Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning

Moved from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion as that process is expressly not designed for discussing changes to guidelines. This move allows for comments already made and any emerging consensus to be preserved as part of an active discussion.

Wikipedia:Spoiler warning

This should have been closed ages ago since this is no longer a MfD. Please direct your comments to the discussion below this section. --Farix (Talk) 10:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

See also the previous debate on the matter at Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC

This policy is a flat contradiction of the much more important Wikipedia:Lead section, and, worse, is used to justify actively bad article writing where key aspects of a topic are buried outside of the lead. The entire policy encourages writing articles in a way that is organized around spoiler warnings instead of sensible portrayal of information, and has gone egregiously wrong (highlights including spoiler warnings on Night (book), The Book of Ruth, and Romeo and Juliet). The policy is overwhelmingly being used to make articles worse, not better, and for that needs to go.

The worst instance I've found yet is The Crying Game, where the twist ending makes the film a major film for anyone interested in LGBT cinema. Spoiler warning says that can't go in the lead. Wikipedia: Lead section says the lead has to function as a short article unto itself. WP:NPOV says all major perspectives must be mentioned in an article. You can pick any two of the policies and successfully apply them to The Crying Game. Since we can't get rid of NPOV, either spoilers or lead sections need to go. Phil Sandifer 21:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — The question, it seems to me, is what a spoiler is. And, for me at least, a spoiler is any damn bit of information I didn't know before. Thus, in filmic terms, just knowing the director of a work, or even a cast list, constitutes a spoiler. It takes some of the surprise away. As a recent example, I was watching Dark Century, a 15-year-old British kids' show, about which I knew very little. One of the biggest joys was in slowly recognizing that one of the leads was Kate Winslet. Now, sadly, I've deprived you of one of the experiences I found most enjoyable about being an audience member for that show. But I haven't violated spoiler policy, even though I've "spoilt" a part of the overall viewing experience for a 2007 audience. The truth is, audience members are individuals. Individuals will find different things particularly significant about a work, depending on who they are, when they experience the work, and where they're from. For some, the plot's the thing, for others it's the way the plot unfolds that matters. For others, it's all about the acting or direction. One person's "basic information" is another person's "spoiler". Labeling something a spoiler is, at the end of the day, a violation of NPOV, because it's imposing your definition of "spoiler" on others. CzechOut 13:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Revert. I would love to know when the template got changed to a layout wrecking monstrosity. It changes my fonts, font sizes, creates a bizarre box around the entire article, sub-boxes when nested, and generally looks like HTML diarrhea. It used to be a basic text banner. Quiet, unobtrusive, but clearly warning others off. I hit my watchist today, and half my watchlist is suddenly the victim of bad design. (Comment left by User:ThuranX)
Delete or severely restrict to very recent or unreleased fiction. As per the above examples, it not only encourages ludicrously unencyclopedic labeling and article writing - on The Crying Game, it blatantly causes violation of NPOV, a fundamental content policy - David Gerard 21:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I really like Kusma's suggestion of using the de:wp one translated (the below is my pitiful knowledge assisted by babelfish):

When discussing creative works, e.g. books, music, computer games, TV series or films, then an encyclopedia's task is to give a summary of the work and its place in the overall field. Thus, it is natural that the action of a book or a film will be described and discussed in full.

Many books or films lose their attraction, however, if too many details or the ending are revealed before they are read or seen. So it became common on the Internet to put before such descriptions a spoiler warning.

In encyclopedias, however, this is rare. In the German language Wikipedia, after long discussions, consensus developed not to include spoiler warnings, and to remove existing ones. The section which contains a description of the action should, however, always be clearly characterized, for example by the heading ==Plot summary== .

That's simply a lie. There was nowhere near a consensus, just a majority. They cannot admit that, so they had to add the lie.

Also the ==Plot summary== rule is ignored often enough to make it pointless. You just cannot avoid spoiler simply by avoiding summaries. --87.189.124.195

- But that's the trap. There is no neutral definition of "recent". Wahkeenah 00:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you say so. Oh well, so much for spoilers - David Gerard 00:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, define "recent". My guess is it means "something you haven't seen yet". Wahkeenah 04:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was thinking a month or whatever. I have no idea if that's workable - David Gerard 07:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I'd list elaborate reasons, but we've done that before. — Deckill er 21:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Encourages summary-cruft, and Wikipedia is not censored. Sean William 21:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bogus argument. Tagging is not censoring. It's a courtesy to the reader. Wahkeenah 04:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I doubt I can say anything that hasn't already been said before, but they go against policy in various ways, are ugly, lead to bad articles (like The Crying Game example), and yes, dare I say it, are unencyclopedic. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've never been a fan, I've argued on many occasions to downgrade it from guideline status, it's too contentious and there's no real consensus either way on whether to use spoilers or not. For me, Wikipedia ain't censored and I trust our readers that they can work out what an article on any given subject might likely contain. As a UK resident I'm well aware of how to modify my surfing to not stumble across spoilage for US TV series I might enjoy. It beats me we'll stick a picture of an erect penis in articles but we get scared that someone might find out Romeo and Juliet die. Steve block Talk 21:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this please. Whilst there may arguably be some legitimate uses there are two problems. 1) It insults the readers' intelligence - if you look under 'plot summary' don't be surprised when you find (guess what) .... the plot. Wikipedia provides information - we don't censor it for taste, national security, religious sensitivities, or adult content - so we certainly should not censor it because someone doesn't want to know who was Darth Vader's father. We don't put sensitivity tags on images of the prophet telling Muslims to avert their eyes, and we shouldn't mollycoddle our readers like this: 'plot summary' is warning enough! 2) The second reason for deletion is that this is drastically being misused - Phil cites good examples - whilst buffyfandom may like such things - when applied to English literature (Shakesphere, Jane Austen, and Snow While (??), never mind classical latin texts (yes, Petronius's Satyricon - I kid you not!) it just makes us look ridiculous. Encyclopedias should do what encyclopaedias do - and that is not take their lead from trekkie episode guides. Yes, Snape kills Dumbledore - get over it!--Doc^g 21:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagging is not censorship. The information is there, if the reader wants to read it. Wahkeenah 04:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or translate the German version, which states that encyclopedias do not use spoiler warnings, and therefore Wikipedia does not use spoiler warnings. Kusma (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The butler did it delete. This warning is so overused it is becoming harmful. Dil is a man, Jack Dawson drowns, Gollum falls into Mount Doom with the ring, Sergeant Trotter killed Mrs Boyle, Leland Palmer killed his daughter Laura, Apollo 13 got home safe. Sam Blacketer 21:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on WP:NPOV and the Crying game example. Silas Snider (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just before the MFD tag was added, Kusma added a short paragraph clarifying that article quality takes precedence over worrying about spoilers. Before that paragraph was added, I'd agree that the policy was a poor one, but in its current state is looks fine to me. It could probably do with some improvement, but certainly not outright deletion. --Tango 21:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't take anything I did today seriously; I also added a spoiler warning to the spoiler warning to show how ridiculous it is. Anyway, I don't believe that restricting spoilers will work. Either they all go or we're back at this point in a couple of months. Kusma (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't take anything I did today seriously… WP:POINT? — The Storm Surfer 23:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See, this is why jargon obstructs actual communication. If you have a look at the title of WP:POINT, your comment doesn't actually make sense. There's no guideline telling people not to help Wikipedia in order to illustrate a point - David Gerard 00:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While some of the edits Kusma made today may have been debatable, and some are certainly good, I fail to see how this edit could be seen as help[ing] Wikipedia. — The Storm Surfer 00:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, adding a "o btw don't do this" doesn't change the thrust of it - it encourages NPOV violations as a habit and the way things are done here. That's really bad. - David Gerard 22:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Such things just encourage the industry's marketting plans. Eclecticology 22:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, if this goes through, I will believe that Wikipedia will have reached a new level of maturity, one where it transcends the everyforum.com mentality and becomes a real encyclopedia. I think User:Doc glasgow said it best of the people here, but I know that many eloquent speakers have taken to this cause before. A couple more things: Soylent Green is people, Darth Vader is Luke's father and Jesus dies (and comes back, too!). Axem Titanium 22:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Until wikipedia stops IP addresses from editing, there is no possibility of it reaching a "new level of maturity". Wahkeenah 04:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the comments on the mailing list. 86.143.233.233 22:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. In most cases you can write a comprehensive article without needing to blurt out plot details in the intro. Have respect for the readers of the encyclopedia who want to know the context and history of something they are reading or viewing and not have the ending spoiled for them. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this page only demands ignoring NPOV on some articles instead of all of them does not seem to me to be a compelling reason to keep it. Also, given that we do not remove images of genitalia, feces, or other things, what is the reason to have a differing policy on spoilers? Phil Sandifer 22:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apples and oranges. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. In censorship cases, such as Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy we include images that people have strong religious reasons to not want to see. In this case, we exclude information that causes no genuine harm. Phil Sandifer 22:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When we have to for the sake of writing a good article, yes, but when we don't have to, there is no genuine harm in preserving spoilers. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your "strong keep" is invalid insofar as it advocates violation of NPOV. The lead summary is meant to be a complete standalone short article; this is actually important as many plans for a Wikipedia print edition involve pulling good lead summaries. So the twist actually has to be in the intro or the article, and hence the encyclopedia, is being deliberately hobbled. The Crying Game is the canonical example, but that's a reason for that to be the rule, not the exception. Oh, and Tyler Durden is Jack's other personality - David Gerard 22:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Such "canonical examples" can be dealt with on a case by case basis. Not every cultural product relies on a major twist like this. In most cases, the goals of providing reliable information and not spoiling the reader or viewer's experience need not conflict. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can think, without serious effort, of dozens of things where the ending belongs in the lead, ranging from The Crying Game to Romeo and Juliet. In every one of these cases, this policy mandates writing a bad article. Phil Sandifer 22:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And in those cases the goal of writing a complete article should supercede the desire to preserve spoilers. But we should not throw them out in every single article because of these cases. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice, and perhaps modify to prevent NPOV issues? I always found the spolier warning tags useful. (Ok , so I typically read the spoiler warning sections first, but there are indeed people who hate getting spoilered ^^;;) --Kim Bruning 22:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think if the page is kept, we should modify the {{spoiler}} template to say "Warning! Information that you might not know yet follows below!" and put it on every single page. Kusma (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Steve block Talk 22:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Gerard. Philippe 22:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or restrict to media released within the last (say) month or so. Putting spoiler warnings on films and books that just got released is annoying but understandable. Putting spoiler warnings on Citizen Kane and Hamlet, though, is just silly - their "statute of spoiler limitations" is long over. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like good grammar, pleasing layout, consistent use of national varieties of English and other measures we take with reading in mind, this is a courtesy to the reader. Of course, there are exceptions, but luckily we are not a bureaucracy and need not be hidebound by our guidelines--the identification of an article that should be kept despite not meeting guidelines for notability doesn't mean we throw away deletion policy. The fact is that an encyclopedic article about a work of art is not primarily a list of stuff that happens it. Demi ^T/_C 22:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with your last point, but I'm puzzled by your overall argument. To my mind, the focus on spoilers and when/where to reveal them encourages summary bloat of exactly the sort you're talking about. Valen and Sue Dibny both suffer badly from this. Phil Sandifer 22:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think fans' fascination with the object of their admiration does this without help of spoiler tags. I think I understand what you're saying, that providing a structure for content encourages that content to exist. But I really don't think overly-detailed plot synopses would go away if we removed this page and/or the associated template (which is neither here nor there as it's not the reason suggested to delete it). Anyway, my point was more about the pedagogical necessity of mentioning plot points in with an article on the work--I think the necessity is the exception rather than the rule. Demi ^T/_C 23:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — an encyclopedia's first duty is to be informative. Spoiler warnings are the opposite of informative. Hiding information from users who come seeking it is not courteous; it is rude. ➥the Epopt 22:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rudeness comes when you reveal information that users do not wish to have revealed. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to know information about a subject - don't look it up in an encyclopedia. If you don't want to know how the plot goes - don't read under s heading of 'plot synopsis' - it really is quite simple.--Doc^g 23:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the nannyism philosophy. Don't give them a choice. Force it on them. Wahkeenah 04:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is that nannyism (I'm not even sure if that's a word)? It's the reader's choice whether to read or not. We as editors have no right to tell them what to read and what not to read, we just make it available for them when and if they want it in a NPOV form. Axem Titanium 04:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And who's to decide "what users do not wish to have revealed"? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 23:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same people who decide the content of the article. Editors. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of perfectly valid reasons why you might want to look something up and not have it spoiled. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — I've said it before and I'll say it again: "'Wikipedia is not censored.' Spoiler warnings break apart the prose and screw up formatting. It's ambiguous at what point in a game events must occur to not be a spoiler. A spoiler for one game isn't a spoiler for its sequel. Encyclopedic information is complete. It's ambiguous how long after a game is released that information becomes widely known and no longer a spoiler. Etc..." Bottom line is, if you're dumb enough to read an encyclopedia article about a game when you don't want it spoiled, then that's your mistake and not the encyclopedia's. You are your own censor, simply don't read it. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ Σ 23:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason why we can't apply some common sense to this instead of going one way or the other. Including a spolier warning is not "censorship". You can chose to read further if you wish, the information is there and uncensored. There are plenty of valid, non-stupid reasons you might wish to read an encyclopedia article about a book or movie and not have the ending spoiled, and the encylopedia should respect those users. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, hiding a picture (with a show button) is the same as "you can choose to read furthur", yet there's no hidden pictures on penis, nor almost any other article (I know there are a few, but they are by far the exception). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 23:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and oranges. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not understand why we should have warnings and disclaimers for information that does trivial harm but none whatsoever fro information that is so offensive as to cause riots. Phil Sandifer 23:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably due to our systemic bias. I personally would support more extensive tagging and markup, and allow users to set preferences to decide what and how to view--I think actually supports Nicholai's point that "You are your own censor, simply don't read it." Whereas, if no such tagging takes place, this is just glibness, since the entire point is that if you read it to see if you want to read it you've already read that it's people. Demi ^T/_C 23:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying "apples and oranges" as if your logic would magically explain itself. In this case, hiding of pictures and hiding of information are perfectly comparable (ie, the opposite of "apples and oranges"); they both involve hiding something, a definition of censorship. A person who searches for something on an encyclopedia would obviously be trying to find out more about it. If the content exists (which it should, being an encyclopedia), then a spoiler warning isn't going to stop that person from reading and learning about it. The only thing that can legitimately stop a person from learning is himself and we as editors have no place to intrude on that. Axem Titanium 23:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absurd, btw Snape killed Dumbledore. — MichaelLinnear 23:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it's unprofessional. Its use is only valid if we stop calling the project "the free encyclopaedia" and start calling it "Jimbo's bag of trivia and review site" or somesuch instead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zoney (talk • contribs) 23:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong delete per comments by Phil and David. If people don't have enough self control to pick and choose the articles they read and edit, then they probably shouldn't be here. —Viriditas | Talk 23:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nannyism. Telling the reader what to do. It's offensive. Wahkeenah 05:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Phil. bogdan 23:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep; since when is MFD a vehicle to change guidelines? And even if MFD has become a vehicle to change guidelines, this is a good guideline that we've had for many years, and, as Gamalie pointed out, in almost all articles it isn't a problem and in the few that it might be, other policies obviously trump it. And can we please stop tagging on immature comments like "oh yeah and X did Y in Z"? — The Storm Surfer 23:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler alert! ➥the Epopt 00:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 1. This seems to be discussing the deletion (or perhaps retirement) of a guideline. However, many of the posts above seem to be strongly advocating the removal of the spoiler tag/template. It would be useful to clarify this point. Is it not the case that deletion of this guideline will leave the tag simply not covered by any guideline, and therefore open to use by editors without the guidance a guideline might offer? 2. If, indeed, the proposal is to do away with "spoiler" completely, then there will be many interested editors who are in blissful ignorance of this discussion. If the proposal is to delete the tag, it may be appropriate to, in the short term, pollute the article space with a small reference to this discussion, within the included template, so as to encourage the maximum amount of participation in the discussion. Notinasnaid 23:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Pollute the article space?" Absolutely not.--Doc^g 23:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should perhaps clarify what I mean. Not a general notice, but an extra line within the expansion of the tag, so it appears with the spoiler warning. If the tag is such a terrible thing, then telling people a discussion of its deletion is under way is surely not a bad thing, and won't make articles a whole lot worse. I think I have seen such things before. Notinasnaid 23:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The two go hand in hand - the question was, to my mind, where to attack the practice. I felt that attacking the policy was a good start - once the current policy is repudiated we can work through the template from the perspective of some consensus about what our best practice should be. Phil Sandifer 23:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would mentioning it on TFD be appropriate? - David Gerard 00:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good call. I've added an entry there directing people to this discussion. Phil Sandifer 00:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete templates and guideline. Guidelines aren't policy and this guideline is adding on needless formatting saying what should be implicit in our mission as encyclopedists. Plus, I agree it does violate policy. --Gwern (contribs) 23:50 15 May 2007 (GMT)
Comment ~~Neutral-ish~~. I have three conflicting opinions: one strong one for delete and two weak ones for keep. For delete, it is utterly unencyclopedic to have such a warning. You wouldn't see them in film books which often not only completely tell the plot to the movie in question but also add spoilers to other films if they are relevant to analysis. My reasons for keeping are that this does provide a practical yet amateurish service but it's the fact that I am not sure that MfD should be used to change guidelines. While this isn't a vote it's still not the best way to gain consensus on a new policy. So, there goes. ||| I've decided to make this a comment instead. I've realized there is no way to draw a line about what should have a spoiler tag because it depends so much on the individual. And this is just embarassing... to put a spoiler on an article like that. I do think we need to build consensus on what to do with spoiler templates since just making a guideline historical won't help. gren グレン 23:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can someone explain how the proper usage o spoiler warnings is naught but a large dump atop the policy of NPOV? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, everything above? The nomination? They blatantly encourage articles to be written with a view to working around spoilers rather than with a view to neutrality. From your comments and those of your fellow project members on my talk page - up to and including advocating edit warring to preserve spoilers everywhere - it would appear that the film wikiproject considers working around spoilers to be of the greater importance. That this policy encourages such a view is directly damaging to the encyclopedia - David Gerard 00:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arcayne (and other members) speak for themselves, not the Film project. I voted strong delete and I'm an active member of the project. —Viriditas | Talk 01:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to know! - David Gerard 07:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I am to understadn yoiu correctly, you are suggesting removing the idea of warning people using spoilers because some clowns try to do an end-run around the need for spoilers. Are you arguing that spoilers are ineffective in accomplishing their task, or that they are somehow encouraging folk to find a way around the policy? And please, can we forego the weasel words, please? Calling something blatant maybe your way of effecting a point, but a more matter-of-fact way to explain the issue might be more helpful. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the "end-run around the need for spoilers" you're talking about is. But, again, here's the basic issue - as before, using The Crying Game, but there are other good examples to be found. One of the most important things about The Crying Game is the transgender reaction to it. Because article leads are supposed to give an overview of all the important parts of the article, WP:NPOV demands this perspective get mentioned there. The spoiler policy demands otherwise. Phil Sandifer 00:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To begin with, let's stop using the Crying Game as an example; it's a bad article by any definition (which begs the question as to why someone didn't simply fix the article instead of pointing it out as some sort of bastard child of Ee-vil). The Lead shouldn't be including spoiler info about the plot, and spoilers allow the user to choose for themselves whether they want to learn about the story that they would rather avoid. I disagree with your interpretation of the Spoiler policy being at odds with the NPOV policy. Certainly, a better policing of articles to make sure they remain neutral whilst ensuring that plot information isn't revealed are not diametric opposites.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs)
Well, no. The spoiler does belong in the lead because the lead has to work as a standalone short article - else the article is badly written and not up to scratch. So it's spoilers or encyclopedic style. Which will win? - David Gerard 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think The Crying Game has a decent lead, albeit a pretty lousy article after that. The lead needs some clean-up to remove some wanky praise (sensitive portrayals? I know a lot of transgender activists who'd beg to differ), but it does the basic job of telling you the highlights of the article. The problem is that it does this by spoiling the movie, and there's no way to do this without spoiling the movie. But if you want another example, Sue Dibny absolutely has to mention Sue Dibny's role as a flashpoint in discussions of women in comics in the lead to be NPOV. That involves revealing that she was raped and murdered. Phil Sandifer 00:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it has a better Lead now, avoiding the specific information about the transgender character (apparenbtly Phil and David took my advice toheart and fixed it up some). The Lead is asummarized overview of the artilce - it isn't the place to reveal who Keyser Soze is, which is why spoilers need to be in the Plot/Synopsis, and nowhere else. A well, Sue Dibney is an artic le you recently re-worked to make a point (an OR point w/out sources, unfortunately). The Lead as a summary doesn't introduce new statements unsupported by the article. The info about the "flashpoint" is not so much that but a symptom of the Women in Refrigerators argument. Hardly a flashpoint.

However, that is a topic for another time. We are currently discussing removing spoiler tags because they apparently inspire allsorts of - as yet unexplained - NPOV violations by their simple presence. That is akin to suggesting that we should do away with baby's diapers because it only inspires babies to crap in them. In both situations, crap is going to occur. Best not to blame the diaper, but rather to instead address the core issue. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how best to respond to this, if only because it seems to contain the implication that editing articles to comply with our policy on article leads violates WP:POINT. In any case, I've added three sources to the Dibny claim now. But the point here remains - both Sue Dibny and The Crying Game, in order to be good, NPOV articles, need to mention things that are spoilers. Otherwise major aspects of the topic have to get exiled from the lead. I'm not advocating putting the endings to every book, movie, and character in the lead. But sometimes it is the best possible way to do it. The Chairs is another example - that article needs to discuss the play's ending in the lead. (And I'll go fix it as soon as I post this.) Phil Sandifer 01:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article which fails to reveal information or organizes it in such a way that a certain position is marginalized is by definition POV. Axem Titanium 00:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the plot synopsis is typically much larger than the intro, that is hardly "marginalizing" anything. Wahkeenah 05:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This guideline is not in line with several policies and is an unnecessary exception of Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. All those ugly, unencyclopedic templates should go too. Prolog 00:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That page has an exception for spoilers, which I've removed. Some people may disagree. I don't particularly care for "no disclaimer", but it's there. Any exceptions to it should not be for such frivolous reasons as spoilers. Eclecticology 01:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no POV issue. It's a red herring. This is an attempt by certain editors to impose their will on the readers of wikipedia as to how they "should be" using wikipedia. It amounts to nannyism in the extreme. Wahkeenah 00:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How, exactly, is the forced exclusion of discussions of transgender issues from the lead of The Crying Game compatible with WP:NPOV? Phil Sandifer 00:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why is your desire to discuss that topic outside the spoiler tag more important than respecting the readers of wikipedia who maybe don't want to have the ending ruined for them? Wahkeenah 00:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your question amounts to "how is writing a comprehensive introduction to an encyclopedia article in a manner compatible with our fundamental content policies more important than not revealing the ending of a movie that is best known for its twist ending?" If you cannot answer that one yourself, I cannot possibly help you. Phil Sandifer 00:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Spoiler warnings themselves are a way for other editors to nanny readers into the everyforum.com culture where it really shouldn't be. Personally, I don't see how this is a red herring at all. Your argument seems to be a "straw man" by turning this into a debate about certain editors rather than actually addressing the issue of Wikipedia policy (NPOV) and the rights of the readers. Axem Titanium 00:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - User talk:David Gerard#Braveheart_Edits is my personal example of the sort of editing this guideline and template leads to - David Gerard 00:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - What that means, I have no idea. And it is about the editors, because suddenly today a few of them decided that they don't like spoiler warnings because it inconveniences them somehow. The spoiler warning is a courtesy to the reader and does no harm otherwise. How about putting the interests of readers ahead of your own? Wahkeenah 00:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I should think that one of the most fundamental interests of a reader that we, as an encyclopedia, care about is their interest in reading well-written, comprehensive articles. Part of that is well-written, comprehensive lead sections. The spoiler policy actively says that we should conceal information in lead sections rather than discussing it. This is contrary to our fundamental policies. Phil Sandifer 00:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        (edit conflict, responding to Wahkeenah)What interests? I'm trying to build an encyclopedia here, I don't know about you. Spoiler warnings violate the NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW by concealing important information from readers. It should be understood that a reader will get spoilers when he reads an article. The reader is harmed when he cannot get the whole story because it was blocked by a spoiler warning. Axem Titanium 00:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That is absolutely false. Spoiler tags conceal nothing. They simply let the reader know that plot giveaways are ahead, and he/she can read them if they want to. If you read Leonard Maltin's movie guide, for example, he gives all the info in a paragraph and does not give away any spoilers. Nor is it necessary here. It's simply imposing your will upon the reader, taking away the reader's choice by not warning him/her. Wahkeenah 00:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (Heading left because I can't count that many bullets)Maltin's guide is a collection of reviews, though. The lead of a movie review needs to do two things - tell me if the reviewer dug the movie, and tell me what sort of movie it is so I know if it sounds interesting. That's very different from what an encyclopedia does, which is tell me all the pertinent information about the movie. For some movies, like The Crying Game, the encyclopedic information includes discussions of the ending. Phil Sandifer 00:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is a spoiler then? The climax? The first hour of a movie? The first 15 minutes? The first minute? It's all a matter of perspective. To someone who's seen a movie, 30 minutes in seems like it wouldn't be a spoiler but to someone who hasn't any early revelations would count as spoilers. There is no objective way to define a spoiler so it's impossible to keep this guideline. Axem Titanium 00:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We really don't need to act like a fan site or a movie guide. We're an encyclopedia so there is no need to give out a warning to the reader that by reading our articles they might actually discover something they didn't know. --Tony Sidaway 00:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mark as historical - effectively delete, but don't really delete it. Then restart discussion at TfD. BTW, a good use of the spoiler template was to track down articles that needed rewriting due to "writing about fiction" issues. People will still add spoiler warnings manually, even if the guideline and template family are deprecated. I for one don't want to have the last Harry Potter book spoiled. Carcharoth 00:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In that context, you're only a reader, so your opinion doesn't matter to these editors. Wahkeenah 00:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You might find that this discussion goes better for you if you assumed a bit of good faith. Personally, my major concern is for readers. I think a reader who looks up a topic should get a good overview of that topic in the lead section of the article. Phil Sandifer 00:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You all went through and took away the tags from dozens of articles, with no warning, just because you felt like it. Why should I have any faith in your approach? Wahkeenah 05:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I suggest spoilers be restricted to unreleased or very recent release fiction, which would cover this example - David Gerard 00:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a trap. There is no neutral definition of "recent". Wahkeenah 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you say so. Oh well, so much for spoilers - David Gerard 00:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Recent" to you would mean something you haven't seen yet. Once you've seen it, that's all that matters, the other readers be damned. Wahkeenah 04:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: This is a guideline page. We do not delete guidelines, we merely mark them as historical. This is to (literally) prevent history from repeating itself. Therefore if consensus here is to delete, mark as historical instead. Under no circumstances must you actually delete.
Note on MFD: Note that it's actually not a good idea to vote on policy like MFD so conveniently seems to allow. Use the talk page instead. Discussion on the talk page of a guideline can easily overturn a decision made on MFD.

--Kim Bruning 23:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note on notes on mfd's. Deletion Review usually comes after the close. Steve block Talk 22:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean? --Kim Bruning 23:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have restored this to a normal bulleted comment, just like any other on this page. There is no pressing need to have extra emphasis placed on it by having it at the bottom complete with warnings in wiki-comments to post above it.—— Eagle101^{Need help?} 00:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nomination. Mr Rochester has a wife yet living. Mackensen (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per numerous excellent arguments above. Spoiler tags need to die, in much the same fashion as Trinity dies at the end of The Matrix. --Stormie 00:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please STOP trotting out spoilers as a joke. People reading encyclopedic articles should expect spoilers. People participating in MfD debates on the general principle of spoilers might not expect real examples of spoilers to be used. It is a standard joke to add a spoiler tag to discussions like this, but there is a reason for it. This is not an encyclopedia article. This is more like a bulletin board or discussion thread, and that is what spoilers were originally used for (on Usenet) to allow people to navigate fractured, rambling, threaded discussions without coming across spoilers. Topics shift and change in forums like this, so spoiler tags are needed on Wikipedia, but on talk pages and project discussion pages, but not in article space. Trinity and Rochester indeed. Hmmph! Carcharoth 01:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can't understand what the harm is in keeping it. If it helps some readers, why not? Making Wikipedia reader-friendly seems to me a good thing. But what do I know? -Ebyabe 00:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide a neutral point of view to readers. Hiding information does not seem too reader-friendly to me. Axem Titanium 01:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where are you getting this from? A spoiler tag hides nothing, it censors nothing. It simply gives the reader a choice of whether to read about the giveaway plot details. Wahkeenah 01:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But the policy page says "It is also recommended that editors avoid placing spoilers in edit summaries or section headers (unless the spoiler warning is before the table of contents) and avoid linking from another article to a section inside the spoiler area." And while there's a saving throw a paragraph down about article quality, the fact remains - the page advocates organizing articles around spoilers, not around information. Phil Sandifer 01:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please read up on your definition of censorship. If information is organized in such a way that a certain position is marginalized or eliminated, that is still considered censorship (albeit more subtle and insidious). Axem Titanium 01:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No, censorship is hiding information. There is nothing hidden with that tag. You can write the intro a la Leonard Maltin, with no key plot giveaways, and you can put the spoiler tag, and spill all the movie's guts, and the reader has the choice of whether they want to read about the details or not. Wahkeenah 01:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Censorship is perhaps too loaded a term. How about this - removing important aspects of a topic from the lead violates WP:NPOV. Phil Sandifer 01:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        All the information is in the article. The giveaways don't need to be in the lead paragraph. That's imposing your will on the reader. Wahkeenah 01:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is a difference between movie reviews and encyclopedia articles. In the former, you decide whether or not to see the movie. In the latter, you are researching everything about the movie. If I were to talk about, say, evolution and I wanted to advance the position that evolution doesn't exist, I could easily rearrange the article on evolution to discredit Darwinists. None of the information was left out, but the editor (me) was able to spin it towards his own POV. The same can be done with works of fiction. By organizing the article around a spoiler warning, it creates a POV. You also have not responded to my "definition of a spoiler" argument above. Axem Titanium 01:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again, you're imposing your own view on the reader about how he "should be" using wikipedia, rather than letting him decide. Wahkeenah 01:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You seem to know a lot about me. Tell me, what is "my view"? As far as I know, I'm using the classical definition of an encyclopedia and applying it to Wikipedia which claims to be "The Free Encyclopedia". If it's not my place to decide that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, then who's is it? I suppose I should turn Wikipedia into a soapbox for my own ideas. That way, I can actually impose my ideas on readers instead of protecting him from reading the encyclopedia. Seriously, what else do you do with Wikipedia besides use it as an encyclopedia? Axem Titanium 02:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        All I know about you and the other anti-spoiler-taggers on here is that your priorities are out of whack. Courtesy for the reader should come first. Show me another "classic encyclopedia" that reveals the endings of movies. Wahkeenah 02:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I couldn't find a single Britannica article on a film. Encarta has some, but they're all stubs by our standards and don't include any plot summaries at all. Britannica does definitely spoil the ending to The Iliad in its article on Homer, and Encarta has copious summaries of novels. But if we wanted to go strictly by the standards of classic encyclopedias we'd delete all our film articles entirely, or at least the plot summaries. Phil Sandifer 05:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        One of the main reasons we started using spoiler warnings was because we normally rank very high on internet search results. -- Ned Scott 05:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe a compromise would be, when they click on a subject, to automatically pop up that one editor's lecture on the way the reader "should [or should not] be using" wikipedia, to put the reader in their place and keep their expectations low. Wahkeenah 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete. Not really doing any harm, but along with issues raised above, there's simply no need for an entire guideline on how to use spoiler tags--nor should the use of spoiler tags really be encouraged more than it already is. That said, I'm really quite ambivolent about it and, thus, fail to see how such a trivial matter could spark such a lengthy discussion. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that y'all mean "keep, reject and esperanzify" as opposed to "delete", no? Spoiler warnings, for better or worse, have been with us for a long time... --Iamunknown 01:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least mark historical. If these tags were confined to works released in the last 5 years or so, then it would be acceptable, but there has been a drive to keep them on any literary work, ever; we've seen them on Shakespeare plays and even a book of the Bible. This is unencyclopedic and absurd. *** Crotalus *** 01:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Flat delete, do not mark historical, do not Esperanzify. Spoiler warnings are silly things to put into encylopedia articles, which by definition have to discuss endings, plot twists, etc. The time taken up by sterile disputes about spoiler tags is ridiculous--I've even had arguments about whether Odyssey or Medea should have spoiler tags, and those works of literature are 2500 years old. We don't need a guideline about an unnecessary template; we don't even need to mark it historical, just get rid of it. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discard per nom. Even if we don't want to get rid of spoiler templates, we definitely don't want to mandate them as part of the Manual of Style.--ragesoss 02:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see how removing the guideline while keeping the template improves matters. That would increase, rather than reduce, the time-wasting arguments over spoilers. This already includes one important piece of guidance -- don't distort the structure of the article for the sake of spoiler warnings -- and can be further improved. Better a guideline page where we can reach a sensible compromise than a free-for-all. —Cel ithemis 02:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Guidelines are not overturned by deleting them. Tag it as rejected if it is, sure, but that decision must be made on the talk page. MfD isn't the right place. -Amarkov moo! 04:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong discard: The content disclaimer says that Wikipedia contains content you will find objectionable. Another warning for this is stupid. There's also the case of Wikipedia not being censored. Providing a warning to information is censorship. There's also the article untidiness and obstruction. I am stumped to their major use: plot sections. That's right, a section titled "Plot" has a second warning that tells readers "Plot follows". I am unsure about how removing guidelines works, but if this doesn't remove it, it will at least be leway to that goal. --Teggles 05:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Spoiler warnings are not helpful, I have found. They are merely a placebo, with people even moaning about spoilers even with a big honking warning. Matthew 06:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or mark as historical and do not use. Readers should expect that an encyclopedia article about a fictional work will reveal information about it, including any plot surprises. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's arguments. Kariteh 07:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close per MfD: "Nominating a Wikipedia policy or guideline page, or one of the deletion discussion areas (or their sub-pages), for deletion will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy." Whatever the merits of this, and I can see arguments on both sides (lots of them, covering pages and pages of Wikipedia) MfD is not the place to consider deleting a guideline. AndyJones 07:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This allows us to make leeway on the discussion of spoilers, moreso than other methods. WP:IAR. --Teggles 09:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Completely redesign. Either delete this, or make it a small unobtrusive icon at the top right of a section with spoilers, like the 'locked page' or 'featured article'. - Francis Tyers · 09:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this misguided template. Spoiler warnings belong on fansites and book review sites, not in encyclopaedias. If you don't want to read an encyclopaedic article about a book or work of fiction, that is, an in-depth article which explains it in full, including the plot twists and denouement, then please go somewhere where incmplete information is the norm. Wikipedia is not such a place. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's simply courteous: new readers might not know whether Wikipedia articles are likely to reveal the plot or not; the spoiler warning tells them that they do. End of story. It's completely harmless in 99.9% of articles. I understand the Crying Game problem but I'm sure a sensible solution can be found for The Crying Game that doesn't require the altering of every other article to fit in with it. The NPOV article is an absurd red herring: spoiler warnings do not encourage censorship, they simply permit choice. You should all go away and do something useful, like improve the Crying Game article, which is rubbish, and not because of the spoiler warning. Cop 633 11:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They'll know it after the first article they read. New Wikipedia readers are also not likely to think that Wikipedia contains nudity or offensive language where appropriate; do you want to start tagging those? It is the idea of tagging content that is bad. Kusma (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"They'll know it after the first article they read." Exactly. It's discorteous not to warn them. And no, I don't see how tagging potentially offensive pages can possibly hurt anybody. Cop 633 11:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to quote Wahkeenah: "You can write the intro a la Leonard Maltin, with no key plot giveaways, and you can put the spoiler tag, and spill all the movie's guts, and the reader has the choice of whether they want to read about the details or not." Arguments that NPOV is ruined by a spoiler warning are entirely specious as saying a game or movie or book has a some key points that may best be witnessed for one's self is not non-neutral. Also, a spoiler warning does not indicate a poorly written article, rather, someone has thought abut what's coming and is showing consideration for readers. As for people suggesting that a spoiler warning tag ruins the way a pages looks: how? It's not like a small line across a page will ruin the reader's immersion in a gripping article. Images go at the left or right of a page. If a small line across a page is ruining it then perhaps we'd better realise that an inability to adjust an image's location by a sub-pixel is also unacceptable, and we'd all better use exactly the same monitor with the same renderer on our browser, and the same font so that the artistic aesthetic is intact and inviolate. We can make ourselves the William Blake's of encyclopaedias through acts like these. Really, people are putting in spoiler warnings as a public service, same as any contribution to Wikipedia. Waerloeg 11:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As a further point and much more eloquent, go here LV-426. Half the article deals with 'scientific info about a fictitious place. Events at that place that are well suited for a spoiler. Waerloeg 11:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, but do you really think that people who have not seen Alien are likely to look up an article like this? Kusma (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or restrict to recently released films/books/whatever. From experience reviewing such things, it's difficult to comment on significant aspects of the work without spoiling something - and since we're an encyclopaedia, commentary > avoiding spoilers. The former should come above the latter. For newly released works, though, it might make sense to keep {{spoiler}} tags, if only because most people won't have seen the work and there won't be much commentary available anyway. Johnleemk | Talk 11:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an encyclopedia will contain all information on a subject that it can, it would be slightly illogical not to expect "spoilers" in an article Alastairward 11:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has a great template and does not hinder one's use of Wikipedia, rather excell it. It offers a miniscule inconvenience in exchangee for a courtesy to all users. I have found it very useful when attempting to find key details without spoiling the plot. --Xallium (talk • contribs) 12:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and request discussion to be closed based on violation of disruption rule (unless proof can be generated otherwise). I've said this before on the TfD associated with this page, but I'll repeat it here: Spoiler warnings are just that--warnings, not censorship. If we attempted to censor, the spoilers would be gone, kaput, vanished. And in the end, that's exactly what'll happen with the removal of the spoiler warning system. Remove the spoiler warnings, remove the spoilers. On the subject of unreleased fiction, articles shouldn't be created for those until their release, because what may have been rumoured for release once may not be released at all. Put this to bed, ladies and gents; you've successfully filibustered it to death. --JB Adder | Talk 12:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as due courtesy to those who are reading the article. It doesn't harm anything, those who are searching for information are not stopped from doing so. And to those who are quoting "Wikipedia is not censored" this is in now way censorship - the onformations is always there for those who want to to read it. Viridae ^Talk 12:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this deletion goes through, as a user, I will find a different site to use for referencing TV shows. Without spoiler warnings, Wikipedia will only be useful after I've watched a show - which is to say, nigh useless. --Dyfrgi 12:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what site, pray tell, will that be? Television without Pity includes spoilers in its recaps without explicit spoiler warnings, because they expect people to understand that recaps, by their nature, include spoilers. Wiki 24 and Lostpedia contain only a single spoiler warning on their front page, not a spoiler warning on every single episode description, while Memory Alpha doesn't even have the front page spoiler warning. All of those sites expect users to have the common sense to understand that episode articles will contain spoilers. Why should Wikipedia be any different? Chuck 21:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The spoiler warning system in quite nessicary, and by no means should be deleted. Anyway, It'd make a lot of template removing work for everybody :-). Ryan ^{Got something to say?} 12:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could just as easily say that they are quite unnessesary and by all means shoul be deleted. So why are they /nessesary/? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think it's ironic that some wikitard wants to delete the ONLY useful tag in wikipedia. But you go to any other page and it's packed full of useless tags.^{[citation needed]} 63.131.25.92 13:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone a "tard" doesn't exactly help your cause, just makes it worse. Anyone else notise how the majority of, mmmm, EMBLEISHED types of votes (ultra, etc) are on the keep side? Perhaps that says something. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ==really== don't care. This used to be a great place about information, but now it's become a giant beurocracy that is more concerned with following the ever-increasing number of contradictory rules and regulations than with being the worlds largest repository of information. I've had perfectly edits removed because some guy who has no job and edits wikipedia 18 hours a day decided that his opinion was more important than mine. There's a condescending tone given by all full-time editors towards casual editors, and it really ticks me off, because they all have one huge circle-jerk where they support each other and dismiss anyone elses opinions simply because they don't live and breathe wikipedia. So you know what? I stopped making edits. Fuck if I care if anyone learns anything useful or interesting; I'll keep the knowledge to myself and gain a competetive advantage over everyone else. When wikipedia collapses under its own ridiculous rules, I'll be laughing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.131.25.92 (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I don't know what you're referring to, but I have found only two textual edits by you: one that had (among other things) "many now believe that Module 10 will never be released" and another saying "over the years". I don't need to argue against these, you should be able to realize the problems. --Teggles 20:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's these things called "IP Addresses" that many ISP's randomly change, and thus many people in a single year can have the same IP address at different times of said year.

...and if the edits or IP addresses were mentioned, I could explain the problems with the edits. Because there are only two textual edits on that IP address, I can only explain those two. --Teggles 05:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - why throw this away? It's very usefull, because when I am watching a movie I don't want to know everything of the story already. Tukkaatje 13:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Per nom, Kusma, Doc glasgow, The Epopt, Zoney, Tony Sidaway, Akhilleus, Morven, Axem Titanium, and my own many comments on this issue in the past. Shanes 14:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long as everything is properly cited... spoilers can be just as encyclopedic as anything else. I understand how the people who want to delete thes templates feel, but if the template is being used for bad wrting then you should clean up the bad writing this is another attempt by people who would rather create beaureacratic policies to sklirt around an issue instead of taking bold action to correct what is really wrong on a case by case basis. It's the same thing that happened in WP:MSOF with succession templates on pages for fictional characters. Let's not let it happen here too. The Crying game example is ridiculous because categorizing the film as LGBT does not give away the ending. Does categorizing Will and Grace as LGBT mean every character in that series ir Lesbian Gay, Bisexual or trans gendered... no it doesn't. So what has been revealed by this? Merely that it is of interest to LGBT people... for all anyone knows, it may have a supporting character who is LGBT.--Dr who1975 17:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Our articles come up at or near the top of many search engine searches, so the person reading the article may well have had no previous exposure to Wikipedia. They just want to read some information on the book, film, play, etc..., possibly to see if they want to read it, go see it, etc... What is the harm of warning them off? The warning is so easy to disregard, it never seems to me to be in the way. -- DS1953 ^talk 17:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, totally unencyclopedic. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Spoiler tags are an important part of reader courtesy. It has often been common practice for encyclopedias that focus on literature to include spoiler tags. I propose instead that a wikiproject be created to trim down the excessive spoiler tags mentioned above. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 22:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has? Some examples? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It seems to be helpful. --thedemonhog talk contributions 23:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Weak Delete - honestly this is probably a violation of Wikipedia's policies on censorship/disclaimer templates - but the fact is, anyone that looks up a movie in an encyclopedia should expect to get info on the movie. We are an encyclopedia, and we do say the plot, we do say how it was made, we do say who acted in it (Spoiler warning: this reveals who acted in this film - if you don't want to know, don't read ahead), and they should expect that.daniel folsom 02:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT#CENSORED pretty much sums it up. If you are offended by spoilers, it makes sense that you shouldn't seek out a detailed encyclopedia article on that movie you haven't seen, just like those appalled by pictures genitalia shouldn't go viewing Vagina. Krimpet (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Spoiler warnings when dealing with fiction exist in many (most?) places that offer information on movies / TV / etc. Particularly when dealing with recently released fiction (as wiki often does). For many people the warnings add value, and I'm not convinved that the 'harm' to article structure is that big a deal. MkDoyle 03:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary (or not so arbitrary) section header

Point of policy

Note to closing admin: This is a guideline page. We do not delete guidelines, we merely mark them as historical. This is to (literally) prevent history from repeating itself. Therefore if consensus here is to delete, mark as historical instead. Under no circumstances must you actually delete.
Note on MFD: Note that it's actually not a good idea to vote on policy like MFD so conveniently seems to allow. Use the talk page instead. Discussion on the talk page of a guideline can easily overturn a decision made on MFD.

I'm sure the closing admin will know policy well enough and will read this comment, and the one above (that you posted earlier, and was also at the bottom of the page, complete with requests to post above it). There is no need for the extra emphasis complete with wiki commented <! -- warnings --> to post above it. What is stated here is no more or less important then what anyone else here has stated. (Please note I have not yet made a statement on this MFD) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 01:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MFD is wrong venue for policy discussions. This is a compromise as it stands. Two options : Leave MFD open, albeit with caveat, or speedy close MFD as inappropriate venue. One is giving folks a break as per WP:IAR, one is following policy. Your call. :-) --Kim Bruning 02:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For now I think it is best to allow folks to comment, there seems to be a large group of people willing to discuss this issue here, and as such it is probably best to leave it here, even if that is considered ignoring all rules. :) This seems to be getting a very large section of the community involved. Also may I please ask... why is it so important that your comments be at the very bottom of the page through this whole debate? Are they any more or less important then any other comment? I'm sure the closing admin will read the whole thing through, and the closing admin may very well say "ok this needs to go to XXX", but as I see it now, it is allowing some community debate to happen, and thats a good thing from where I am standing. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 02:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that it shouldn't matter at all in what venue the discussion is held, so long as it is held. MfD is as effective, if not more effective, at gauging support for the rejection of a guideline/policy as a policy's talk page, though it is clearly not the typical route one goes to seek the overturning of a policy/guideline. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ami, thats true, in a way, but this is likely better suited to a policy/guideline request for comment, though I'm not sure how much the forum really matters on cases like this. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 03:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Per several reasons. One, MFD is an inappropriate format for this discussion, and those who want to delete spoiler warnings are strong-arming not only the change, but what format we use. Less than a year ago BOTH sides of the debate were able to agree for an RFC format, and as heated as those discussions got, at least we had the sense to seek out a discussion format that would be fair, easy to follow, and helpful. Continue this discussion on WT:SPOILER and don't give in to strong-arm tactics. -- Ned Scott 03:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - retracting this "keep" as the discussion isn't really an MFD (at least a normal one) anymore, and the format for discussion has improved. Undecided for the issue itself. -- Ned Scott 00:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This MFD was started by someone who did not participate in any of the previous debates (to my knowledge) so I wouldn't blame him for choosing the wrong platform. On the other hand, a debate is a debate, regardless of where it happens. MFD is just a name, just like RFC. Whether it happens here or there doesn't change the fact that discussion is happening and that discussion will be used to build consensus. In regards to your other point, who is strong-arming whom? Is reopening a debate such a crime? I've seen nothing but a desire to swiftly crush this debate from you and only after I called you out on it have you actually settled down to try to discuss. Axem Titanium 03:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Plus, this raises an interesting scenerio: if numerous established editors feel a guideline should be deleted, then allowing an MfD is a good idea. The nomination may have not mentioned everything, but that has been covered by others within this discussion. — Deckill er 03:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't blame the nominator, and in reality I'm not really "mad" at anyone for wanting to remove the warnings. However, saying the format for discussion doesn't matter is simply not true. "I've seen nothing but a desire to swiftly crush this debate from you " Because you've assumed that you've helped make the situation worse and not better. That assumption couldn't be more wrong, and in no way was anything being suppressed or ignored. Just because the comments had not been copied over right away doesn't mean they were going to be archived away. I strongly respect the opinions of my fellow Wikipedians, even when they disagree with me. I've stood up for those who disliked spoiler warnings when they were not available to comment, when it looked like the "pro-warning" side was the only ones commenting. But hey, thanks for assuming the worst of me and painting a completely inaccurate picture of my intentions. -- Ned Scott 04:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Though it's a side point, I was vaguely aware of the RfC (or at least, it was familiar to me when I looked at it, though I'd forgotten about it when I made the nomination). I think I declined to participate in it, largely because I thought most of the things being discussed in it (most notably the question of spoilers and NPOV as considered there, where the issue was mostly about whether it's a POV to label a particular fact a spoiler) were kind of silly and missed what seemed to me the major points about spoilers. Phil Sandifer 05:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—if this discussion is moved to a place considered more "appropriate", please allow for a transition period to advertise and set up the transfer before closing this discussion. — Deckill er 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the discussion continues here then such a transition would not be possible.. Of course everyone would have been notified and all comments would have found there way into the new discussion, but it's not really efficient to do that before closing, allowing the work of transition to grow as you are doing it. -- Ned Scott 04:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not doing a transition; I just pasted the discussion to the talkpage in case another revert war started. — Deckill er 04:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, you're directly preventing the transition. -- Ned Scott 04:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - And how am I doing that? I didn't make a single revert to this page, nor have I even really been around for at least half an hour. All I did earlier was post my opinion on the talkpage, paste the discussion on the talkpage when it was closed, and post the MfD tag when the debate was reopened. — Deckill er 04:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You are correct, my mistake. -- Ned Scott 04:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: For the reasons I described above. I do not find the arguments for deletion all that convincing. Rewrite the article to reflect NPOV, don't blame the Spoiler policy for bad writing. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- It's not necessarily about poor wording; it's about the concept of spoiler warnings in general. — Deckill er 04:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think he knows that.. -- Ned Scott 04:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If by "article" he means an example described above and not the spoiler warning guideline, then my mistake. — Deckill er 04:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Err, I was going to go to bed, but I thought I'd point out this is not a policy, but rather a guideline. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 04:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete. I didn't realize it was causing so many problems, although we have had trouble with the lead of Amazoness Quartet. Guess I have to be more careful looking stuff up now, that's all. --Masamage ♫ 04:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to be clear, we're talking about removing the warnings, right? It's pretty clear we'll need a guideline for spoilers, even if all the guideline says is "don't use spoiler warnings". Not to mention WP:SPOILER#Unacceptable alternatives. Regardless of how you feel about the warnings, being able to tell someone what we decided is generally a good idea.... -- Ned Scott 04:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete encyclopedias don't use spoiler warnings and as per the above reasons. Darth Griz98 05:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: May I ask one thing:
Does it damage the quality of an article by including spoiler tags? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read the nomination, you'd know that they do. They interrupt the flow, make information difficult to be covered in the lead, and confine information to one section. The major use, placement in the "Plot" section, is utterly redundant. --Teggles 05:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they don't. A properly used spoiler tag does none of these things. -- Ned Scott 05:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unless you place the spoiler tag at the very beginning of the article, they do. Can you show me a spoiler tag that is "properly used"? --Teggles 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let me give a simple solution - allow certain facts to be in the lead if they have ceased to be spoilers. Simple. Additionally, what's ugly about a spoiler warning at the top of a section? The header does a great enough job of breaking the flow from one section to the next. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have a better solution: mention the spoilers in the lead, and don't give a warning. There's also the case of omitting information from the lead when WP:LEAD says otherwise. "Ugly" is a complete misnomer, I never said anything about that. My key points were information confinement (to a spoiler-tagged section), information omission (from the lead), and redundancy (plot warnings in a plot section). "Interrupt the flow" was only for when the tags are placed between paragraphs, not sections. --Teggles 05:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I know consensus can change, and all that jazz, but people really should take a look at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC. We discussed each and everyone one of these points, and the comments there also apply to this discussion, just as much as the new comments. There we focused on the NPOV issue, the censorship issue, and the "considered encyclopedic" issue. -- Ned Scott 05:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted, you focused on a NPOV issue - but it's not the one being raised here, which is that organizing articles around spoilers can violate NPOV. Indeed, I see no discussion of the issue of lead paragraphs in the RfC, which seems to me a very good reason to re-open debate. Phil Sandifer 05:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - We did discuss organizing articles around spoilers, and everyone thought it was a bad idea... It gives undue weight, it can restrict the format, etc. A misuse of the spoiler template does not speak for the concept itself. -- Ned Scott 05:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which is why, notably, I nominated the policy instead of the template. There may well be something useful that can be done with a spoiler template, but a policy mandating that spoilers be hidden after templates, outside of section headers, etc. is a policy mandating that articles be written badly. Phil Sandifer 05:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But I'm pointing this out more in response to some of the other comments I've been reading, and not so much on the one you've brought up. And also, I have no problem with continued discussion. -- Ned Scott 05:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doc glasgow, we need not mollycoddle and insult the intelligence of our readers any further. RFerreira 05:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's awful reasoning. Just because it seems obvious doesn't mean we should not put up something to shoo them away if they don't want to read spoilers. Some plots are just short summaries of the basic plot, while others are a complete coverage of every event. And what about characters? A list of characters does not imply that there will be spoilers, but there often is. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Mollycoddling and insulting" readers is a bogus smokescreen. Removal of spoiler tags shows utter contempt for the readers, taking away their choice and imposing the editors' views of the way the readers "should be" using wikipedia. In short, it's nannyism. Wahkeenah 05:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ideally, the plot sections of every article would be comprehensive. However, since Wikipedia is a work in progress, we are not there yet. But we shouldn't make exception for that since eventually all articles will (or should) get there. Anyway, Wahkeenah, you never seem to say anything else. How is removing spoiler tags imposing on the reader? Axem Titanium 05:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This guideline demands absurdly ripping apart the flow and text of an article to fit an ill-defined idea of a "spoiler" into a marked off section. It purposefully keeps relevant and important information out of the lead. It violates the spirit of WP, of disseminating information. It violates NPOV, by keeping points of view that are deemed "spoilers" out of the unquarantined areas of the article. This guideline needs to go. --PresN 05:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've already voted to discard, but here's a list of my points:
- Make adhering to WP:LEAD very difficult, as it requires the lead to be a summary. You can not summarize without mentioning spoilers.
- Confine information to a specific area. When you can only mention spoilers in a dedicated spoiler section, it makes development and reception sections less useful because the important spoilers cannot be discussed.
- Redundancy. Warnings are very often placed in plot sections, but the "Plot" header already infers plot. Saying again is redundant.
- Ignoring leeway of medical and offensive images, text. A reader may find spoilers objectionable, a reader may find genitalia objectionable. They are the same idea.
- Point of view... what is a "spoiler"? It creates unnecessary difficulties.
- Interrupting flow. Although this is not always the case, spoiler warnings allow to be placed in the middle of paragraph.
- Obvious. An encyclopedia is a set of articles. An article is "a written composition in prose on a specific topic". A spoiler is part of a written composition.
I'm sure I've forgotten many points, but this should do. --Teggles 05:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I don't wholly oppose the use of spoiler warnings, at the moment they are being employed in an unacceptable fashion. Razing the whole structure, waiting a year, and then starting over on a more reasonable scale may the most effective way to produce a good balance for the long haul. As it stands, this page promotes behavior that is not compatible with our mission as an encyclopedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think its time I drop in my two cents. I see several issues raised on this little discussion of ours :)

First off I note that there were and probably still are concerns about the venue of this discussion. My suggestion as to that is to allow this conversation to go on till its scheduled close. Like it or not there is much more 3rd party input in a discussion of this nature then any discussion that is generated on the talk page of the guideline. (I'm sure if this nomination were on the guideline's talk, there would not be half the amount of discussion that we have now.
There are decent arguments both ways, the ones that I find most notable are:
- Guideline needs to go because of concerns over conflict with WP:LEAD. This may or may not be clear, but we do have the perception of a conflict, and that alone is enough for this argument
- Guideline needs to go because its overused, I found this one interesting, as it implies that the guideline is not written properly as to insure that the tag is used properly. (more on what to do about that in a bit)
- Guideline does state that article quality takes precedence over worrying about spoilers. (this was an interesting reason to keep). But in any case there is the problem that this guideline is being perceived to be "spoilers are more important then article quality". If not in word, then in deed, shown by some of the examples that I have seen. (ways to fix this in a bit)
- You don't have to blurt out details about the article in the intro, only thing this approach has is possible Neutral point of view issues, but doing this means that we are altering our writing style around spoilers, something that this policy does not encourage (or at least is said not to encourage).
- There are serveral other intersting comments about this as well, I've just listed the ones that I found were most interesting, though there was one above about how figuring out what information is considered a "spoiler" can be considered a point of view. Interesting :)
Now that I've listed some of the arguments both ways, I'd like to point out some of the possible resolutions to this debate.
- Keep - Outright, I don't think this is a feasable solution at this time, quite a few editors have stated objections to this guideline, so some revision needs to take place.
- Keep - but discuss elsewhere, also consider adding a disputed tag to the guideline itself. (It looks quite disputed to me) this could be done, though I would recommend that discussion (especially since so many editors are having issues with this guideline) continue elsewhere other then the page's talk, to bring in as many 3rd party folks as possible :). I would suggest a policy/guideline request for comment if this route is taken. It may come to a point that the discussion agrees to the deletion of some of the spoiler tags, and or comes to a different conclusion. This of course does not clearly mark the guideline as bad, and the result of this further discussion may well be keep and use in much more limited context, or other fixes. Who knows :S.
- Esperanzafy - mark historical - this could be done, but it leaves the issue of what to do with all these {{spoiler}} tags that we have in articles, as this debate is more so on the topic of the guideline page, then the tags themselves.
- Delete outright - This is the only one which I will come out and say I'd rather not see. It is useful to maintain the page, even with the historical tag on it so that others in the future can see what did and did not work. Deleting pages like this is just in my view not that great of an idea.
- Speedy close of this MFD, and move discussion onto a request for comment and mark the guideline as disputed. (which it looks like it is). (I forgot this option :) ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eagle 101 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
And with that, I'd like you guys to note that I have not really !voted here, but have given you guys some food for thought :) Feel free to discuss below here even if you have already voted above, there are more options then just a plain black and white, yea nay vote here. We do have the issue of what would be done with all the existing tags if the guideline is removed, and or if {{disputedpolicy}} is placed on it. I again would like to emphasize that there are multiple options and outcomes of this debate. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 07:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire We are an encyclopedia. We give you information. If you have a desire to not see certain information, do not look it up on an encyclopedia. Do away with the whole damn spoiler concept. -M^ask? 08:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because some people abuse it doesn't mean it should be deleted altogether. Spoiler tags are still useful for details that wouldn't make the lead. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments: Spoiler templates do not violate NPOV. The information is still there and not hidden. The reader just gets warned. In cases were the ending of a piece of fiction is important enough to be in the lead, it should be, but there's plenty of articles in which that's not even near a requirement for good writing. Also, the no disclaimer templates guideline discusses things like "this article contains profanity" which is hard to define because opinions differ. Spoilers are information that would severely impact the entertainment value of something fictional. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are cherry-picking the arguments to attack, there is more reason to removal than that. Check my list of reasons, it's about 4 comments up. --Teggles 09:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I read such an argument. Can you really not see how an opinion on what is profanity is EXACTLY the same as an opinion on what should go under a spoiler warning or not? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In all seriousness, if consensus is to keep, I will be proposing a "Nudity warning" template for all sexual content. This is to provide a equal fairness - people who find spoilers objectionable should be treated the same as people who find nudity objectionable. --Teggles 09:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A nude picture gives an instant shock but you'll probably still want to make out with someone afterwards, while a spoiler gives you an instant shock and then ruins a film experience or makes you not read the book. Bib 13:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh... there are children browsing Wikipedia. Not to mention you are missing the point - some find spoilers objectionable, some find nudity objectionable. --125.238.31.228 04:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Meaning we shouldn't have warnings about either - since by wikipedia policy we don't have warnings about nudity - See WP:NOT#Censoreddaniel folsom 05:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I won't weigh in on if spoiler warnings templates are a good or bad idea. But deleting a MOS page is a really horrible way of deprecating the concept. Policies, guidelines, and MOS pages that have fallen out of use or no longer has consensus are kept and marked as historical instead of deleted. --Farix (Talk) 10:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Common sense should be sufficient to all readers who read articles about movies. When you have read the table of contents of the article, and a section says "Plot", then it is more than obvious that the movie will be spoiled. Templates that explain the obvious should not be kept, and excessive use of such templates in different sections of the film makes the page look not so good, especially it often gets interlayed with other objects.--Kylohk 11:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all associated spoiler templates and replace this page with a text explaining that we don't use spoiler tags. Too much fancruft and overly long minute plot summary is being written under the guise of "spoiler". A reader should know to expect spoilers if they go to read a section called "plot" or "characters". All it does is encourage editors to add more cruft, removing which later on is an uphill battle. --Darkbane 11:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't say that the spoiler templates bother me, but given the choice I'd prefer not to have them at all. It should be common sense to the reader which sections contain spoilers or not (the section heading "Plot" should be a dead giveaway). —Xezbeth 11:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Spoiler tag suggests editing your CSS to hide tags if you don't want to see them. A weak compromise would be to have the tags hidden by default, and tell people how to reveal them for themselves. Rawling4851 11:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see this as a valuable template, yes people reading will probably have an idea that it may contain "spoiling information" but its valuable incase one forgets. Regards — The Sunshine Man 11:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hissatsu Extremly Super Duper STRONG KEEP!!!! Spoiler warnings are very helpful. I'd hate to look up something, like a TV series, and get spoiled on a major event in the Synopsis. The spoiler warning alerts me that info I wouldn't get in the beginning of the series is ahead, so I won't find out Bob kills Joe. I think they're helpful, mostly because extreme spoilers are put within them. Sometimes a plot summary has no spoilers, and sometimes it might have a detailed explanation on the ending. How am I supposed to know without spoiler tags? I mostly looks up fiction before buying it or downloading it, and what's the point if I know how it ends? Pyrgus 11:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Agreed, there are cases where spoiler warnings are redundant (i.e. The Crying Game), but there are many cases where a spoiler can be introduced in its own area without affecting the rest of the content. You don't need to know the endings of Pulp Fiction, The Sixth Sense or The Lord of the Rings to understand their significance. As somebody else mentioned above, there is no actual censorship going on: the reader has the choice to read the spoiler, while the editor has the power to keep spoiler material on a page while debating whether it is 'encyclopedic' or not. I frequently use Wikipedia to quickly review a possible book or movie before buying/borrowing/watching it, and appreciate being able to read a synopsis and information about the book without worrying that I will accidently spoil the book/movie for myself. User:Gaurav, currently not logged in from 137.132.3.11 11:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: It's a courtesy to users to make it clear when plot points are being revealed. If someone wants to read on then that's their call. Yorkshiresky 12:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What would this mean for Template:Magic-spoiler and Template:Solution? (Sorry if this has been mentioned before, I have not read every comment.) --Razor ICE 11:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think so, personally. I've always found them even sillier than 'normal' spoiler warnings, myself. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- these serve no real purpose, they aren't encyclopedic, and they possibly violate WP:SELF. A lot of articles have plot summaries. It's obvious that the plot summary is going to have spoilers in it, so why do we need the tag? Are people really reading the plot summaries for articles and being surprised when there are spoilers? If so, who are these people? -- MisterHand 12:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Just because it's an encylcopedia doesn't mean that no consideration for others is required. People deserve to be warned if they are about to see something that will affect their enjoyment of a work of fiction. Brisvegas 12:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the spoiler policy is being misused in articles, then fix it in those individual cases, or modify the policy to adapt in special circumstances. In the majority of cases I can't see why this policy is a problem. You can even disable the display of the spoiler warnings with a very easy monobook.js modification. Deletion is way over the top. - Phorque 12:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more acceptable if people would have to opt-in to see spoiler tags. Encyclopedias do not have spoiler tags. Kusma (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: While I understand that users have concerns that spoiler warnings are unencyclopedic, their use is a critical aspect for usability - users will be turned off by an encyclopedia article that, for example, tells them all about the fictional Severus Snape's infamous murder. I can't imagine why this is being MfD'd and TfD'd - while we are here to build an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia should concern itself not only with the production of reliable, verified content, but also in the format presented to the viewer. Since any viewer would appreciate a warning before a spoiler, it's a simple question: do we serve our editors, or our readers? This also applies to articles where spoilers from outside topics are relevant, which will use the {{spoiler-other}} template to warn readers that even though they are not reading an article on a topic, they may regardless see spoilers for something else. The interconnectedness of such information negates the argument for "well, don't read the article then." Further, I don't see how spoiler warnings, of all things, violate NPOV - their purpose is as a courtesy to the reader, and isn't in and of itself a point of view. I haven't seen any spoiler templates yelling that a book sucks yet, or for that matter that you must read a particularly eloquent book. Further, some users say that they promote cruft in summaries. How would their removal affect the amount of cruft added to an article? The same user who sees a spoiler template is liable to do the same thing with a plot summary header, which we obviously aren't nominating for deletion, since it's a critical section of the article. If you see fancruft, edit it out, fix it! In addition, I'd like to point out that spoilers are somewhat of a different issue from that that Wikipedia is not censored. Censoring is for information which is liable to disturb a viewer, and we don't use it. It should be noted that at a movie theatre, we are never warned about spoilers - although we may be warned about disturbing content, spoilers are clearly not among them -it's not the same issue. Don't complain about a harmless and ultimately useful template, and further, I hate to see people trying to push this with a simultaneous MfD and TfD, this is clearly a case of WP:POINT, when it's simple to hide spoiler tags anyway using personal CSS. I'm reasonably sure that this will end without consensus. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 12:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral – I can't agree that a spoiler warning is a 'contradiction of' the Wikipedia:Lead section guideline. I do, however, agree that they are extraneous and intrusive in an encyclopedia. Personally, I'd follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Spoiler warning#Turning spoiler tags off; that way they don't bother me, and we don't have gentle readers upset that they've been spoiled. (Of course, at the moment, that means the TfD notice still appears.)
Perhaps readers shouldn't be looking up articles related to books they have not read/movies they have not seen. But they do, if only because they want to see who the director is, or who it stars. While the amount of content covered by spoiler tags has grown ridiculous (the entire article in some cases, half the article in some cases – see X-Men: The Last Stand, in which the cast list is apparently a spoiler), that needs to be fixed by editors, not a deletion of the template. My hastily-written two cents. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 12:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One would expect an encyclopedic entry to contain all the details about the subject - if you don't want a spoiler, use a resource with less information.PGWG 12:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mark historical. Spoilers exist in encyclopedias, and we're not here to babysit our readers. It's about time we removed those annoying notices. I can appreciate accidentally stumbling upon an article for a book you haven't read, but what about people who stumble upon articles with nudity? It's a slippery slope. Wikipedia is not censored, and we're not here to editorialize. --Chris (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I really can't see how it violates NPOV moving plot twists and so forth out of the lede. Apropos The Crying Game: this is the exception in the significance of spoilers. Does it violate NPOV to not mention the identity of Tyler Durden or Keyser Soze or the end of Se7en or whatever in the summary? It's perfectly possible to create a standalone mini-article without revealing the last five minutes of a movie. Even in the case of the Crying Game, it'd be sufficient for the lede to say that it deals with gender issues and is considered to be a significant film for LGBT studies or whatever. It can then elaborate after the warning. I often look to wikipedia for some info about a film before I see it that might not be covered by IMDb, or for some details about a TV show that may have episodes that have been shown in the US but not the UK. If this goes ahead I'll be forced to stop using wikipedia for anything like that. --ascorbic 13:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a movie guide, it is perfectly okay if you choose not to use it as a movie guide. Kusma (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whis is exactly why I'd want to read an article here rather than looking at IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes. If I want to read something encyclopaedic about a film I haven't seen then I won't be able to use wikipedia. And yes, it is possible to want to read something like that before seeing a film. --ascorbic 14:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is a harmless courtesy to readers. I want to be warned before I read about the ending of a fictional work. Oce I have read it, I can't "un-read" it. Wikipedia is something new under the Sun and can have conventions like this that aid its readers.--13:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And once you see a disturbing image, you can't "unsee" it either. And as others have said, it's POV to descide just WHAT should be go under spoiler. You mention ending. How about something halfway? In the first fifteen minutes of a film? Middle of the first season on a seven season TV from ten years ago? Etc etc. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This template is/should be primarily used on articles regarding items of contemporary entertainment. Part of what makes some subjects entertaining is the suspense and surprise. And there doesn't need to be a time limit on it: heck, I haven't seen Psycho yet, so being able to just skip past the spoilers on that article and get down to the Production section will keep things fresh for when I finally get off my arse and check it out from the library. Sure, paper encyclopedias generally don't include spoiler warnings, but WP:PAPER... RTucker 14:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psycho is probably, I'd wager, the very sort of article that is made worse by the need to write around spoiler warnings, similar to the main examples of The Crying Game et al given above. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 14:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you haven't actually read the Psycho article, which is doing great, has been labelled a 'good article', and includes plenty of writing about the plot, including an entire section on the shower scene. All this despite that evil spoiler tag. Cop 633 14:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snape kills Dumbledore Keep What makes spoilers so significant is that once you've read one, you can't just ignore it the way you can anything else (legal or medical advice, porn). If the spoiler template is deleted, either spoiler warnings will be typed by hand -- and be much less uniform in wording -- and endless revert wars will result, or else the public will criticize our coverage for containing unnecessary and unwarninged spoilers. Either way, our coverage of our strongest subject will be weakened as far as the public is concerned. Neon Merlin 14:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell? You can't just "ignore" porn or medical content. I have seen this argument before and it makes NO SENSE. It really doesn't. When a child has seen a dead body... he's seen a dead body. It can give him nightmares, etc. Also, I highly doubt the "public" will criticize for unwarned spoilers and not the nudity and medical content. --Teggles 19:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Let's be realistic for a second. Is the primary goal of Wikipedia just to be a resource of information, or do we want it to be a USABLE, FUNCTIONAL resource of information? If all you do is throw information up on the screen without kind of differentiation between PLOT SPOILERS (sorry, but cast information/character lists in writings/names of authors are not spoilers) and the rest of the material, you're going to wind up with a resource that nobody wants to use. People want to look up information on a work of fiction or an author they're unfamiliar with, that's great. They shouldn't have to get slammed with things they don't want to know, because it's going to make wiki into something that people don't want to use and don't find pleasant to visit. Wiki can't just be a repository of all information ever. It needs to be a repository that people might actually want to look at. Alternative Suggestion - Simply delete all spoilers. ALL. It's the only other viable option - remove plot information from all articles about fiction on wiki. --Bishop2 13:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep — No harm is done by alerting people who haven't read/seen a story yet that they may not wish to know all details of the plot. If they do want to, the warning isn't stopping them. The alternative is to have two versions of articles, with and without spoilers, which seems unnecessary duplication.
—wwoods 16:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No harm is done? Okay, great. Let's just add game cheats, a game guide, original research and a price list! It doesn't harm anybody! This is a pathetic argument. --Teggles 19:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, to begin with the first time I watched Psycho, I knew pretty much every single thing that happens in the move, but I was still shocked by the shower scene -- & enjoyed the experience. (I didn't know there was a detective character in the movie, though; he was a surprise for me.) Second, if you don't want the ending of a movie or book ruined, maybe you shouldn't read the Wikipedia article. Lastly, maybe someone should add to WP:NOT that "Wikipedia is not a substitute for reading the book or watching the movie"; the only reason I can see why an article needs more than a summary about the plot -- preferably not more than four sentences, but not as short as Woody Allen's summary of War and Peace ("It's about Russia."). Having written all that, I honestly can't find it in myself to care how this issue is decided: by consensus, by "one moron, one vote", by finding out who has the loudest voice & the strongest legs, or even Jimbo ex machina. I'm just going to abide by whatever gets decided if it's relevant to whatever I'm doing. -- llywrch 17:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to general warning on all fiction articles. If folks don't want to know how plots turns out then they shouldn't be reading articles about books or movies. The requirement of segregating all plot-related discussions distorts article structure, per the nom. Editors on certain topics, such as mysteries, may decide to handle plot twists in a special way, but there's no need to be coy about how Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace ends. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It seems helpful. --thedemonhog talk • edits • count 00:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - honestly this is probably a violation of Wikipedia's policies on censorship/disclaimer templates - but the fact is, anyone that looks up a movie in an encyclopedia should expect to get info on the movie. We are an encyclopedia, and we do say the plot, we do say how it was made, we do say who acted in it (Spoiler warning: this reveals who acted in this film - if you don't want to know, don't read ahead), and they should expect that.daniel folsom 11:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoratio elenchi; nobody wants to remove that information. --87.189.124.195

By the way - does anyone else notice the differences in the voting- a lot of new accounts and IP addresses are voting to keep - that should tell you somethingdaniel folsom 11:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a classic Ad hominem to me. --87.189.124.195

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Discussion moved from TFD

Moved to its own subpage Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning/Tfd

non-deletion discussion

As this is apparently no longer a deletion discussion, let us think about what is wrong with the current use of spoilers again.

They make editors decide the order of presentation not by what makes the best encyclopedic article.

If a work of fiction is most notable for a plot twist, then that belongs in the lead section.

They are often redundant:

Use in "Plot" sections: There is no need to warn people that information about the plot may be found in such a section

They appear in serious articles that do not carry spoiler tags in any other encyclopedia:

People are commonly using spoiler tags on the Bible, the works of Shakespeare, Homer, or Dickens

The first point could be addressed by making it clear that WP:LEAD always takes precedence, but it is not clear whether people will follow this in practice. The second point could be addressed by prohibiting spoiler tags in sections that are already clearly marked by their section title. The third point could be addressed by only putting spoiler tags on works that are newer than a month.

Whatever the outcome of this discussion will be, it seems clear that a large number of people wish to see a significant reduction in the use of spoiler tags. If spoiler tags are not to be deleted outright, they will need to be strictly limited in their use and not allowed to grow wild again like they do now. Kusma (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Please read the above, folks. Virtually all those wanting to maintain the present use have not dealt with these objections; they just say "But I like it!" without concern for addressing these pertinent concerns. Some people have not been helpful with one-liners like "Delete, not encyclopedic", but these are valid issues — we should not be splashing these all over the place so liberally as we do now. Like it or not, when the choice is between writing a proper article and avoiding spoilers, we must go with the former. In some cases, there is no conflict between these two goals; but in cases where there are, our encyclopedic nature comes first. Johnleemk | Talk 14:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, plus CzechOut's excellent "rant" at the beginning of the delete debate. If an outright rejection of spoiler warnings altogether is not accepted, perhaps spoiler warnings could be limited to use only in, say, articles on movies still at the theatre or in the new releases section of the video store, and television episodes of the current season. That way, spoilers can be left only for those items that readers might be expected to only be recently aware of and which they might currently be contemplating seeing. As for books, "recentness" might not be considered as helpful, but the use in, say, Catcher in the Rye (in which there isn't even an ending template; almost the entire article is considered "spoiler") is completely ridiculous. Lexicon (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think a proper article about fiction containing spoilers needs a spoiler warning. Now what? --87.189.89.215
Well you could explain why, perhaps. Why do you think an encyclopedia article needs to carry a warning to tell the reader that he may learn something he doesn't know? Isn't it implicit in the purpose of writing an encyclopedia article that it will contain mostly information that the reader doesn't know? --Tony Sidaway 14:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's at issue here is information some readers specifically do not want to know.--agr 14:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#PAPER, we have the opportunity to offer both sets of informations for both kind of readers: The one wanting to look up an actor or a budget or the one wanting the while shebang. Why do you want to remove that opportunity? --87.189.89.215

Comment: Why are people intentionally posting spoilers in this spoiler warning RFC? Doesn't that violate WP:POINT? Ken Arromdee 14:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The "spoliers" in this discussion are used as examples to prove a valid point, not to disrupt. Lexicon (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By spoilers here, does Ken simply mean that people are discussing the plots of books, films, television shows and plays? I'd say that they are doing so, but that it's seldom disruptive to do so. The "Snape kills Dumbledore" spam was a rare and exceptional case where the intention was to spoil enjoyment rather than inform or engage in legitimate comment. --Tony Sidaway 14:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my view that the use of spoiler templates/warnings ought to be retained, but modified. In no case should content be omitted from an article to avoid a spoiler, and rarely should it be put in a different place in an article (the lead to an article about an unreleased or very recent work should probably not include major spoilers: for example "Snape kills Dumbledore" should not have been in the lead of the relevant article in the week that the book was released, IMO. WP:NPOV must always trump spoiler protection. If there was a consistent way to mark spoiler warnings so that those with a suitable preference setting or css setting would not see the warnings, this would be good, but IMO such warnings should default to being seen by non-logged-in users. As for their use in section labeled "plot" or the like, yes in a sense they are redundant there, but not all plot sections contain significant spoilers, indeed not all plots contain the sort of twists that make their endings a 'spoiler. More importantly, humans are not perfectly logical beings, we sometimes need a reminder about things that ought to be obvious. I think that in spite of the technical redundancy, having spoiler warnings on, or within, sections labeled "plot" or the like should not be prohibited or discouraged. It is mentioned above that most encyclopedias don't use spoiler warnings at all, or do so in a much more limited way than wikipedia. This is true. But most other encyclopedias don't cover fiction and popular culture in nearly as much detail as wikipedia does, and don't include nearly as much plot detail. Given that difference, a different approach to spoiler warnings seems warranted. I do think that some changes should be made, however. My suggestions are:
1. Spoiler warnings should not be used on classic, widely known works such as the Bible, the plays of Shakespeare, or the works of Homer.
2. However, spoiler warnings should not be limited to recently released works -- many long relased works are new to particular readers.
3. Significant facts should not normally be omitted from an article lead merely to avoid spoilers. This may be temporarily suspended for unreleased or recently released works.
4. There should normally be a marker used to indicate the end of a section that contains spoilers, if a spoiler warning is used.
5. Editors should be urged to consider whether plot details are really "spoilers". Works where the plot details are relatively obvious and not in any way surprising, and no attempt seems to be made to surprise the reader should probably not have spoiler warnings used at all.
6. Plot sections in general should be reduced in size ans scope. WP:FICT calls for this now, but is widely ignored.
7. The use or non-use of spoiler warnings in a particular article should be a matter of consensus among the editors of that article, to be determined on its talk page, just as with all other matters of article content. Drastic changes without consensus are discouraged.
8. The general format of spoiler warnings should be uniform across wikipedia, and should be a matter of general consensus. Drastic changes should not be made without seeking consensus for the change.
I hope that these suggestions will be useful in this discussion. DES ^(talk) 14:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is bad enough that there are spoiler warnings in our pop culture sections, but the part of our content that is also present in other encyclopedias should not look less professional. Oh, and articles like List of suicides don't need spoiler warnings at all (but my removal got reverted anyway). Kusma (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User:DESiegel (DES), most of that sounds reasonable. I'd expand that to say that we shouldn't normally put unnecessary warnings into articles. We should instead put a note into the site disclaimer saying that the full plot of fictional works will be disclosed in an appropriate manner dictated by our relevant content policies, and no extra warning will be given. We don't put nudity warnings into our articles about famous artists or anatomy, we just have a notice in the site disclaimer. --Tony Sidaway 14:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, we could do it that way -- it would be consistent. i think it would not get consensus, and i strongly suspect that it would lead to frequent edit disputes when some editors attempted to remove information that constituted spoilers, and to significant dissatisfaction on the part of a subset of our readers. If that is our policy choice, i will of course go along, but I don't think it would be the wisest possible choice. A general disclaimer, while logically equivalent, simply does not have the impact that a specific one does. And yes, I agree that a similar argument could be made for nudity and other content that is offensive to some readers, and i don't want such warnings. The difference is IMO that lots of people want to remove or hide all such content, and warnings might encourage this, and also that people might depend on such warnings in ways that we cannot guarantee would always work. Whereas the perceived "harm" of seeing a spoiler is far less, so if someone reads a spoiler that doesn't have a warning, there will be Far less in the way of violated expectations, IMO. DES ^(talk) 16:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually after making the above suggestion I went to look and found, to my surprise, that our content disclaimer already warns of spoilers, in very large letters. I've changed my opinion on this: I now believe strongly that spoiler warnings are nearly always an unnecessary intrusion on articles. They should never be used except when there is a very strong justification. Perhaps for the first month of Snape Kills Dumbledore, or perhaps not. --Tony Sidaway 16:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Tony, if someone uses Google to find information on a book or movie, such as John LeCarre's novel The Honourable Schoolboy, and the Wikipedia article on the novel tops the list of search results (as it did in 2005 when I first searched for it), what percentage of people do you suppose will consult the content disclaimer before reading the article? Maybe, 0.000001%? -- DS1953 ^talk 18:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: People seem to be ignoring the fact that sexual content, medical content, profane content and violent content are not warned on Wikipedia, which I am adamant almost everyone will defend. Yet all "keep" voters are shouting "be courteous"! It doesn't make any sense, they are no different. A person may find spoilers objectionable, a person may find nudity objectionable. More bizarre is the fact some people claim you can't "un-read" spoilers - what? You can't "un-read" nudity either. They are really no different. Even worse is I saw a person yelling "apples and oranges". Yeah, we're allowed apples, bananas, pears, peaches, kiwis and passion fruit, but oranges are different! --Teggles 19:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using hysterical hyperbole does not help your argument. --Farix (Talk) 19:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- My comment wasn't wholly composed of that. If you'd prefer, I'll restate the last comment, but the point gets across either way. --Teggles 19:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why spoiler warnings are not only bad practice: they're unnecessary

The ugliness of spoiler warnings and the way they skew our writing and interfere with the execution of Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and Wikipedia:Lead section (WP:LEAD) has already been discussed.

What I'd like to address here is why they're unnecessary. Firstly they're unnecessary because this is an encyclopedia. Unlike the fictional works we write about, the value of our work does not rely on maintaining suspense, and (as discussed earlier) in fact hiding information from the reader or confining it to carefully corraled areas of the article distorts our work. Secondly, the reader is aware that he is reading an encyclopedia. If he's reading the article, it means he wants to know about the subject. Warning him that he may learn something he doesn't already know is superfluous: he already knows this otherwise he wouldn't have started reading the article.

Finally, we've had a warning in our Content disclaimer for years, years. The current version has at the very top, in very large words, the following:

WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE

So it's absolutely unnecessary. If we find people who really are stupid enough to come to an encyclopedia expecting not to learn about the subject of the articles they read, they can be pointed in that direction.

I'd argue that even that disclaimer is unnecessary, beccause it's implicit in the nature of an encyclopedia, but that's another argument and I don't mind the disclaimer because it's linked form every page without being thrust bodily into the articles to distract from content and distort the structure of articles, as our spoiler warnings do. --Tony Sidaway 15:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Comment. Spoilers, despite the arguments of some people above, do prevent people from reading information. The fact that there is no understood definition of what is and isn't a spoiler means that a reader has no idea just what is or isn't included in a section of an article marked with a spoiler template. Spoilers are subjective, they're based on the views of the tagger only, and the reader has no way of knowing what is and isn't considered a spoiler. As such, when a reader stops reading because they see a spoiler template and there is information within the spoiler section that he or she would have appreciated reading, he or she has been cheated out of what we, as editors of an encyclopedia, have a duty to provide them. As such, the warnings must go. Lexicon (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers are no more subjective than many other thing on WP. If you disagree with the way a particular warning is set, discuss it and change it.

Nobody stops the reader from reading. --87.189.89.215

Rewrite somewhere else, marking this travesty historic Like I said a long long time ago on the Spoiler RFC, "Spoiler tags are a dramatic violation of our encyclopedic tone, and as such their use should be constrianed to places where the value of the ending to the plot at large overweighs our desire to be completist with information. Examples - M. Night Shalaman movies. Most other tags should go." (note when I wrote this MNS had just released a new movie - spoiling it now is no longer a problem) Rewrite the guideline to make it clear that spoilers everyone knows that are central to the understanding of the work (BRUCE WILLIS IS DEAD), spoilers than don't ruin the work (THE GREEKS WIN THE TROJAN WAR) and spoilers that are trivial (DREW BARRYMORE DIES IN SCREAM) are not excluded from the lede or plastered with ugly tags. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, once WikiMedia asks every person (or, say, 50%) on a particular plot point, and all claim to know it, the warning may go. Until then, don't assume everyone has the same media-consuming habits as yourself. --87.189.89.215

Now you've gone and done it! The Greeks won the Trojan War... Grrr. Lexicon (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I crap you not. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So start a discussion on the /Talk about whether or not to remove it. Start a discussion elsewhere on how warnings should be applied. Just don't treat bad and good spoiler warnings the same. --87.189.89.215

We're having a discussion right here about how the warnings should be applied. The consensus appears to be somewhere between "never" and "sparingly," with your use of it on articles like Romeo and Juliet being in the distinct minority, 87. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a consensus like that. My recent rvs were just rvs of a mass implementation of the policy some would like to introduce. Whatever the result of this discussion, implementation should wait until it's over. --87.189.89.215

I see we have a spoiler warning on Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. Left to their own devices, spoiler warning fanatics would have us rename the article because the title gives plot details away... - Nunh-huh 15:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, but obviously ludicrous. Let's not undermine a valid debate by making up utterly insane hypothetical scenarios that will never come to pass. --Bishop2 16:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Unwell." --Tony Sidaway 15:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even that would give something away. "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern May Or May Not Be Dead". There we are. Lexicon (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but the public would interpret the redundancy as "beating around the bush", meaning they are dead. — Deckill er 16:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Encounter A Novel Application of the Schroedinger's Cat Gedankenexperiment." Obscure enough to baffle the kind of people who care about spoilers, apposite enough to tip off the cognoscenti. --Tony Sidaway 16:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or simply "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern May Or May Not Be Dead (But Don't Think We're Just Beating Around The Bush Here, We Assure You That You Really Are Going To Have To See The Thing To Find Out Which One It Is)". Lexicon (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At one point, Darth Sidious had a "soft redirect" to Palpatine to avoid giving away a spoiler. I think the public understands that we contain spoilers. Or if they are so paranoid about spoilers, why would they blindly go to a Wikipedia page that takes a few seconds to load and clearly has a lot of content on it, thinking that the spoilers wouldn't be included? Spoiler tags insult the public's intelligence; they're anything but a "courtesy". If they wanted to come here to read about a product to see if they want to buy it, then they've come to the wrong place; we're not an advertisement service. — Deckill er 16:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, they assume that, like many other pages on the web, WP would contain warnings, since WP:NOT#PAPER.

Second, WP article should offer as much information as possible. If someone stops reading media articles because the contain spoilers, WP fails to offer any information to that person; on the other hand, a warning won't reduce the amount of information for other readers. --87.189.89.215

Couldn't the same be said, of, say a warning that says: "WARNING: Pictures that may offend some are on this page"? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's why Republicopedia or however the thing is called was founded. --87.189.89.215

While I initially comment to keep the page because I felt the MfD process was completely inappropriate to resolve this dispute. I do feel it is necessary to give my view on the usage of the spoiler tag.

I'm largely ambivalent to the spoiler tag as a whole. In other words, I don't think it neither helps nor hurts Wikipedia for these tags to be present in articles about modern literature and film. I also think that both sides of this debate are "blowing smoke". The presence of the tags will not lessen the professionalism or credibility of Wikipedia, but I also have to say that those who are saying that they can not edit/read articles on Wikipedia for fear of being "spoiled" if the tags are removed are simply engaging in hyperbole.

I do however agree that some editors often grossly overuse the spoiler tags. For example, no classical work of fiction or any work of fiction older then 20 years should ever have a spoiler tag anywhere on the article. The same goes for articles on recent works of fiction whose plot points are widely known. I also agree that having spoiler tags in a plot section or in a characters' bio is also redundant. Are the tags helpful? Maybe. Are they necessary? No. But one thing I must insist is that spoiler tags should never be included in the lead section of an article. But frankly, I don't think anyone who looks up an article on a work of fiction is do so without the intent of spoiling themselves to some degree about the work's plot. --Farix (Talk) 17:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On what do you base your assumption about hyperbole? There are no warnings on de: and I can assure you that I don't read any article about fiction, actors etc. there unless I'm absoluteley sure that I know the article's topic and any related work (!) very, very well; ie. almost never.

Another personal observation: Last week I bought Yojimbo and Sanjuro, two movies from 1961 and 1962. I knew none of them before I decided to buy them, but I was able to use Wikipedia to assess them based on topics covered, importance, participating artists etc. I would not have dared to access these articles without an established pattern of spoiler warnings on en:Wikipedia. (And no, neither do I know Fistful.) In effect, the warnings added content for me. As I often contribute to the articles I read, it also adds content for any reader.

Sadly this discussion never was about details of spoiler handling. --87.189.124.195

I agree that spoiler warnings are useful to many. I fail to see how they hurt Wikipedia in any way. Wikipedia is different from printed encyclopedias in many ways, and the ability to place a spoiler warning is one of these. And, just as 87.189.124.195 posted, there is no reason for them to be confined to 20 years of fiction. I also look at older works to judge their critical or artisitc merit, or to see their place in a director or producer's history. I prefer to not know the plot at this point. Now, would I be devastated if spoiler alerts were removed? I suppose not. I would just be sure to watch the film before reading about it. Would this be inconvenient? Sometimes it would be. And that will decrease Wikipedia's usefulness to me. TK421 15:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding issues

Since the deletion discussion has essentially been abandoned in favor of a free-for-all, I'm going to make a vain attempt at adding some order to the discussion. As I see it, there are four major objections to this policy that I raised. Two of them touch directly on NPOV, which adds a third rail to this discussion - the onus becomes for those who support a policy for spoiler warnings to explain how this policy can be made to work around NPOV. Until the policy does this, it cannot continue to retain guideline status. The other two do not necessarily provide a necessity for the policy's demolition, but they are big problems none the less. I've explained the four problems below. I encourage supporters of this guideline to show why these objections can be overcome. Phil Sandifer 16:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writing around spoilers (NPOV)

The nature of the spoiler policy is that it traps spoilers into specific sections of the article, demarcated by spoiler tags. By extension, things outside the spoiler tag are limited in what they can talk about. This makes it difficult to give proper weight to critical perspectives that depend on the spoiler. Sue Dibny absolutely needs to discuss her rape and murder outside of a plot summary section. You can't write a good section on critical responses to Citzen Kane and only discuss the ending in the plot summary. Other articles, like Valen or Alex Wilder, need spoiler content to put the character in any useful perspective. The spoilers are so vital to those topics that they cannot be exiled into particular sections. These are cases where the spoiler content is important enough that it needs to be woven throughout the article. Inability to do so necessarily marginalizes major perspectives, in violation of NPOV. Phil Sandifer 16:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the policy does this. In fact, it explicitly states, "The question of spoilers should never influence decisions about article content and structure," which is in direct contravention to your point. If these things need to be discussed where you say they need to be discussed, then the guideline we're talking about does not prevent it. JulesH 18:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it might be saying that, but its not saying that prominently enough. As the many examples go to show, people are using this to structure articles around the spoiler warnings. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 19:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically the policy says that, but in practice, articles get heavily refactored into an inconsequential, fluffy lead, and then the real meat of the article only further down in a spoiler section. Luckily the spoiler situation hasn't gotten so out of hand that this has happened to Romeo and Juliet, as their deaths are essential to the plot and meaning of the entire story and must be mentioned in the lead-in sentence, but I've seen it affect only slightly less famous works (including even some of the works of Homer). The spoiler creep is getting ridiculous. No other encyclopedias have spoilers, and for good reason. I think we should bow to their experience and remove ours. They're unprofessional and they hurt the quality of the encyclopedia by causing bad article refactoring. --Cyde Weys 22:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was even a spoiler alert on the article about David Brock's Blinded by the Right, a nonfiction book, FFS. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That addition is very recent, for one. But the more pressing problem here is that this is essentially in the guideline as a saving throw - "avoid spoilers, unless you really, really have to." This is still too much of an imposition on sane practice. Phil Sandifer 03:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Good encyclopedic writing should always take priority before avoiding spoilers. The latter is nice to have; the former is compulsory. Moreover, policy is decided by description, not prescription, so the fact that there is a divergence between the two indicates we need to discuss this again and hash out the issue. Johnleemk | Talk 05:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even more important than "good encyclopedic writing" (whatever that means) should be offering of information. Spoiler warnings effectively do that.

There are a number of rules on WP abused to worsen articles. If you find an instance where this is done, discuss it on the talk page, then fix it. Why is that a problem?

No other encyclopedia has hyperlinks, so should we remove them? WP:NOT#PAPER --87.189.124.195

I don't see the point here. Just do your article as you would have done anyway, then slap on warnings on any sections needing them, or the whole article, and be done with it. How do warnings force a structure?

Also, sections already force a structure. Assume that someone wants to write the article about Ilias by interweaving plot and any discussion related to a particualar detail of the plot. This is rarely done because many people see a point in putting things in sections, ie. explain the plot first and add any discussion later. If this is completely fine with section headers, why is it completely off-limits with warnings? --87.189.124.195

They create the wrong approach. This is a wiki, people do not first write an article, then put tags on it. The article is evolving, and once there are tags in some sections, this serves as a strong incentive not to put spoilers above these sections. That is wrong, and there doesn't seem to be an easy way around this problem other than deleting all spoiler warnings per WP:NDT. Kusma (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article organization changes all the time. Most of the articles I started six years ago are hardly recognizable, and articles are regularly reorganized if someone wants to feature them. --87.189.124.195

Lead paragraphs vs. spoilers (NPOV)

A lead paragraph should cover all of the major aspects of the article, forming, as Wikipedia:Lead paragraph says, a short article unto itself. Some perspectives on texts need to be in the lead paragraph. If these perspectives depend on spoilerish content to be understood then the spoilerish content needs to go there too. The Crying Game has been the example I've been using most often, but there are others: Sue Dibny, Metroid, Taming of the Shrew. All of these have major perspectives on them that are fundamentally based on spoilerish content. These perspectives have to go in the lead, or else NPOV is violated. Phil Sandifer 16:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per my comments in the above section, the guideline as it currently stands does not interfere with this need. JulesH 18:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the guideline as it currently stands has a tacked on bit saying "o btw don't mess up the article ok". That's pretty clearly just there as a sop to objectors - David Gerard 20:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comedy relief! Someone changes the rules to meet your request and you use this to reprove him? Is there any way to make to happy short of suicide? --87.189.124.195

I think it's an untenable position that major plot points (not major critical perspectives) must be included in an introduction, in every case, and so no courtesy to the reader is ever called for. I'll also point out that the "German solution" that's been proposed is quashed by this assertion as well, since it describes "spoiler" information as appearing in sections or discussions of the plot per se. Even in The Crying Game, the facts are that the inclusion of a transvestite character attracted the attention of the LGBT community; and that the marketing of the film was marked by the distributors exhorting reviewers and reporters not to give away the twist. Deciding that our requirement to report these facts translates into "Dil has a weiner!" is just as childish as unencyclopedic as some of the silly examples of overwarning that have been enumerated in this discussion. I would be surprised, in fact, if the introductory section of any other encyclopedia (should it have a specific entry on The Crying Game at all) had this plot detail specifically stated. I would be surprised if this were true for Citizen Kane or any of the other serious examples here were, and have offered a donut--yes, a donut!--to anyone who can show me one. Demi ^T/_C 21:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Demi's position here. It is soemtiems essentiol to include a plot twist or major plot point in the lead paragraph or section of an article. More often it is not important enough to be mentioned there, whether there is a "spoiler" or not. I do agree that in those cases where such information should be mentioned in a lead section, the desire to tag spoilers should take second place. This should be made clearer than it has been, and shold be enforced more consistantly. DES ^(talk) 22:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if we went by other encyclopedias, from my check on the subject, we'd delete all our film articles or reduce them to stubs. No encyclopedia I could find has summaries at all, spoiler warninged or not. So they're not that helpful a guide here. More broadly, I tend to feel like the major problem is still that consideration of spoilers is getting introduced into the idea of how to write a lead. I largely agree with Demi, inasmuch as I think a good lead will write itself and decide whether a spoiler is essential or not. To that end, I don't think this policy does anything useful - other things, like the general sense of what a good lead and a good article look like, will control this adequately. Adding a spoiler guideline only creates opportunities for misinterpretation. Phil Sandifer 03:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzy definitions

The lack of clear line between spoiler and non-spoiler is a problem. I'll agree that Spider-Man 3 can validly be spoiled, and that there are good reasons not to discuss its ending right now. (Chief among them - the film is too new to have any critical perspective on its ending, so there's no good way of knowing if it's the most important thing about the film) I'm more skeptical about Spider-Man 2. I'm quite skeptical about Braveheart. And I think the idea of spoiling Birth of a Nation is ludicrous. There's some point at which it's just not sensible to keep shuffling information around. The guideline thus fails because it does not provide a key piece of guidance - when are these tags useful, and when are they not? How can that guidance be provided? Phil Sandifer 16:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the idea of spoiling Birth of a Nation ludicrous? Cop 633 17:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the film is nearly a century old. The important things about it are virtually all critical perspective at that point, not its aesthetic experience to a new viewer. To my mind, it's firmly in a category where nobody approaches it blind. Everybody who sees it sees it in the context of its impact and criticism, and so spoiler warnings are beside the point. The question, for me, is where that line gets drawn. I'd say The Godfather is at this point similar to Birth of a Nation, for instance - it's not a film that meaningfully gets approached blind. Phil Sandifer 17:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that's simply not an objective thing to say. When I watched BoN I didn't know how it was going to end. Indeed, I was rather surprised by its ending. I certainly knew a few things about it - watched it knowing that it would be racist, knowing it glorified the KKK, and knowing that it was the first feature length film. That was all. If your argument is that nobody watches silent movies for the simple aesthetic experience, well you're wrong, mate - some people do. In fact, they should, silent movies are great! And if you're applying that argument to The Godfather ... well, again, you may know the ending, but many people don't. This debate about spoilers is very interesting, and raises important questions, but age of the work is not a factor in the discussion, I believe, and is not an area of 'fuzziness'. Cop 633 17:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I don't think you're really responding to what I'm saying, exactly. This is partially my fault - reading my comment, I was unclear. Let me try again. There comes a point, and I think this point is correlatable with age, though not caused by age, where the critical response to a text becomes more significant than the aesthetic experience of the text itself. That is to say, where an article that is focused on the way in which the text is aesthetically experienced is just the wrong article to have. Romeo and Juliet seems the most dramatically far I can go on this scale - there is just nothing to say in 2007 about that topic that does not assume the ending to be known. It just doesn't make sense to talk about the play in an encyclopedic fashion as an unfolding event, which is what spoiler tags and concerns about spoilers by their nature do. But that's not because of age as such - age just makes it easier for a more fundamental transition in the way the work is received to take place. This is not objective, I'll grant, but I don't see why it has to be either. Phil Sandifer 17:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let us not forget that the reader can infer that they die on the /very first page/. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 18:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think R&J can ever serve as an example for this question. As pointed out before, the ending is plainly told before Act I even begins. The whole work was never meant to be "an unfolding event" the way modern books and movies are. --87.189.124.195

You're talking about a very complex question. I think they're necessary when a significant number of editors feel they're necessary. What's wrong with letting people exercise their judgement? JulesH 18:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the point at which "the critical response to a text becomes more significant than the aesthetic experience of the text itself" is not something that can be pinpointed or decided upon by individuals. I'm with you on Romeo and Juliet, but only because, as Melodia points out, their death is expressly stated in the prologue. I dislike the notion that Shakespeare is not alive today as an aesthetic experience. Think of The Tragedy of Cymbeline ... which isn't a tragedy. You might think you know the ending from the title. But you don't, and the surprise can still be thrilling 400 years later. I'm not saying the ending can't be written about, I'm just saying a few warnings are polite. Cop 633 18:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I think you are reverting a lot of well-reasoned and good faith edits by a lot of experienced editors, many of them admins. Is there really anyone left in the world who does not know the plot twist in Citizen Kane? Guy (Help!) 18:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a trick question? There are probably five billion people who don't. (Not everyone is born in the USA, imagine that!!) --87.189.124.195

Sure it acn be decided by individuals. It's no harder than deciding the relative importance of any two viewpoints in an article. Which arguments go first in Existence of God? Which criticisms of a philosopher go first? We have to make ordered distinctions like this all the time. Phil Sandifer 03:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I took a film course at university, no-one had seen Citizen Kane and most knew nothing about it at all. Several had never heard of it. Cop 633 19:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then they might have benefited from reading our article on Citizen Kane. --Tony Sidaway 19:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... whether it contains warning or not. They might even enjoyed the twist ending if it wouldn't. --87.189.124.195

The fact that a style guideline requires a judgment call is not grounds for objecting to it. Lots of them do--we are okay with guidelines that call for judgment, trusting that editors will exercise it. And when they don't, and the guideline needs clarity, we can address that, too, by improving it. Demi ^T/_C 21:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree. If anything, I want this guideline to call for more use of judgment, not less. But what bothers me here is that the guideline offers no provision for judgment on this sort of an issue, nor does it make any gesture towards how that judgment might be made. So my question remains: how can we help editors draw this line? Phil Sandifer 03:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with teh idea that only recent works can be spolied, or that spoiler tage are only appropriate on recent works. I will agree that the more recent the work, the more reason for a tag. I also agree that in the case of very widely know works such as the bible or the plays of Skakespear or the works of Homer, tags are clearly inappropriate. But many people newly read or watch works that are far from new, and may well be wish to avoid spoiler information. Not everery one know all the plot details of every work published more than a few years ago. Particuarlly with works that are nor recent, but are also no very widely known, spoiler tags may well be appropriate. DES ^(talk) 22:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Sure. I mean, I don't pretend there's a bright line distinction. I hate bright line distinctions, in fact. Never found one on Wikipedia that was any real use. (Except maybe the 3RR) Hardly anybody seems to seriously believe Hamlet needs a spoiler tag. And I think almost everybody can accept that when Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows comes out, there will be some reason to segregate spoilers from the main text for a bit, though whether a tag is appropriate is an open question. But between that is a world of discussible points, and I think some guidance on navigating that world is in order. Phil Sandifer 03:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I think the idea that everyone knows how a particular work of fiction ends is just wrong. I do know a lot more about films than most people around me, and I see significant movies for the first time all the time (eg. last week Yojimbo from 1961). I could think of major literary works that I don't know faster than I could write them down. The whole notion that a certain work can be considered known by anyone is just unfounded arrogance.

The whole argument is IMHO something of a red herring. There are lot worse problems than these spoilers to decide (eg. who started WWI, how many people died in the Holocaust), and Wikipedia copes quite well. Does the fact that Laura Palmer is murdered merits a warning? Does the name of the murderer? These questions can be answered trivially most of the time, and after some deliberation in the remaining cases. --87.189.124.195

Fighting the taylorized robot hordes

Guidelines are dangerous things. If you make a guideline, people will follow it. With gusto. Hence the spoiler tagging of everything that has a structure that might be considered narrative. This is bad, and part of why we should be cautious with guidelines. This guideline, as it stands, does very little to discourage crazed and single-minded application. And that has done harm to a vast number of articles. (Night (book) had a spoiler warning once. That's just not good.) Small harm, to be sure, but harm. And who knows how many times articles got inappropriately re-arranged to hide things behind spoiler tags. How can this guideline be rewritten to discourage, rather than encourage horrifically Taylorized applications? (Generally, I find that guidelines that call for judgment repell the most Taylorized of our editors. I've seen very few people go on mad NPOV sprees, and far more go on mad "cite sources" sprees.) Phil Sandifer 16:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the description of works it applies to should definitely be narrowed to fictional works. Biographical or historical works should not have spoiler warnings in most cases, I think. I don't see any reason not to include them in most articles on fiction, though.

The current text stating (essentially) that spoiler tags should not be considered when making decisions concerning the structure of the article perhaps solves some of the issues you're talking about, and I understand this text was added recently. JulesH 18:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, because it still puts the default on the side of Taylorized application. I tend to think Morven has it pretty on-target below. Phil Sandifer 03:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We at the very least need to make it clear that not having a spoiler tag is the default, and that, like fair-use images, a good case has to be made for their inclusion in each specific article they are used in.

I personally can tolerate spoiler warnings in articles about recent works of fiction, especially where there is a significant secret that can be spoiled. Someone made a good point above - I think it was Phil Sandifer - that when a work has accumulated enough criticism and analysis that the importance of such plot twists is critical to discussing the work in general that spoiler warnings need to go.

This requires a judgment call on each article they are used on. It's my experience, as Phil states above, that too many Wikipedia editors prefer hard rules to judgment, and would prefer a short algorithm by which they can determine whether a spoiler warning should be present. Well, sucks to be them; you're not getting one from me. Use your brain. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is exactly on target - the default is no spoiler warnings, with a case needing to be made for why they should go in. Phil Sandifer 03:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This point about commentary is an important one, because I think our practice should be based - at least in part - on what the sources do. Do they add a casual warning - as I've seen some media coverage of newly released works do - to avoid reading further lest secrets be spoiled, or do they assume that the twists are known already? We should be adopting the stance taken by our sources. Johnleemk | Talk 05:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Sites like IGN are some of the most reliable video game news sites, but they also contain game guides etc. The key reason here being that those sites are not encyclopedias. If encyclopedias were to use spoiler warnings, I might reconsider my stance. --Teggles 05:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're kind of redefining the concept of a traditional encyclopaedia - as Phil Sandifer pointed out, normal encyclopaedias don't even have articles on most of the pop culture things we cover. Obviously proper encyclopedic writing normally deserves priority over spoiler warnings - what I'm saying is that one major factor in determining whether we should be giving the question of spoilers more weight is whether our sources show concern about avoiding spoilers. Johnleemk | Talk 06:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But these sites are not a good representative of what Wikipedia should include. As I stated, sources like IGN and GameSpot contain things we would never think to include; game guides etc. Why apply different reasoning for "spoiler" content? --Teggles 06:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um...you're assuming our guidelines are enforced by automata who lack the ability to apply editorial judgment. What I am saying is that in editorial judgment, an important factor should be how our sources treat the subject. Does Ebert worry about exposing a spoiler? That might tell you something about whether we should be putting a spoiler in the article. Johnleemk | Talk 06:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When there is a critical focus (as in the case of Ebert), it is expected that it there would be omission of "spoilers". A critic's goal is to provide advise on the worth of a movie. An encyclopedia's goal is to provide comprehensive information. To let their goal be a strong factor in the inclusion of spoilers is nonsensical. Of course there is an editorial judgment, but as this section infers, people do follow an automata-like approach. --Teggles 07:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ebert is probably not the greatest example to illustrate appropriate spoiler-warning, since the motivation for checking out a review of a film is rather different to that for checking out an encyclopedia article. Indeed, a review pretty much presupposes that the audience has not yet seen the film being reviewed. --Stormie 07:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so please provide two examples of noteworthy encyclopedias who tell the spoiler of Fight Club without warning. --87.189.124.195

Morven's statement above seems reasonable. I can see spoiler warnings being very cut back and becoming temporary tags for those with a strong argument to use it. While I still don't see spoilers warnings as "bad", a courtesy is not a guaranteed right, and should take a back seat to other concerns. -- Ned Scott 06:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Morven. Spoilers should be used in every instance in which they are appropriate, and his suggestion would exclude them in a significant number of fringe cases. Warning opponents have yet to show what actual damage is done by warnings, so I don't see why the bias should be against them.

There is no useful definition of "recent" for this.

Discussion of a work is not hampered by warnings.

I wholeheartedly agree with the brain thing. --87.189.124.195

(deindent) I fail to see why we should assume that our audience has already viewed the subject matter. We don't assume the reader of World War II was alive at the time the war broke out; why do we assume that the reader of an article on a particular topic has some familiarity with that topic at all? Also, the discussion of a critic's role seems to have missed by a mile the fact that critics assess the overall worth and significance of a movie - or any work, for that matter. Ebert does occasionally include the odd twist, and IIRC, he once railed against the spoiling of Million Dollar Baby by critics who disapproved of a message delivered by the twist - that in particular is what I had in mind.

Also, you have to bear in mind that with time, sources naturally stop worrying about spoilers. For instance, if Ebert were to write anything about Million Dollar Baby today, I doubt he would be as worried about spoiling it as much as he was a few years back. The point of looking to our sources is to have a basis for assessing whether something is still considered too recent to be spoiled.

For example, today, all our sources on [some iconic movie] probably avoid excessive spoilers without giving a warning, so this tells us: 1. what to avoid spoiling (avoiding the original research problem); 2. that now is not necessarily a good time to give away any twists in the plot. In due time, our sources will likely not worry about spoiling the twists, and we can make the necessary changes.

Referring to our sources is a good idea because otherwise any decision we come to on spoilers - short of getting rid of them altogether - will be by and large arbitrary and possibly subject to original research and/or POV. I don't see a good reason to totally ignore what our sources are doing. As for editorial judgment, the solution to that is thwacking the ignoramuses with a cluestick - not to try to develop rules that prevent those with a clue from using it. Johnleemk | Talk 07:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the first paragraph, I don't know what you're making an argument against (no one said anything along the lines of that), but the assumption is that by going to an article, they should expect to read information on the subject. No need for warnings. I see what you're trying to say in regards to critics, but this would only be valid if spoiler warnings were used on a selective basis; I want them gone entirely, and I want no withholding of information just because they're "spoilers". Also, "thwacking the ignoramuses with a cluestick" does not work. You can try removing spoiler warnings from plot sections on movie articles and you'll have a huge backlash, no matter what your argument. However, if the guideline doesn't end up being removed entirely, changing the guideline is very good. There would be a basis for the acts of those who have a clue. --Teggles 08:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stormie said that reviews presuppose the reader has not seen the work, and implied that we do not make any such presupposition, which IMO, is ridiculous. That's what I was dealing with. As for using spoiler warnings on a "selective basis", yes, that is the whole point - to severely reduce the frequency of how we use these tags, but not to eliminate them entirely. Hard rules like "never use spoiler tags" are as bad as "always use spoiler tags" because although they are easy to enforce, they cause a lot of pain and grief for the exceptions to the rule - which are often more numerous than you might expect. And the point of this discussion is to reach a consensus so we can develop a guideline adequat for cluestick thwacking. Johnleemk | Talk 12:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make the guideline explicit enough (over time - no need to rush it) that the bots can help. Alternatively, explicitley forbid bots. --87.189.124.195

Aim of policy change

I have another point to make: What is the aim of this policy discussion? I seem to see some voices who wants to get rid of spoiler warnings altogether, so this is what I'm arguing against. As with nearly everything, I see room for improvements for the way warnings are handled. --87.189.89.215

The way I've been reading your arguments, they are a defence of existing practice; you haven't been arguing against just wholesale salting of the spoiler tags, you've been arguing against reasonable claims that they are harming how we write the encyclopaedia. Johnleemk | Talk 16:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I haven't argued against reasonable claims, else I would be unreasonable.

I support current practice mostly. I cannot see where I defended excesses, or warnings in historical works etc. --87.189.89.215

Here, here, here, here, need I go on? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read all my comments: "My recent rvs were just rvs of a mass implementation of the policy some would like to introduce. Whatever the result of this discussion, implementation should wait until it's over." --87.189.89.215

I suggest you stop. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be convenient, wouldn't it? --87.189.89.215

If you don't support your edits, don't make them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you think it would be useful if any disputed policy is implemented by both sides of the discussion during the discussion? I don't, so I revert it. You might have had a point if I had added new spoiler warnings to an article. --87.189.89.215

I know you're new here, but yes, guidelines are described by practice, not practice described by guidelines. The first step to getting spoilers off of Romeo and Juliet is not to edit the guideline, but to remove the spoiler. That's how we do things here, 87. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm far from new, and I know that changes are regularly made that way. I just don't think it would be the best way to proceed during a discussion like this. These changes are distracting and they are perfectly able to spoil any good mood which might have been prevalent earlier in the discussion. Now please don't claim that the articles are broken by the warning in a way that immediate action is unavoidable. --87.189.89.215

What ip addresses/accounts have you edited from in the past? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move this discussion on my /Talk. --87.189.89.215

Well I can tell you that my aims would be to remove all spoiler tags. I've thought this for about a year and a half now ever since I saw spoiler tags on literature from literally more than two thousand years ago. If you come read an encyclopedia article on a subject, you should expect a thorough discussion of it. Spoiler tags are amateurish and do not belong in a real encyclopedia. --Cyde Weys 22:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop claiming that spoiler tags remove content. It's childish.

Please provide two major encyclopedias which tells the spoiler of Fight Club without warning. --87.189.124.195

The above IP is replacing spoiler tags on *nursery rhymes*, and so is not to be taken too seriously.--Doc^g 12:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above user is doing Ad Hominems and violates WP:NPA and so is not to be taken too seriously. (Also, see section PLEASE STOP EDIT WARRING for my motives of the reverts Doc talks about.) --87.189.124.195

What is a spoiler?

Isn't the very declaration that plot point X is a spoiler, and plot point Y is not a spoiler, original research (unless backed up by a reliable source saying "this is a spoiler," which they almost never are) and thus forbidden?

If I didn't know, going in to see Titanic, that Leonardo DiCaprio was in the movie, and I found my enjoyment of the movie heightened by not knowing that until he appeared on screen, should that information be considered a spoiler, and marked as such, to preserve the same potential enjoyment for anyone else who might see the movie?

If I figured out in the first thirty seconds of The Sixth Sense that Bruce Willis's character was dead, and I still enjoyed the movie, does that mean that information isn't a spoiler?

I'm curious to hear from those who support keeping the spoiler tag just how a spoiler is defined, and whether there's any objective, non-OR way to do so, short of marking the entirety of every article on Wikipedia a spoiler. (And before you jump in with "fictional works," keep in mind there are non-fiction books with twist endings whose enjoyment may be reduced by knowing the ending in advance.) Chuck 17:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic was heavily marketed as a Leo DiCaprio film. Sixth Sense was heavily marketed as a film with a twist in the end and is discussed as such in pop culture. That seems to answer those questions. But I'm sure there are grey areas that are best discussed on a case by case basis... Cop 633 17:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So should a spoiler warning only be applied when a reliable source indicates that the information is a spoiler or twist? That would eliminate probably 99.9% of spoiler warnings in Wikipedia. Chuck 17:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I o to Wikipedia to look up Sixth Sense, you may rely on the fact that I will want to know what the twist is. If I want to see a teaser which does not give anything away, I'll go to Amazon reviews or a fansite. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest that there might be others not just in our community but amongst our readership who do not share your personal views on spoilers? I rather disagree that providing spoilersis mollycoddling the reader; it is simply polite to let people know that they may not wish to know specific facts about the movie's plot. Whether a person has been under a rock, or has simply been living in a country where certain movies are either are not permitted to be shown (Cannibal Holocaust in Italy, Borat in Saudi Arabia and 300 in Iran immediately springs to mind). It is not unlikely that someone from one of those countries would want to know what the fuss is about, and still not want to know what the plot details are. Ergo, spoilers prove useful.

I agree that the few exceptions which have been brought up as demonstrations of the misapplication of spoiler guidelines are indicative of both the dissent within the community as to the definitions and usefulness of the guideline. Clearly, a great deal of those wishing to 'delete' the guideline are of the opinion that it is also unencyclopedic. I would argue that as an online encyclopedia, some internet conventions have been observed without significant public outcry - including the use of spoilers. It should be noted that the detailing of specific plot twists might actually get us sued. Film reviewers (as well as their parent newspapers) have been held liable for revealing plot twists of recently released films, as it damaged potential box office or DVD sales; we could be treading into this territory as well.

If the matter is one of misapplication of the template, then the best course is to educate the community on how to properly apply it. If the issue is that of usefulness, I think that avoiding lawsuits while providing what our readership wants and expects is entirely useful.

I think that perhaps the use of the spoiler tag does become stale after time, and its application to films over a certain age shouldn't require them, though I would would not want to hazard what that cut-off date should be. Certainly, spoiler tags shouldn't apply to the B&W King Kong, or other films of that time period. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked we have a spoiler warning linked to every page. Please keep in mind we are an encyclopedia. We do what is best for the article's flow, not shoving select information into select locations, unless the flow of the article dictates that. In any case, I would like to ask, how do we figure out what is and what is not a spoiler? That determination relies on the tagger's point of view. Cheers! —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"That determination relies on the tagger's point of view." - and it is in this way that spoilers violate WP:NPOV. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ Σ 21:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The base of this issue

At the base of this issue is a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. At the same time we don't want to "spoil" our readers fun - for if one would have to constantly worry that somebody might "spoil his fun" for a movie or game, he would not use Wikipedia to inform himself about this thing.
Let me start with an example: You have noticed the Game "Super RPG Adventure" which is praised by your peers for its deep story and plot. So you look at the Wikipedia entry for "Super RPG Adventure" and read "... and in a twist ending, it is revealed that the player's enemy, which the player has been guessing for the entire game is actually RandomDude..." From a objective view, everything thing is fine, no factual errors etc. From a subjective view the reader will probably be unhappy, because he feels "cheated" out of a great game and storyline. In a non theoretical example, The Game (film), is based entirely around having the audience guessing what exactly - really - is happening. If the audience exactly knows what is happening, the movie is far less enjoyable. Spoiler tags allow Readers to stop accidently "spoiling" the film for themselves. So the question is, do we want to do away with spoiler tags and rid us of the burden of deciding what is a spoiler and what not, or do we keep them and thus prevent "spoilers" for our readers. As a editor, I would not mind either way, but as a user I'd like to look up Movies, Games and Stories without having to worry of finding myself spoiled. "Snape kills Dumbledore" - I wonder how many friendships got broken over those three words, uttered before the second party managed to read the book? Charon X/talk 17:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If the audience exactly knows what is happening, the movie is far less enjoyable." -- And who gets to decide that? Chuck 17:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're an encyclopedia. We provide the facts. Our readers know this and if they're too stupid to realise it then we gently point them at the content disclaimer. We're hard-asses, party-poopers. We're dedicated encyclopedists and in the decision on how to present the information the user's enjoyment plays no part. The readers know that and those who can't handle it avoid our site in favor of a fan site that will treat them like children instead of adults. --Tony Sidaway 18:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! We're not here to hold our readers' hands and insult their intelligence. This isn't a GameFAQs message forum (although certain Wikipedians treat it as such when they debate by acting uncivil, writing in caps, etc.) or a fansite; it's an encyclopedia, and we must treat all sensitive content in a professional manner. That means not providing ridiculous, common sense warnings. Go to the Penis page, and you'll see images of penises. Go to the Final Fantasy VII page, and you'll find out that Aerith dies. — Deckill er 18:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a personal grudge against people looking for background information about a film without spoiling it for them. Why do you want to restrict use of Wikipedia to people who don't care if a work of fiction is still as appealing after reading a WP article? --87.189.124.195

The thing is, if you think your enjoyment will be spoiled by reading a comprehensive article about the thing, then don't go to an encyclopaedia because encyclopaedias provide just that: comprehensive coverage (see wikt:encyclopaedia, in case it wasn't obvious). In any case the real argument here is about whether 100% of the spoiler warnings are absurd or only about 95% of them. Anybody who doesn't know the salient facts about the plot of Citizen Kane, Titanic, Gone The Wind, Casablanca, The Book of Ruth (FFS!) or the Iliad or whatever, obviously has a pretty good mechanism for avoiding spoilers without help from us. The clue is usually in the section title: "plot details". Guy (Help!) 18:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly be in favour of a change to the guideline stating that a spoiler warning is unnecessary in a section of the article whose heading makes it clear that it contains a plot summary. Warnings are clearly redundant in such situations. But having them in other situations, where you might not be expecting to see plot details, can be helpful. JulesH 18:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would require warnings at the very top of many articles, as the header sections should, when valuable (which I think is "very often", and perhaps "nearly always"), include plot details. Lexicon (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No that simply requires us to not use spoiler templates as often as we do. We really ought to avoid using it in cases where the header of the section is "plot" or some other wording of that. I'm still wondering why we even need it, we are not narrating a story to folks, we are an encyclopedia :). Plus how do we determine what information is a 'spoiler'? That determination is inherently a Point of View of whoever adds the tag. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 18:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I said "header section" I meant "lead paragraph", which should summarize the entire article, and therefore include "spoilers" (and would, since it doesn't mention that it's a plot summary, require a spoiler warning). The fact of the matter is, a well-written article on a movie, television episode, or book, should "spoil it" within eight sentences. Lexicon (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep and our content disclaimer covers that :) No need for these banners to be in the top of every article on a movie, book, etc. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 18:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{spoiler}} has some mildly useful purposes: in most video game articles it is synonymous with {{original research}}, and in an article on any book or film published more than ten years ago it's usually an indication that the article is dominated by fanboys and there has not been sufficient scholarly input. Guy (Help!) 19:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me tell you something about my kids. They love the Harry Potter films and books. They have watched the films at three or four times, and read the books cover to cover time after time. I've read Lord of the Rings six times, and watched the films four times. You know something? I still enjoy them. Yup. Pleasure not in any way spoiled by knowing the ending. Whereas having spoiler tags on King Kong just in case there is some poor sap who's been hiding under a rock all these years and doesn't know that (look away now) 'the gorilla dies, makes us look, well, silly, really. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That brings up another point in relation to what is and isn't a spoiler, how do we determine what is and is not common knowledge? Aside from King Kong, Final Fantasy VII is another great example of this. The game has been out for 10 years, and has several sequels (1 film, 2 novellas, 2 games). According to all of their storylines, Aerith was killed by Sephiroth during the events of FFVII. Is this now common knowledge? If it isn't do we mark the fact that Aerith is already dead as a spoiler in the article on Final Fantasy VII Advent Children? Anyone who sees the movie (or even read about it) is already fully aware that Aerith dies, so is her death still considered a spoiler in FFVII's article, when the fact is advertised so blatantly? This is an example where calling something a spoiler is an example of POV. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ Σ 19:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing a different problem. Would you kids mind if I tell them the end of the next Potter book before they read it? --87.189.124.195

I'm going to have to go with eighty-seven here. How about mystery novels? Detective books? The ones where the point of the first read-through are the suspence, the clues, the anticipation? --Kizor 20:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sucks for them. It's one thing to be able to give a courtesy note, but we can't and shouldn't attempt to save people from spoilers. -- Ned Scott 20:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can and we should, because it's free. There is no downside whatsoever expect for some editor's hurt feelings. --87.189.99.112

We need a Spoiler Warning policy guideline

Whatever people may say about spoilers, we need a policy about them. The policy may well end up saying "don't use them", but there still needs to be a policy. Just getting rid of the existing policy will result in a large amount of inconsistancy. People will still include spoiler warnings (in lots of different ways, since there would be no standard template), and other people won't be able to remove them without causing trouble if there isn't a specific policy banning them.

Once you realise that whatever we decide, we still need a policy, it becomes worth coming up with a policy that is a little more subtle than just "don't use spoiler warnings". We can have a detailed policy saying where they are and are not appropriate (no spoiler warnings in "Plot Summary" sections, for example). The various problems people are coming up with do not require removing warnings completely, they just require a more reasonable use of them. --Tango 20:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err... we don't need a policy, at maximum if we choose to keep these at all, they would be under a WP:GUIDELINE. Policy is for things like blocking policy, etc. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, guideline, then. The difference is purely semantic. It's not like policies are set in stone anyway - there's always WP:IAR. --Tango 20:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they are more dictative then guidelines. A Policy we must follow, save for the extremely rare WP:IGNORE. It's recommended that we do, but we don't have to follow a guideline. That makes a world of difference, so it's not "purely semantic." --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ Σ 21:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing is that it is detailed enough to be a solid base for any decisions on warnings. --87.189.124.195

Proposals

In light of the potential and actual abuses of spoiler warnings and other ways of accommodating readers who might not want spoilers, perhaps we could transform some of the objectives into useful proposals:

Spoiler warnings not permitted, no writing-around permitted

Compliance with the guideline demands ignoring concerns about revealing details of plot or character in every instance. The spoiler templates should be removed and deleted.

Spoiler guidelines strengthened for NPOV

The guideline should more strenuously encourage writers not to interrupt the flow or clarity of an article, and stress compliance with NPOV. Spoilers (plot details) generally to be avoided outside of appropriate sections unless particularly relevant to the scholarship of the work.

Spoiler warnings like fair-use images

Spoiler warnings are allowed, but like fair-use images the burden is on the person adding them to explain why they are necessary for this article. The default remains no spoiler warnings. Phil Sandifer 03:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current practice

Leave the guideline as it existed before its MFD nomination.

A suggestion

Why not put a flag at the top of the articles with spoilers in, along the lines of Template:Current (and Template:Current-section if only a single section is affected)? That way, it doesn't interrupt the flow of the article. If consensus can be reached on the length of time that things remain a spoiler, then that could be mentioned in the template, and the template could be removed after that time period. Mike Peel 22:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a whacking great big banner in the content disclaimer which is linked through the Wikipedia:general disclaimer from every single page in the wiki. A heading at the very top of the disclaimer says (and I do not exaggerate the size):

WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE

I think that should be clear enough for most of us. It certainly doesn't intrude on any articles although it's linked from every single one. --Tony Sidaway 22:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is exactly as relevant as the percentage of readers reading the disclaimer each time before reading an article. --87.189.124.195

Yeah, this notice is rather annoying and unnecessary. It's pretty obvious that encyclopedia articles contain "spoilers". It doesn't need to be made explicit, and doing so is just kind of insulting to our readers. --Cyde Weys 22:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There you have it. Every page already is warned to contain spoilers, thus the spoiler template and spoiler guideline are both redundant to the content disclaimer, and should be speedily deleted. --—NicholaiDaedalus 22:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, cancel parts of my comment, obviously I did not fully read the comment I was responding to. I was under the impression that he was suggesting to add that notice to the top of every page containing spoilers, but of course, he wasn't; he was merely pointing to where it is already on the disclaimers page, which is linked to from every article on Wikipedia. Mea culpa. --Cyde Weys 22:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing about this is that the idea of removing the warnings doesn't bother me, what bothers me are these lame and flawed reasonings. Do you realize how many people have never even read any of our disclaimer pages? Saying that every page as a link... to a link... to something with big text... doesn't change the fact that the pages are easily missed, and hardly anyone ever clicks on them. If we want to get rid of spoilers lets do it for good reasons. Don't treat the people in this debate like they're stupid. -- Ned Scott 00:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ned there are many other valid reasons above. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 00:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just commenting on the above reasoning, not on all of them. -- Ned Scott 00:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's damned good reasoning. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles on fictional works contain sections marked "plot summary" or "synopsis" and nobody would be amazed to find that those sections contain details of the plot. For the people who are too stupid to work this out, we can point them to the content disclaimer. --Tony Sidaway 01:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not joking when I say... Wikipedia has a content disclaimer? I certainly haven't realized its existence in 4+ years... ugen64 07:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a completely different line of argument (which was done repeatedly before), not a reason to rely on the disclaimer. Ignoring section headers is not the same as ignoring a linked page. --87.189.124.195

Ain't broke, don't fix it

According to this article: What is Popular on Wikipedia and Why? cited recently on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost, 43% of WP articles read are on entertainment, and of these about 60% are on the kind of articles which use spoiler warnings — films, comics, TV series, games, books. Suggests there must be something right in the current practice. I certainly appreciate the spoiler warning flag... there are frequently reasons to consult articles on books etc I havn't read. It doesn't seem clever to me to turn off a large fraction of actual WP readers in the name of some theoretical model of what WP ought to be. No-one is claiming that this guidline should take precedence over policy, but there hardly ever needs to be a conflict (as demonstrated above in suggested leads for The Crying Game). PaddyLeahy 01:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also read articles on things I haven't read. I want to know the context, how a book was received, how it stacks in the author's career, other trivia, etc... It's true that removing all spoiler tags would result in eventually everyone figuring out that there are spoilers on these pages, the number of first time users and occasional users dictates that we really shouldn't spoil a plot for them to learn this.--Loodog 02:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would these readers even bother looking at the "plot summary" or similar sections of articles on books they haven't read? In general, the lead section doesn't spoil twists (or it shouldn't, since lead sections should be succinct), and the couple of sentences for plot exposition in the lead will give them an idea of what the book is like. Or they can actually view an advertising or review site. — Deckill er 01:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I do think people read the plot sections of articles on fictional works they haven't read. At least, I do, and it's the main reason I would read an article about a fictional work. We shouldn't be ashamed of the fact that we're not an entertainment website, but an encyclopedia. Our business is putting the information out there. We shouldn't apologise for presenting all the information about the subject, and anybody who can't handle it can run off to whatever site they may be able to find that only presents part of it. --Tony Sidaway 01:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I'd rather see us ranked 30th and become a complete and concise encyclopedia instead of 1st and full of cruft, reviews, and advertisements. Especially because the latter will actually alienate our target audience. — Deckill er 01:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly, nobody wants cruft, reviews or advertisements, and neither will articles be forced to include such by adding spoiler warnings. --87.189.124.195

~~Please don't assume that all those who use spoilers are fanboys/girls. -- Ned Scott 01:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

That wasn't necessarily in response to the spoilers; rather, it was a response to us being deemed an entertainment forum or database in general. — Deckill er 01:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>.>

<.< -- Ned Scott 01:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with this view, and have thought that spoiler warnings really should have just been reserved for non-obvious situations. The needless application of a spoiler warning is a problem (obviously, from this very discussion itself). I'm not sure if it's a big deal in the end, one way or another, but a lot of people here are just venting anger about a misuse rather than the concept itself. I's not a big deal, nor is it wrong, to say "there's a spoiler here". -- Ned Scott 01:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused here: Are we only discussing warnings in Plot sections? Do you think lead section should be spoiler-free?

Anyway, I think it is wrong to assume any particular reading pattern. Spoiler warnings add information to the article, just like section headers, which allows the reader to make his/her own decisions on what to read. --87.189.124.195

"Why would these readers even bother looking at the "plot summary" or similar sections of articles on books they haven't read?" When I read an article on a work that I'm not familiar with that has spoiler warnings, I am able to easily and unambiguously identify those areas that I wish to avoid. When I look at one without warnings, I must be continuously on guard for spoilers, and still run a high risk of accidentally viewing them. --Kizor 17:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the OP, I think the spoiler warning serves an important role here. Aaron Bowen 13:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Identity crisis

Is Wikipedia a website structured as an encyclopedia; or is it an encyclopedia that happens to be online?

If it's the former, and WP really is just slightly better organized "crap off teh Intrawebs," and readers shouldn't expect tightly written, informative discussions of the subject of an article, then spoiler alerts belong in articles. It's the custom on the web and when you go to most websites, you're expecting, the material to be fannish and not very well organized.

On the other hand, I know of absolutely no encyclopedia that contains "spoiler alerts," because when you are reading an encyclopedia you expect to be fully informed about a topic. If you don't want to know the end, you don't read the article. Amazon.com and Yahoo! Movies are that-a-way. -->

In addition to the substantive advantages, eliminating "spoiler alerts" sends the right signal about what Wikipedia is: an encyclopedia, not a website. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With that said, seeing that this is an encyclopedia that happens to be online, and not a fanforum or website, spoiler warnings seem awfully unencyclopedic. You wouldn't open up the World Book Encyclopedia (or insert encyclopedia of choice here) or any other professionaly published material and see one of these spoiler warnings before a section entitled "Plot summary" or at all. Darth Griz98 04:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a false dilemma. Wikipedia is obviously more than an encyclopedia that happens to be online, but it does not follow that it has to be "better organized crap". Again, please name two major encyclopedia which name the spoiler of Fight Club without warning.

Amazon does not contain spoiler. (Don't know about Yahoo! Movies.) --87.189.124.195

More than an encyclopedia online? It would seem to be exactly an encyclopedia that happens to be online: the free encyclopedia anyone can edit, not the free encyclopedia and movie, game and book review site anyone can edit. Amazon and Yahoo Movies don't contain spoilers precisely because they have different purposes than WP: you read those sites to determine if you want to see a movie; you read an encyclopedia because you simply want information about it. Could you provide me an example of an encyclopedia that contains a spoiler warning before revealing the spoiler in Fight Club? I'd be interested to see it. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 14:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that it's more than a traditional encyclopedia that happens to be online.

Again, a spoiler warning does not prevent the inclusion of information. Please stop claiming so.

I don't use traditional encyclopedias as precedent, so I don't have to. --87.189.124.195

Spoiler warnings are infantile and need to go

Spoiler warnings are infantile and not worthy of an encyclopedia that wants to be taken seriously. We report the facts, and a summary of the most important ones belongs in the article's lead section, whether they "spoil" or not. The general disclaimer already contains "Wikipedia contains spoilers", and that is all that's needed in this regard. All arguments by Phil Sandifer in the original deletion request are convincing and to the point. AxelBoldt 04:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The vote is over, we are now collecting arguments. --87.189.124.195

iffy spoilers

I have ran a bot and have compiled a list of 4868 instances of iffy spoilers being used on wikipedia pages. These can be found at User:Eagle 101/iffyspoilers. The criteria for getting on this list was to have a spoiler come immediately before or after a section with the header of plot, plot summary, synopsis, overview, etc. These titles make it clear to the reader that guess what? the plot is going to be discussed. As such the spoiler tags on these articles are probably redundant. Removal of these probably would not be a bad idea. This counts for ~10% of all {{spoiler}} tags that we have in use. (we have approx 45250 +- 500 if I recall correctly). Again I suggest that at a bare minimum these tags can be removed, as they are superfluous to the existing headers. :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 05:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been characterised by action rather than talking, which has not helped tempers. Rather than proposing making the change first, how about proposing a form of words for Wikipedia:Spoiler warning which would legitimise this action? (If and when any action is approved, please remember the end spoiler warnings too; people concerned about "Wikipedia looking silly" have not apparently been concerned enough to avoid leaving unmatched end warnings in place.) Notinasnaid 06:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list is there if anyone wants to do anything with it, to me it shows a fine example on how our guideline has mislead some of our editors to putting spoiler tags on very obvious locations. If the header says plot what do you expect to see there? :P In any case, I hope that the list is useful for debate as well as taking action when and if it is needed. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 07:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doc proposed a form of wording for {{spoiler}} which involved blanking it. I support this wording - David Gerard 09:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support this. It feels like a fait accompli, since at a stroke this bypasses all other discussion, and also makes the guidline under discussion impossible to follow. Notinasnaid 09:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that some Plot sections are clearly "spoiler free" and can be easily read without problem, others are far too detailed and include many spoilers. My own view would be that a plot intoduction should be kept spoiler free. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping a section about the plot spoiler free is a contradiction to being an encyclopedia, which has a mission of informing people about stuff they look up. Kusma (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, many articles seem to have {{spoiler}} added to the plot / synopsis section as a matter of course, simply because it's a plot or synopsis section, which is absurd. Spoiler warnings are irrelevant in anything over ten years old anyway, redundant in sections called plot or synopsis, and used in place of {{original research}} in many video game articles. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if anyone else has voiced this opinion on this gigantic page, but I certainly do not agree with your position that "Spoiler warnings are irrelevant in anything over ten years old". I can't see why the age of the work should make any difference. — The Storm Surfer 12:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really beliebe that Iliad should have a spoiler warning (spoiler: the Greeks win). Or Jesus? (spoiler: he is resurrected). Kusma (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to tell if you aren't merely trying to make my position look absurd, but I think that your examples are poor because the 'spoilers' you choose are widely believed to be historical events. (Using the Jesus article is particularly ridiculous since it presents its subject as a historical individual rather than a literary character from the very start.) — The Storm Surfer 13:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that there is one school of thought which holds that he never actually died to begin with. We could have a flame war over whether {{spoiler}} in that instance would violate NPOV guidelines! -- llywrch 23:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Target Audience"??

Some editors here are clearly unhappy with the success of Wikipedia and would prefer it to be much smaller, e.g. User:Deckiller refers to "our target audience. I notice this isn't linked, presumably Deckiller couldn't find the page WP:Target audience but in fact it's there on the home page "The free encyclopedia anyone can edit". Presumably Deckiller wants this to be: "The free encyclopedia anyone can edit but only the educated elite should read". WP is more than an encyclopedia: no encyclopedia would have an article on every pokemon, every steam locomotive that ever ran on UK railways, or every US highway. WP is a resource that can grow up with the reader, a bit like a primitive version of A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer. Today's fanboys are tomorrow's avid readers of your articles on, er, Final Fantasy.

Also, enough of this "real encyclopedias don't use spoiler warnings". Paper encyclopedias are not designed for scrolling text, so spoiler warnings would be much less useful in them. PaddyLeahy 09:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no difference between skipping text when reading online or offline. Actually, it is easier to put a paper on your offline book than to hide text on your monitor. Kusma (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is. Every one of our articles begins on the top of its own page. There is no chance of an accidental glimpse as you search for the beginning. Further, online skipping text has machine assistance by way of the search function. --Kizor 21:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, other mainstream online encyclopedias do not contain spoiler warnings either. Nor do online encyclopedias that concentrate on fictional topics: note that wookieepedia:Anakin Skywalker and MemoryAlpha:Spock do not contain a warning, although they contain major spoilers. Kusma (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some TV encyclopedias also have sensible spoiler policies. See wikia:24:Wiki_24:Spoilers: they say "Spoiler warnings are NOT given for already aired episodes." Kusma (talk) 10:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Wiki 24 does not give spoiler warnings on any already aired episodes, even though the description might spoil the episode for people who haven't seen it yet. If we followed that standard, we should have a spoiler warning for any plot points of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows currently, but the spoiler warning would come off the day the book is published. But I don't think that's what any of the pro-spoiler-warning folks here are advocating. Chuck 14:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please name two examples of noteworthy encyclopedias which name the plot twist of Fight Club without a warning. --87.189.124.195

Please name two examples of noteworthy encyclopedias which name the plot twist of Fight Club with a warning. Chuck 14:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I, I don't claim that Wikipedia should be exactly as other encyclopedias. --87.189.124.195

OK, then, show me two examples of noteworthy encyclopedias which have articles on Fight Club. Chuck 17:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case I find none, should we delete Fight Club?

The implication of this thread is obvious: Other encyclopedias are different in many ways, so any argument in copy them religiously is bogus. --87.189.99.112

I agree with Paddy Leahy; there certainly is a difference between reading on screen and in print. And I would like to know what the heck the point of the whole discussion is. Deb 11:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, and online encyclopedias do not contain spoiler warnings. Kusma (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia's competitors also pale in comparison of their coverage of pop culture and current (and ongoing) entertainment. Sure, there's no warning about plot summaries surrounding Moby Dick or Henry V in E. Britannica, but there's also no coverage of, say, The Sixth Sense, Harry Potter, or 24. --Flex (talk/contribs) 12:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said elsewhere, every last 'edit this page' link is a breach of tradition, and the existence of Wikipedia is proof that we've built a good (or otherwise, depending on your opinion) resource not only on the basis on what is conventional, but what's good and what works. No other online encyclopedia has our resources, our breadth or our coverage. --Kizor 21:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares vs who accepts

Perhaps not the best header name...but one thing that crossed my mind. I think a LOT of people come to Wikipedia and see the warnings, so they assume the warnings are the way it's done -- not that they want/feel the need for them, simply think "Ok, so WP has spoiler warnings". I know that's how I initially felt. I wonder if we got rid of most/all the warnings, would people in general still feel like they are "needed"? Then again, perhaps WP has become too popular that the number of people who think WP is "supposed" to have them outweigh those who'd come and not even think about it upon reading articles without the tag. Just a thought, and I know I probably don't make too much sense there. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE STOP EDIT WARRING

There is a discussion above. When it reaches a consensus, that will be the time to roll out your opinions into the encyclopedia. AndyJones 13:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See [1], [2], [3], [4].

Here is another one: [5] --87.189.124.195

The only one I see who is engaged in an edit war is you. A consensus has been retched that redundant tags and tags on classical/historical works are completely unnecessary and can be removed. --Farix (Talk) 13:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I revert back and forth all by myself? Ok, I promise that I will never do that again. --87.189.124.195

The IP caught me interest because he/she was replacing spoiler tags on nursery rhymes. I consider that vandalism and disruption - and will treat it as such, unless anyone can make a coherent case for how a spoiler tag on Little Red Riding Hood or Cinderella improves the encyclopedia.--Doc^g 13:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are picking your examples. I reverted a large number of changes which are currently discussed here. Sadly, when dealing with people disrupting Wikipedia you don't always have the luxary of judging each change by its merit, so not all your changes might be wrong.

So let's make a deal: I remove all spoiler tag on nursery rhymes you can point out and you revert any spoiler-related changes to any other article pointed out above. Will that work for you? --87.189.124.195

Like I suggested at your old IP, I suggest again that you don'r make changes you don't agree with. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I answered then, reverting disruptive edits is something I support very much. --87.189.124.195

It's your reverts that are disruptive. These editors have seen a consensus form over the remove of spoiler tags that are clearly redundant or are clearly inappropriate. --Farix (Talk) 13:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you say doing mass edits while a heated discussion about a directly related policy is ongoing is non-disruptive? Do you think the warnings are so destructive to the articles that removing them could not have waited until the storm is over? --87.189.124.195

What I'm saying is that these two usages of the spoiler tag now has a consensus. Other usages of the tags are still being debated. But that doesn't mean that we must wait for all points have been settled before act on any settled point. --Farix (Talk) 13:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was understood. I still would like to here anyone's opinion about whether the edits should have been done during a lively debate about a policy directly involving the edits. --87.189.124.195

What aspect of inappropriate or redundant spoiler tags is still being debated? --Farix (Talk) 14:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer my questions: Is doing mass edits while a heated discussion about a directly related policy is ongoing is non-disruptive? Do you think the warnings are so destructive to the articles that removing them could not have waited until the storm is over? Do you think the edits should have been done during a lively debate about a policy directly involving the edits? And a new one: Do you think the edits are completely independent of the discussion? --87.189.124.195

Depends on what is being discussed. If it is on a point were a rough consensus has been reached, even though other aspects of the policy or guideline are still being discussed, then it's not disruptive. If it is on a point that is still hotly contested by several editors, then it would be disruptive. But again, these two points have not being hotly contested by several editors. --Farix (Talk) 14:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that you understand the point. I suggested (several time) that these changes should wait to avoid heating up this discussion. Your point does not address that AT ALL, so please stop bringing it up again. (Also, again, see above for more opinions about spoiler tags in plot sections.) --87.189.124.195

Replacing spoiler tags which we should assume were placed earlier by other editors in a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. Are you suggesting that these editors who originally placed the spoiler tags were all disruptive vandals? What I find disruptive (though obviously not vandalism) is that people are making sweeping changes in line with their interpretation of a guideline that is being hotly debated. I think the best thing for the encyclopedia would be to effectively freeze all the spoiler tags for a few days rather than making hundreds (thousands?) of speedy edits and reverts in the same period. I'm suggesting that those of us involved in this discussion about spoiler tags should voluntarily refrain from adding or removing them from article space for a while. I think this will help keep everyone calm and civil, in addition to making things a whole lot easier to sort out when a consensus is reached. — The Storm Surfer 13:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do think a rough consensus has been reached on these two usages of the spoiler tag. Enough so that it has now been included in the spoiler warning guideline. So it's not disruptive or vandalism for editors to act on this rough consensus by do mass edits. However, it is disruptive for another editor to go around and revert these edits crying that, "More discussion is needed!" --Farix (Talk) 14:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So in conclusion, because your point of view is TRUE, you can ignore repeated request to postpone trivial edits, can stamp concerns about the timing as unecessary and just go on with whatever you were doing. Ah, it must be nice to live in such a simple world! --87.189.124.195

Thank you. I see this was added with this edit [6], what, three hours ago? So it seems a little brisk to be accusing people reverting based on what they understood to be the guideline of being disruptive, especially if edits are not referring to the updated guideline. So, does anyone dispute that a consensus was reached on these issues: "not in plot sections", "not in classic works" (whatever that means), "not where the subject of much external debate". I think it is important to be seen to be forming consensus properly, to avoid developing even more ill will than there already is. I also agree that putting off these edits may help to reduce the apparent tension here. Why, indeed, is there such a desperate hurry to do this? Notinasnaid 14:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their case must be very weak if they use tactics like this.

I can't find the section of /Talk the edit comment is referring to. Could someone please point it out? Could someone please revert the change until it is pointed out?

This is clearly trying to deceptivly establish a policy which is widely contestet, so could someone please mass-revert the changes pointed out above? --87.189.124.195

This very talk page is where the consensus has been established. The only one who has been contesting that redundant and inappropriately used spoiler tags should be removed has been yourself. --Farix (Talk) 14:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So that must be why you claimed that the disruptive changes have nothing to do with this discussion! Care to explain why you should be taken serious in the future?

(Also, please unignore section "iffy spoilers" for some other voices on this.) --87.189.124.195

Hi, still here. — The Storm Surfer 16:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got to agree with the keepers

Spoiler warnings are as natural and normal to the online medium as links and back buttons. We might as well scrap wikilinks, external links, see also and infoboxes, and anything else which doesn't appear in any paper encyclopedia. The fact that they are sometimes used on ancient plays or works especially known for their twist ending isn't a reason to scrap them entirely. Just exercise editorial judgement.

I don't see how the spoiler tags induces rambling plot summaries and other fanstuff; you only have to look at the articles which don't use it to see that this is not the case; Super Mario Bros. (TV series), or Mega Man X (video game), for example. The deleters confirmation bias would seem to be at work here, we had plenty of great articles which used it without any problems.

The use of spoiler tags on a plot section may seem redundant, but not everyone is familar with the customs of Wikipedia. If you saw a section entitled 'plot' in a newspaper, or a press release, or a magazine, not everyone would magically know whether it contained spoilers. The presumption that they should is not one we are qualified to make. The same goes for the facile arguments that 'well, everybody knows it' or 'I enjoyed it even though I knew the ending'. Personally, I'd be surprised if even a tenth of the world's population knew the ending for The Empire Strikes Back, or any of the other 'obvious ones'.

The link to the disclaimer is obviously not adequate, since much (most?) of Wikipedia's traffic comes straight from search engines. I find the view that 'they should read the small print' rather distasteful and thoroughly unWikipedian. As are the endless comments above about how 'stupid' people are who don't know how Wikipedia works. Spoiler tags are simply a normal (and necessary) aspect of online life.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the argument to delete the policy (and template) can possibly hold water. Killing the template *removes information*, and is a one-way (permanent) operation. Consider the four options: those that want warnings get them, those that do not want warnings get them, those that want warnings do not get them, and those that do not want warnings do not get them. Two of the cases are "happy" -- people get what they want. So consider the "unhappy" cases. If those that do not want warnings get them anyway, they can follow the guidelines at the end of WP:SW and turn them off -- one action and they'll never see them again. After taking that action, they will always be a "happy" case. However, if those that want warnings do not get them, they cannot unlearn the information they have read, and will continue to learn things they did not want to know without recourse every time they read a spoily article. I for one will be much less likely to read about books/movies/TV shows/games on WP if I know that half the time it will spoil the experience for me -- why drive away potential WP readers for the sake of "style"? 144.51.111.1 15:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Killing the template removes, in 99.9% of cases, original research. (Let me be clear: I'm not saying that "Macbeth dies" is original research; I'm saying "'Macbeth dies' is a spoiler" is original research.) As for "you can't unlearn it," that argument hardly applies only to plot spoilers. Do we put warnings on articles on evolution, because the information therein may be upsetting to creationists, and once they read it they can't unlearn it? Chuck 15:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, "original research" being WP-ese for "your unfounded opinion," I can basically agree with that. BUT, there are other cases where you pretty much have to make a decision on incomplete information, see WP:SENSE. I find it disingenuous of some people on this page to suggest that "Bruce Willis is already dead" is manifestly not spoily -- would the same information on the day after the film's release have been "common knowledge" or "obvious"? If you agree that it would not, then should the spoiler tag go away after some set time? How long? What's the threshold where "enough" people know it to make it un-spoily? Yes, all those questions can only be answered by "original research". But it's beside the point -- should we force the admittedly-small segment of WP readers who don't know it to choose between enjoying the movie as it was meant to be enjoyed or reading the WP article about it first? I'm not denying that some degree of personal opinion is involved in deciding what is and is not spoily. I'm not even denying that this aspect of the problem may detract from the overall encyclopedic nature of WP. I'm saying obey WP:IAR -- if inserting a tiny bit of opinion ("original research") makes WP more enjoyable to more people, enjoyability ("improvement" per IAR) wins hands-down. 144.51.111.1 16:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler warnings are no more original research than any logical section grouping in a Wikipedia article. Should we scrap 'Early life' sections in biographies, for example? It's purely a question of style, and for an online encyclopedia, it's a basic requirement.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many readers come to a Wikipedia article about a book or film because they are considering reading it or going to see it. They are looking for a review, which should never spoil the viewer/reader's enjoyment by giving away the facts which the author intended to come out only at a certain point near the end. In contrast an essay which analyzes the work will in fact give away the ending, unmask the villain, and reveal the gimmick. Spoiler warnings are extremely valuable in a review. They are not needed in an essay, if the reader is warned at the top (not in some distant unread policy page) that an essay is what he is reading. The pest who seeks to spoil another's enjoyment of a book or movie by revealing the ending is a classic comic figure in radio and TV shows going back to the golden age of radio and I Love Lucy. Spoilage is the intentional depriving of a reader or viewer seeing the storyline unfold as the author intended, with suspense about the outcome. There are jokes about someone seeing another reading a mystery novel and saying "The butler did it." It is a form of intellectual vandalism. Movie reviewers are careful not to similarly ruin the enjoyment of the work. Essayists are not. Yes, one can watch a movie or read a book more than once, but the subsequent times are different and the first time is special. If a work has a "gimmick" as one critic in the Psycho article described that film, or in "Sixth Sense" or any other work of M. Night Shymalan, then revealing it to someone who thinks he is reading a review is as objectionable as the "SNAPES KILLS DUMBLEDORE." If we function as a review, the a spoiler warning is highly appropriate. If we function as an essay, then a disclaimer at the top of every page is required for articles about fictional works. Edison 16:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are neither reviews nor essays; they are (at least in the ideal) encyclopedia articles. As such, one would expect the full plot to be described, at least in a sufficiently detailed encyclopedia article on a work. The "warning" you seek at the top of each page already exists, in the upper left, where the site logo says "Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia," which should alert readers to the fact that they are reading an encyclopedia, not a review site, nor an essay site. Chuck 16:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, this is getting old already. Saying "this is an encyclopedia and therefore there will be spoilers" is the bluntest of all possible instruments. It does not address the argument that spoiler tags make WP more useful (and therefore better) by allowing for more precise isolation of spoily content. If you think making WP more useful to more people is not a worthy goal, please defend that point of view. 144.51.111.1 16:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making WP more useful is a worthy goal, but not the only goal of Wikipedia, and it must be balanced with other goals, such as, say, being an encyclopedia. If making WP more useful were the only goal we had, we would include things like reviews of restaurants and hotels and places of interest such as Wikitravel does, for those surely would also make Wikipedia more useful to readers. But Wikitravel allows, even encourages original research, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, no matter how useful it would make it. Chuck 16:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck beat me to the punch, I'll reiterated his point that Wikipedia is not a review site and anyone who comes to Wikipedia to reads an article for that propose of reading a review is coming here for the wrong reasons.

I'll also point out that Wikipedia is not censored, so we have absolutely no obligations to protect readers from spoilers. A spoiler warning is simply a courtesy, but it is a courtesy that we are not required to give. The problem comes when a small minority of editors treats the courtesy as an obligation. --Farix (Talk) 16:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I find it disingenuous of some people on this page to suggest that "Bruce Willis is already dead" is manifestly not spoily" - On that much we agree, and I'm disappointed to see people making that argument (along with its cousin, "well, I don't care if I know all about a movie going in, so no one else should either"), because it does not support the anti-spoiler-warning position. I do agree that such information is "spoilery." My argument is that people who don't want to be spoiled for The Sixth Sense shouldn't read an encyclopedia article about The Sixth Sense. No, wait - my argument is stronger than that. It's not just that people who don't want to be spoiled shouldn't read the article; it's that people who don't want to be spoiled won't read the article. For all the hand-wringing along the lines of "oh, those poor people who will have a movie ruined because Wikipedia spoiled it for them," is there one single example anywhere of someone who claims that a movie/book/etc. was ruined for them because they read an untagged Wikipedia article, not expecting to be spoiled, and were? I haven't seen any. OTOH, we have had several people on this page (allegedly arguing in support of spoiler warnings) say, "well, if we remove spoiler tags, I won't read articles on works I don't want to be spoiled for," to which I respond, "Yes!! That's exactly what you should be doing!! And you should be doing it now, even with spoiler warnings, since there's no guarantee that every article which ought to have a spoiler warning will have one!" I wanted to remain unspoiled for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, so--I know this will surprise and astound some people--I didn't read the article on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince until I had read the book (and I didn't read it until it came out in paperback, so I had to remain unspoiled longer than many). I didn't load the article and scan it to see whether it had spoiler warnings, and then assume that sections of the article without spoiler warnings were safe for me to read--I didn't read the article, period, which is the common-sense thing to do if one wants to remain unspoiled. Chuck 16:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the IPs

I find it somewhat disturbing that the RfC was closed when the vast majority of 'keep' comments were unregistered IPs. Why are we particularly paying attention to these anons when trying to form policy? Not to argue the veracity of their arguments, just the impetus of these arguments. David Fuchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 15:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I noticed that to - IPs or newly registered users - do they know that they're votes usually don't count?daniel folsom 15:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since some appear to only be making a point- 87.189.124.195, for instance, has only participated on this page and in adding spoilers to various articles. David Fuchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 15:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is seems to be getting pretty Ad Hominem, but is easily foiled: I get a new IP address every time I login. --87.189.124.195

So in other words you still do nothing else but argue for spoilers. Your contribs suggest nothing to the contrary. David Fuchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 15:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, in other words, you don't know what dynamic IP addresses are. Do I make the impression to be a newbie? --87.189.124.195

Yes, seeing as you do not create an account. David Fuchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 15:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is your entire definition of a newbie than I guess I am. --87.189.124.195

Whether you are or are not a newbie, there is no way for us to know that you are not. Your contribs are dedicated solely to this debate/subject, and you are an unregistered IP. Everything we have to go on says that you are a newbie, and a single-purpose account at that. You are asking us to take your word that you are not, and we simply can't because any newbie can read a few policies and claim to have been editing a while with different IP's than the one they are using now. This is why we have registered accounts, to track edits that are done despite what IP is used. This way, someone can see that you have been editing for a long time, and we can take you seriously. But without that type of verification, we can't. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ Σ 16:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, just ignore my person, read my arguments and answer them. --87.189.99.112

I do not have an account because I don't feel the need to create one just to read articles, and I rarely if ever edit them. I would like to strongly suggest that the outcome of this debate has much greater impact on the silent majority (those who read WP articles but do not write/edit them) than on those who care enough to create and account and create/edit articles. 144.51.111.1 15:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I point to my little paragraph above. I think quite a lot of the silent majority only expect spoilers because they are here. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 15:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing: we clearly cannot come to a consensus on who thinks one way or another. So see my little paragraph above -- without regard to how many people want to keep or want to delete, the damage done by deleting is manifestly much greater than the damage done by keeping, unless I have missed a significant argument pro-deletion. All the pro-deletion arguments I have seen have leaned on either consensus or a "style"/"un-encyclopedic" issue, which all flies in the face of WP:IAR.144.51.111.1 16:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second - you want a consensus? How bout the delete votes nearly doubling the keep votes in the above vote.daniel folsom 21:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The damage done" is purely your hypothetical personal estimation of the damage. We have yet to see a single instance of anyone reporting having a work ruined for them because they read an untagged spoiler in Wikipedia. I assert that there would be no damage done, as people have the common sense (even with spoiler warnings!) not to read an article about a work they don't want spoiled. Of course, neither of us has any evidence to back up our claims, but it is disingenuous to present your estimation of damage, with no evidentiary support therefor, as if it were established fact. Chuck 17:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on, now. If someone has their enjoyment of a work ruined by Wikipedia, what do you think are the odds that they're going to write it down in some place you can reference? Ken Arromdee 17:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if he became aware of a discussion on Wikipedia about whether Wikipedia should include spoiler warnings, I think the odds are quite high that he would report his story there, since he of all people should support the use of spoiler warnings. Yet here we are. Chuck 18:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can be reasonably certain that most Wikipedia readers are not aware of this discussion. I myself am only here because I happened to be reading MfD when someone listed the guideline page. — The Storm Surfer 18:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. You want a report? That's happened to me, personally, several times just recently, the last time with Big Dumb Object revealing the point of Report on an unidentified space station. What reason would I, or anyone else, have to write it down? Additionally, for a subject as huge as this, there's been very few informing going on. I am only here because I happened to look deeper into the matter when I noticed that {{spoiler}} had changed. --Kizor 23:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To correct a misnomer, this RfC has not been closed. Only the preceding MfD has been closed because it is no longer active, but people were still !voting under the impression that the guideline was up for deletion. --Farix (Talk) 16:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The great thing about this not being a vote is that the anonymous users either have cogent arguments or don't, and there's no need to worry about who they are. — The Storm Surfer 17:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Disclaimer

Ok, spoiler tempaltes are unencyclopedic and all around useless. If you don't want information on the movie - don't go to the page - get the movie, watch it, then go to the page. I think this could all be solved by a giant disclaimer on the main page: "Contrary to seemingly popular belief per spoiler vote - Wikipedia's Articles DO Contain Information!" daniel folsom 15:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being? --87.189.124.195

Put more eloquently, saying "get the movie, watch it, then go to the page" discourages use of WP and therefore violates WP:IAR -- pushing people away from WP does not "improve" it. 144.51.111.1 16:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But even with spoiler warnings you can't recommend that someone who wishes to remain unspoiled read the page and skip over the spoiler-tagged parts, as there's no guarantee that the spoilers are all appropriately tagged. Chuck 17:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah what? That argument made no sense. I said if you don't want to know what happened- see the movie, then go to the page, but you said that that discourages use of WP - but in reality - they won't be seeing information on the thing that they didn't want to know about in the first place.daniel folsom 19:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But - in my experiences - there's a very high probability of the spoilers being appropriately tagged. Lacking tags are rare enough to consider it a virtual guarantee, at least as long as there are no big pastel maintenance boxes at the top. (Yes, I did previously say that I've run into untagged spoilers several times - there's no contradiction, the total number of articles I've checked is a #¤&$load. I'm a Wikipedia fanatic, do you expect my use to be non-disproportionate?) --Kizor 23:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

87.189 is currently blocked for edit-warring

... to keep the spoiler template on Sleeping Beauty. Well done. - David Gerard 16:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity that he couldn't keep his head clear. He seems intelligent and quite insightful when he works within the rules, and surely more intelligent arguments here are only a benefit. But why the need for a whole section about the block? --Kizor 20:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Six editors deeply involved in this debate have full two-word names as their nicks... suddenly I'm feeling underdressed. --Kizor 06:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er.... you lost me here. What has the length of the name to do with anything? --87.189.99.112

Just kidding around, seeing as how several of the most active debaters of that time were using full, real names, and I'm hiding behind an obvious nick. It doesn't mean much. :P --Kizor 21:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My head was clear alright, I just don't usually give a fuck while IPing. I use dynamic IPs anyway and couldn't use the old one if I tried very, very, very, very hard, so the whole blocking is more funny than anything else.

Anyway, there are some badly deceptive admins at work here, and I did my share to try and stop them. Now it's up to the non-IPs to get these guys kicked out (or at least reverted), I stick to the dicsussion. --87.189.99.112

When is a spoiler appropriate?

Looking at the above, these are the places it isn't:

Anywhere under a Plot, Summary, Synopsis, Story or similar header
1. arguably from this, anywhere the spoiler content should be under such a header
Articles about fictional characters - no-one would look them up without knowing the stories
Any article where almost the entire article would have to go under a spoiler
Fairy tales, Shakespeare, classical mythology or similar cultural canon, under the proviso of "don't be stupid"

What's left? - David Gerard 16:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent question. I'm curious myself. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ Σ 16:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see consensus above for "Anywhere under a Plot, Summary, Synopsis, Story or similar header" and i don't agree with "Articles about fictional characters" as an abdolute principle. In most cases this is true, but when a character is featured in multiple works and information on the cahracter page reveals a key plot twist in one of those (as for example info on the page about Hercule Poirot spoiling the novel Curtin) then a spoierl tag may be appropriate. DES ^(talk) 16:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel makes such an excellent point that I think it bears repeating. Suppose a new fan of a work of fiction looks up a character in a series -- frequently, one of the first items in the entry will be when the character was introduced, as well as when that character was killed off. But supposing the new fan hasn't gotten far enough into the series to know that. Who wants to remove our ability to "cordon off" that information? Otherwise, we must caution all WP users to only read articles about e.g. a TV show (or a character on a TV show) if they have watched every episode of the entire run, lest they ruin an ending for themselves. Can anyone doubt that at least *some* people would stop reading WP about TV shows altogether? Again, I cite WP:IAR -- clearly, any modification of policy that causes people to stop reading WP has a hard time making a case that it's "improving" WP. 144.51.111.1 16:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By that argument we ought to tag all articles which contain potentially spoilery information, no matter how old the work is (indeed, I think I would have enjoyed Citizen Kane more the first time I saw it had I not known in advance what "Rosebud" was, even though it was ~60 years after the movie had been released that I saw it). Yet most if not all of the pro-spoiler-warning people here are arguing that classics/Shakespeare/the Bible/etc. should not be spoiler tagged. How do you reconcile that discrepancy?

And no, I don't think avoiding spoiler warnings will cause people to stop reading Wikipedia. Having spoilers may cause people to stop reading Wikipedia, but there seems to be a broad consensus here that having the spoilers in the article is a good thing, it's just a question of whether they should be tagged as such or not. Suppose we do eventually come to a consensus that spoiler warnings should be used. And suppose that a reader hasn't seen The Sixth Sense and wishes to remain unspoiled for it. What is that reader more likely to do: look up the article, saying to himself, "any spoilers will be appropriately tagged, and thus I can safely read untagged portions of the article?" Or will he say, "even though Wikipedia has a spoiler-tagging guideline, some spoilers may not be appropriately tagged, either due to oversight on the part of the editors or to vandals," and not look up the article at all? Spoiler-tagging parts of the article on The Sixth Sense isn't going to somehow attract readers who wish to remain unspoiled for that movie. Chuck 17:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed your bullets to numbers for our convenience in discussing them. I hope I haven't overstepped my bounds in doing so.

Re. 1: I don't see how one line under the plot header is such a bad thing, but I'll consider that most of us seem to have agreed on this.

Re. 1.1: I don't think I understand your phrasing.

Re. 2: I have nothing to contribute on this point.

Re. 3: I'm guessing this is the provision for The Crying Game and such?

Re. 4: I disagree with this at least in part, do not think that I am alone in this, and do not appreciate being called stupid. I'll go into more detail on this last point shortly, as I don't want to type too long and get another edit conflict. — The Storm Surfer 16:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC) On second thought I probably won't. — The Storm Surfer 17:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, there are "Themes." The reader cannot know whether or not such a section has spoilers, and to what extent. It's feasible both with or without it. So's "Reception" - if, say, a particularily gory scene is fundamental to the splash caused by a movie, it has to be covered in discussion about reception, but other works have spoilerless versions of such sections. --Kizor 21:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may certainly be useful to divide the issue into a number of areas where spoilers have been used and then assess 1)where there is consensus that they should normally be used (if anywhere) 2) Where there is consensus they should not be used (if anywhere) 3) where there is no consensus either way. We might then be able to develop a policy that said:

Spoilers should be used if.....(perhaps just released works, or this section may be empty unless there is a consensus that there are any such cases)
Never use spoilers on (e.g. Shakesphere, fairytales, English literature?, works over x number of years old?, where it is obvious that the plot is gong to be described.)
What you should do where there is no general consensus. Which probably means discussion on case-by-case with those working on the article - but no outside 'enforcement' either way. An AD/CE style truce.--Doc^g 16:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the problem with #4 is an (understandable) concern of, shall we say, vertigo. That is to say, it is simply more jarring to have a neologism like "spoiler" tossed onto Romeo and Juliet than it is to have it tossed on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. "Spoiler" isn't part of the language used to discuss these older texts, and there's something.... fundamentally uunnerving about seeing the word used on texts that old. Phil Sandifer 17:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as for when spoilers should be used, I can see a good justification for using them for articles on television series currently airing, movies still in wide release, etc. Though even then, I am fundamentally uncomfortable about the neologism... Phil Sandifer 17:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the use of soilers directly before reveling the twist-ending/shocking fact, the spoiling of which would likley cause substantially diminishment the enjoyment of the reader, of fiction within a short but arbitrary time period after the initial-release of said movie or book. For example, mentioning that Snape Killed Dumbledore is fine now, but would have required a spoiler tag for, lets say, 2 months after the english language release of the book (english because we are en). There. 2 months, twist/shocking only, fiction only, would likley cause substantial diminishment. We have a guideline. Next? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Soilers" (sic) I love it.--Doc^g 18:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THAT I can agree with, to a point. I am fundamentally against inserting something that will only serve a function for a short-term period, but this is perhaps the first proposal aside from outright deletion that I can accept. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ Σ 17:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: "Snape kills Dumbledore" is not that much of a spoiler. Why he does, how he does and (this is a spoiler) whether he in fact does may well be - David Gerard 22:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful

I suggest that spoiler warnings be used if there's a good chance that someone reading the article doesn't know about the spoiler and doesn't want to hear it.

If you adopt that rule, we could delete the warnings from articles like The Three Little Pigs or Romeo and Juliet, while not making any changes to articles like Valen. From the discussion, both here and on the wikien mailing list, I get the strong impression that people who want to remove spoilers want to remove them from examples that are a *lot* more controversial than Romeo and Juliet and are choosing their examples carefully to make their position seem more moderate than it really is.

I caution everyone not to interpret a consensus at removing spoiler warnings from My Pet Goat as a consensus to remove spoiler warnings from everything more than a year old. Ken Arromdee 17:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the removal of the ugly tag from Valen and believe that my proposal directly above makes that perfectly clear. This series ended more than 2 months ago, there is no "twist," and users who are spoiled are not "substantial[y] diminish[ed]." Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if a series is playing at different times in different countries?--Nydas^(Talk) 18:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 months after it's first release in english. If there's a border case where the guideline isn't adapting to a unique case, WP:IAR. A series that ended 10 years ago isn't a border case, it's right down the center. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the place where it's released first get the privilege of spoiler protection? It's better to work on a case by case basis than pull time periods out of a hat.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not the place, its the language. Of course there are cases where you could argue WP:IAR and say that since English speaking country X is getting the work released 1 month later then our guideline states, and that would be ok. I mean its more or less just using common sense, once its nolonger new there is no need to have these tags. Trust me, I know that Snape kills dumbledore by now... and I never even read it (I knew from in real life). There just is a point where its just no longer a spoiler. An arbitrary number like 2 or 3 months sounds about right.

I mean if we really want rules to cover every case, you could come up with something like, spoiler tags go off 2 months after first release, OR 1 month after last release in an english speaking country, but the total time is never to exceed a year. Tweak those numbers as you see fit. This would work for games that are released first in europe, and then take 3 months to make it to the states (U.S.). That would be 4 months our article would have the spoiler tag on it. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... and please keep these tags out of obvious sections such as plot. Thanks. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)#[reply]

Plot sections don't 'obviously' contain spoilers because not everyone is magically aware of how Wikipedia works. If one saw a plot section in a newspaper, magazine, film website, company website, or press release, you would not automatically know whether it contained spoilers.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valen's identity certainly is a "twist". It's one of the biggest twists of the whole series; just because it doesn't come at the end doesn't mean it's not a twist. Ken Arromdee 23:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Babylon 5 popularized what's known as a "Wham Episode", a sudden change of course in mid-plot. Twist? Very definitely. --Kizor 03:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the rationale for 2 months other than "I don't like spoiler warnings so I want to see a time limit that lets me get rid of most of them"?

Not everyone watched Babylon 5 when it first aired. There are people watching it for the first time now, and they won't know who Valen is, and will not *want* to be told ahead of time. There's no reason to put any sort of time limit on spoiler warnings. Snape killing Dumbledore is an unusual case because Harry Potter is so high profile and that's such a big event in the series that even non-fans will have been exposed to some spoilers about the series. You can't go from Snape kills Dumbledore to spoiling the identity of Valen. Ken Arromdee 23:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read what I said, the numbers are changeable, its the idea. Those numbers can be 6 months, and 3 months respectively with a 4 year limit. Frankly its just an idea :) Thanks. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 23:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6 months is still too short for Babylon 5. If you need to compromise on a limit, how about "so old that it is not chiefly read as part of popular culture"? That would be 50-100 years, and would still prevent people from putting spoiler warnings on Hamlet. Ken Arromdee 00:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with Valen seems to me not to be a matter of whether the revelation is still surprising - it's a damn fine twist. The issue is that the revelation is the heart and soul of the topic. Any lead section of Valen that does not mention who he really is just isn't doing a good job of introducing the article. It's misleading to introduce the topic without the spoiler in this case. Ergo the spoiler warnings is inappropriate, not because the show is X years old, but because the vast majority of what there is to say about the topic depends on the spoiler. Phil Sandifer 04:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Spoilers

As someone who's recently had something spoiled for myself, I'll weigh in. I recently picked up Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, and after playing for a few hours I hopped on to Wikipedia to do some editing. After puttering around here and there, I decided to check the KOTOR article and had a fairly important plot point spoiled for me. I can only blame myself for doing that, which is why I don't support Spoiler tags in most cases.

Regarding spoiler tags in plot summaries, they're ludicrous. Silly. Patent nonsense. I can use several stronger words, but you get my point. By the very nature of the section, a plot summary should not have the spoiler tag.

Most media, however, should NOT contain "spoiler" information within the lead unless it is the defining characteristic of the media in question. The Sue Dibny article works under the defining characteristic I've outlined. Media for which the "spoiler" elements are not the defining characteristics should not contain these elements within the lead. It would be bad form for the Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince article to begin with the lead:

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, released on July 16, 2005, is the sixth of seven planned novels in J.K. Rowling's popular Harry Potter series. Set during Harry Potter's sixth year at Hogwarts, during which Snape kills Dumbledore.

I agree, however, that relatively recent items should have spoiler tags, just in case someone is foolish. While we're trying to build an encyclopedia here, we're also unlimited by space, storage, and temporary structure during the release of new information. It's only fair to not go out of our way to possibly spoil the enjoyment of someone's reading of recent material in the interest of professionalism when we can simply wait. Cheers, Lanky (YELL) 20:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me of those ads which say things similar to "Vitamin C is important, so eat Florida oranges today". The inclusion of the word "Florida" is gratuitous and bears no logical connection to anything else; the ad could just as well say "Vitamin C is important, so eat oranges today".

What's wrong with "It's only fair to not go out of our way to possibly spoil the enjoyment of someone's reading of material in the interest of professionalism"? Just end the sentence there without the gratuitous references to recent material and waiting. Ken Arromdee 01:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"But normal encyclopaedias ..."

There's one recurrent fallacy in the above discussion that needs clearing up right now. That is the compound fallacy of what "normal" or "traditional" encyclopaedias are and what they do, used as a basis for further arguments. The fallacy has been expressed in several ways: Traditional encyclopaedias don't have articles on films or other works of fiction. Traditional encyclopaedias might discuss Henry V or Moby Dick but won't have articles on 20th and 21st century works. Normal encyclopaedias don't discuss pop culture.

The difference between these encyclopaedias and Wikipedia is not that they are "traditional" and "normal" and we are not. Those adjectives are entirely the wrong distinction to be making. The difference is that they are proprietary, whereas Wikipedia is free content. Proprietary encyclopaedias can be as modern as Wikipedia, and cover the ground that Wikipedia covers.

Encyclopaedias such as Britannica and Encarta are proprietary encyclopaedias, but they are far from the being the only proprietary encyclopaedias in the world. Wikipedia is both a general-purpose and specialist encyclopaedia. As such, comparisons in this discussion should not be solely with the likes ofBritannica and Encarta. There are plenty of specialized proprietary encyclopaedias that do have articles on works of fiction, and on recent ones at that. There is no shortage of encyclopaedias of film that one can find listed in the catalogues of one's favourite library or bookstore, for example. There's even an encyclopaedia of popular culture (Sara Pendergast and Tom Pendergast (2000). St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture. St. James Press.).

I have a proprietary encyclopaedia lying open beside the keyboard as I type this. It is Science Fiction: The Illustrated Encyclopaedia (ISBN 0751302023). It has individual articles on The Uplift War, Hyperion, Neuromancer, The Difference Engine Queen of Angels, Red Mars, Feersum Endjinn, A Fire Upon the Deep, and quite a few other recent works of fiction.

It also has an article on Ender's Game, where the twist in the tale is an integral part of any analysis of that novel that needs expounding right at the start (as demonstrated by this article in Computer, this piece in the New York Times, and this article in Communications of the ACM all relating the novel to real life). Our article contains a spoiler warning. Clute's has none, and gives away the twist to the tale in the second sentence. Uncle G 20:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about anyone else, but I was under the impression that the argument was that "normal encyclopedias don't use spoiler warnings" and Uncle G seems to have proven that correct. Axem Titanium 21:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a compelling argument, and it has swayed my opinion somewhat. The argument "normal encyclopedias don't use spoiler warnings" has been used before, but it seemed irrelevant to me. Normal encyclopedias don't have such extensive links either. However, the comparison to specialized encyclopedias is better. Wikipedia is like all the specialized encyclopedias put together, and has features a general-use encyclopedia doesn't. So what is the precedent in an encyclopedia of film? I would imagine it is like your science fiction encyclopedia - no spoiler alerts. TK421 21:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, how much stock should we put by "precedent"? Every last 'edit this page' link is a breach of tradition, and the existence of Wikipedia is proof that we've built a good (or otherwise, depending on your opinion) resource not only on the basis on what is conventional, but what's good and what works. --Kizor 21:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but there must be a limit somewhere. We can't be Fancruftpedia or Everyforumpedia, we must be an encyclopedia and it looks like the only difference between Wikipedia and other encyclopedias is the ability for anyone to change it (for better or for worse). Our motto is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", which implies that we do everything an encyclopedia does with the only difference being it's open. Thus, we should follow the example of professional encyclopedias rather than the decidedly unprofessional internet forum mentality. Axem Titanium 22:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G's comments is strongly convening me that spoiler tags should not be in Wikipedia articles. Of course I already knew that specialized media encyclopedias did not include any such "spoiler warnings." The thing that Uncle G's made me realizes is that spoiler warnings are a courtesy that is almost exclusive to the internet—and from what I understand, born from Usenet. You won't fine such courtesy warnings outside of the internet.

Somewhere around the house, I have a Star Trek Companion stuffed in a box, and I don't every recall coming across any spoiler warnings even though the books give details and trivial of every original series Star Trek episode. The publisher didn't include any warnings about plot details because they were being rude to people who may have seen most of the episodes, but not all of them. But they assumed that if you read the article about a particular episode, then you didn't care if you were going to be spoiled or not. The same philosophy goes for the set of Star Wars RPG sourcebooks that I own that are based on the novels. And that same philosophy also applies to Wikipedia articles on fictional works. --Farix (Talk) 22:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find Uncle G's example quite compelling and illustrative of the issues at hand. JavaTenor 00:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As do I, in defense of spoiler tags. There are general-purpose encyclopedias, which do not go into spoilery detail or do so only when necessary, and there are specialist encyclopedias, which can assume that its readers know or want to know the details. Wikipedia, can be (and is, and I say should be) both on fiction. This is entirely due to spoiler tags, and this seems to be the reason behind spoiler tags. We're not the Star Trek Companion, but neither are we Encyclopedia Britannica. Several people have advanced the opinion on this page that spoiler tags are not needed because spoilers are segregated to their own sections, but even if that was so, the spoiler tags are the cause of this segregation. End use of spoiler tags, and as soon as it can no longer be reasonably expected for an article on fiction to have its plot spoilers separate from the rest, Wikipedia's entire coverage of fiction becomes restricted to the specialist model. (That can't help cruft any, either!) --Kizor 01:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler warnings are a relic of Usenet. All articles on Wikipedia are expected to cover the material at the specialist level. In essence, Wikipedia is meant to be specialist on everything, not a general use encyclopedia. If we take that into consideration, then it becomes clear that spoiler warnings are being used as a crutch to avoid this process of specialization. Cruft is an entirely different issue pursued by an entirely different set of people. A specialist level of detail about a subject does not entail cruft in the least (see Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, for example). Axem Titanium 01:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean that specialism entails cruft. I aim to provide counter-examples by my own editing all the time. I meant (as a bit of a throw-away line, hence the exclamation mark) that specialism-only articles must attract at least as much cruft as general & specialism articles.
For the record it's 5 AM in here, again, so my further responses until I rest will have to be sporadic at best. --Kizor 01:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now gone through WP:NOT, Encyclopedia, WP:CRUFT, the "writing about fiction" part of WP:MOS and Foundation issues, and still can't find where it says that Wikipedia must not be used as a general purpose encyclopedia. Update: Five Pillars says quite the opposite: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." I hate to quote the rules at people, but I can't see where you got the idea. --Kizor 02:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You also won't find spoiler warnings in any general encyclopedia either. But none of those things you cited also says that a spoiler warning is needed or required. I would like to point out Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. This guideline tells us not to use disclaimer templates on articles, which a spoiler warning templates are a form of disclaimer templates. --Farix (Talk) 03:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've always interpreted that to mean a specialized encyclopedia with a general encyclopedia's breadth of coverage. Axem Titanium 02:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, normal encyclopedias don't provide plot summaries at all. So they are of mixed use here. The better statement than "normal encyclopedias don't have spoiler warnings" is probably "normal encyclopedias don't use neologisms in the course of their basic presentation." Phil Sandifer 04:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Phil (which does nto preclude wanting 99.9% of spoiler warnings out) ad I completely agree with Uncle G, as usual, and I have read most of those books, and the examples are sound. The fact that I cannot personally think of a single article in which a spoiler warning is appropriate does not mean they should never be used, but it is clear from looking at the lists of spoiler warnings that the vast majority - almost all - are either redundant (in a section called plot) or patently ludicrous (Three Little Pigs and Jack and the beanstalk being two particularly priceless gems here). All of which adds nothing, so I should add an <AOL> tag I guess. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- If someone Googles a movie and sees the Wikipedia article near the top and clicks on it looking for a REVIEW of the movie to decide whether to watch it, they are sure to be annoyed if they see a spoiler in the first couple of sentences, which would decrease their enjoyment of the work. Someone claimed that the word Encyclopedia" in the upper left hand part of the Wikipedia page was a sufficient disclaimer. I strongly disagree. It is in tiny type and in italics. Most online writings about a movie are reviews, and the user should be warned that this is not. Any fiction work with a "gimmick" or plot twist deserves a spoiler warning in some form, since users may come to it from a Google search and not be aware that Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia. I looked at Encyclopedia Americana for the article on the film Psycho to see how they handle the plot gimmick. Guess what? No article. Real encyclopedias probably mention many movies and books somewhere, but they do not imitate online databases whith the plethora of fan written articles that we do. So maybe someone's "Science Fiction Encyclopedia" contains unwarned spoilers; the user knows what he is reading, and if he has read a couple of the entries knows to expecet spoilage. People come to a Wikipedia article out of the blue and can reasonably expect it not to be spoilerpedia, at least without some prominent and unmissable warning. At the same time, I would hate to see articles of the type that might be in a real encyclopedia, such as an analysis of Hamlet, have "spoiler" warnings. I would restrict them to recent pop culture of movies and thriller novels. I can live with no warning on the article for the 1960 "Psycho" while having a small one on the recent "The Village." Edison 19:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary spoilers

Setting a time limit is ridiculous. Not only are there going to be lots of opinions on what constitutes the right length of time, but also who wants to go back later and remove them after x weeks have expired? Clarityfiend 21:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Word up on thay, yo. Snape kills Dumbledore: spread like wildfire in a matter of weeks, if not days. The Mousetrap: From 1952, and now somewhat famous over how few have had it spoiled. --Kizor 21:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that User:Hipocrite is systematically removing spoiler warnings from any article mentioned on this page. Seems a pretty petty and vindictive attitude... PaddyLeahy 22:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me like implementing "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" - David Gerard 23:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly speaking, I expected more from you than what comes across as condescending smugness. Well, it does. --Kizor 23:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits that even the presence of this template encourage that are cause for its destruction

Add your own examples!

The Passion of the Christ: [7] - David Gerard 22:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Three Little Pigs: [8] - David Gerard 22:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hamlet: [9] - David Gerard 22:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sleeping Beauty [10] - David Gerard 22:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Passion of the Christ (again): [11] Read the edit summery and you see why I'm posting this again --Farix (Talk) 23:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Mystery of Edwin Drood, maybe? -- llywrch 23:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sunset Boulevard (1950 film) [12]--Doc^g 00:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mary Poppins (film) [13]--Doc^g 00:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Mousetrap [14] Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Casey at the Bat - Eclecticology 17:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
King Kong (1933 film) - Eclecticology 17:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
John Wayne in the list of the ways he died in his films. Eclecticology 17:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the tens of thousands of non-extreme instances that do not cause trouble and are not controversial? Does this have much of a point other than ridiculing the other side? --Kizor 23:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is evidence that this template is direct incitement to bad and ridiculous editing, per the original nomination way up there on the page - David Gerard 23:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proper response to an abused rule is not to get rid of the rule. And while these examples are ridiculous, limiting spoiler warnings to 2 months gets rid of a *lot* more than the ridiculous examples. It's what I was saying before--opponents of the rule keep picking ridiculous examples to justify the need for a change--but the change they want encompasses much, much, much, more.

I would be in favor of a spoilers rule that *only* got rid of the above ridiculous examples and others like them. But I know very well we're not going to be seeing that. The examples are Hamlet and Passion of the Christ, but the rule's going to be used against Valen.

(And I don't want to see a "compromise" that uses 6 months instead of 2, either. It's easy to game the system by proposing a length of time even shorter than you want and "compromising" on the length.) Ken Arromdee 00:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why a set length of time is bad. Instead, we should accept the fact that Wikipedia has spoilers and eliminate the need to use a warning at all. Axem Titanium 01:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why a set length of time is bad. Instead, we should accept the fact that Wikipedia is useful for both those seeking non-spoiler information and those seeking spoiler information, and leave the warnings in. --Kizor 01:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The spoiler warning is an artifact of the internet and do not exist outside of it. Those who seek information from an off-line encyclopedia would not have the benefit of a spoiler warning, so why should Wikipedia have spoiler warnings? --Farix (Talk) 01:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...You're really saying that since readers of other works don't gain this benefit, those who read our work shouldn't gain it either? --Kizor 01:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Readers would also benefit from OTHER disclaimer templates, why don't we have those? Not to mention, they'd benefit from phonebooks listings, price comparison charts, pictures of living people, music samples on every album page, and external links to fansites... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 02:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are false analogies, as you know. There are reasons against all of them that are not an issue here. --Kizor 20:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously not a benefit if readers are insulted by it and it also prevents proper coverage of material. Wikipedia should not cater to the minority who don't consider Wikipedia an encyclopedia and wouldn't expect spoilers. Axem Titanium 01:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, those are extreme examples, and clearly should never have had spoiler warnings. This wasn't what we had in mind for spoiler warnings. Most spoiler warnings don't insult a reader's intelligence, and they don't prevent anything. Spoiler warnings were thought to be helpful for those who were clicking on links from search results for recent and popular TV shows and movies, and has nothing to do with how people consider Wikipedia. Keep in mind, I'm leaning towards removing them all, but it was never "wrong" or stupid to have spoiler warnings. So stop trying to play it off as some massively bad thing, when really it's just a tool we no longer need. -- Ned Scott 02:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, it feels just a little POINT-y to be listing ridiculous uses of the spoiler warning here. Just a little. Axem Titanium 02:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Endspoliler

Can we at least agree that {{tl:endspoiler}} should be deleted? I see no purpose in that template at all. The Placebo Effect 02:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be far too easy, now would it? I think it's the best thing since sliced bread. There are many more spoiler-free areas than just the lead sections. Take the Heroes article, for instance: At present, it's well-organized and structured for those who are familiar with it, yet those who aren't can avoid plot revelations to read all relevant data. Without endspoiler, if I was unfamiliar with the series, I could only learn the basic premise. With it, I could also learn about its reception in detail, the surrounding creative use of new media, stuff about the filming and controversies, and when my national TV network will start showing it. --02:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

How, exactly, did I manage to leave that signature? --Kizor 02:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Five tildes. --Random832 <- three. five -> 02:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. --Kizor 03:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

I've given this a lot of thought (well, not all at once, but over time), and I think the solution is.. Remove the spoiler warnings, but stop insulting the people who supported them. It wasn't such a bad idea, not at all, and it's not our fault that someone put a spoiler warning on some classic like Hamlet. It made sense at the time, so have some respect for our logic and reasoning. Maybe because Wikipedia is more well known now, maybe because we have stronger guidelines for fiction now, maybe because Wikipedia is maturing, whatever the reason, we have it, and those are strong enough reasons alone, without having to insult the other side.

Even if you really think these things, just bite your tongue for a while and you'll find that pro-spoiler warning people will be a lot more accepting of the removal. It also wouldn't hurt to help phase things out, instead of going cold-turkey, simply because people react harshly to drastic change in something they're accustom to. Look at the reactions to when templates were just blanked, or when people wanted a fast conclusion.

When this whole debate thing started I instantly felt like I went into "defense mode", which was wrong for me to do, but not surprising given the situation. It really made me think about why this whole thing seems more like a battle than a discussion. Lets try to not trigger each other's defense modes, it will make the process a lot smoother. -- Ned Scott 03:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that goes for the pro-spoiler warning people too. Don't insult the people who want to remove the warnings. If you want to keep them, focus on your core reasons and don't make low-blows. And I apologies for my own low-blows and bad calls. -- Ned Scott 03:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are warning-opponents that act disruptively throughout the discussion. I don't consider calling them out a "low-blow". --87.189.99.112

Other warnings

There are no profanity warnings. There are no sexually descriptive warnings. There are no violence warnings. There are no nudity warnings. But there are spoiler warnings. Things that are outright banned or restricted in many forms of media in many places... are not warned. Yet spoilers, something I don't think are banned or restricted in anything except Internet discussion... are warned. Can you understand the illogic here? I have seen the argument that spoilers are different - you can't forget spoilers. That's an outright lie. For a child to see violent content, it can give him or her nightmares, emotional trauma. Let's make it clear here: spoilers are objectionable, sexual/violent/profane content is objectionable. They are ultimately no different. It's time to adhere to the principle created by more "reputable" subjects of Wikipedia.--Teggles 05:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usability and the vast horde of non-editors who read Wikipedia

Fascinating comments. I never knew before that I am but among "children" rather than adults. My intelligence is also apparently very low, because I prefer spoiler warnings which apparently are somehow an insult to the average reader's smarts.

Anyway. I will not try and argue the main point, as others have detailed the reasons as to why some people prefer spoiler warnings rather thoroughly, and detractors have also detailed why they don't like spoiler warnings. Fine. Both sides have some points, and we know that some people like them, and others don't. So which side to choose?

This is ultimately a matter of personal preference. Wikipedia is not an idealization; it was meant to be used so the preferences of the users should be taken into account. That's the point, right? To be read by someone? Now, if spoilers are compromising Wikipedia's editorial style and policy in other ways, then obviously let those guidelines win. No one is supporting torturing an article's structure to separate spoilers out, and where that has occurred, it should rightly be combined (and perhaps stick a spoilers tag on top of it all). Therefore, any discussion on these lines is a red herring; the pro-spoilers crowd is not, in general, standing by this.

Also, while I think it's quite a minor issue, removing the spoiler tag from under sections labeled "plot" is generally perfectly sensible, but only for the reason that it's a wasted line. It's the kind of fine tuning that should go into good and featured articles, but hardly worthy of seismic policy shift. Same with Shakespeare and so on. If it's older than 50 years, the statute of limitations has probably expired. No heated arguments here, either.

That leaves sheer personal preference. This is a case where a popularity contest is perfectly reasonable, because this isn't a matter where there is a universal "right" answer that can be reached via debate. Now, I believe that the last RFC is instructive on this. First of all, spoiler warnings were kept by a sizable consensus. Secondly, those against spoiler warnings were mostly "hardcore" editors. There were a fair number of experienced editors in the pro-spoiler camp, too (I'd estimate they split maybe 50/50?), but the casual editors who happened across the debate were overwhelmingly in favor of spoiler warnings. Also, though it's hard to tell, I've seen enough spoiler tags added by IPs (or even fakey not-using-the-tag spoiler warnings) for me to think that the non-editors like spoiler warnings too. Almost every time I've seen a spoiler tag removed (just the spoiler- ignoring blanking vandalism, obviously), it's been by established hardcore editors. I suspect that most non-editors who have no idea this discussion is even taking place would be either pro-spoiler warnings, or simply couldn't care less.

How about impact? Maybe if one side felt really strongly, that could swing things away from a "guess the majority" type issue. However, this favors spoiler warnings as well. I challenge anyone against spoiler warnings to call them any worse than "annoying." They're an extra line- ugh, maybe, but big deal. However, I can say outright that if spoiler warnings were removed, I would not be willing to use Wikipedia for most media I haven't experienced, at least beyond the lead paragraph. Others would probably still use it, but may get actively annoyed at having something spoiled and come off with a bad experience from Wikipedia.

So. If you are the type who doesn't care about spoilers, congratulations. Have a gold sticker. Really, I envy you. However, one of the good things to come out of the previous RFC was the ability to turn spoiler warnings off. Do so! Just turn 'em off! Voila, problem solved! If my hypothesis about most people detesting spoiler warnings being hardcore users is true, then anti-warning editors are unusually likely to possess the skill and inclination to do this. However, for the herd of us poor fools who do have our enjoyment "spoiled" by too much information, could you please humor us and let us have it? SnowFire 05:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic

I haven't contributed to the main discussion, and I don't plan to. I don't really have a solid decision either way yet, but I have noticed something ironic:

When this discussion started, nearly everyone voted to delete the spoiler tags. Things were going pretty solidly in the direction of deleting them . . .

Then, some people got excited over their consensus and got trigger-happy. They started deleting templates all over wikipedia, triggering edit wars and pointing users to the "consensus" on this page for support of their actions.

Promptly, the "consensus" (although that's hardly what it is, still) began to sway notably to to "keep" end. By getting trigger-happy and rushing to implement their new desire, these editors actually invited spoiler-tag fans to add to the discussion. Very ironic. It's like inviting the opposing candidate's voters to the polls.

Moral of the story: Sit tight and wait sometimes. Don't get trigger-happy. After all, guns backfire. Wrad 07:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the consensus is with the keep people - considering they were outnumbered 43 to 23.daniel folsom 11:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wishful thinking. Wrad is one of the helpful souls who's been putting spoilers back on Shakespeare, no doubt for the purpose of vastly improving our coverage of Shakespeare - David Gerard 12:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF. AndyJones 13:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WOTTA - David Gerard 14:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone undecided, condescending comments like David Gerard's make me want to support spoilers. Also ironic. TK421 14:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how it's in any way a good faith act to wait untill a page has false consensus to impliment it. If the only reason that people don't object to the policy change is that they don't know about it, that's not consensus, it's steamrolling. I know that some of the supporters of spoilers might want to steamroll, but that's not wiki. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was only a false consensus in favor of deleting them. Only the most truly dedicated editors visit MFD - which is fine, normally. However, for issues in which casual editors have differing opinions, XfD can lead to the "wrong" result. When this is because casual IPs aren't familiar with notability policies at AFD, this is okay, but that is not on the table here.

If we really want to find out what people think, then while TFD is the wrong forum, a TFD-style comment should be added to the spoiler warning again directing people to the RFC. We may find out what most people actually think. SnowFire 12:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tags once removed tend to remain so, and the content of the article isn't harmed at all. It's quite clear that, despite a small number of people who think removing spoiler tags is wrong, there is a very strong consensus for their removal. --Tony Sidaway 17:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't, from actual editors of Wikipedia. This is not necessarily the same thing as "people who have noticed this discussion." Example: Nacirema (warning, spoilers, etc.). There was previously a spoiler warning in the lead (!!) despite spoilers basically being unavoidable for this topic. I removed the warning. It was quickly put back, and if you examine the talk page, you'll see a consensus from no less than three very low-contribution count editors in favor of the spoiler warning. Now. I still don't see much point to the warning in that article, but if there's a strong consensus by most Wikipedians in a case where a warning probably isn't appropriate, what do you think the consensus is in cases where a warning has some justification?

If there's such a strong consensus for removal, let's find out. Let's put the TFD-style message back on the Spoilers template with "The status of spoiler warnings is currently being discussed; see this debate," linking to this page. Not quite as dramatic as the whole attribution policy deal, but we'll see where the actual consensus lies. Wikipedia is viewed by many many more people than the tiny minority posting here. SnowFire 17:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this, though I'm way too opinionated on it to make the change myself - if you can convince any other admin to, go for it IMO - David Gerard 19:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to point out to all concerned (although I can't see why you would be) that I did indeed put spoilers back on Shakespeare pages early on, before I knew about the debate. At that time, I didn't know about this discussion, as the deleters failed to tell me about it, and I thought what they were doing was vandalism. Once I saw this discussion and read through it, I just didn't want to be part of the edit wars. I honestly don't know what I think, and don't really care anymore. Just wanted to make an Ironic observation. The below section, called "Hamlet", is copied and pasted from the Hamlet page, and occurred before I knew about this discussion. Wrad 19:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding that I knew nothing of this discussion until people started deleting the spoiler tags and I added them back and saw them deleted again.

I'm for spoiler tags as I know some people like to know in general about a film, book etc and though there is some articles with vague plot details I've seen many articles with very detailed plot details and the only reason I wasn't spoiled was that I had seen or read the work in question .Garda40 20:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something else we've been assuming

There seems to be an assumption that sections like "Plot", whose name inherently implies spoiler, should avoid spoiler warnings, since they're redundant.

I'm *not* convinced.

All forms of human communication have redundancies. My calendar has columns labelled "Monday" and "Tuesday" even though the "Tuesday" provides no information at all. The day after Monday has to be Tuesday by definition; labelling it as Tuesday only tells people something they already know.

Yet most calendars label all the days of the week. There's a reason for this: we want a consistent user interface, and redundancy for the sake of consistency is an important part of user interface design. The user should be able to find the day of the week for May 14 the same way he can for May 15--by looking at the top of the column.

Removing spoiler warnings from "Plot" sections because everyone knows that "Plot" contains spoilers is like removing the Tuesday from the calendar because everyone knows that the day after Monday has to be Tuesday. Ken Arromdee 15:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The spoiler warning is distracting (it's designed to be) and since it's superfluous to the informational content of the page when it follows "Plot" it's better to remove it. --Tony Sidaway 17:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone above pointed out that spoiler warnings can be turned off. If so, distraction is a non-issue.

And as for being superfluous: well, I just got finished explaining that being superfluous isn't necessarily bad. If you reply to that by saying "but it's superfluous", you're really not saying much at all. Ken Arromdee 17:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler warning? (Discussion from Hamlet page)

At the expense of making a long page longer, but with the aim of un-splintering this discussion, the following is the relevant section of Talk:Hamlet:AndyJones

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I believe spoiler warnings on classical works are absurd. Obviously, some editors disagree. I understand that there are arguments for both sides (see this discussion), and I don't want to engage in edit warring, so I propose a straw poll.

**The article should have a spoiler warning**

**The article should not have a spoiler warning**

Voting is evil

On Wikipedia, we make decisions by discussion, not by voting. --Tony Sidaway 17:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polls are fine if they facilitate discussion, which seems to be the whole point here. Wrad 17:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness, not another poll. Discuss, don't poll. --Iamunknown 19:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

If we don't put one up, people will come along and complain about it, or add it in themselves until we finally give in. I've seen it happen again and again. It doesn't really hurt anything, so we might as well just put it in, I think. Wrad 12:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article must have a spoiler warning, because Wikipedia is worldwide, for one thing. Hamlet may be a classic work in English literature, but it is not so in Chinese or other cultures. It is not correct that everybody who comes by will already know the story. JeffJo 23:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "classics" are often classics only to selected cultures. Goldfritha 00:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - all plays should have a spoiler warning. These pages are not just for Shakespeare buffs. This is why its good that most synopsis are close to the end of the articles.Smatprt 03:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the spoiler tag because we don't treat our readers like imbeciles. There is a very large warning about spoilers in our content disclaimer and further warnings are intrusive and unnecessary. This is a 400-year-old Shakespeare play, not some bloody silly comic book. --Tony Sidaway 17:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In doing that, you're acting against most editors of this page, and will definitely get reverted within minutes. Might want to try swaying the opinion before making enemies. Wrad 17:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already got lots of friends, thanks. Consensus has changed, spoilers are out. --Tony Sidaway 17:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[15] People who keep deleting the spoiler mentioned this link, I think it's pretty good, so I'll go ahead and do their job for them and post it here, although I don't think it changes anything. It's a debate, not a policy. Wrad 17:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spoiler itself notes that it should not be used in sections named "Plot summary" or similar ... as these can be presumed to contain, um, plot elements. So reverting with no edit summary, against all sanity and against the documentation contained in the very template one is including is ... silly - David Gerard 17:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments for the spoiler tag have been stated as follows:

if we don't do it, others will do it until we give in
It is not correct that everybody who comes by will already know the story/These pages are not just for Shakespeare buffs. This is why its good that most synopsis are close to the end of the articles.

If someone puts an unnecessary comment on the page, it can be removed like anything else that doesn't belong. No question of giving in. If they persist we show them the content disclaimer which has warned about spoilers now for years.

It is absolutely true that people coming to this article may not know about the play. This is precisely why they come to the article, Furthermore, if they see a section marked "plot" or "synopsis", they know that the section is a discussion of the plot of the play. It is not necessary to say the same thing twice. --Tony Sidaway 17:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where the content disclaimer page talks about removing spoiler tags. Seems like it advocates them. Wrad 17:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I can see. It does point to Wikipedia:Spoiler warning, a guideline that has recently been strongly opposed in discussion and, insofar as it used to advocate spoiler warnings, no longer enjoys consensus support.

I applied to have the page protected so that those who believe that this article should have a spoiler warning in addition to a section heading clearly marked "Synopsis" will come here and argue for it instead of just reverting every time it's removed and saying "we have more votes" (which incidentally isn't at all true). --Tony Sidaway 17:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It now appears to be protected.

Personally, I see no good reason for warning that sections like 'plot' or 'synopsis' may reveal things like plot twists and endings. We do generally expect our readers to have living & functioning grey matter between the ears. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with whoever said "the concensus had changed". I see no evidence of that. In fact, I still see more editors in favor of spoilers. FYI, after they leave high school less than 3% of Americans ever see a Shakespeare play, much less read one. As an advocate of the theatre, I think spoiler warnings should stay. Wikipedia is for the common man, not just special interest buffs. Spoilers have been on most of the plays and have been agreed to in many previous discussions. To claim "consensus" has changed is just plain wrong, as this recent discussion proves once again. Smatprt 01:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion demonstrates very well how radically consensus has changed. Moreover your arguments for inclusion of these superfluous warnings don't hold water.

The common man, as you put it, can read, otherwise he wouldn't be reading the article. It follows that he can read the word "Synopsis", "Plot", "Plot summary" or somesuch at the start of a section and be informed thereby that the following text is a summary of the plot.

In the unlikely event that he's too stupid to realise that sections marked "Plot" in encyclopedia articles about a Shakespeare play are going to contain information about the plot, his misconceptions are easily remedied by referring him to the content disclaimer which is linked to every single page on the wiki.

There is no need for any extra warning, let alone these frankly insulting, ugly and intrusive warnings. --Tony Sidaway 02:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"after they leave high school less than 3% of Americans ever see a Shakespeare play" - I daresay less than 3% of Americans ever read an encyclopedia article on a Shakespear article, either. Those who do, do so because they are seeking information on the play, and if they choose to read the section on the play's plot, it is ridiculous to warn them that they may.. learn something they didn't know about the plot. --Stormie 03:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Too stupid?" seems an insulting comment from someone who actually gets insulted by a template. If you are going to make a bunch of mass edits to the Shakespeare plays, (on which your infrequent edits indicate you don't see them as that important), then please bring up your proposed edits at the Shakespeare project page so you can discuss this with editors that actually work on these pages on a daily or weekly basis. Thanks Smatprt 02:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the wise thing to do would have been to wait until an official policy came out before changing these tags. Coming out and claiming consensus on a page that, frankly, has only had a few editors respond to it (The spoilers template page), and then blowing through and changing everything on several pages, ignoring previous debates and discussions, is inappropriate and rude. If you can point me to an official policy that says we have to take the tag out, or if a consensus for changing it develops on this page, then it would be alright to change, but your tactics now are hardly going to get us anywhere. Wrad 02:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Too stupid?" seems an insulting comment from someone who actually gets insulted by a template. If you are going to make a bunch of mass edits to the Shakespeare plays, (on which your infrequent edits indicate you don't see them as that important), then please bring up your proposed edits at the Shakespeare project page so you can discuss this with editors that actually work on these pages on a daily or weekly basis. Thanks Smatprt 02:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to discuss the use of the {{spoiler}} tag, you should go to the centralized RfC page located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. There is no point it splintering this discussion which will result in multiple "consciences agreements" that are in conflict with each other. There should be one general guideline for all. --Farix (Talk) 00:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the view of the Shakespeare wikiproject, also: namely that all discussion should be directed to the RfC. I'll copy this discussion there. AndyJones 07:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Not needed

We don't need a spoiler warning. This is an encyclopedia; we don't need to warn readers that they're about to read some information. It's basically saying "Warning, you're about to read details about the topic of this article". When I really don't want something spoiled, like the outcome of a sports event that I've recorded, I don't even turn on my computer, let alone visit the encyclopedia article that discusses it. If we place spoiler warnings before plots, we could equally place them before mathematical derivations that some people like to come to on their own, before summaries of the careers of fighters, and on articles about every Super Bowl. If you can agree that spoiler warnings would be inappropriate in these cases, then you should also agree (I think) that they are inappropriate in the case of plot discussions. Sancho 14:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Warning: the following article might make you smarter", eh? You're saying what's been said before, but I agree. The presence of the spoiler warning is just an open invitation for everyone to think that it's okay to go into detailed plot summaries, which are misplaced on Wikipedia (not to mention potentially illegal).

There's been a lot of commenting on this page, originating here or moved from elsewhere. I'm really losing track of what's going on. Are RfC's always this chaotic? :D We need some kind of bullet point digest of the major issues that are being raised. --Darkbane ^talk 15:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One reason we do need spoiler warnings is precisely that this is a proper encyclopedia (among other things). Contrast on-line "encyclopedias" such as Wookipedia (Star Wars) and MemoryAlpha (Star Trek), which, as has been pointed out approvingly by the "anti" party, don't use spoiler warnings. These sites are pure fancruft and therefore spoiler warnings would be entirely redundant. (And surely these sites can't really function as models for editors hoping to make WP more "serious"??!) One positive virtue of spoiler warnings that has not yet been mentioned is that it reminds editors to put in non-spoiler material, which generally includes the "outside view" material that we would expect to be foregrounded in a genuine encyclopedia article. PaddyLeahy 16:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of that is already covered in WP:ATTRIBUTION, WP:NPOV, WP:N, WP:CRUFT and many other policies, guidelines and essays that remind us that we should include information other than plot summary. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ Σ 16:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, not all editors take the time to read every policy, let alone every style essay, before they dive in. However, media fans working on WP can hardly fail to notice the spoiler warning concept. PaddyLeahy 17:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The solution to that, is to point them to the welcome page, where it is more than adequately covered. And if they aren't new editors, ignorance of our policies and guidelines (and to a much lesser extent essays) is no excuse. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ Σ 17:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I meant to make clear that my point is that the particular virtue here is that new editors are encouraged to to write better articles without intervention by more experienced editors, hence saving a lot of work all round. PaddyLeahy 17:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible tags?

Does the functionality exist to tag spoilers invisibly (e.g. kaiser sose is rosebud) - User preferences could then be used to either display or hide the appropriate sections. This assumes that nobody wants to read both the spoilers and then spoiler tags. - Tiswas^(t) 16:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Functionally, it would serve no purpose. Why mark invisible spoiler tags if you're not going to mark visible spoiler tags? If anything, that would invite casual editors to automatically add a spoiler tag if they saw that, in effect you might as well just add a normal spoiler tag. It also would not solve the problem of formatting articles that have spoilers spread throughout multiple places with non-spoiler info in-between in the interest of better info organization. It also doesn't settle the issue about what is and is not a spoiler. In fact, it has exactly the same issues that visible spoiler tags have, except that it's invisible.--—ΔαίδαλοςΣ Σ 16:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a proposal for replacing visible tags, not as an alternative choice. It addresses the issue of spoiler tags littering articles, from the perspective of the end user. From a formatting perspective, there is no reason why multiple tags could not be used in line - much the same way as commented out text has no impact on formatting. The only imapact is on the end user that chooses to set their preference such that they cannot see the spoiler content. However simplistic it may be, out of sight, out of mind seems like a reasonable compromise. - Tiswas^(t) 16:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~If it's going to be invisible, what's the point of having them at all?~~ --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ Σ 16:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind that previous comment. However, that would add a whole new dimension to formatting issues. Now, editors are going to have to keep in mind how to write the prose so that the information makes sense with both spoilers displayed and spoilers not displayed. And when casual editors add the invisible tag, they may not fix the grammar and prose properly. Holes will seem to appear in the prose as one setence makes no sense from the previous setence. This would only further complicate the issue. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ Σ 16:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, but why not let those be the lumps to be taken for them that wish not to see spoilers. - Tiswas^(t) 16:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler Examples

In any discussion like this about spoilers, it stands to reason that people will use spoilers as examples. I'm concerned that casual editors who find their way here are going to see information that they would expect to see in the articles, but not here. Until we settle this dispute about whether spoilers belong or not, or until we can determine what is and isn't a spoiler, let's try to not come up with new examples of spoilers unless it has bearing on a new discussion point. Let's try to use the same examples that have already been provided if possible (Sephiroth kills Aerith, Snape kills Dumbledore, etc.). Spouting off a spoiler in the attitude of "This is how it is, get used to it" is just being a WP:DICK, and doesn't help the anti-spoiler side look any better. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 16:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary to extend the virus any further than the article space (where in my opinion it has gotten quite out of hand.) In normal conversation one would discuss plot details such as those of The Crying Game, The Sixth Sense and even the latest Harry Potter where they are relevant, so I don't know why it should be so different just because we're discussing things online. --Tony Sidaway 18:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because while I disagree with using Spoiler Warnings at all, I am not about to enforce my views until a consensus is reached. And people who advocate spoiler warnings come here to advocate them and do not want to have spoilers revealed to them, not even here. Forcing them to see spoilers by posting them loudly on the very place that they come to to address this issue doesn't give them much choice in the matter. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 20:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be constrained in my use of illustrative examples such that people who need to read WP:ENC do not learn that Portia dresses up as the judge and takes all of Shylock's money in the trial. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forcing them to see spoilers? Perhaps the person with the loud signature in Greek would like to reconsider the term. Please do tell us how they are being forced - what method - gun to head? Kidnapped children? Other? Tell me. I don't mind finding out. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Chihuahua: You're use of personal attacks aside, I mean simply that in order to express that they do not wish to see spoilers they have to read spoilers in that very discussion.

Hipocrite: I'm not asking anyone to constrain their arguments, but rather not blurt out needless spoilers that do nothing for the discussion aside from make a WP:POINT. And if it can be said with an already discussed example, then use that. If it can't be said with an already discussed example, then use a new example to make your point. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 20:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What personal attack? Substantiate that accusation or withdraw it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your rather insulting reference to my signature. You don't like my signature, fine you don't have to. But that has nothing to do with this discussion so leave it out. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 20:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A descriptive phrase is not a personal attack, Nick. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"person with the loud signature" is insulting as "loud" has a negative connotation. If you did not intend to insult me, then you should not have referred to my by any sort of description in the first place, you should instead refer to me by name as it's considered polite. But I repeat myself: "(this) has nothing to do with this discussion so leave it out." --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 21:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. "loud" is not inherently insulting - I find that a truly odd notion, if you didn't want it loud why is it so dramatic and colorful? - so again, not a personal attack. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Functional consensus already exists. We're just waiting for everybody to accept it. I do agree that we shouldn't needlessly use spoilers in examples, although the spoilers we're seeing are hardly that: Crying Game, Harry Potter and whatnot. --Tony Sidaway 20:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Functional consensus already exists. We're just waiting for everybody to accept it." Isn't wide-acceptance what determines consensus? --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying that. Concise, effective, hits the nail on the head. :) --Kizor 21:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Archer

I can see the case for not having this at all; although I appreciate it. But if we are going to have it, we should use it where necessary.

In this article on an author, there is a full summary of one of his short stories with a twist ending, which is most of a paragraph. Shouldn't this have a {{spoiler}} as much as anywhere else? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be much more inclined to just nuke that entire example - it's hardly a very good one. Phil Sandifer 18:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be one acceptable solution.

Spoilers on author articles are second only in odiousness to spoilers on generic non-artistic terms like anagram and kiss (really - there were spoiler warnings on these). Write around if you must, or ignore for neutrality - David Gerard 19:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot vs. Plot Summary

Many contributors here claim that it is obvious that any section marked "Plot" will contain a summary of the plot that functions as a spoiler. While this is true for many (maybe most) articles about works of fiction on WP, it need not be. It is often possible (though not easy) to write about the plot without giving away so much of it that it spoils the experience for the reader. This is the stock-in-trade of book reviewers. I think it is a shame that this is not practiced more on WP, partly because it encourages writing from an external and critical perspective. On the other hand, a section marked "Plot Summary" pretty much guarantees a plot spoiler. (same for "synopsis" although our mythical naive reader may not know what that means). A spoiler tag on such sections is redundant, but like User:Ken Arromdee I think the redundancy is useful and harmless. PaddyLeahy 18:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are an encyclopedia, we are not book reviewers. Our goal is to provide complete, comprehensive coverage of our subjects. This is not possible if we do not include important plot points, especially twists and endings that may be subject to criticism and reception. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ Σ 18:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should cover what is notable and only that. It is far from clear that notability in a work of literature confers notability on every detail of the plot. In fact I'm sure the contrary is stated in some WP guide or other. PaddyLeahy 18:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In FFVII it is notable that Sephiroth kills Aerith. In fact, this has been identified as an iconic scene from the game in several reviews and magazines, It is an important detail in the overall storyline, as her ghost plays a major role in FFVII:Advent Children as well as The Maiden Who Walks the Planet. the fact is, there are spoilers that are neccessary to discuss a subject. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ Σ 18:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't mean that every plot point or spoiler is notable enough to mention. -- Ned Scott 18:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[To Daedalus:] So? When a spoiler is required in a discussion of the plot, a spoiler warning would be a good idea. In many other cases no spoiler is required in the plot section. The book/game/comic may have a twist but its plot may be notable for something else entirely. (Or maybe the existence of the twist is notable, but the details of it are not). PaddyLeahy 18:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is one example. In general, complete comprehensive coverage requires that nothing is left out, including notable twists and endings. We should not alter our scope of coverage just because someone may not want to read the information contained in the article. If that's the case, then don't read the article in the first place. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 19:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(lost indent count) On the contrary, every encyclopedia article leaves out almost everything about its subject. The art is to decide what to include. As per WP:FICT and WP:WAF plot summaries should always be a minor part of articles, which should mainly be based on secondary sources (e.g. reviews) not primary sources (the book/film etc itself), and should take an out-of-universe perspective. If these guidelines were followed more in practice, spoilers would be much rarer in WP articles, and the need for warnings about the occasional spoiler would perhaps be more acceptable, even to zealots. PaddyLeahy 20:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism

Is there any way we can at least find a better word for this? For me, a large part of the problem is that "spoiler warnings" are a neologism, and are not really suitable for the overall structure of an encyclopedia. It's not that other encyclopedias don't use spoiler warnings - it's that other serious reference works don't use neologisms. Phil Sandifer 18:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point. The word "spoiled" means ruined. And claiming that a classic work of art can be ruined by knowing the plot, is making a POV statement about that work of art. By warning readers that, say, Romeo and Juliet or A Doll's House will be ruined by learning the plot beforehand is rather insulting to these works of art. I claim they can not be ruined that way. That's one of the reasons they are classics and that people see them again and again. Shanes 20:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One example of a "classic" (at least, best seller in its day) which has been literally spoiled is Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. The original novella was a mystery: who was Hyde and what was his connection to Jekyll? For a modern reader it now falls totally flat. (No, I don't think a warning is needed for that one!) PaddyLeahy 20:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, that. The thriller element is still present and is just as enjoyable if you know that Hyde is Jekyll from watching Lon Chaney or Spencer Tracy transform from mild Jekyll into demonic Hyde on TV. It's in the writing. It has nothing to do with whether you know in advance or not. --Tony Sidaway 21:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They still shouldn't be in classic fiction articles, though. The more and more I think about it, the more I don't see them as necessary, even for recent works. -- Ned Scott 20:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider this a problem myself. Consider that the neologism is a couple of decades old (pushing the definition?), very well-known, integrated into mainstream language, intuitively and easily understood, and explained in the template itself. (And it's not like we have to prove ourselves anything, including a serious reference work - some of the talk on this page about "sending a message" about being an encyclopedia has the tinge of an inferiority complex.) Then again, I'm more breezy than most. If it should be changed, in a pinch it could be trimmed down to "Plot and/or ending details follow", with a hyperlink in the words to spoiler or the guideline page. --Kizor 20:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not in Webster's or the OED, thus putting it in violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (neologisms). Phil Sandifer 21:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straw polls

I think that it is time for a couple of straw polls to see at least where we are in the consensus building process. I'm only going to poll for three issues that I think we can easily come to a consensus on. --Farix (Talk) 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your name using four tildes (Farix (Talk) 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)) under the position you support, and please add a (hopefully brief and well thought out) comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.[reply]

Poll 1

Should spoiler warnings be placed on articles about historical and classical works of fiction?

Use spoiler tags

Yes, if (i) said work relies for its impact on a surprise (ii) the surprise is not common knowledge (iii) work is still read for pleasure by a significant number of people (example: Sherlock Holmes mysteries). PaddyLeahy 21:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use spoiler tags

Farix (Talk) 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 21:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poll 2

Should spoiler warnings be placed on articles about fairy tales?

Use spoiler tags

Can't think of any where they would be needed, but decision should be made case-by-case, not by category. PaddyLeahy 21:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use spoiler tags

Farix (Talk) 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 21:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poll 3

Should spoiler warnings be placed in sections titled "Plot", "Plot summery", "Synopses", or any variation thereof?

Use spoiler tags

Yes, if relevant. Non-crufty discussion of plots can and often should avoid spoilers, therefore, spoiler warnings should be used if necessary. PaddyLeahy 21:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use spoiler tags

Patently redundant and crufty Farix (Talk) 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 21:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Spoiler warning

Arbitrary (or not so arbitrary) section header

Discussion moved from TFD

non-deletion discussion

Why spoiler warnings are not only bad practice: they're unnecessary

Outstanding issues

Writing around spoilers (NPOV)

Lead paragraphs vs. spoilers (NPOV)

Fuzzy definitions

Fighting the taylorized robot hordes

Aim of policy change

What is a spoiler?

The base of this issue

We need a Spoiler Warning policy guideline

Other examples of content warnings?

Proposals

Spoiler warnings not permitted, no writing-around permitted

Spoiler guidelines strengthened for NPOV

Spoiler warnings like fair-use images

Current practice

A suggestion

Ain't broke, don't fix it

Identity crisis

Spoiler warnings are infantile and need to go

iffy spoilers

"Target Audience"??

Who cares vs who accepts

PLEASE STOP EDIT WARRING

Got to agree with the keepers

Why the IPs

Encyclopedia Disclaimer

87.189 is currently blocked for edit-warring

When *is* a spoiler appropriate?

Be careful

Regarding Spoilers

"But normal encyclopaedias ..."

Temporary spoilers

Edits that even the presence of this template encourage that are cause for its destruction

Template:Endspoliler

Advice

Other warnings

Usability and the vast horde of non-editors who read Wikipedia

Ironic

Something else we've been assuming

Spoiler warning? (Discussion from Hamlet page)

The article should have a spoiler warning

The article should not have a spoiler warning

Voting is evil

Discussion

Not needed

Invisible tags?

Spoiler Examples

Jeffrey Archer

Plot vs. Plot Summary

Neologism

Straw polls

Poll 1

Poll 2

Poll 3

Discussion

When is a spoiler appropriate?

**The article should have a spoiler warning**

**The article should not have a spoiler warning**