Talk:Hunters (2020 TV series)

Episode plot summaries are not written very well.

Thank you for taking the time in adding the plot summaries but they are kinda vague and there are some spelling mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryGusep (talk • contribs) 22:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on spoilers

I've added a note to the cast section regarding this issue, but I also feel it's important to discuss it here due to the frequency this has been occurring.

There have been many reversions to the cast section of the article, mostly by anonymous editors, removing the information that Al Pacino portrays the character Wilhelm "The Wolf" Zuchs. The common justification for removing this information is because it's deemed a spoiler. However, Wikipedia has a very straightforward policy on spoilers - Wikipedia:Spoiler - and the policy establishes that information cannot be removed simply because it's considered to be a spoiler. As the policy states: "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot."

This is not to say that spoilers are always acceptable - the policy also states: "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." That's being served by including the information of Pacino playing the Wolf. The policy cites "completeness" as one of the factors that concerns towards spoilers must not interfere with and this information provides complete information on Pacino's role. The Wolf is who he plays. Removing this means removing factual information from the article, which goes right against the purpose of an encyclopedia.

It is not uncommon for cast sections to contain "spoilers", especially in regard to the true identity of characters. Refer to Batman Begins, where the cast section reveals that Liam Neeson plays the real Ra's al Ghul and Ken Watanabe's character is a decoy, The Dark Knight Rises, where the cast section reveals that the true identity of Marion Cotillard's character is Talia al Ghul (as well as Joey King being Talia, not Bane), and Iron Man 3, where the cast section reveals that Ben Kingsley does not play the Mandarin. This because, again, factual information necessary in the completeness of an article takes priority over perceived spoilers - and to remove this information simply because it is a "spoiler" is a direct violation of Wikipedia policy. Bluerules (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with spoilers, it's to do with citations. The go-to source for Cast sections–IMDB–does not identify Al Pacino's character as the Wolf and no other third-party source has been provided in-article to back up the claim either. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 10:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The reason given for every past edit removing this information has been spoilers, not citations.

"Deleted reference to Al Pacino also playing the wolf. That is the primary plot twist and is not revealed until the end of the last episode."

"we really shouldn't put spoilers under cast lists. Plot summaries, fine. This is different)"

"This reveals the biggest plot twist of the show! Stop showing that Al Pacino turns out to be the bad guy !"

"it's been only 5 days, no need to spoil everyone with unnecessary cast revelations here !"

"Removed the fact that Al Pacino is actually secretly the wolf, the major villain of the show. This is a huge reveal at the end of the show. Doubt he is billed anywhere as both characters."

Furthermore, IMDb is not considered a reliable source. It is user-edited information. Anyone with an account could have the IMDb page edited to identify Pacino's character as the Wolf. And this still is not the go-to source for cast sections either. In the aforementioned Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises articles, IMDb does not identify Liam Neeson's character as Ra's al Ghul in the former and does not identify Marion Cotillard's character as Talia al Ghul in the latter. This is because the ending credits only identify Neeson as playing "Ducard" in the former and Cotillard as playing "Miranda" in the latter. The true identities of these characters are omitted from the ending credits, but included in the article because that is who they actually play and fulfills Wikipedia's obligation to completeness. In short, we do not allow the IMDb to dictate cast sections. I have also provided third-party sources to back up these facts, not claims, to avoid further contention in this area, but the primary contention remains towards spoilers and sources other than IMDb are needed for cast sections. Bluerules (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

​While I do think that spoilers have a place in articles, they are usually placed under headings which clearly indicate their presence, as per WP:SPOILER. I'm not sure this applies to the cast list, for which readers would have no obvious reason to expect spoilers.

Since this an ongoing discussion, I believe it is best to temporarily remove the content concerned until some sort of consensus is reached.
Alivardi (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Spoiler does not have a policy on spoilers only being permitted under certain headings. It is acknowledging that section headings may imply the presence of spoilers. There is no guideline that limits spoilers to only being placed under "applicable" headings; spoilers can be included anywhere in an article so long as an encyclopedic purpose is served.

If an encyclopedic purpose is not being served, then a spoiler may be appropriately removed. That is not the case here. The content concerned fulfills the encyclopedic purpose of completeness, providing complete information on who Al Pacino and Lena Olin portray. That is why many cast lists do contain spoilers, such as the aforementioned examples at the top, and that's the obvious reason readers would expect spoilers in the first place - a character's true identity may be concealed at the onset of a story. That was the case with Liam Neeson in Batman Begins and Marion Cotillard in The Dark Knight Rises and that's the case here.

This discussion was initiated to reiterate Wikipedia's spoiler policy, which many anonymous editors appear to be unaware of, given their reasoning for removing the concerning content. A consensus on including spoilers in articles has already been reached. Again, if there was no encyclopedic purpose, then it is acceptable to remove the concerning content. But removing spoilers for merely being spoilers is not permitted and the concerning content serves an encyclopedic purpose. Bluerules (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

​I do not believe that a consensus has been reached on the issue in this article; only one other user has taken part in the discussion and they have not responded yet to your initial rebuttal. Regarding Wikipedia policy, note that it states at the top of WP:SPOILER that "occasional exceptions may apply", which I believe allows further discussion regarding whether it applies here.

I am aware of the examples you have provided already regarding spoilers in the cast sections. However, I do not believe they can provide precedence in this case, given that they are all films, which should arguably be held to a different standard; a reader is much less likely to read through the cast list while in the middle of watching a film than they are with a TV series.

A more appropriate comparison would be the article for Game of Thrones, given that it is likely the most moderated article for a TV series at present and thus provides a consensus-derived example for similar pages to work from. That article has no mention under the cast section that one of its main characters, Jon Snow, is in fact Prince Aegon Targaryen, which was one of the biggest reveals of the final seasons. Similarly, the equivalent section for the Mr Robot article does not mention that its principal character, Elliot, is the eponymous "Mr Robot", something which was not revealed until the final episode of the first season. In both these examples, the respective identity reveals are only discussed in the sections (or articles) regarding the episode summaries, where spoilers are to be expected by readers. I believe this to be the appropriate action here.
Alivardi (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

A consensus has already been reached on the issue of spoilers, the issue facing objection in this article. That is how the policy on spoilers was established and this discussion is to inform those unaware that spoilers are not permitted to be removed because of simply being spoilers. The one other user wasn't objecting to spoilers being included; his objection was due to the absence of citations. That matter has been settled and he has no reason to respond when citations were subsequently added. When "occasional exceptions may apply", there has to be reason for those occasional exceptions to apply. Again, spoilers are not permitted to be removed simply by being spoilers, which is what has been taking place in this article.

Holding the cast sections of films to a different standard and deeming that they do not provide precedence in this case goes against Wikipedia's core policies of no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view, cited in Wikipedia:Spoiler as a reason why spoiler tags are not even used. The notion that "a reader is much less likely to read through the cast list while in the middle of watching a film than they are with a TV series" is an assumption, not a confirmed fact. There is no actual evidence to support this notion.

The article for Game of Thrones is far from a more appropriate comparison because due to its large cast, it does not use a traditional cast section. Instead of providing a list of cast members and the characters they play, as seen here and most commonly seen on Wikipedia, the cast section is a prose outline of the main characters. It has no mention under the cast section that one of its main characters, Jon Snow, is in fact Prince Aegon Targaryen because that cast section is only outlining the characters when they first appear. To add any further details, such as that reveal, would make the section far too lengthy. Conversely, the Mr. Robot article does use a traditional cast list and does not mention that Elliot is Mr. Robot. However, the cast section there still does contain spoilers by identifying when certain main characters were and were not present in the series. For example, the cast section tells the reader that the character Joanna Wellick is not in the series past the third season. The cast sections of television series that have more than one season are more likely to contain spoilers than film cast sections because of this format that identifies when main cast members leave a series. And the articles of other television series do not follow the same approach as Game of Thrones and Mr. Robot. The Fear the Walking Dead cast section reveals that Jenna Elfman's character originally introduced as "Naomi" is also "Laura", the love interest Garret Dillahunt's character is searching for. The cast section of The Gifted reveals that Skyler Samuels plays the Frost sisters after her character is introduced as an individual mutant with no identical siblings or apparent connection to Emma Frost. The cast section of Swamp Thing reveals that the characters Alec Holland and Swamp Thing are not the same, contrary to what the series initially implies. The Arrow cast section not only contains reveals such as the character Malcolm Merlyn being the Dark Archer and the character Adrian Chase being Prometheus, it also makes note of character deaths and resurrections. This is also present in the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. cast section, which reveals the deaths of Clark Gregg's, Brett Dalton's, and Luke Mitchell's characters, in addition to the reveal of Dalton's character secretly being a Hydra agent. There are more, but the point stands that not only are there television series cast sections with secret identity reveals, these cast section are more likely to have spoilers because they must identify if a main cast member leaves the series and may also explain why said cast member left (e.g. character death).

Wikipedia:Spoiler even cites "character descriptions" as a section "clearly named to indicate that they contain plot details" and while the cast section may not have the same name, it contains character descriptions. Therefore, this would make a cast section another section where spoilers are "expected" by readers. Game of Thrones and Mr. Robot may limit character reveals to episode summaries, but other television articles include such spoilers in the cast sections, and even Mr. Robot's cast section contains spoilers by identifying when characters do and do not appear in certain seasons. But to go back to the main point from before, it is irrelevant if spoilers may be "expected" only in certain sections. Again, Wikipedia:Spoiler does not establish a guideline dictating that spoilers are only permitted in "expected" sections and assuming the expectations of readers is, of course, an assumption that goes against Wikipedia's no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view. Spoilers are permitted anywhere in an article so long as they serve an encyclopedic purpose. It is the production section The Boys that contains the reveal of Becky Butcher's story being changed from the comics, which is how the first season ends. This spoiler serves the encyclopedic purpose of demonstrating series developer Eric Kripke's vision for the show. The spoilers in the cast section here serve the encyclopedic purpose of providing a complete overview of who Al Pacino and Lena Olin play. The appropriate action here is to serve the encyclopedic purpose of completeness by including this information. Bluerules (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

​The distinction here is that the examples you provided are character descriptions, which as you pointed out, can be expected to include spoilers. However, what this article has is a cast list. Wikipedia does actually have a Manual of Style for cast lists (see MOS:TVCAST) which states that they should include a brief description of the characters; whether this entails mentioning the character reveal for this show is debatable. However, I am going to offer a compromise. I suggest that we add a sentence or so summary for each of the main cast. My suggested description for Pacino's character is as follows: "Meyer Offerman: millionaire founder of the Hunters. Revealed in the season finale to be Wilhelm Zuchs."

My hope is that this format would do more to deter readers wanting to avoid spoilers, something which the previous version did not allow. What are your thoughts?
Alivardi (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The examples of Fear the Walking Dead, The Gifted, Swamp Thing, and Arrow contain spoilers outside of the character descriptions - the spoilers are present in identifying the characters played by their actors, like the scenario here. While they may not be bare-bones cast lists like this article, spoilers such as Naomi being Laura, Esme being one of the Frost sisters, Swamp Thing being separate from Alec Holland, and Adrian Chase being Prometheus would remain. The point here is that limiting spoilers to sections where spoilers can be expected is not permitted because it goes against Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia: Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and spoilers can be in sections that wouldn't be considered "expected". This is seen in the The Boys article where the production section contains a key spoiler that occurs at the very end of the first season.

Nevertheless, I fully support adding a sentence or two summary for each of the main cast as this will improve the article and is the common practice for television articles. My suggested description for Al Pacino's character would be: "Meyer Offerman / Wilhelm "The Wolf" Zuchs: The leader of the Hunters. He claims to be a Holocaust survivor and old friend of Jonah's grandmother, but is actually a Nazi war criminal who killed the real Meyer and stole his identity." For Lena Olin, my suggestion is: "The Colonel / Eva: The leader of the Nazi war criminals conspiring to create the Fourth Reich. She is implied to be Eva Hitler, having survived the war with her husband.

I understand the concern towards readers wanting to avoid spoilers, but our top priority is to fulfill the encyclopedic purpose of Wikipedia with our edits. Even if the cast section didn't contain character descriptions, there would still be spoilers present if Hunters was renewed for a second season and the section identified Pacino and Saul Rubinek as not being part of the main cast after the first season. Obviously, we can't include spoilers just to include them, but they are necessary when they fulfill an encyclopedic purpose. Bluerules (talk) 07:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

​My apologies for the late reply.

It seems a bit redundant to go into such detail for the descriptions, given that much of the information would be discussed in the episodes section anyway. It's worth noting that in nearly all the examples you provided, the episode summaries are in separate articles, therefore not creating the same tautological issue that this article would have otherwise. Furthermore, I would request that Zuchs be mentioned at the end of the Offerman description rather than the beginning.
Alivardi (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

These descriptions are not heavily detailed. Our descriptions of Meyer Offerman say the same thing about him being in charge of the Hunters and actually being the Wolf. Mine simply uses more words to explain to readers who the Wolf is and establish the character Pacino actually plays. If the description gave a complete overview of his character arc and what happens to him, that would be redundant and contain information also discussed in the episodes section, but the descriptions offered give a general and accurate overview of the character. The episode summaries for the other series except Swamp Thing are in separate articles because excluding Swamp Thing, they all ran for more than one season. If Hunters has a second season, this potentially tautological issue would not be present, although it's an issue that remains in the articles for films, miniseries, and series that only lasted one season. Descriptions for the characters would be an improvement, regardless of where the episode summaries are located, because they provide further information for the reader instead of just the character names. The Wolf should be mentioned at the beginning because it accurately reflects who Pacino plays. Bluerules (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

​Of course, if the show did get renewed and separate articles became necessary to discuss future seasons, I would agree that greater plot-related detail be included as character descriptions. For now however, I believe it would be best to follow MOS:TVCAST and "try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" information that belongs in the plot summary". In the present situation (and going by the examples provided in that MOS), I believe this can be applied to such content as Zuchs having killed the actual Offerman and assumed his identity. In regards to your final statement, would there be any loss to the fulfilment of the encyclopaedic purpose of the content if Zuchs were mentioned at the end of the line?
Alivardi (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The MOS:TVCAST guideline does not apply to Zuchs having killed the actual Offerman and assumed his identity because it's necessary information in describing the character. Without it, readers will not know who Zuchs is and his connection to Offerman when the name appears without context. This issue is solved by explaining to readers that Pacino is actually portraying Zuchs who stole Offerman's identity. The loss to the fulfilment of the encyclopaedic purpose of the content if Zuchs were mentioned at the end of the line would be missing information. Pacino does not just play Offerman. He plays both Zuchs and Offerman. To be more specific, he plays Zuchs answering to the identity of Offerman. Mentioning this at the end instead of the beginning would omit a key detail, especially when Zuchs is the character Pacino is actually playing. Bluerules (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Readers are able to turn to the episode summaries to understand how exactly Zuchs became Offerman; it's not the job of the cast list to describe plot mechanics. I suggest we simply add the description of Zuchs being a Nazi doctor, which should be an adequate summary of his character while still adhering to the guidelines set by MOS:TVCAST. In regard to our second point of dispute, I have to admit, I am struggling to understand why you are unwilling to compromise on this minor detail. You say that it would result in the loss of key information, but do you truly believe that it will in any way be misconstrued by or misinform the reader?
Alivardi (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

It is job of the entire article to properly describe every concept on first reference. Readers should not be forced to turn to another section further down in the article to understand what is not a plot mechanic, but necessary background information about Pacino's character. The article is meant to inform, not confuse, but adding new information without context will confuse. Readers will not understand that the reveal about Pacino's character is because Zuchs stole Offerman's identity and posed as him. The MOS:TVCAST guideline to "try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" information that belongs in the plot summary" applies to what would belong in the plot summary - plot progression (e.g. character development, events, and fate). This information is not a plot progression of the character, but an overview of who he is. The fact that Pacino actually plays Fuchs is not a minor detail. The fact that Pacino's true role is not Offerman, but Fuchs is a key detail. To omit Fuchs from the beginning will misinform the reader into believing that Pacino does indeed play Offerman when his actual role is Fuchs. That is why the Batman Begins cast section states that Liam Neeson plays Ra's al Ghul at the beginning and the The Dark Knight Rises cast section states that Marion Cotillard plays Talia al Ghul at the beginning. It fulfills the encyclopedic purpose of completeness. Bluerules (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

​Honestly, I think it's a moot point to continue this discussion further. It is clear that you are unwilling to work with me towards a consensus, instead refusing to compromise at all on any of your positions, in spite of my best efforts and to the potential detriment of the article. I do not want to give the assumption that I am ending this discussion because I agree with your points (personally, I believe User:Lanway's recent edit to be an adequate version of the section), but rather to do so otherwise would be a waste of both our times. I also want to state that I am disappointed by the repeated infantile and obscene wordplay you've resorted to using with Zuch's name.
Alivardi (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The detriment of the article is removing accurate information and replacing it with inaccurate information. It is a detriment to the article to ignore the spoiler policy, which has been agreed upon through consensus, and remove spoilers that provide completeness on the grounds of original research. What you are proposing would be a detriment to the article because it would confuse readers and depict an inaccurate representation of Al Pacino's character. Lanway's edit of the section is inaccurate. Pacino does not portray "a Jewish philanthropist and Holocaust survivor". He portrays a Nazi doctor posing as a Jewish philanthropist and Holocaust survivor. To only focus on Offerman in the character description of Pacino's role is inaccurate. To remove perceived spoilers that fulfill the encyclopedic purpose of completeness is a violation of Wikipedia policy. To remove perceived spoilers because they are in a section where readers wouldn't "expect" them is original research and another violation of Wikipedia policy. I am disappointed in the repeated disregard for Wikipedia policy, the advocacy for inaccurate and confusing information, and the baseless accusations that you've resorted to using. Bluerules (talk) 08:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

First of all, WP:SPOILERS is not a policy; it's merely a guideline. Secondly, as the guideline says, spoilers are generally reserved for the plot, which is exactly where they currently are. Nothing is gained by adding additional context to the characters snippets and you can't convince me that anything is lost by removing that info from them. Having said that, I honestly don't care enough to revert if it gets added back. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

As I have been repeatedly saying, the problem is a matter of accuracy. It is inaccurate to say Pacino portrays Meyer Offerman when he doesn't portray Meyer Offerman. He portrays Wilhelm Zuchs. You gain accuracy by adding the character he actually plays and you lose accuracy by removing who he actually portrays. Just because "spoilers are generally reserved for the plot" does not mean they are restricted to the plot. Policy or guideline, the fact remains that users were removing this accurate information simply because they didn't like how it was a spoiler, which is against the purpose of an encyclopedia. Bluerules (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Since the cast section mentions the characters played, it only makes sense to mention both. But it is true that the plot section already contains this information, so I too do not feel strongly enough about this to enter an edit war. Debresser (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I’ll just say that thanks to that stupid policy I got Al Pacino’s secret ID spoiled when I came here after episode 2 looking for more info about some of the cast, and I honestly did not expect that a last episode plot twist would blow up in my face. Now I literally have no reason to continue watching, it’s completely killed my interest in the show, so bravo to whoever added this to the cast list. I would kindly suggest to invent some kind of spoiler tag if this is supposed to become common practice because I wholly disagree that clear-text late-reveal spoilers belong in cast lists, the potential damage to stories is immense. 85.62.178.84 (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)