Talk:Westworld (TV series)/Archive 2

Season 2 premiere title
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)

Edit to clean up character bios
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

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

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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

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)

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)

Bernard is NOT a Host and it shouldn't be in the Cast section
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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,, 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

I'll repost my comment from earlier:

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

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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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. 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Agreed with ; 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)
 * 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)

Your personal desires are not the guidelines, policies or consensus of the Television WikiProject. Cheers. --  Alex TW 07:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * You could have simply asked me to come to the talk page and discussed things instead of doing that. Huh. How interesting. : 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * You are once again proving yourself ignorant of Wikipedia's policies: WP:3RR. -- (Radiphus ) 09:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Hence the suggestion for an RfC. --  Alex TW 09:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Which I already agreed with. Bremen (talk) 09:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Bernard Low being a host, is not a spoiler.
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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,, 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)


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


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * How do you interpret those guidelines? That's offensive. I won't even respond to that.  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?  I think you are confusing "listening to someone" with "accepting another person's opinion". Have you listened to AlexTheWhovian, DIYeditor, DES, myself and others?  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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Protected edit request by Radiphus
Change Jeffrey Wright's character description in the Cast and characters section of the article to: 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)
 * 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.


 * I don't see this request as being uncontroversial or having any consensus and 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. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed., 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)

Protected edit request on 20 August 2017
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)
 * 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? -- (<span style="font-family:Chaparral Pro; font-size:12pt; color:#E54050; padding-left:.3em; padding-right:.3em;">Radiphus ) 08:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesnt't say android. In the context of this series, that word doesn't exist. PizzaMan (♨♨) 12:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 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? -- (<span style="font-family:Chaparral Pro; font-size:12pt; color:#E54050; padding-left:.3em; padding-right:.3em;">Radiphus ) 12:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I had not thought of the possibility that Bernard might be a cyborg. Thank you for pointing this out. -- (<span style="font-family:Chaparral Pro; font-size:12pt; color:#E54050; padding-left:.3em; padding-right:.3em;">Radiphus ) 21:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * , I suggest you read The Wrong Version since it's clearly relevant here. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's just wait for the rfc to resolve then. PizzaMan (♨♨) 12:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Should we change the first season's name?
On the first season's BluRay cover (direct link to image), we can see that the season has been given the distinctive name "The Maze". According to WP:TVSEASON, i believe the first season's title in the parent article should be changed to: Season 1: The Maze (2016), similarly to the List of American Horror Story episodes, and when a season article is created it should be titled Westworld: The Maze. -- (<span style="font-family:Chaparral Pro; font-size:12pt; color:#E54050; padding-left:.3em; padding-right:.3em;">Radiphus ) 19:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The distinction in WP:TVSEASON is for series like Survivor where the seasons do not use numbering at all, like Survivor: Borneo, Survivor: The Australian Outback, etc. Where a season uses numbering and a subtitle, we still use "Showname (season x)" and put the subtitle in the infobox, which would be the case for this series. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 20:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This could just be for DVD purposes though. I don't believe HBO has ever used "The Maze" as a subtitle other than for the Blu-ray. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. -- (<span style="font-family:Chaparral Pro; font-size:12pt; color:#E54050; padding-left:.3em; padding-right:.3em;">Radiphus ) 21:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Create new "premise" section after the lead
Another change i suggest making to the main article as soon as the protection expires, is to add the Missing information maintenance template to the top of the article, in order to make the creation of a "premise" section a top priority. I hope this way we will be able to avoid any further content disputes, and work together to improve the article in an encyclopedic manner. -- (<span style="font-family:Chaparral Pro; font-size:12pt; color:#E54050; padding-left:.3em; padding-right:.3em;">Radiphus ) 16:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is a separate premise section required when the premise is already clearly stated in the lead, though? What else is there to add to it? Any extension to the current premise may end up making it a plot section, and both a prose summary of the series and an episode table with summaries is not supported by the Television Method of Style. --  Alex TW 05:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought we could write about the hosts' journey to conciousness through their inner monologue, about how the guests "find themselves" inside the park, etc. To be honest, i don't know at which point the premise section becomes a plot section. Probably when you start mentioning specific details like "the maze", instead of saying that "the journey to conciousness is thought to be a journey inwards". -- (<span style="font-family:Chaparral Pro; font-size:12pt; color:#E54050; padding-left:.3em; padding-right:.3em;">Radiphus ) 11:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that same caution is necessarily applied to the Cast section. I may want to know who portrayed that gorgeous, huge-eyed Ukranian woman, but I don't expect spoiler info in the cast section about how she is secretly an alien from Viltvodle VI. It shouldn't be there, esp. when the plot sections cover major plot points more than adequately. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Was this meant to be a !vote for the RFC or this specific sub-section? --  Alex TW 07:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The section above; thanks for catching it, Alex. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It sounds like a response to the rfc to me, so one section further above where it's placed now. PizzaMan (♨♨) 10:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)