This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Science Fiction C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Television C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Spoiler Reminder

I have deliberately ignored the commented in demands to not remove certain information. The character bios are being deliberately edited to include spoilers by people who seem more interested about making some sort of point about spoiler policy than they are about article quality. I will explain every edit I made and why:

Evan Rachel Wood does not play "Wyatt". There is no such character outside of Ford's faux narrative given to Teddy. She may be the person who fills the same role as the non-existent Wyatt, but she is not Wyatt. Including this information is fan theorizing and excessive for a brief character bio.

Jeffrey Wright plays the main character Bernard Lowe. Arnold Weber, whose image he is created in, is a minor background character who is mostly mentioned and very rarely seen. Revealing Bernard to be created in Arnold's image is including later plot details in a bio blurb (to make a point about spoiler policy, not to inform the reader). You may as well put "he created a robotic duplicate of his family in a secret lab" to Ford's bio. Excessive details.

I removed excessive plot description from Theresa Cullen's bio, as "character does X with Y later in the series" is not a character description.

I left William/MiB mostly intact because he is actually referred to as William by another character (Ford). I removed his background as a medical professional outside the park because this is excessive detail. I removed "board member of Delos" as "Delos" is not established for the reader. Fancruft.

I removed the excessive plot description from Clementine's bio. It's fine to know she's replaced with another actress playing the same host, the reader does not need to know who returns when and after how many episodes and whether they're "lobotomized", as if that's even an apt description of the procedure she underwent.

Jimmi Simpson does play a man named William, but he does not do so in "flashbacks" (we're shown a mixture of scenes from a different period, MiB's narration, and Dolores's reveries). It is never explicitly confirmed by any character in the show that he is the MiB William, who talks about him in the third person. Again, excessive plot details for a bio which are deliberately included to make a point about spoiler policy.

I changed Tessa Thompson's bio to replace her specific actions (smuggling data out of the park) with a broader character motivation (seeking to exert the board's control over Ford).

Please stop making the article worse with thinly veiled soapboxing. Describe the characters as they appear in one or two sentences, do not include unneeded descriptions of their storylines. Do not make a point to include spoilers because it is your hobby horse. Yes, my edits do make an attempt to remove explicit spoilers where applicable, but only when that coincides with making the bio blurbs more succinct and less of an info dump of fan theories/OR. Unigolyn (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was already annoyed earlier because it seemed like the spoiling was unnecessary. I understand that they don't have to preclude each other - we don't HAVE to spoil, and we don't HAVE to not spoil, but these descriptions are out of hand. They aren't even well written, and in fact some are extremely poorly written. It seems like soapboxing. Also, telling viewers Bernard's entire character bio for the whole show? That's just going overboard. Make every entry like Ford's entry - "Anthony Hopkins as Robert Ford, the founder and creative director of Westworld." Done. One sentence, everything you need to know. No spoilers/soapboxing necessary.

There is no way to have a target audience for an encyclopedia article other than 1) people who have already watched the show 2) people who don't intend to watch the show and 3) people who don't care about spoilers. For those who want some shade of gray there is no way to guess the right amount of detail and it wouldn't be an appropriate way to write an article. —DIY Editor (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not the spoilers. The problem is that the article is being written poorly on purpose to include spoilers. For instance, STOP editing Bernard's post to include that his name is an anagram of "Arnold Weber". It's a plot detail, and it's not necessary to include as the first thing you see in the article. Also, are you sure about that? I usually check out a wiki page for cast and description before I watch a show, I can't imagine I'm the only one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agentxorange (talk • contribs) 13:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Unigolyn and Agentxorange. Inserting too many tangents and random trivia into the cast descriptions is inappropriate. Important plot details can be addressed either in the episode synopses, or in the articles on individual episodes. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is necessary for the character description to be accurate as of now. At the least this means pointing out who is who, and when. There is no choice but to write for people who want full information about the show. —DIY Editor (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just removed "Wyatt" from Wood's entry in the cast list with pretty much the same rationale. Interested editors should probably have a look at List of Westworld characters where the concerns you raise above are being repeated. There's a lot of WP:SYNTHESIS going on! --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree that Evan Rachel Wood does not 'play' Wyatt and don't think it should be mentioned in bio. Not because of SPOILERS but because Wyatt is not a character. Also agree that the bios should be accurate but short and sweet as well, for ease of reader. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see her mentioned as playing Wyatt. —DIY Editor (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It did a few minutes prior to my comment because Rob Sinden removed the reference. Just wanted to state that I support his edit and agree that it has nothing to do with WP:SPOILER. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't notice what Rob Sinden had done. I agree with that edit. Overall the character bios look good though. —DIY Editor (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the Wyatt thing was in the blurb before my initial rewrite, apparently someone restored it before Rob Sinden removed it again. Unigolyn (talk) 08:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Certain users are adamant about edit warring over Bernard and William. Commenting your edits with an offhand reference to WP:SPOILER is not sufficient justification to undo the edits, as I have explained them on the talk page while you have not. I repeat - Bernard is a main character, Arnold is a minor background character never seen outside the hallucinations of unreliable narrators. Jimmi Simpson's William is never explicitly stated to be Ed Harris's William, and that is not a description of his character. You're introducing plot details into a superficial bio format where plot details aren't needed or suitable, because you are soapboxing based on your misunderstanding of WP:SPOILER. Feel free to create a List of Westworld Characters page where you go into greater detail about every character's story arc and background. Unigolyn (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you know, the page already exists. I'll move the "inspirations for Dolores" there as well, since it's not suited for this format. Unigolyn (talk) 08:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your interpretation of it - 100% agree that main pages for TV shows can contain spoilers, so that isn't sufficient justification, HOWEVER introducing plot details in character bios where you could add those things on a specific character page/episode page is unnecessary. I do still think well written articles that aren't explicitly about what is being "spoiled" don't have to include spoilers. --74.67.107.28 (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the designation as host from Bernard. For my arguments, see the section above. PizzaMan (♨♨) 15:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About the Bernard bio (and others). Look, I'm just a random user. I watched two episodes, and just came here for some general info. I don't mind some spoilers at all, but now I feel like there's no use for watching the series anymore. The character description is way out of line and reveals major parts of the plot that are meant to be surprise reveals. 84.196.161.67 (talk) 07:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard is NOT a host as he does not HOST any guests. Please stop adding this incorrect information. It appears most people are agreeing that this information should not be included for one reason on another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FP2C (talk • contribs) 04:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Lowe is a host. There's a clear majority for no spoilers in the characters section but it's not spoiler, it's just a knowledge like other characters. Vikiçizer (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. How is this not a spoiler? I just came to look up some general information after viewing two episodes (20% of the series). Major spoiler here, that severely hurt my (and I guess others') viewing pleasure. 84.196.161.67 (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SPOILER: Spoilers are no different from any other content and should not be deleted solely because they are spoilers. -- Alex^TW 07:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for showing me. Still, based on the idea that the character in question is portrayed to both the viewer and other in-universe characters as not being a "host". The character even views himself as not being one. I feel doing the opposite is based on a technicality, and not truely describing the "character" of this character. 84.196.161.67 (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You prevent valid points, though I did revert your edits in good faith, given that the standing consensus is to include the information. Character information is added to keep up to date with the series, else the information becomes too outdated; we also list things as they are, not how the in-universe characters may view themselves. -- Alex^TW 08:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed before. It's a spoiler. WP's policies are clear that spoilers don't have to be excluded but that doesn't mean they must always be included. Bernard being a host is of little relevance to those who haven't seen the series. It's not like it describes him as wearing some kind of costume. So there's little benefit in describing him as a host. On the other hand: for most of the series he's considered a human. So it's seen by most people in the previous discussions as a plot detail or random trivia rather than a fundamental description of his character. Especially his character at the start of the series, which is how it should be described. Otherwise, some characters should be described as dead as the have died somewhere in the series. That's not how we make a character list. The advantages of mentioning that he's a host need to be weighed against the disadvantages. Knowing Bernard is a host is literally a major spoiler; it really spoils his story line. Bernard is also a special kind of host, it's complicated, he doesn't even live in the park and isn't reset so while an android he shouldn't even be called a host. That's all way too complicated to go into in the character section of this article. It's an excessive detail. So there's little to no necessity in spoiling it. In fact, it's confusing to someone who is watching the series and hasn't reached episode 7. So most agree that including the information doesn't make the article clearer or cleaner. That summarizes to my best abitily the discussions that about the subject in the talk page and it's archives. I hope this helps put your mind at ease. PizzaMan (♨♨) 20:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The information that Bernard is a host is still present further down in the article, in the episodes descriptions. This specific spoiler isn't removed from the article, but moved further down so that it isn't shoved in the face of the reader. This doesn't violate wp:spoilers policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:1:B1E0:5495:B720:B7A9:C244 (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AlexTheWhovian, please stop editing it back in. How many people need to revert your edits before you realise the clear majority is for not mentioning Bernard being a host in the character list? PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And again: Multiple discussions have concluded that the content is fine to include in the article. No currently active, or successful, discussion to overturn this WP:CONSENSUS exists; simply because you typed up a wall of text, that does not change this fact. -- Alex^TW 16:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To my interpretation, multiple discussions ended with people giving up arguing with you. That's not the same as people being convinced by you. I'm not going to continue your edit war, but i urge you to read through the previous discussions with an open mind, and ask yourself if you really feel the majority is convinced by your arguments. And to be aware that you're spoiling a major plot twist for all who come here without adding anything relevant. PizzaMan (♨♨) 08:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on the results of those discussions has been noted, but it does not change the fact that if they felt that they had nothing further to contribute to the discussion, then the consensus stands and has been implemented by multiple editors and not just myself. If you've read the discussions, you will understand that we do not filter spoilers, they are no different to any other content, and we are not here to run a fan service. -- Alex^TW 14:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Alex on this one. Wikipedia is not censored, which means we do not protect readers from spoilers, including the revelation that Bernard Lowe is a host.--Coolcaesar (talk) 04:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not contesting that we avoid censoring Wikipedia for spoilers; that's a sensible policy where acting otherwise would mean we could not be encyclopædic. And that's why it would be ridiculous to remove the mention of the revelation from the episode summary later in the article. But what benefit does describing him as a host in the cast list provide? It's not a key piece of information at that point — his defining characteristic in the cast list is that he's Head of Programming. Describing him as a host in the cast list is not only irrelevant (ignoring that it's less of a spoiler and more of a fuck-you to new viewers who should probably know better than to read Wikipedia if they want to avoid spoilers) but superfluous, just as it would be to describe Dolores as being Wyatt would be. [ETA: Or to point out that Jeffrey Wright also plays Arnold, the host having been modelled on the designer.]

We don't point out that Ed Harris's character is on the Delos board in the cast list, which we do in the summary for episode 9. Why should we make a point of mentioning that Bernard is a host in the cast list? I'm sorry, @AlexTheWhovian:, but I'm with PizzaMan (and the unsigned IPv6 user) here — there seems to be no consensus to mention Bernard being a host in the cast list. Like the revelation that The Man in Black is on the board, this information is out of place in the cast list and rightly belongs in the episode summary — as Vikiçizer said at the start of this discussion-section, there's a clear majority for no spoilers in the characters section. — OwenBlacker (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a solid argument that OwenBlacker makes. Either mention all facts for all characters or avoid revealing anything we get to know as the series evolves. Also, is Bernard really a host? What is he hosting? Yes, he is AI, but he doesn't interact with the guests. I know that spoilers are allowed on Wikipedia, but there are different kind of spoilers. Listing Bernarnd as Head of Programming is a spoiler in and of itself, but that's how he was first introduced to everyone who watched the show, so there's no problem with that. I haven't made my mind on this issue, i am just saying... --  Radiphus  19:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with User:PizzaMan, User:OwenBlacker etc that this is unnecessary information in the cast list.-gadfium 21:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he doesn't interact with guest means he's NOT a "host" so not only is it a spoiler for those who haven't watched all of it yet but it is also inaccurate. It is also a very pertinent plot point as his not being a human and the fact that not many know directly influences the story. I agree with previous editors that the consensus is that it should not be placed directly in the first bit of character description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FP2C (talk • contribs) 17:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I 100 percent agree that this is a spoiler, and there is no reason for it to be listed in Bernard's character info on the first page. Wikipedia's definition of a spoiler :A spoiler is a piece of information about a narrative work (such as a book, film, television series, or a video game) which reveals plot points or twists and thus may degrade the experience of persons who wish to experience the work themselves.

Many people checking out this article will not have watched the episodes and would not expect such a spoiler. Imagine if Game of Thrones listed Ned Stark's death in his character description for the first season. I'm going to change it back. And I will continue to change it back. I don't want to ruin it for anyone else. Bremen (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone here denies that this is a spoiler, or disagrees with the definition of a spoiler. However, a definition in and of itself is not a policy; a policy is created based on arguements. Here is Wikipedia's policy on spoilers, that you so selectively left out: Spoilers may be used in Wikipedia articles. [...] It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality (e.g., the lead section).

Many people checking out this article will not have watched the episodes and would not expect such a spoiler.

Maybe they shouldn't be browsing an online encyclopedia. -- Radiphus 11:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this argument is verging on insanity. What purpose does it serve to list that Bernard is an android on the very first page? Who does it help? Who does it hurt? I don't think most people would expect the single biggest turning point of the series to be on the first page of an article about the show. The first page should be a simple introduction, and the article on the episode in question can reveal the truth about the character. I personally was spoiled, and do not want it to happen to someone else. I am not being unreasonable here. "Maybe they shouldn't be browsing an online encyclopedia?" I mean, you might as well reveal the identifies of all the Cylons on Battlestar Galatcica on the character page. No. Bremen (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who does it help?

It helps preserve Wikipedia's completeness and encyclopedic tone, as determined by its guidelines. Part of those guidelines are WP:TVCAST, which states that the cast section should include information about how the character was created and developed over the course of the series, and WP:SPOILER which states that spoilers are no different from any other content and should not be deleted solely because they are spoilers. If you disagree with those guidelines, you could start a discussion about changing them at the appropriate talk pages. Until then, your edits constitute disruptive editing. -- Radiphus 12:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These guidelines are open to interpretation. You are intentionally ruining an experience for many people, which included me. I'm merely trying to protect others like myself. I feel like I am not being listened to. You haven't responded to my questions about the Cylons, for example. You haven't listened to others in this thread, like Pizzaman. The main page for a series should not contain major spoilers. Character articles, or episode recaps are perfectly fine for such information, and help preserve Wikipedia's completeness. The main article does not need this information and it can damage the enjoyment of a viewer. Most people will check out a wikipedia article before they watch a show, or they may be reading it for other information, like who is in the cast, etc. etc, and they will not expect major spoilers.Bremen (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These guidelines are open to interpretation.

How do you interpret those guidelines?

You are intentionally ruining an experience for many people, which included me. I'm merely trying to protect others like myself.

That's offensive. I won't even respond to that.

I feel like I am not being listened to. You haven't responded to my questions about the Cylons, for example.

That's because i don't know what a Cylon is... What do you have to say about the spoilers included in the House of cards cast section?

You haven't listened to others in this thread, like Pizzaman.

I think you are confusing "listening to someone" with "accepting another person's opinion". Have you listened to AlexTheWhovian, DIYeditor, DES, myself and others?

The main page for a series should not contain major spoilers. Character articles, or episode recaps are perfectly fine for such information, and help preserve Wikipedia's completeness. The main article does not need this information and it can damage the enjoyment of a viewer. Most people will check out a wikipedia article before they watch a show, or they may be reading it for other information, like who is in the cast, etc. etc, and they will not expect major spoilers.

I am not the one you should be saying this things to. The current consensus-based guidelines state that spoilers should be included in the cast section. I am simply making sure those guidelines are being followed. If you want to change those guidelines you'll have to start a new discussion at the appropriate talk pages. You won't achieve anything with the approach you are taking. -- Radiphus 15:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about Pizzaman, OwenBlacker, etc? As far as House of Cards goes, I believe that cast list is excessively detailed, and contains an incredible amount of unnecessary spoilers. Cylons are a fictional race of robots on the TV show Battlestar Galactica; many of the human characters on the show turned out to be Cylons, and this fact is concealed on the main page for the TV show, but of course is revealed in episode recaps. Clearly there is no standard for how wikipedia reveals this kind of information. Clearly there is room for interpretation. Clearly I am not the only one who thinks so, and the solution is not to continue to tell me to try to get the guidelines revised, which would be much more difficult than simply coming to an agreement here. I've already mentioned that I was spoiled myself, and someone else did as well. Why not change it back so this doesn't happen again?Bremen (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE is not a valid argument. Again: also provide supporting guidelines and policies to support your argument. Perhaps you should have given your argument some basis before you deliberately manipulated the section header - very bad faith of you. Clearly we are also not the only people supporting it. It's not a war. Your agreement that you're wanting is to remove it - that's not an agreement, that's a demand. -- Alex^TW 15:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for editing the heading, that was a bit much. But I do not believe that any consensus has been reached here. I am far from the only one with this opinion, am I not? I and many others here have tried to argue the point that it is unnecessary to include this kind of information when it is also found in the episode information. It does not mean that the article is lacking in completeness. Please remember that Pizzaman, FP2C, gadfium, OwenBlacker, 84.196.161.67, 74.67.107.28, and Unigoyln support this position. Bremen (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions are not votes - remember that. Listing how many people support the removal is irrelevant. If there's no consensus to remove it, and there is not, then the status quo of the article remains. -- Alex^TW 23:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions are not votes, but how can you say that listing a majority of support for a position does not represent consensus? What else is consensus? Do votes have to be taken in each case? I think it's quite obvious we have consensus, see the end of this talk page. Bremen (talk) 05:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of "I just don't like it" do not represent a consensus. They just create a "we don't like it". I told you before, guidelines are created based on arguements. Your only arguement is that this spoiler will ruin the show for anyone who sees it. Yes, it is true, but Wikipedia DOES NOT CARE about it. You have to understand that this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site or IMDb and anyone who visits it should keep that in mind. Those spoilers in the cast section are essential for examining the characters' development. Is there an arguement you can make, based on an actual policy of Wikipedia? -- Radiphus 09:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This information in the cast section, if found in other sections of the same article, is not essential, in my opinion. Removing it from a certain section of an article for brevity's sake does not violate the spoiler policy. The full information is still available to those who want to dig deeper to learn more about character development. The longer a show goes on, the more cluttered this section becomes as well; after multiple seasons including this kind of detail will eventually be very cumbersome. Wikipedia states that character information should be brief, which is the policy that I am following. Bremen (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should we remove the entire section then? Everything you see there can be found in the infobox, episode summaries, production, etc. Remember: Spoilers are no different from any other content and should not be deleted solely because they are spoilers. So, why treat the rest of the section any differently? Also, would you say that the Fringe and Mutant X cast sections, which WP:TVCAST gives as an example for writing those sections, are briefer or contain any less spoilers than Westworld's? Now that i think of it, since DeLauro's character description in Mutant X mentions her death, we should be doing the same here in Westworld with Ford and Theresa's deaths... -- Radiphus 10:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the source being used for cite the season 2 premiere title doesn't really verify it as a fact. It appears to be speculation. Jonathan Nolan posted this image which has the premiere title "Journey Into..." with the remainder of the title obscured. To me, it's WP:OR to assume "Journey Into Night" is the full title as it's speculation and not a confirmation via HBO or any official sources. Not that I'm doubting that's the title, but the season is more than six months away, I think we can wait a little longer until there's some sort of official confirmation of this information. Thoughts? Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear: Bernard is not a host. Hosts interact with guests. Bernard works in programing, behind the scenes. He is, in the show, an android. The majority of contributors here on the talk page seem to agree that his being a "host" or "android" should not be on the cast list portion either. The WP policy on spoilers is that they can be included, as they are in the synopsis portion, but nowhere does it say that they have to be prominently displayed. There is precedent for NOT including that information with the cast listing with how the cast list is handled in the article for "The Sixth Sense" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sixth_Sense ). It gives Bruce Willis' character's name but it doesn't add ", ghost" immediately following. This 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 but also allows the information to be elsewhere in the article in order to fulfill the mission of factual accuracy.FP2C (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This is an encyclopedia not a fansite. Nothing in how we structure or edit an article should show any concern whatsoever about "ruining" a plot point. As WP:SPOILER says, "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." Anyone who does not want a spoiler should not read the relevant Wikipedia article. Period. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue for me is whether Bernard is really a host, since he does not interact with the guests. Wouldn't it be better instead, to describe him as an "AI replica of Arnold", a "robot" or an "android" created by Ford? I also believe that the Man in Black —besides a "guest"— should also be described as the "Majority Shareholder of the Westworld park". -- Radiphus 09:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself persuaded by the arguments that Bernard may be an android, but is not a "host", so i have removed this statement from the cast list. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The immediate self-revert of your edit is recommended. This is what has been and is currently being discussed on the talk page, on whether we should remove the content or reword it; please allow the WP:STATUSQUO to remain while the discussion continues per WP:BRD. Given that you have found yourself in this discussion, it is clear that you would have seen the great number of reverts by multiple editors restoring the content of the status quo, and the discussions related to it, so it is clear that you have no interest working in good faith alongside these editors. So, your actions could be considered edit-warring and deliberately ignoring talk page and article etiquette in the face of other editors. Glad you understand. Thank you. -- Alex^TW 15:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexTheWhovian: since you seem to be the editor who insists most on the use of the word "host" to describe Bernard, it would be nice to explain why you think that's the right word to use and not "android" or something similar indicating the character's AI nature. -- Radiphus 15:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)It appears to me that most of the support on this talk page for including the content, and very nearly all the reverts to keep it in, come from YOU, AlexTheWhovian, and indeed a case could be made that your many reversions constitute edit warring and should lead to a block. I am very well aware of the edit-warring guidelines, having issued quite a few blocks for their violations. Note that talk page discussions in progress do not constitute an exception to the rules against edit warring. Nor can one edit be construed as edit warring. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note that all of your arguments against this inclusion derive from WP:SPOILER. Indeed the information should not be omitted on the ground that it is a spoiler. However, in no way does WP:SPOILER suggest including inaccurate information. If you were to add to the cast list that the character is an android, that would be different, but "host" is a job title, one that it appears this character does not fit. You have not, as yet, provided any response to this argument, and so I will not be self reverting. Note that BRD is not an excuse to hold up an article indefinitely against the local consensus. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support this version with Bernard as an android and older William as a majority shareholder. I think the character list should accurately reflect the totality of the characters, otherwise it would be potentially incomplete or misleading for someone who wanted the whole picture. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repost my comment from earlier:

I am not contesting that we avoid censoring Wikipedia for spoilers; that's a sensible policy where acting otherwise would mean we could not be encyclopædic. And that's why it would be ridiculous to remove the mention of the revelation from the episode summary later in the article. But what benefit does describing him as a host in the cast list provide? It's not a key piece of information at that point — his defining characteristic in the cast list is that he's Head of Programming. Describing him as a host in the cast list is not only irrelevant (ignoring that it's less of a spoiler and more of a fuck-you to new viewers who should probably know better than to read Wikipedia if they want to avoid spoilers) but superfluous, just as it would be to describe Dolores as being Wyatt would be. [ETA: Or to point out that Jeffrey Wright also plays Arnold, the host having been modelled on the designer.]

We don't point out that Ed Harris's character is on the Delos board in the cast list, which we do in the summary for episode 9. Why should we make a point of mentioning that Bernard is a host in the cast list? I'm sorry, @AlexTheWhovian:, but I'm with PizzaMan (and the unsigned IPv6 user) here — there seems to be no consensus to mention Bernard being a host in the cast list. Like the revelation that The Man in Black is on the board, this information is out of place in the cast list and rightly belongs in the episode summary — as Vikiçizer said at the start of this discussion-section, there's a clear majority for no spoilers in the characters section.

There is no consensus for mention of Bernard being a host and I still don't see the value in mentioning his non-human status (with whatever wording) in the cast list — nor that Ed Harris's character is William and his board status there. I have to agree that this [still] comes across to me as edit-warring by AlexTheWhovian, rather than the reverse.

The purpose of the cast list is to provide a brief introduction to each character and their purpose throughout the series. In the case of Bernard, that is his position at the head of the programming division and for the older William it's that he is an important guest. Leaving the plot revelations to the episode summaries isn't a case of avoiding spoilers, it's that such a level of detail is unnecessary and inappropriate here. — OwenBlacker (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how you only mention me, rather than every other editor who was reverted the edits, several of which were very recent, only because I'm the only one who has replied. I'd say that that's cherrypicking to support any lack of an argument. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 02:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is imho this: does the WP spoiler policy deem it mandatory to include information in the cast list that is irrelevant unless you're intentionally trying to spoil plot points? And is a discussion about this "won" if other people eventually just get tired of discussing it? And, to go into the philosophical question that the makers of this series ask: does the fact that Bernard is an android define him any more in this story than the fact that he's black? Or that he's male? If we were to ask him, he sure wouldn't think so. PizzaMan (♨♨) 10:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PizzaMan: You are saying that Bernard being an android manipulated by Dr. Ford is irrelevant to the character's story in the first season? -- Radiphus 18:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a plot point, not a character description.PizzaMan (♨♨) 04:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A plot point is an event. Ford ordering Bernard to kill Theresa, thus revealing Bernard's nature, is a plot point. Bernard being an android is an attribute. -- Radiphus 08:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to first thank everybody for finally agreeing that "android" is more factual than "host" when it comes to Bernard. With this out of the way, we can get at the other issue, that of where this information is most appropriate. Radiphus, thank you for that great point. I agree that Bernard being an android is an attribute in the most technical sense of the word, but only after that fact is revealed. That fact that this information is revealed later in the first season and that the revelation drastically changes our understanding of the world as presented in the show is itself a plot point and not essential for his one-line character description. As I mentioned initially, Bruce Willis' character in "The 6th Sense" is a ghost, an underlying attribute, but because his being a ghost impacts the narrative, it is eschewed from the brief character description. Using this as precedent, while Bernard being a non-human most definitely deserves to be included under episode synopses and in the full character bio, I'm with PizzaMan, Vikiçizer, and OwenBlacker that displaying it prominently with the brief character introduction is wholly inappropriate.FP2C (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A question I have is how far after their initial introduction would you draw the line? For example, do we know right away that Dolores is a "host" or that her life is a lie? No. Since it is arbitrary to say 5 minutes or 20 minutes or 2 episodes or whatever, I think there should be no line drawn. Otherwise it is a pretty subjective matter of taste/style. This is an encyclopedia article not a review. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most people will not expect major spoilers from the main character list on the introductory page. Look at other main TV articles. For example, the Cylons on BG who viewers assumed are human are not identified as Cylons, even though it has been many years since BG concluded. Bremen (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FP2C: I could just as easily go to the "The Sixth Sense" talk page and claim that Willis being a ghost should be mentioned in the character's description, because at "Westworld" they are including the fact that Bernard is an android. You have to understand how Wikipedia works: If you want to edit the description of the characters in this article so that they do not include spoilers, you 'll first have to change the spoiler guidelines. -- Radiphus 09:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, these guidelines are open to interpretation. Keeping this spoiler on this main page is verging on malicious. Bremen (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply properly. And also provide supporting guidelines and policies to support your argument; WP:OSE does not satisfy this. -- Alex^TW 15:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Radiphus: I get what you mean but that's not how "precedent" works. My point of bringing up the 6th Sense is to show proof of the way things are done (that film and the article for it are much older). I'm not denying that spoilers absolutely belong in Wikipedia as this is an encyclopedia after all, but that is what the entirety of the "plot" section is for. The character section is mostly a way to link the actors with their characters and give a brief description. @DIYeditor: It may seem arbitrary at first but, as far as TV series as an art medium are concerned, it is pretty well established that the first episode is usually the setting up of the premise and introduction of the characters; subsequent episodes are development of the story. For this reason, unless the character itself was introduced later in the season, it is safe to assume that information about a character not presented during the introduction is information the creators wanted to keep for later on.FP2C (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for expanding upon my arguments, FP2C. You put the part about the difference between a plot development and a character description much better than i did. It's what i tried to say with that we should then also mention who is dead in the character list. There's a clear majority for putting the information later on in the article. Especially if you consider previous discussions where eventually people just gave up arguing. How shall we resolve this without an edit-war? PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words, PizzaMan. I agree that a clear majority has formed and I would like to say that, this being established and based on what I've read, the change should be made and anyone reverting it excessively be reported for edit-warring. That being said, I am relatively new and not fully versed in all aspects of procedure and protocol quite yet so I will defer on this matter to someone more experienced. There is also a set of steps that can be taken to for dispute resolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests/Guide) but I hope dissenting editors accept the majority decision and allow the change to be made without outside intervention.FP2C (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that we have reached consensus and that the change should be made, thank you. Bremen (talk) 05:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that Old William and Young William should be edited out of the character descriptions as they are similarly unnecessary and overly detailed descriptions. Bremen (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus how? I see FP2C, OwenBlacker, PizzaMan and you against inclusion and Cullen238, Radiphus, AlexTheWhovian and me for it. Even if consensus on wikipedia were a majority vote you wouldn't have it. Sounds more like a case for an RfC. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with DIYeditor; there is no consensus, not even if you attempt to force it. The summaries are not overly detailed at all. Your "overly detailed" is based on the spoilers and nothing more. I, however, would not be opposed to an RfC. -- Alex^TW 07:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pizzaman, FP2C, gadfium, OwenBlacker, 84.196.161.67, 74.67.107.28, and Unigoyln have been against inclusion, there may be a few I am missing. Overly detailed is very subjective, but that is my opinion. Personally, I think that the character's name, actor that portrays the character, and a brief 1 line description of the character is all that is needed in this section of an article, considering that articles about TV shows can be very long. The information included here can be included in casting, episode information, character pages, etc. Obviously there are others who feel differently. It's not just about spoilers for me. I think that the character list on the main page should focus on who the characters are and not focus too much on all the events that happen to those characters throughout the show. If RfC is where we are now, that's fine.Bremen (talk) 07:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal desires are not the guidelines, policies or consensus of the Television WikiProject. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 07:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Alex, I do not appreciate you posting a warning that I might be blocked on my talk page. I have been editing Wikipedia for a very long time and every edit I have ever made to this site has been done with the goal of improving it and nothing more. I do not make it a habit to edit war, and I can't even remember being involved in any arguments before. Also, please refrain from following me to another user's talk page and posting there. I have always enjoyed my time editing here at Wikipedia and as you can see I have no history of being involved in conflicts. Thank you.Bremen (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were edit-warring, so I posted a generic template warning on your talk page. Not up to me what the template says. Thank you for your contributions, but none of them make your warring acceptable. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 07:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You made as many edits to the article as I did, I could easily have put the same template on your page and called you an edit warrior. You could have simply asked me to come to the talk page and discussed things instead of doing that. Also, it wasn't even 24 hours before that message was posted on my page, and I think I made a grand total of 2 or three edits. I find your behaviour aggressive and hostile and stalking me at the page of someone else completely unnecessary.Bremen (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could have simply asked me to come to the talk page and discussed things instead of doing that. Huh. How interesting. [1]: Sigh. This is, yet again, still in discussion - contribute there. And read WP:SPOILER for your spoiler reasoning. Wow. It's almost like I did, but you ignored it by reverting me! Wowzer! -- Alex^TW 08:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I had not seen those comments. Coming to my page and posting that warning was over the top and aggressive. A simple, "Hello, please discuss this at the talk page" would have been much more helpful and considerate than just pasting a generic template telling me I was edit warring and liable to face a ban. Overreaction. And please refrain from following me around the site onto other users boards, that was also out of line. Bremen (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted the edit directly after. You most obviously read it. If you want this discussion to continue, I would recommend being honest. Especially given that you reverted another editor as well, it would have been common sense for you to take it here, no? -- Alex^TW 08:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edit hastily, and did not read the comments, I am being completely honest. Note that I made three edits, three! Within a few hours! And was then slapped with the tag of edit warrior. Sorry, I don't appreciate being called that. Technically, that may have been what happened, but it does nothing to foster cooperation or civility. Nothing I've done has been in bad faith, and again, we can claim that you yourself are engaging in the very same practice. Bremen (talk) 09:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are once again proving yourself ignorant of Wikipedia's policies: WP:3RR. -- Radiphus 09:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is actually news to me, however, couldn't it be said the same thing was done by Alex? And apparently he's aware of this rule? 09:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I repeat: Edit-warring to force your hasty edits and deliberately not caring for other editors, that is different to restoring the status quo so that a discussion can actually take place. -- Alex^TW 09:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Edit-warring to force your hasty edits and deliberately not caring for other editors, that is different to restoring the status quo so that a discussion can actually take place. Given that none of this is actually in relation to the topic at hand, I'm pretty sure this is the most useless discussion I've been in. Respond to the previous discussion about the actual problem, and as Radiphus said, read the policies and guidelines that run this place. Cheerio. -- Alex^TW 09:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be at this talk page if I didn't care for other editors, or their opinions. Again, I have been here since the beginning of 2005 and have never been involved in an edit war, hence why I did not even know of this 3RR policy as it has never applied to me or been brought up in any other situation I have encountered here. Telling any other wikipedia editor that they don't care about other editors is over the top and insulting, when I am trying to have a civil discussion. At this point, I believe all the arguments for inclusion of the information have been heard. Several users believed consensus had been reached, and one went ahead and edited the article again. Then you reverted. It's obvious an intervention from a third party is needed. Bremen (talk) 09:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the suggestion for an RfC. -- Alex^TW 09:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which I already agreed with. Bremen (talk) 09:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes: WP:SPOILER states that spoilers are no different from any other content and should not be deleted solely because they are spoilers. Also, WP:TVCAST states that the cast section should include information about how the character was created and developed over the course of the series, which clearly indicates the inclusion of "information revealed to the viewer throughout the series". Removing this information would undermine Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone, completeness and the article's quality in general. Good examples for writing the cast section, that are provided in the previously-mentioned Wikipedia guidelines, include the shows Fringe and Mutant X, which both include major spoilers, such as the death of a main character. Opposing the inclusion of this information suggests that the person doesn't have a complete understanding of either Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or the purpose an encyclopedia serves, as opposed to a regular fan site. -- Radiphus 12:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have an opinion one way or another, but I did want to counter-argue some points. Fringe and Mutant X are both shows that are past their original run. If you look at shows currently running (Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead), you can see they hold back information and reserve it for other areas where one might expect spoilers to be found. I know WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, but perhaps everyone should be focusing on where to put that info rather than if it should be included, since we know it shouldn't be removed for just being a spoiler. As a counter-example to my own point, Veep is very detailed in their character descriptions. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

nihlus kryik, thank you for your insightful comment. It is 100% the "where" not "if" that I'm concerned with. I would like to point out that Veep is a comedy while the others, Westworld included, are on the drama/thriller side of things. As we know, some of the basic principles of the thriller genre are suspense, surprise, and plot twists where the timing of information is essential to the story (ex. the 1999 movie, "The Sixth Sense"). For this reason, and seeing that including the information elsewhere still fulfills the requirement for encyclopedic completeness, I am of the idea that it should not be included with the brief introduction.FP2C (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the comedy point is definitely a good one. Thanks. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No: First off, no one has said that this information shouldn't be included, but it is the location of the information that is causing our problem. I think this information should be kept in the List of Westworld Characters page and of course should be listed on the individual episode pages and it can also be included lower down in the episode summaries of the main article. I think keeping the information in these sections makes the article complete and encyclopedic and avoids unnecessary detail that a casual reader would likely not be interested in. I do not think that removing this information has any effect on the quality of an article and in fact makes the article easier to read, less convoluted, more streamlined and it makes more sense. If a reader wants a quick summary, or to find information on who is in the cast and what role they play, they will likely go to the cast section and will not expect such details/spoilers. Some of the editors on this page seem to think that wikipedia's spoiler policy indicates these details MUST be presented in the cast section, but I believe that guideline is open to interpretation. Thank you. As an aside, I find the comment "Opposing the inclusion of this information suggests that the person doesn't have a complete understanding of either Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or the purpose an encyclopedia serves, as opposed to a regular fan site" rude and unnecessary, immediately trying to frame the argument as uninformed. I've read the spoiler policies, and I believe they are open to interpretation and that what I, and many others are suggesting, perfectly fits within the guidelines. Bremen (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find the comment "[...]" rude and unnecessary, immediately trying to frame the argument as uninformed. Framing the argument? So, a bit like deliberately modifying a talk page header? Disappointing. -- Alex^TW 16:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologized for that already, thank you. Bremen (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong No: I've made my full argument above so I'm not sure copy and pasting it in full again here does any good (though I'll be glad to if its required for RfC) but, summed up, I agree with Bremen that the information is relevant and definitely has it's place in the article but, given the precedent established by older articles, the fact Bernard is an android is plot related enough that it should not be included in the brief character description as it is not essential for identifying the character.FP2C (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• No: We all agree the information should be included, just not in the character list at the start of the article. This information belongs in the plot summary, where people expect spoilers. The character list is used for reference by people who are still watching or reading a story. Just because we have the policy to not exclude information because it's a spoiler, that doesn't mean we have to construct articles in such a way that we deliberately put spoilers in a place where people who are still enjoying a story don't expect them. That's not free and open information, it's trolling viewers/readers. Information that gets revealed throughout a story, but isn't apparent when a character is introduced, is trivia in the context of a character list. And those who've seen the series or read the book, well they know already. So who are we really helping by putting spoilers in the character list? And does that weigh up against the spoiling? Especially in an ongoing series. In books, a character list is often included and it describes the characters as we know them at the start of the story. If characters marry throughout the story and thus change name, they are still listed in the character list with their maiden name. If you'd be consequent about adding plot developtments about a character in the character list, you'd even have to add "deceased" to those who died during a story. Wouldn't that look silly? In this article, it's even more complicated, because Bernard considers himself pretty much a humen, rather than an android, let alone a host. So his status is complicated. And we, as viewers, feel that way too throughout most of the story. We could call him Android, but that term is afaik never used in the series, so that's original research. It's too complicated to go into in a few words in a character list. Perhaps there are situations where a point can be made for including a spoiler in the character list, but we should strive to keep it as spoiler free as we can, and keep the spoilers in the plot summary, where everyone expects them. PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, reading that wall of text, and getting to your ending summary sentence... Your ultimate goal is to remove spoilers from the cast summary? -- Alex^TW 16:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not all spoilers in every article. PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PizzaMan: Apologies, but I had to revert your edit. Per WP:REDACT: "If anyone has already replied to or quoted the original comment, consider whether the edit could affect the interpretation of the replies or integrity of the quotes." and "Other than minor corrections for insignificant typographical errors made before other editors reply, changes should be noted to avoid misrepresenting the original post." Glad you understand. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 18:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added two sentences to clarify. You could have marked them in some way, but you chose for deleting them altogether, implying that i "affected the interpretation". How did the interpreteation change for you? PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Question should we clarify the spoiler policy page after this rfc is concluded? PizzaMan (♨♨) 23:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Yes: The basic reason for wanting to remove the content from its location is simply to remove the spoilers, and nothing else. Content can and does exist in two or more places at once. See the previous discussions for solid statements on how the series was spoiled for certain editors, that's why they wanted to remove it. We are not a fan service to pander for the reader; we are an encyclopedia that lists details. And the fact that Bernard is an android is an extremely important detail to his character, and were it not included, we would deliberately be omitting important imformation that very clearly expands upon the content in question. If we were to remove plot details from character descriptions, there would be no character description. WP:TVCAST states nothing about only keeping specific content, and complaints that the summaries are too long as "an android created by Dr. Ford" is literally six words long. Arguing that other stuff exists is not a valid argument per WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, so bringing up the same on article with similarities is barely helpful here. One of the above editors argued for it to be changed from a host to an android, an edit which was implemented, and now wishes to go back on this and not include it at all. Limiting it only to one article makes no sense. This character directly references the character, so it should also directly reference the important details about said character. Avoiding it simply because you don't like it is attempting to force the article to hide content that may spoil the viewing "pleasure" of a reader; again, we are not here to make the "casual reader" happy, we are here to list important content. The spoiler guideline may not demand that we add spoilers, but nor does it say that we should avoid adding "spoilers", which I personally believe is a pointless term anyway when it comes to such a highly-regarded collection of information. "Trolling" viewers? What a very un-editor-like description by someone who doesn't know how this site and the thousands of other television series' are run. -- Alex^TW 16:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would please ask that you refrain from using comments such as "this user doesn't know how these articles are run." Look at Game of Thrones Season 1. The cast list only states the names of the actors and the characters they play. There is a link to a very detailed article about all the characters that any reader can easily follow if they so wish. The same format could be applied here, so you don't need to act like the way it is on this page is some universal standard, when it is clearly not. Bremen (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal request on how I word my personal opinions has been noted and immediately rejected. Again: you clearly have no idea on how these articles are run. Season articles have and have always had lists of actor/character names, and main articles have descriptions. Yet another example of what I said; I thank you for proving me right. Cheers! -- Alex^TW 17:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, if descriptions are the norm, you could also look at the main page for Game of Thrones, which does not go into the kind of detail here, and does not spoil character deaths, for example. Bremen (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is possible to be against both points so don't falsely equivocate the two. "Host" was an incorrect label that needed to be addressed in multiple locations and I'm glad that's been taken care of. The location of this information at present, as I've made clear from my comments, does a disservice to casual readers and people who are here for basic information about the series (such as cast and production notes) and to the creators of the artwork itself. I have still to read any comment explaining how having that information still available elsewhere in the article makes it any less encyclopedic and factually complete.FP2C (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First off, why did you overwrite someone else's comment? Is this some tactic to force only your personal opinion, any not anyone else's? And the two approximately meant the same thing, so why did you not request it was immediately removed, rather than some straight two-way detour? And I already said: Content can and does exist in two or more places at once. I have still to read any comment explaining how removing that information in that particular location in the article would be beneficial to the site in an encyclopedic manner, rather than pandering to the odd reader. -- Alex^TW 17:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I started my response but it appears that by the time I had finished typing and hit save, others had unbeknownst to me already commented so it saved what I had started writing WITHOUT the new comments. That's why I went back and rewrote it underneath. Please stop ascribing blame and trying to find conflict where there isn't any. Being combative accomplished nothing.FP2C (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is how that would make the article less encyclopedic: let's say someone is reading the Westworld article and would like to learn more about the characters' development. Where should he start reading? Should he have to read the whole article? -- Radiphus 17:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If they would like to learn more they can click on the full character article. Bremen (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is for (almost) every character detail. This article is for important character details. Stating the the character being an android is not important is a complete sham. -- Alex^TW 17:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely think it is not necessary for the casual reader, but for someone who wants more details, the full character article is available. Bremen (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know that's what you believe. However, it's not what we personally want, none of us - it's what is important. -- Alex^TW 18:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No and here I'm thinking about things like who dies when, who kills who, and who is, in fact, actually a host. This is specifically about the Cast and Characters section; you'll note that WP:SPOILER differentiates plot, and distinguishes it as a place where spoilers are to be expected. Starting of with "Bernard is a host who believes himself to be human throughout most of the first season" would not be encyclopedic; it would be tacky. By all means, reveal it in the plot, but not in the cast and characters section. Jclemens (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may have missed that on WP:SPOILER: plot summaries, episode lists, character descriptions, etc.—were already clearly named to indicate that they contain plot details. -- Radiphus 17:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The policy clarifies that character lists can contain spoilers. It does not argue for always including all spoilers.PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted this line, not as a proof of mandatory inclusion of spoilers, but to argue against Jclemens' opinion that spoilers are not expected in the cast section. I agree on the last part about not including "all spoilers". Just those that are important in describing the development of a character. Like someone being an android, instead of a human being, perhaps? -- Radiphus 18:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The governing quote is "Wikipedia previously included such warnings in some articles, but no longer does so, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers." The fact that the later quote, cited above, expands the areas listed as containing potential spoilers merely creates a situation where two sections of the guideline differ and create ambiguity. I think it's a bad idea, should be harmonized, and spoilers should be restricted to appropriate plot sections. Someone who cares more than I can go back and track who added what when. Jclemens (talk) 06:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no ambiguity in the guidelines. Neither the quote such as Plot or Ending limits the section headings that could contain spoilers to "Plot" and "Ending", nor does the quote plot summaries, episode lists, character descriptions, etc. limit it to plot summaries, episode lists and character descriptions. What these quotes really do is they tell us that we shouldn't care if something is a spoiler, as long as the inclusion of this information will help preserve Wikipedia's completeness and encyclopedic tone. For example, spoilers found in sections like "Reception" or "Home media release" would have to be removed. Not because they are spoilers, but because they would be redundant. -- Radiphus 09:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No if it is not necessary to have the reader understand the cast information. Spoilers really should not be included when not necessary, which has been a topic of debate at the WP:Spoiler talk page. Recently, I removed unnecessary spoilers from the The Flash (2014 TV series) article, after first broaching the matter at the article's talk page. Note that we also retained some spoiler content in that section for context. Things like this should be handled on a case-by-case basis. In another case, we also removed unnecessary spoiling from the Cast section of the Star Wars: The Force Awakens article. I state Yes in the case that spoilers should actually be there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyer22 Reborn: In one case, we have one character who is an AI replica of another character. In the other case, we have two actors who play the same character in different ages. Both these cases happen to be spoilers. Would you say that mentioning them is necessary to have the reader understand the cast information? -- Radiphus 17:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I watch the show and have my television on the marathon right now; so, luckily, I'm not being spoiled via this RfC. I'm not sure that it's necessary to have Benard revealed as you know what. But when it comes to "two actors who play the same character in different ages," it may be that this is a spoiler we should retain; it's similar to content we retained in the aforementioned The Flash (2014 TV series) case. If we don't include it, we are neglecting to mention that the actor is portraying the older version of the character. But on the flip side, it is a huge spoiler and we get through most of the series just fine without knowing that he is the older version of the character, and this one spoiler would ruin the plot for many. Tough call. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to read about "huge spoilers" and concerns of "ruining the plot" from you. Since the beginning of this discussion, i have kept in mind this line from WP:SPOILER, which should help us make an objective decision: It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality. Do you think this line doesn't apply here for some reason? -- Radiphus 18:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my commentary here, you should understand my viewpoint. If you do not, I can't help you understand it. Yes, I care about readers not having the entire story or a big part of it ruined for them. And so do many others, as a big RfC we had at the WP:Spoiler talk page shows; this RfC is linked in the aforementioned discussion. In that RfC, consensus actually was for generally not having spoilers in the lead. Unless it's the Plot section, I absolutely do not include spoilers unless I think it's necessary for the reader's understanding. Also keep in mind that WP:Spoiler is a guideline; it is not a policy. Guidelines naturally have more leeway. Either way, I am not here to debate this matter; I save that for the WP:Spoiler talk page. You wanted opinions; I gave mine. And as my comments in this discussion show, I am not completely opposed to having spoilers in the Cast section. I am conflicted on this particular case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You said that you are conflicted on the case of Bernard's description. Could you please explain what makes this case special? I understand the reasoning of trying to protect the readers, though i do not accept it, but i do not understand how the spoiler about Bernard is different from the spoiler about William (or any other essential character description that contains spoilers on Wikipedia), in a way that makes its inclusion not necessary. Please excuse me if i seem a bit stubborn on this issue. -- Radiphus 19:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm conflicted because of the "two actors who play the same character in different ages" aspect; I don't know what else to state about that so that you can understand why I'm conflicted about that; I think the conflict is pretty clear in my "18:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)" post above. As for Benard, I just don't see that we need to state that he is an android. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, i thought you were in favor of retaining the information about William, despite it being a "tough call". About Bernard being an android: correct me if i am wrong, but i believe the only reason you are saying this information is unnecessary, is because it contains spoilers, right? I just want to clarify that you do not consider the character of a non-human being portrayed by a human (Jeffrey Wright) as insignificant or self-explanatory. Otherwise you would also be saying that describing Dolores as a "host" is unnecessary. Now, about Jeffrey Wright; he plays two characters in the show: Bernard and Arnold. Shouldn't the cast description mention them both? Would you oppose that as "unnecessary" as well? -- Radiphus 20:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is it needed to state that Benard is an android in the Cast section? How does it help readers understand the casting? How is removing that bit detrimental? It is a plot point, pure and simple, whereas the William matter is the case of two actors portraying the same character. Apples and oranges. Dolores being a host is something we know from the start; it is very central to the casting information. Benard being an android is something we find out in the seventh episode, as a twist. Regarding the marathon I'm watching, that episode just went off; so my memory on that is refreshed. WP:Spoiler states than an encyclopedic purpose should be served when including spoilers. You can argue that including that bit is serving an encyclopedic purpose; I can argue that it's not needed. We don't include everything that is or may be encyclopedic; we also trim unnecessary detail. I do indeed consider the "Benard is an android" bit unnecessary. Cutting it doesn't diminish anything as far as a reader's understanding of the Cast section goes. From my point of view, it is simply there to spoil. I'm not going to repeat myself on the William matter again; I'm clearly conflicted on that bit, but I am leaning more toward inclusion of it. I stated that I'm not here to debate, and I mean it. This will likely be my last reply in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: I have noticed that the section is not simply titled "Cast," but rather "Cast and characters." So if considering the section from an "also about the characters" viewpoint, I do understand noting there that Benard is an android. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, i was about to ask you what is so different between two actors portraying the same character and "one actor portraying two characters" in a cast and characters section. -- Radiphus 20:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you speaking of Benard? From what I see, the actor is only listed as portraying one character. And on second thought, I don't see that the "old William and young William" aspect needs to be in the section either. The section states, "Ed Harris as old William a.k.a. the Man in Black, the majority shareholder of Westworld; he is also a sadistic veteran guest to the park." But the section would be just as fine by removing "old William" and sticking with "as the Man in Black" instead. This is not the same thing as us noting Young Rose and Old Rose in the Cast section of the Titanic (1997 film) article. For the Cast and characters section of this article, it is not vital that readers know that the Man in Black is William; this is a plot twist that is not revealed until the first season is almost over, just like the Benard twist. Also, because of the credits, the section introduces Old William before noting who Young William is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you earlier about Jeffrey Wright; he plays two characters in the show: Bernard and Arnold. Shouldn't the cast description mention them both? Would you oppose that as "unnecessary" as well? I would be very interested in your response to this description: Jeffrey Wright as Bernard Lowe, an android created by Dr. Ford to mimic the appearance of his dead partner, Arnold, also portrayed by the actor; Head of the Westworld Programming Division and programmer of artificial people's software. I can not follow your opinion changing so fast on both cases. The comments you made earlier about William (If we don't include it, we are neglecting to mention that the actor is portraying the older version of the character) and Bernard (from an "also about the characters" viewpoint, I do understand noting there that Benard is an android) is what i need to understand that this information is important for the Cast and characters section's completeness. Your concerns about spoiling the plot, interfere with Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone and completeness per WP:SPOILER, and are only highlighting the importance of this information. -- Radiphus 09:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The Cast and characters section does not need that information for completeness. Characters die all the time as well. But, as Adamstom.97 notes below, including character deaths in a Cast section usually is not needed. And yet we get editors using the WP:Spoiler guideline as justification for including unnecessary death spoilers in the Cast section as well. I see the "Benard is an android" and "the 'Man in Black' is Old William" aspects similarly. 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. As for my changing opinion, I've been consistent in understanding why these spoilers are included, but I have never stated that I think that their inclusion is necessary. Understanding why they are included does not mean that I agree with their inclusion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Flyer22. Note a subtle difference that in the Force Awakens page, the character list is after the plot summary, which would make a reader slightly more wary of spoilers. As far as i'm concerned, preferably no spoilers and if necessary then place the character list after the plot summary.PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PizzaMan, I see that this article doesn't (yet) have a Plot section. It does have an Episodes section, which kind of serves as the Plot section, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No, but there's a spectrum of minor through major spoilers. Many of the hosts are not obviously hosts in the first scene we see them in, for example Teddy. I think it is appropriate to list him as a host because this does become clear fairly early in the series (the first episode), and it is at most a minor spoiler. Old and young William being the same person is not clear until near the end of the first season; I don't think it's a huge spoiler but would not object to this being kept out of the cast list. Bernard being a host is both late in the season and a very substantial spoiler, and I think including this in the cast list is entirely inappropriate. 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.-gadfium 23:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, as information should be included if it is appropriate or pertinent, regardless of its status as a spoiler. However, that does not necessarily mean that all spoilery details must be included. The cast and character section is not for plot information, so only significant plot moments that are discussed in terms of character development should be included. For instance, that one guy actually being a younger version of the old guy is a reasonably important part of their characters when looking at the overall scope of the show, so that should not be left out just to avoid spoiling some people who were intelligent enough to read the Wikipedia article before watching the show. Likewise, Bernard being an android is important to his character so it should be mentioned in the section. On the other hand, a character dying probably doesn't tell you anything about their character and so is just revealing plot information in the cast and character section for no reason, so I wouldn't include information like that. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Yes, if the information is necessary to identify characters or who plays them. Jeffrey Wright plays two different characters. William is played by two different actors. That the show mixes time periods doesn't change the need for a character list to fully explain those circumstances/identities. I waited a while before responding to reflect on this because I think it is unfortunate that anyone might have their viewing experience ruined by seeing this information but I think we need to write the encyclopedia article from the point of view of someone who wants the whole picture. Not fully explaining who the characters are fails to meet that goal. Also this is an ongoing series with another season coming, are we going to revisit what can be considered "early" versus "late" knowledge as the show progresses? All that said I do wish Wikipedia still had spoiler warnings so nobody accidentally walks into information they don't want to see. However the "guideline" is against them and I don't think we can fix that here by trying to circumvent the situation. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DIYeditor: While i don't like endless discussions in rfc's, I think you make a valid point, and I'd like to respond. If it were up to me we'd indeed restore spoiler warnings for spoilers in unexpected places. But that's not an option. We could still strive to put as little spoilers in the cast/character list as necessary and use the plot or episode summary to paint the whole picture. As long as people stumble on unexpected spoilers, ruining a good story for them, something needs to be fixed. Are their expectations wrong if it happens time and again? Or is something wrong with the way these articles are ran if they're counterintuitive in where they put spoilers? Since a spoiler warning isn't an option, the least we can do is only put spoilers where readers expect them.PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PizzaMan, was the story ruined for you by spoilers? Either here at Wikipedia or otherwise? I've learned to not read anything on Wikipedia about a series I'm interested in watching, or might be interested in watching, but a lot of our readers have yet to learn that lesson. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was. And it was such a brilliant plot development. I know that we're a community of autists who don't care about such trivial things as emotions, but just look at the number of people on this talk page alone who were so upset they bothered to come to this talk page just to express that. In contrast: no one actually came in here to complain that the character list was confusing to them or even uninformative, let alone that this upset them. Does everyone really have to find out the hard way that WP can spoil a good story in places were casual WP users don't expect it? If the policies don't make the world a better place, they may be broken. PizzaMan (♨♨) 21:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes - Editors need to remember this is an encyclopaedia, not a fansite, and encyclopaediae necessarily include spoilers as part of encyclopaedic treatment of a topic. In short, if you don't want to be spoiled, don't open an encyclopaedia. We do try to avoid spoilers in the lead of an article for the more sensitive among us but spoilers have to be expected anywhere else in an article. That said, every section has to be written appropriately. In the cast and characters section, if character is an android, or a doctor, or is an axe-murderer, that's a significant part of the character's description so it should be included. However, if the character wears glasses, or has his or her hair colour changed periodically, that's not generally significant to include. In short, use common sense. Doing so means that you need to expect spoilers. For anyone who hasn't, I suggest you thoroughly read WP:SPOILER. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• No - that it needs to be how the character is first defined in the article, Yes that it should be covered somewhere, like in the plot/story section or wherever. Somewhere. (Feel free to bludgeon and badger me like most others in the discussion, but I'm well aware such a stance does not violate WP:SPOILER.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained at the top of this thread how removing this information would violate both WP:SPOILER and WP:TVCAST. Which guidelines are you referencing to support your arguement? -- Radiphus 16:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, removing it completely would absolutely be against SPOILER. But that's not what I said. I'm referring to the part that goes: When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served. Articles on a work of fiction should primarily describe it from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance. The fact that he's an android or whatever is a very late in the season reveal. For most of the season, from a real-world perspective, he's not outwardly portrayed as such. If the show goes on for 6 seasons and he's portrayed as an android for 5 and a fraction of those series, sure. But right now, it's an WP:UNDUE issue. Similarly, its placement - first section after the lead, third bulletpoint - doesn't help the reader's understanding of the show's premise. It'd be like starting the body of the The Sixth Sense article off with a bulletpoint "Bruce Willis, the guy who was dead all along but didn't know it. Just because you can present spoilers doesn't mean it needs to be done so obtusely - introducing things like this early on doesn't help the reader understand the subject properly. Sergecross73 msg me 17:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The section is titled "Cast and characters", so it's not meant to support the show's premise, regardless of it being the first second after the lead. The information is relevant to the character, as it was a major part of his development, hence its inclusion, which itself is for an encyclopedic purpose. If we remove an important part of a character's development, regardless of it being a spoiler or not, we would be deliberately going against the purpose of Wikipedia being an encyclopedic to list necessary information. And the reveal was at the end of the seventh episode - not overly late into the season anyways. -- Alex^TW 23:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make sense in its current set up. This isn't the sort of detail that should be revealed before the basic premise of the show is described. My points still stand, but outside of any policy, it's just terrible writing, and it's absolutely baffling that experienced editors don't see this. Sergecross73 msg me 00:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he's an android or whatever is a very late in the season reveal. - That's really irrelevant. That he is a host/android/robot and not human is a significant aspect of the character and inclusion of this information is encyclopaedic because of that.

Similarly, its placement - first section after the lead, third bulletpoint - Location is irrelevant. Spoilers (which don't really exist in an encyclopaedia) should be expected anywhere except the lead.

introducing things like this early on doesn't help the reader understand the subject properly. - This information belongs in the character description so where else would you place it? In a section titled "cast and characters spoilers"?

This isn't the sort of detail that should be revealed before the basic premise of the show is described. - The basic premise is outlined briefly in the lead, well before this information is provided: "The story takes place in the fictional Westworld, a technologically advanced Wild West–themed amusement park populated by android hosts. Westworld caters to high-paying guests, who may indulge in whatever they wish within the park, without fear of retaliation from the hosts." However, MOS:TV indicates that there should be a basic plot section before the cast and characters section. There is no reason why there can't be a basic plot section in this article.

Alex is quite correct in what he says, the cast and characters section is not supposed to support the premise. It's there to list information about, not surprisingly, the cast and characters. Based on my experience with TV articles, the section as it stands is as basic as it should be at this time but I do think it should be preceded by a basic plot section once episodes are split out to a separate article. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know the premise is outlined first in the lead, but it's not at all mentioned prior in the plot/story section, which is what we're discussing here. Indeed, 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. This situation still reeks of "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" though. It's like you're too preoccupied with defending SPOILER to a t, that you're losing focus on the overall goal, you know, writing an article that makes sense to any reader, whether they've seen the show or not. As is, you don't have that right now. Sergecross73 msg me 03:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the text in the second paragraph of the lead, here is the official logline for the series, which would be helpful in creating a "Premise" section that could go before the cast section: Westworld "is a dark odyssey about the dawn of artificial consciousness and the evolution of sin. Set at the intersection of the near future and the reimagined past, it explores a world in which every human appetite, no matter how noble or depraved, can be indulged." Source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reordering is not really appropriate. The lengthy episode list should remain where it is. Normally there is no need for a premise section and an episode table, but I don't think it would hurt here. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes per Radiphus, AlexTheWhovian, adamstom97, AussieLegend, et. al. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change/solution

I suggest changing Jeffrey Wright's character description in the Cast and characters section of the article to:

• Jeffrey Wright as Bernard Lowe, a host created to mimic the appearance of Dr. Ford’s dead partner, Arnold, also portrayed by Wright; Head of the Westworld Programming Division and programmer of artificial people's software.^[1][2]

The reason i am suggesting this edit be made is that the word "android" that is currently being used to describe Bernard's character might be inaccurate, as PizzaMan has pointed out. The word "host" is more accurate, as it has been used by the producers of the show in the Entertainment Weekly interview i have cited, of which i had no knowledge when i was in favor of using the word "android" to describe the character. Mentioning Arnold helps the reader fully understand the actor's involvement in the show, and also explains why we have a host operating outside the park. -- Radiphus 04:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While this is not a solution for the rfc on spoilers, on which we disagree, I agree with this proposal as it was my idea to remove the term Android as per the discussion below. I hope everyone agrees that using Android to describe Bernard is original research. Perhaps a slight edit to the otherwise well phrased proposal, to leave open the possibility that Bernard is more than a mimic. He may contain parts of Arnold's body and even his brain and thus consciousness for all we know. Something like: ...a host mimicing Dr. Ford’s dead partner, Arnold, ... This leaves his status more open. Until the rfc is resolved, this is a clear improvement imho. PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any hosts who are not androids and, if so, what are they? The article's lead says "The story takes place in the fictional Westworld, a technologically advanced Wild West–themed amusement park populated by android hosts." This being the case, if there are no hosts who are not androids, I don't see the issue. There are a couple of suggestions below regarding the character, specifically that he might be a synthetic organism, or have a body that is part non-biological, or maybe that he is a cyborg. However, the source used says he is a robot, which really doesn't cover any of those. "Robot" is fairly definitive. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove describing Bernard as an Android while the rfc about this is ongoing. It's unreferenced original research. PizzaMan (♨♨) 07:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced? There is a citation provided at the end of the description. The source mentions that Bernard "is, in fact, a robot designed to mimic the appearance and memories of Ford’s dead partner, Arnold". What are you talking about? -- Radiphus 08:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt't say android. In the context of this series, that word doesn't exist. PizzaMan (♨♨) 12:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source says that Bernard is a robot designed to mimic the appearance and memories of another human. The Wikipedia article on androids says they are humanoid robots or synthetic organisms designed to look and act like a human. Are you still having problems understanding the reference? -- Radiphus 12:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There may be good reasons the term android is avoided and only the term host is used in-universe. Perhaps reasons we don't even know yet as viewers, but we'll learn in following seasons. Especially in the case of Bernard. Is he a synthetic organism? Or is he Arnold, a human with the (in)convenience of a body that's part non-biological? Perhaps cyborg is a better description then. But again: there may be much to this in this story that we just don't know (yet) and in any case, for this series, it's original research to coin the phrase android when it hasn't been used in the series itself and our perception and understanding of Bernard's status is so far continually evolving. PizzaMan (♨♨) 20:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had not thought of the possibility that Bernard might be a cyborg. Thank you for pointing this out. -- Radiphus 21:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It's a fascinating series, isn't it? I feel Bernard will become pivotal for a further exploration into what's human and what's machine. Especially if he's made from part Arnold part machine. And also because he genuinely thought he was human. If he can't tell the difference, other people can't and we as viewers can't, does it really matter? Either way, calling him an android suggests we know more than we really do. If anything, host may be more appropriate. That's why i made this change request (though i now understand it was inappropriate). But what it comes down to: there's a lot to be explored about this in the next seasons. PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RFC in place at this moment to determine whether or not the content should be removed, and you created a fully-protected edit request to remove that same content, in the face of this RFC? This is in extremely bad faith of you, and should be noted in any further arguments involving you. -- Alex^TW 08:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PizzaMan, I suggest you read m:The Wrong Version since it's clearly relevant here. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's just wait for the rfc to resolve then. PizzaMan (♨♨) 12:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change Jeffrey Wright's character description in the Cast and characters section of the article to:

• Jeffrey Wright as Bernard Lowe, a host created to mimic the appearance of Dr. Ford’s dead partner, Arnold, also portrayed by Wright; Head of the Westworld Programming Division and programmer of artificial people's software.^[1][2]

This change does not interfere with the ongoing RfC, as it does not change the current status of the description, which already contains spoilers. The reason i am requesting this edit be made is that the word "android" that is currently being used to describe Bernard's character might be inaccurate, as PizzaMan has pointed out. The word "host" is more accurate, as it has been used by the producers of the show in the Entertainment Weekly interview i have cited, of which i had no knowledge when i was in favor of using the word "android" to describe the character. Mentioning Arnold helps the reader fully understand the actor's involvement in the show, and also explains why we have a host operating outside the park. -- Radiphus 22:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this request as being uncontroversial or having any consensus and m:The Wrong Version still applies. It's not going to hurt to leave this change until the RfC is complete. In fact that would seem more prudent. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Radiphus, I would suggest creating a new sub-thread of the RFC, and listing it as a proposed change/solution. -- Alex^TW 04:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that there are bigger fish to fry regarding the "Cast" section, but I hope one of you might consider and make some unrelated small changes after the big "Bernard" issue is settled. I'm not expecting to keep coming back to see if the bigger debate is done, thus decided to leave this brief note for others to consider (or ignore - no big deal).

First, "Ben Barnes as Logan, a long-time guest...". Minor item, but "long-time" sounds like he's been stuck visiting the world for consecutive months and months. He might be, but we don't really know. How about something like "regular guest" or "repeat guest" or "returning guest".

Second, "Anthony Hopkins as Robert Ford, the founder and creative director". Another minor item, but just wondering if Ford is a "co-founder". Thanks. Jmg38 (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]