Talk:List of Kidnapped episodes/Archive 1, Kidnapped (2006) spoilers

spoilers

This is not a big deal objectively or subjectively, but may I ask why do you insist on leaving the "his" in there? Surely the episode is being fairly described without specifying the gender of the person inside - one of the big mysteries of the show. The other spoilers are a bit more discreet, and I am merely trying to maintain that level of discretion, albeit in a "spoilers" section. WHy does this bother you so much? Maybe you're just angry that the show has been given the boot - and I am too. It is the best new show of the season. Cheers Tvoz 04:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

About providing episode summaries that might "reveal too much"...

This article has a spoiler warning, and additionally Wikipedia is about supplying complete information, not teasers or advertisements. It is not intended to be a magazine like TV Guide or such; thus removing information for reasons of protecting entertainment value is not really justified.

Also, merely because that's how the article has been written already does not really give sufficient reason to continue that way. Actually, it's a good reason for someone to add to what's already there and giving fuller descriptions. x 04:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I know what Wikipedia is about. It also is about group editing, and not owning one's words. This particular list has no standard established whatever - we have entries ranging from somewhat detailed (but still discreet) to "A mission to uncover the truth leads to a dangerous game" (completely opaque). All I did was remove one word - "his". To say that is not justified is ridiculous in the context of this list- my edit was completely true to the way you chose to describe this episode, just minus the gender of the person involved. One can write summaries, with spoilers, in an artful way that do the job but still preserve some of the mystery and proceed with some discretion. All of the other summaries do - my change merely removed that tiny bit of information that was not really necessary in the summary. (Also, I didn't use the words "reveal too much" anywhere, so perhaps you shouldn't put it in quotesif it as if I did.) But I'm not going to change it again - if it means that much to you, I don't really care. You might want to be concerned, though, about the disparity of descriptions on this page, more so than my removal of the gender of one culprit. I'm out - going to watch #12. Tvoz 05:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• "All I did was remove one word - 'his'. "
  Sorry, but that's not quite true from what I saw in the history.
• "One can write summaries, with spoilers, in an artful way that do the job but still preserve some of the mystery and proceed with some discretion."
  True, but there's no valid reason for removing information to retain certain entertainment value.
• "All of the other summaries do "
  Again, that's not relavant.
• "You might want to be concerned, though, about the disparity of descriptions on this page,"
  Not my concern. If anyone wants to even out the overall style, fine. After all, it's "about group editing". But it shouldn't result in losing useful information. Hopefully, it would involve providing more. x 05:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious. What about "a family friend reveals his or her connection to the kidnapping". Tvoz 06:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ask yourself if that really seems encyclopedic.
I'm not crazy about fine tuning for purposes of withholding information, but maybe "a family friend's connection is revealed"
Personally I think time is better spent fixing the Acknowledgement description, which is really inappropriate. x 17:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Progress! Yes, I like that better. It's not a matter really of modifying to withhold information - it's a question of how it happened to be worded in the first place - had it been this new way I would not have objected. It's really not a big deal, but I'm going to make your change if you haven't. As for "Acknowledgment" yes, I agree it could be improved but my point would be that saying "Leo is blahblahblahed when JoeBlow arrives on the scene" would be more of a spoiler than is necessary if it included the actual details, given the nature of the spoilers in this list. All I am saying is that if editors had agreed that this should be total-disclosure-type spoilers, then you'd want to give much more information; this page evolved as a partial-spoiler list, so it makes sense to keep all the entries on that level. (BTW- I didn't think the "his" was wildly outside of the norms established, I just thought that since who the inside person was was one of the more major mysteries of the show, it was unnecessary to reveal that bit). I think we've exhausted this topic above and beyond at this point! Tvoz 18:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• "I like that better. It's not a matter really of modifying to withhold information - it's a question of how it happened to be worded in the first place "
  They're the same thing. For purposes of retaining entertainment value of the show for viewers, you wanted to remove several pieces of specific information.
• "It's really not a big deal"
  I feel it is. You say you understand what Wikipedia is, yet you seem to want to reduce the article to the style of a magazine.
• "All I am saying is that if editors had agreed that this should be total-disclosure-type spoilers"
  I missed that meeting I guess. Any agreement by editors outside of the intent of Wikipedia is irrelavant. Wikipedia has its own purpose that isn't subordinate to the intents of editors.
• "this page evolved as a partial-spoiler list, so it makes sense to keep all the entries on that level"
  No it doesn't. It makes more sense to improve the article, rather than restrain improvements based on preceding quality levels (or lack thereof).
  Though it is puzzling that you also state "This particular list has no standard established".
• "my point would be that saying 'Leo is blahblahblahed when JoeBlow arrives on the scene' would be more of a spoiler "
  Sorry, but that's a straw-man. Wikipedia doesn't consider the complete retelling of a story to be encyclopedic. But a detailed summary (including how the story ends) is a valid entry, and shouldn't be pared down merely because it might ruin a story/show for someone who hasn't read/seen it yet. That's why there are spoiler warnings.
• "more of a spoiler than is necessary"
  It's not about what's "necessary". It's about providing complete encyclopedic information, and not merely being a board for supporting the intent of the subject or an editor.
• "I think we've exhausted this topic "
  I don't. I see this a lot, where an article is edited in a style more befitting a magazine or periodical, so it's worth addressing constantly. x 20:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I was diappoointed to see that the recent Tvoz edit did not include removing "will jungle shoot-out spell freedom for Leo?", but it is a perfect illustration of my main point regarding this spoilers debate. x 20:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake. I did not "pare down" anything. You could have just as easily written "a family friend's connection is revealed" in the first place rather than "a family friend reveals his connection" and if you had written it that way there would have been none of this "debate". I only objected to "HIS". Are you saying now that "his " was essential to the episode description? My original revision preserved the total sense of your phrase except for the gender and maybe I was slightly more vague saying "personal connection" rather than "family friend" but I completely accepted your final suggestion - I just hadn't thought of it myself. I'm sorry, but it seems to me all you've been doing is trying to preserve the specific words you happened to choose when you posted that text in the first place, which were hardly inviolable. That is all. You've blown this up into a big deal and I think it is ridiculous. As for the offending question in 12 - it seemed perfectly fine to me, except that I agreed with you that it wasn't enough of a summary so at your suggestion I expanded the summary. I retained the question because it was well-phrased, and I believe that collaboration means building on others' work, not just removing it, unless there's a good reason to do so. You haven't given any, but I don't really care - the way it is now is fine with me. As for the "meeting" of editors - very cute, but you must know I am talking about discussion on the talk page and reaching a consensus. Because my reading of Wikipedia policy is that it has 5 principles that are absolute. Just about everything else are guidelines, not firm rules. This is an evolving system, and you ought to consider that there are other viewpoints than your own. Now, if there is some policy to direct me to regarding spoilers and precisely what should be included, I'd certainly like to read it. Tvoz 05:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• "I only objected to 'HIS'" , "I did not 'pare down' anything"
  

The orignal line was "family friend reveals his connection to the kidnapping." you changed it to "a personal connection to the kidnapping is revealed". It was more than just removing the gender, it was reducing it to being almost meaningless.

• "You've blown this up into a big deal and I think it is ridiculous"
  

Yet there's such an insistence on keeping the ep summaries reduced to teasers. Kind of reverse spam, by withholding information mainly so it has to be found elsewehere.

• "I retained the question because it was well-phrased, and I believe that collaboration means building on others' work, not just removing it, unless there's a good reason to do so. You haven't given any"
  

That question was uninformative and rhetorical, which is a very good reason to remove it. Being "well-phrased" is no reason to keep it. However, I raised it as a point here because it goes to the core of the issue of reducing the article to teasers.

• "Now, if there is some policy to direct me to regarding spoilers and precisely what should be included"
  

There doesn't need to be, this is a fundamental question about editing. Spoilers are not special cases. But in reference to policy, NPOV is inviolable.

• "but you must know I am talking about discussion on the talk page and reaching a consensus"
  

First, there was no discussion as to what approach the spoilers here would take, and a consensus by itself is irrelavant. E.G. If 20 editors enter and edit an article promoting a viewpoint, it is perfectly acceptable for another editor to come in and completely redo it to convert it to NPOV, regardless of "consensus".

Plus, if verifiable information is entered that may be seen as against a viewpoint, it can't be removed merely for that reason. It has to be for reasons relating to Wikipedia being an encyclopedia.

Basically, the issue here is that removing information from an article can't merely be because you don't want it to be revealed for entertainment reasons.

You can continue trying to minimalize this, but it's clear if I choose to enter more information into the summaries, that you'll probably remove it only to prevent it from being revealed, for reasons not Wikipedia-related. Which is an unhealthy situation regarding Wikipedia editing. x 17:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to say this one last time. You have no idea what I will or won't do, so it is not "clear". As far as I recall I didn't remove any of yours or anyone else's deathless prose other to change this one phrase: "a family friend reveals his connection" to this phrase: "a personal connection to the kidnapping is revealed", which I later readily agreed was not the best edit, but I was trying to get at something. You came back and instead of trying to accommodate my concern, you just reverted it to your words. I brought it to the talk page - which you did not - in an attempt to discuss this with you and any other editors who were interested. I made another suggestion, to try to accommodate both of us - "a family friend reveals his or her connection", which you again rejected. Finally you reluctantly came up with "a family friend's connection is revealed" and I wholeheartedly endorsed that. This is what I mean by consensus, friend. I tried to do it with good humor - e.g., "Progress!" - but you have continued to hammer away at your point, not taking a single point of mine.

You are the one, actually, who has thrown in strawmen and irrelevant comments - you've made assumptions about what I would or wouldn't do - and all around you've been unpleasant to work with here, because you don't want to work with someone else, you want to get the last word.

You know what? Go ahead, take the last word. This is juvenile. There are no norms established by the TV episode list group regarding spoilers or teasers that I can find, so the amount of information revealed is a matter of whoever writes it. One would hope that it would then be a matter of editors talking and deciding how to go, but you don't really want to do that - you throw in NPOV suddenly (what was POV about my edits?) and declare that an editor can march in and overrule all editors working on a page in defense of the higher value he sees being violated. Nothing of the kind is going on here. If you truly feel that all episode notes should have a high level of spoilers, then go ahead and write it that way. If you want to work with another editor who has shown interest in having this page be good, then discuss it here first. I see that another editor came in and followed the tone that most of the summaries have, and improved my last summary. That's great- do you think I';m going to revert that, because I didn't write it? NO, I welcome it. You are the one causing a problem here, and I am done. Tvoz 21:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"so the amount of information revealed is a matter of whoever writes it." And also whoever removes it, the purpose and result of which is what I'm concerned about. x 21:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Your selective quoting to push your POV here neglected to comment, again, on the next sentence: "One would hope that it would then be a matter of editors talking and deciding how to go". Wikipedia is about collaborative editing. It is clear that you are not interested in anyone's opinion other than your own, and I'm no longer interested in trying to work with you. Tvoz | talk 18:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to be any more repetitive than I already have, so I didn't respond to the rest; and that one thing was just something that I wanted to clarify.
Ultimately, I don't see the problem with revealing that in episode 11, Mutiny, Ricky Jay's character, who is the Cain family lawyer, turns out to have helped facilitate the kidnapping and ends up shooting himself in front of Ellie. x 20:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Right. As I have said, you are not interested in what anyone else has to say, or discussing the approach a page might take when there are differences of opinion and reaching consensus - you are interested only in your own point of view. Have a nice life. Tvoz | talk 08:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)