not yet released in theaters) and unaired episodes may not be included in a Memory Alpha page, aside from official cast and production information released by Paramount, CBS, or credible news sources. However, this information can only be added to pages told from a "real world" point of view; pages told from an in-universe perspective cannot contain any information from a movie or episode that has yet to be released, as per the . Spoilers that violate this policy may be deleted by any user.

For the Canon policy:
 * Articles should not be created for subjects that are not seen or heard of in an officially-released episode or film.

--TribbleFurSuit 05:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Eh... Not really. I probably wasn't to clear in my reply here, but I don't think the above suggestion should be applied to our policies. The main reason for not spoiling unaired Trek seems to be that we don't want to spoil unaired Trek - and the Spoiler Policy seems to be pretty clear about that already. Dealing with it in the Canon Policy instead and then referencing that policy looks like an unnecessary detour to me. Of course, not considering some information "canon" might be an additional reason for not adding that information - so if this is the case, this additional reason should be listed on it matching policy page. -- Cid Highwind 12:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can agree with not adding the Canon policy piece to the Spoiler policy page. I can see the Spoiler policy stands alone and that the Canon policy isn't the only justification for it. But the reason this keeps and will keep coming up is that the Canon policy isn't explicit enough. So do you really think adding 2 words to the Canon policy line above is not desirable? Just read the conversations - it's really clear that people want to override the Spoiler policy by saying the Canon policy allows "future canon". --TribbleFurSuit 21:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)