Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 13

Discussion on this guideline has been taking place on an RFC.

Disputed tag (started 9 June)

Will someone at least put a disputed tag on this? I'm not sure which tag to use. Ken Arromdee 15:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't dispute with policy itself, but rather massive removal of spoiler warnings from Wikipedia by a small clique of editors. But I believe, since this is a bad move and a people's encyclopedia, that this will eventually be uphill and useless battle on side of those who decided on this policy (I believe most users actually want the spoiler warnings). Samohyl Jan 17:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If they wanted them, they'd insert the spoiler tags when they were removed. This only happened in a tiny number of cases. --Tony Sidaway 17:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone else please field this. Ken? Nydas? Just now I'm far too weary. --Kizor 19:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Few people have the fanatical mindset to make hundreds of edits an hour to repair the damage inflicted by the anti-spoiler squad. With a substantial number of admins in the squad, they can presumably block anyone that tries to use the AWB.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony DOES have a point though. If people aren't reverting them then either 1) They aren't watching the page anymore/never did or 2) Don't care to put them back. Granted, one assumes that a lot of pages will have a small number watching them, but if there was really that few that had them readded, then I think it's a good possibility that either they DON'T care, or at least accept that the guideline has changed and feel it's not worth it to change it back. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally have 2 pages about fiction on my Watchlist (one is article I started). Both of them had templates removed in the last 2 days, and seeing fanatical people here, I don't really feel like arguing with them. But if someone will add the SWs back in the upcoming months, I will support it. I believe the general public (and casual editors) will react much slower to this. It'll be like Iraq war - ultimately tiring and bothersome to the victors. Samohyl Jan 01:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in the habit of watching pages so I didn't know there was a wholesale removal in progress of all spoiler flags. (I occasionally write a new article, but mostly I just correct blatant misspellings and fix broken links, where I can). After reading the high-handed & sarcastic reasons that people have been giving for removing spoilers (e.g., "they mess up our articles", "they annoy me", "this is an encyclopedia and you might learn something new"), I will happily start being bold and put them back where I think they belong. Aelfgifu 12:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I too came here when tags were mass-removed from one article I started. I put them back, and they were removed by another editor so hastily that he removed some of his own edits — had to partly revert himself. Not the sort of behavior that suggests a talk page discussion will be useful. (He also lacked knowledge of the article subject.)

Unfortunately, former visionaries can become fanatics, though some may just remain seriously illusioned as the future becomes the unrecognized past. Still others are just saluting and enforcing the clique-led coup; majoritarian enforcers are difficult for average editors to oppose.

But if a valid hypothesis, why the fanaticism or illusioning? I suggest three of several possible explanations are:

(1) a widespread contempt for fiction-reading adults as being "children" (further parseable into contempt for both non-reality and children);

(2) a Hollywood dramatic exaggeration that spoiler tags are "warnings", when in fact they are just a "caution" or even a mere "notice";

(3) a persistent illusion that the shattered dream of Wikipedia being like Britannica in credibility, is still attainable (cue zombie parade with forward-stretched arms: 'obliterate ... non ... Britannica ... feature'.) Milo 08:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Per Melodia- Sethie agrees- the lack of putting them back could very well show support for the policy..... and Sethie has a few questions: -How often were they put back and then removed again? (That behavior brought Sethie to this disucssion) -How many people read the edit summary and just assumed that the editor was in the know? "removed as redundant per WP:SPOILER." It does sound pretty official. -How many people missed what was happening, because David Gerard undid all of the spoiler tags as "minor" edits (and we are talking about 10,000+ edits here!)?Sethie 22:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I just put one back, hence showing my lack of support for this. Tony, how does not immediately putting all these masses of spoiler tags back count as "consensus"?Tomgreeny 02:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You need a diagram? From the first paragraph of our Consensus policy:

The basic process works like this: someone makes an edit to a page, and then everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it. Over time, every edit that remains on a page, in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community (or at least everyone who has looked at the page). "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it. Most of the time consensus is reached as a natural product of the editing process.

Apply an edit to 45,000 pages, most of which are being watched and edited regularly, and you have a huge number of people looking at an edit and deciding to leave it. And that's how we know we have consensus for removing spoiler tags. --Tony Sidaway 02:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a simplistic analysis that does not prove consensus. As has now emerged in a number of samples, editors who want to put the spoiler tag back are deterred by other editors who claim violation of WP:Spoiler. Since you are claiming WP:Spoiler guide consensus based on lack of tag restorations, it's circular reasoning. Therefore your analysis is a manufactured consensus claim. Milo 05:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain the error in your reasoning. We (mainly David Gerard I believe) performed tens of thousands of edits. Nearly every single one of those edits prevails. Now either there are many, many people going around removing tags when they're replaced, or there are only a small number of replacements every day compared to the tens of thousands of articles originally edited. I can assure you we don't have a robot scooting around and removing tags as they appear. It's all being done by humans, as it should be. And not solely by a small, tight group. The decisions are being made organically. You can see this rather graphically on articles about recently released films such as the Silver Surfer and Oceans 13. Different people add and remove tags. There is very little mention of any spoiler guideline. People just use their common sense. And, extraordinarily, their common sense feelings seem to favor removing the spoiler tag even from articles, such as those two recently released films, where I myself would be happy to permit them if the decision were up to me alone.

Each of these articles is still out there, with its edit history and its absence of spoiler tags. At any one moment there may be hundreds or even thousands of people reading one or those articles. For recently released movies the figure is going to be very high, and popular movies and TV shows such as Oceans 13, Doctor Who and the like will have more than a dozen editors in attendance. And yet the spoiler tags aren't coming back and sticking. In the relatively small proportion of articles where tags have been put back, no consensus is emerging to keep them. In the vast majority of cases, no attempt is made to restore them. That's consensus for removal, according to our very own Consensus policy. --Tony Sidaway 07:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Your group has been reverting hundreds of people every day for the past few weeks, sometimes with just an edit summary of 'no'. Anyone can examine the contribution and edit histories to establish this for themselves.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What is my group? Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you mean every single editor who has ever supported the removal of spoiler tags on this page. Let's see, that's:

Tony_Sidaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Kusma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
David Gerard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ned Scott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Vassyana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
TheFarix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Oh and this fellow whom I've seen around and about:

CBM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Now let's see what they're actually doing. I'll take Monday as an example day. I omit names of people who performed no tag removals:

User:Tony Sidaway 26
User:CBM 4

So that's a total of about 30. Maybe I've forgotten some fellow who is performing hundreds of tag removals. If so, perhaps you could name him. Or maybe you're out by an order of magnitude. Or maybe there was a huge amount of reverting at some point but now it's died down.

But if it's as it appears, with just 30 tags restored (and then reverted almost single-handedly) in the course of a whole Monday, then when you consider that there were formerly 45,000 or more articles with tags, it does appear to me that there is a very substantial consensus. When people read these many thousands of articles articles, as they must do every day, they don't suddenly think "this article needs a spoiler tag." --Tony Sidaway 08:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And if you take the Monday before last, it's:

That's about 166 removals, presumably what you meant when you said 'that's only happened in a tiny number of cases' two days earlier. Since anybody who was willing to reverse the removals on a significant scale was threatened, and the numbers and time periods used for judging 'significant resistance' are arbitary, it's no surprise that a 'consensus' has been reached.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, only 166 out of 45,000? I thought it was more. In any case we would have seen many, many hundreds more than that had there been any serious problem.

You say "anybody who was willing to reverse the removals on a significant scale was threatened", but I think what you're referring to is the warnings, and sometimes blocks, given to those very, very few editors who edited disruptively. It isn't allowed, you know.

Did you mean to count David Gerard twice, or did you mistype the username of another involved user? --Tony Sidaway 17:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

166 in one day is a lot. If we generously assume two reverts per user, that's eighty people overruled by four admins. The 'very, very few editors' who mass-restored tags are about the same in number (probably slightly more) as the six or so admins systematically removing tags. One group is disruptive, the other is bold.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The disruptive editing was, I seem to recall, singleton editors edit warring against multiple editors, and involved egregious and undeniable breaches of Wikipedia policy (such as the three revert rule). This is why those editors were blocked.

We'll have to agree to differ on whether 166 is "a lot". It's certainl not compatible with your claim, made just a few hours ago, of our "reverting hundreds of people every day for the past few weeks". Now this Monday was down to 30. Consensus. The stragglers are slowly learning, by example and not edit warring, that they don't have to insert those spoiler tags. --Tony Sidaway 18:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The numbers creep up the further back you go. It's taken a full month to bludgeon through the 'consensus' your faction has been claiming existed since day two of the debate. The current situation doesn't prove anything, aside from the gross power disparity between a tiny group of admins and a small group of normal editors. One is bold, the other is disruptive. Breaches of policy have been made by both sides, but no-one is going to enforce 'don't use the AWB for controversial edits' or WP:POINT against a bunch of senior admins.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I take exception to this use of the term "bludgeon". Editing articles in full compliance with all of Wikipedia's policies is not bludgeoning. I'm unsure of what you mean by "the 'consensus' your faction has been claiming existed since day two of the debate."

You say "One is bold, the other is disruptive." No. Only the disruptive editors, as defined by Wikipedia's policies and three revert rule in particular, have been described as disruptive.

You say "Breaches of policy have been made by both sides." Well you haven't demonstrated this. "You have made edits I disagree with" is not a credible allegation of breach of policy.

You say "no-one is going to enforce 'don't use the AWB for controversial edits' or WP:POINT". Please read WP:POINT. Please explain how the 45,000 edits were controversial. They were hardly noticed. --Tony Sidaway 20:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The anti-spoiler admins have insisted since the beginning of the mass removal campaign that there was a consensus for their actions. It began by using the arbitarily closed MfD, but the 'lack of significant resistance' line was started not long after. Neither was grounds for consensus. 'They were hardly noticed' is a variation on the 'lack of significant resistance' line. It's unsupported by facts and cocooned in vague and arbitary measures. Since there wasn't a consensus, policy was not followed.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I've already said quoting from Wikipedia:Consensus, absence of opposition is usually taken as a sign of consensus. I have to say that I think I've probably been editing articles to remove spoiler tags for over a month now, and with the exception of some early disruption by edit warriors I've had virtually no opposition, and where I have encountered disagreements I've had no problems discussing and reaching consensus on talk pages. It's been some of the easiest, most trouble-free editing I've been involved in since I first edited (under the username User:Minority Report) in November, 2004.

This is a very, very small part of what I'm doing on Wikipedia at the moment. I feel that I'm paying far more attention to educating a few people on this talk page than to other, more important things. If you're unhappy about what we've done, if you think we've done anything at all wrong, please pursue dispute resolution. --Tony Sidaway 23:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

All you are saying is 'it wasn't bludgeoning, because I think it wasn't bludgeoning'. It is obvious that this situation would not have come about were it not for the gross power disparity between a miniscule number of admins and a small number of normal editors.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying it isn't bludgeoning because it's only editing. You refer to a "gross power disparity" that exists only in your mind. I am not an administrator and I do not use any automated tools. The main source of complaint--bulk edits by David Gerard--are well within the capability of any editor with publicly available software, David's patience and a reasonable amount of care, subject to adherence to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and the conditions of use of the tool. --Tony Sidaway 16:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's 'only editing' when your side does it, whereas it's disruptive editing by 'a few stragglers' when the other side does it. Even Ed Fitzgerald, who broke no policies, was threatened. As I have stated before, your interpretation of policy not being breached depends upon the mysterious shifting definition of 'significant resistance'. Rather than going by what is straightforward, obvious and fair (is the issue being discussed?), you make such judgements based on vague, subjective criteria like 'I've had no problems' or 'hardly any have been reverted'.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's only disruptive editing when the editing pattern matches Wikipedia's definitions of disruptive editing. You refer to a "mysterious shifting definition of 'significant resistance'". This shifting definition exists only in your own mind. If there were significant resistance then there would be many spoiler tags on articles. This is an objective measure. --Tony Sidaway 19:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comments can be examined to see your definition of 'significant resistance' changes constantly. Typically it's either vague ('hardly any') or circular ('obvious'). At one point you said 'A significant amount of resistance might be, for instance, hundreds of editors restoring tags'. Hundreds of people have been restoring tags; this can be confirmed by examining the edit histories. The fact that they have ceased doing this is simply down to fact that anyone attempting to restore them in large numbers was threatened, whether they violated any policy or not. The threats are justified by the consensus, the consensus enforced by the threats.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing hundreds of editors restoring spoiler tags at all. I'm seeing diminishing numbers of editors doing any adding of spoiler tags, as the habit of routinely adding them slowly dies out. The only time in recent days when the number of pages with spoiler tags on them has exceeded 20 was when the spoiler-season tag was deleted. Those were dealt with in a few hours and now only one Star Gate episode remains of that lot. There really are only two or three editors systematically removing spoiler tags now, and those of us doing it are not taxed in any way. By comparison we've got massive backlogs of articles for tagging, improving, deletion and so on. This is small beer. --Tony Sidaway 12:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What's more, I decided to go look. It's not just that, this Monday, Tony reverted 26 articles. He reverted the edits of almost 20 separate _people_ all presumably acting in good faith. If he did that on one article, he'd be accused of going against consensus. Or, of WP:OWNing the article. Which is what I suggest the anti-spoiler people are doing. They are in violation of the spirit of WP:OWN, by declaring that they have the right to decide what spoiler warnings should and should not exist, and others are not qualified. Of course, it's not one article, it's several.

But let's scale it upwards. Let's say there are 10 editors out there who are on 'spoiler patrol'... whether or not they're in cahoots or acting singly, it doesn't _really_ matter. Each of them seeks out pretty well any spoiler, and reverts them. Let's say they all revert about the same amount in a day. It's a hypothetical leap, but let's go with it - Nydas has shown that there were times when the numbers were pretty high. By these numbers, that's about 200 people. But that's being too generous to my side. Let's say about half are completely unjustified. So we're down to 10 people overruling 100. Oh, okay, and let's say again that there probably will be some duplication. So let's say that about half are accounted for by people doing the spoiler thing on multiple articles which have to be removed by different people (I'd think that's being extremely generous, considering the previously described severe inbalance in speed and ease of removing spoiler tags compared to adding them). So, 50 different people overruled completely. By 10. Lovely consensus there.

But maybe my numbers are wrong. I after all, haven't been the one to claim that it's easy to see the amount of opposition. So, I ask again. Will anybody who claims to be able to monitor the level of opposition please answer me 1) how many different editors have removed spoiler tags in the last month, and 2) how many different editors have added spoiler tags in the last month. Or if nobody can, please admit that you're not monitoring the amount of opposition, only the amount of spoiler tags themselves.

Keeping in mind again that before about a month ago, when the guideline was more spoiler-warning friendly, nobody has reported to me that there was a wide-scale revolt to remove spoiler tags (since they remained in large numbers), which suggests, by Tony's logic, that there must have been consensus.

Maybe the 'consensus' from the lack of so many wide scale reverts is to 'follow the guideline whatever it is'. That does not equal consensus for the guideline as it stands, especially since the guideline as it stands is pretty disputed on this page, for the guideline. So let's change the guideline to get consensus. Wandering Ghost 13:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're misrepresenting a lot of statements here. Of course we don't see every tag insertion and removal. All we see is the result: that at any given moment there aren't a lot of articles with spoiler tags. If somebody we don't know about is adding them at a great rate, it follows that somebody else we don't know about is removing them at an equally great rate. On balance I'd say that either seems implausible because if it were happening there would be big fluctuations owing to one chap working while the other one is offline. I think we've probably accounted for the main methodical removals, which are a few dozen. Less evidence of a massive campaign to subvert consensus, more evidence of a few stragglers who haven't yet heard that they don't need to insert spoiler tags.

You reason that the former guideline had consensus "by Tony's logic." Clearly it did not. 45,000 tags were removed without pain. --Tony Sidaway 17:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd have put spoiler tags back on a dozen pages by now, but instead of trying to brute-force my way to consensus, I'm sitting here talking about it trying to REACH a consensus to be enforced. If we reach a consensus that spoiler tags are OK in some instances, I'll go add them to the articles I watch. However, what's the point adding them when someone on spoiler patrol will just remove them? It'd violate WP:POINT. I suspect others feel the same, hence the lack of mass addition. Consider: User X notices the lack of spoiler tag on Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, for instance. User X remembers there being a tag here, checks edit summary, finds that apparently spoilers are no longer kosher and are being removed. User X then goes to edit several other articles with tags being removed and does not bother to add them again, having seen for himself that there are people activly removing all spoiler tags on wikipedia, so it'd be pointless to add them. Thus, User X gets discouraged and gives up on spoiler tags altogether. This is consensus, the Tony way: people are intimidated by numbers like 45,000 tags, and thus figure, well, there must be consensus on a page I'm not aware of. Kuronue 18:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well if you don't agree that your edits would have consensus, I suppose it is at least logical that you don't perform the edits. But the guideline doesn't stop you putting spoiler tags where you think they're needed, indeed I've inserted a few myself over the past few days, though they seem not to take. The guideline has gone "viral", in other words.

I don't understand your reference to Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT). Performing an edit that you think directly improves Wikipedia isn't covered by that guideline at all.

I don't think the "intimidated by numbers" or "finds that apparently spoilers are no longer kosher and are being removed" are plausible, really. Maybe one or two of our more timid editors might think like that, but it's hardly likely to work in great numbers. No I think editors are simply unlearning a bad habit.

You refer to someone thinking "there must be consensus on a page I'm not aware of". Firstly the guideline is often, though not always, referred to by link in the edit summary. Secondly an edit that is considered unsuitable can be reverted and discussion can arrive at consensus as to the suitability of the edit. The guideline (like all good guidelines) recognises this and explicitly allows for it. If we're not seeing spoiler tags emerging in any great numbers, it's because hardly anybody seems to be interested enough to argue for their use on any given article. --Tony Sidaway 19:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If it didn't have consensus, the week _before_ the deletion spree happened, by your logic, a significant number of editors would have removed spoiler warnings. Since it didn't happen, a week before the deletion spree, there was consensus to keep spoilers, up until the deletion spree happened. There was no groundswell of support to delete them, and as David Gerard demonstrated, it would have been easy to do so in an automated way. Let's go back two months. Same situation? Now keeping spoilers have a month of "consensus" over the current policy. So you must admit by then, if there's consensus to keep the warnings out now based on the lack of them, that there was broad consensus to keep the warnings only a month ago. What changed, pray tell, in so short a time?

And I'm glad you're finally admitting you're not monitoring the amount of opposition, but rather the amount of spoiler tags at any given time. Now, let's keep on that logic train. Do you acknowledge that it's _much_ easier for a person to delete a _lot_ of spoiler tags, than it is for anyone to add a _lot_ of spoiler tags? Do you from that acknowledge that a small number of editors who decide to remove virtually all spoiler warnings to overrule a much larger number of editors who decide to add spoiler warnings where they feel them appropriate? Please tell me where in the train of statements this fails for you. I'll even throw you a bone. You can continue to believe, even after accepting all of this, that the guideline has broad consensus. It just becomes much harder to prove it. 74.121.182.101 01:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC) This was me - didn't noticed I'd been logged out. Wandering Ghost 01:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you're getting at in your first paragraph. The degree of consensus is apparent, though we didn't realise until we tried it. Consensus results from action, observation and consideration. Here the consideration seems to have played an overwhelmingly important role once we became bold enough to perform the requisite action.

I also have problems with your statement that I'm "admitting I'm not monitoring the amount of opposition." As I obviously am monitoring very closely, and am still astonished at the lack of it, I cannot agree to your statement. I've indicated clearly why I think it's extremely unlikely that there is a hidden opposition out there placing tags with an equally strong and opposing group removing them at the same rate so as to cancel them out and remain undetected by me. Even if they were running in lockstep for hours at a time, one of them would have to sleep at some point and I'd notice.

I strongly agree that it's easier to remove inappropriate spoiler tags than it is to decide where they are appropriate. I'm still rather astonished that so few people seem motivated to place them. --Tony Sidaway 03:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, you're dodging the issue. There doesn't _have_ to be "a hidden opposition out there placing tags with an equally strong and opposing group removing them at the same rate so as to cancel them out and remain undetected by me." When did Wikipedia become a warzone, where in order for one side to hold a policy stalemate they had to be comparable in weapons and fanaticism? Consensus is determined by people. If there are people out there who creatively use various tools to overwhelm the majority and are so determined to remove spoiler tags that they push for removal in nearly every case, they shouldn't _win_ just because it's easy and they've got the drive. If the other side is significantly larger but they are _unable_ to add spoiler tags at the same rate (hey, in the spirit of open debate and finding the truth why not be fair and suggest ways for an individual person to add spoiler tags at the same rate as an individual person can remove them?), and are forced by circumstances to only add one page at a time where they see fit, that doesn't mean they're not still larger and not still consensus. If you can't tell me how many different people are removing spoiler warnings and how many people are adding them, you're not monitoring opposition. You're monitoring the number of spoiler tags. And that number can be kept down by superior firepower. If the anti-warning crowd and pro-warning crowd were exactly equal in numbers, the anti-warning crowd could still keep spoilers down to a minimum, so long as the pro-warning crowd wasn't organized enough to get together and fight battles together on each page. Wandering Ghost 11:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If it is easier to remove spoiler tags than to justify their replacement, it follows that there is no broad consensus for spoiler tags. --Tony Sidaway 17:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

C'mon Tony, now who's being a silly sausage? You know that it's easier to remove than to recreate, to use AWB than operate in a decentralized manner, and to use Special:Whatlinkshere to see where the tag is included rather than Special:Recentchanges to see where it has been removed. Also, some people have the radical concept of discussing before acting broadly in an edit war, which is why this talk page has exploded. -- nae'blis 21:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The difficulty is exactly why there is no broad consensus for them. I'm glad that there have been few edit wars. That is a good thing, too. --Tony Sidaway 23:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That is yet another of your non-answers that don't make any logical sense. Because it's, technically speaking, easier to remove 40,000 spoiler tags in the course of a few days by one man than it is for one man to replace them, it proves there's no consensus? To retreat to that nonsensical position, I can only assume I've made points you can't argue against, and instead of conceding the point, you just fling out another absurdity in the hopes that somebody reading might fall for it. I'd like to say I'm surprised. But then, what should I expect, from the person who claims the lack of tags prove consensus and the fact that there's consensus proves that they should continue to force tag removal, in some cases threatening people who do. Or the person who continues to say 'rm per WP:SPOIL' when he removes spoilers of a large number of people, when the guideline's in dispute. The same guy who reverts dozens of different people every day on one topic, who claims to have consensus but won't back down from removing spoilers when he finds them, in the confidence that the spoilers will be removed by someone else. No, you continue to argue in bad faith, and so there's no point to responding to you anymore. To those of you, even those vehemently anti-warning, who continue to argue in good faith, I salute you. I'm just sorry that you have someone on your side who does you have such a disservice, since I think that without him and a few like him, it might actually be possible to reach a compromise satisfiable to a large number of people. Instead, bring on the next step in dispute resolution. I may continue to respond to others in the debate, but I can't keep banging my head against the brick wall of people behaving in bad faith (and in this, I suspect I'm feeling the same as many people who put spoiler warnings in and were ganged up on, and so have stopped), so my contributions will be substantially reduced. Don't mistake that for consent to the policy as it stands. Wandering Ghost 21:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, forget about the removal of the spoiler tags in the first place, it's what is happening now that shows the state of play. They're just not going back and staying back. That's consensus. Yes, you can always claim this or that, but the only way to refute my claim of consensus would be to show that there were many, many spoiler tags on Wikipedia. And there are not. --Tony Sidaway 23:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Farm

Note: An Animal Farm ending spoiler follows

(Quotes from #Bionicle)

"All you're doing is repeating and elaborating the "deities" charge. There are no deities here. We're all equal. --Tony Sidaway 20:43, 17 June 2007"

"We're all equal." (background laughter) Lessee, where have I heard that concept previously deconstructed? Ah, yes, George Orwell's Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Milo 04:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"... There are some 45,000 articles that until recently had spoiler tags and now do not. There is clearly no substantial pressure to replace those, or else there'd be great waves of the things, a hundred and more at a time. That's how it is. --Tony Sidaway 21:15, 17 June 2007"

Not every anti-consensus reaction will be a pro-userbox-like revolt. A disappointment reaction may well be long and slow like rising tides, rather than great crashing waves. Sometimes the response can be subtle, as follows.

In a touch of research irony, it turned out that Animal Farm twice had it's spoiler tag placed and removed, without further talk discussion:

13:02, 16 May 2007 Zoney (36,971 bytes) (Synopsis - remove "spoiler warning", change heading to "Synopsis of plot and ending")

02:48, 31 May 2007 Counterstrike69 m (37,027 bytes) (Synopsis of plot and ending -{{spoiler}})

03:06, 31 May 2007 Bongwarrior m (37,015 bytes) (removed spoiler warning, redundant per WP:SPOILER)

At least a section title compromise was put in place. That gave WP:Spoiler's redundant-in-plot guide some meaning that it otherwise objectively lacks. (==Plot== sections may or may not contain spoilers.) Such compromise is more enlightened than the clique's response to "a few editors" guideline objections here.

Note this is a book named by Time 100 Books as one of the 100 best English-language novels from 1923 to the present. The notion that somehow classics can't be spoiled was addressed and explained by a reader in an Animal Farm spoiling complaint that preceded the present controversy. [ Milo 04:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC) continues below ]

(Wow, what a formatting mess) Yeah, I looked at the article at the time of the complain, if the IP's diff was correct. It was a pretty good lead, and the complaint would be akin to complaining if The Fellowship of the Ring mentioned that partway through the book a fellowship is formed. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Elitists who know the classics seem not to care whether the next generation can get full enjoyment from the surprise/plot-twist genius of classics' authors. Do I detect a contempt for youth, to parallel that anti-spoiler contempt for children that I previously mentioned?

As that spoiling-complaint discussion suggests, the flip side of readers expecting spoiler tags is readers expecting teasers, because that's the way fiction marketing is universally done.

The position of Wikipedia elitists that 'Britannica doesn't do it that way' is newly irrelevant (March 22, 2007). Readers who don't know or can't afford Britannica, don't care about Britannica. Elite, well-heeled readers who do want Britannica, will consult Britannica, because Wikipedia will never be authoritative like Britannica. Academia has made a harsh judgment:

Wikipedia will never be as Britannica, period.

With the Britannica dream ended, Wikipedia's only remaining choice is to become what web readers want. That certainly includes teasers and spoiler tags, as well as other reasonable expectations of the internet culture that nurtured it. Non-spoiling fiction teasers are easy to accommodate with a click-here hidden box or down-page jump link. All that's needed is for elitists to adjust to the new Wikipedia reality with compromise.

And if the elites fail to adjust? Oh, following Wikipedia:The Great Fork I assume they would eventually be overruled by people in suits who sell advertising. Milo 04:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Who are these fellows, Zoney, Counterstrike69 and Bongwarrior? Certainly not known to me. I thought we were supposed to be a small clique! --Tony Sidaway 07:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh....only academic newbies use encyclopedias as sources. They are for background/introduction to a topic and good sources. I am never allowed to use any ancyclopedia as a source. — Deckill er 10:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are nonetheless widely used by high school students and college undergraduates. "Newbie" refers to someone not yet working to expected standards, while most students below the graduate school level are expected to cite encyclopedias, as part of a standard curriculum to progressively learn academic research skills. Milo 18:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That encyclopedias are not widely used for academic citation does not mean that they are unacademic. Textbooks aren't generally cited either, but they are clearly academic projects. Phil Sandifer 14:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Britannica dream ended? When? Phil Sandifer 14:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As it says in the post text above "March 22, 2007". Also it's in the Wikinews link above with other details which you auto-inserted into your edit summary:

14:27, 18 June 2007 Phil Sandifer ([http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/March_22%2C_NBC_Nightly_News._Wikipedia_charged_with_%22bad_information%22.%22_%28Breaking_news%2C_yet_to_air_during_6:30-7PM_EDT%29 '''''Wikipedia will never be as Britannica, period.'''''])

With academic backing, NBC thoroughly trashed Wikipedia on the national evening news. While NBC's story was sensationalistic, the core facts of unpredictable unreliability are inherent to the project model. Wikipedia's tentative previous status as a citable reference of record will never recover. Milo 18:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood the story you're quoting. Wikipedia would never want to be used as a primary academic source. Encyclopedias are not useful for that purpose. --Tony Sidaway 18:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"Encyclopedias are not useful for that purpose" Teachers think and lesson plan otherwise. I would be surprised to learn that you did not cite encyclopedias in writing high school papers. To the best of my knowledge that is a universal U.S. public school practice. As inferred from the NBC and Wikinews academic sources, it is also an expected practice of college undergraduates.

Two or three years ago I heard a news story about high school teachers teaching students to not cite internet sources generally. Wikipedia has turned out not to be an exception. Milo 20:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If we cited an encyclopedia as a source, the teacher would take 10 points off. That actually happened to me in 11th grade (I received a B instead of an A because I cited Britannica). — Deckill er 19:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"I received a B instead of an A because I cited Britannica" That's a graduate school standard. If applied in high school, the issue is partly one of available homework time, partly one of what study depth is the subject of the paper, and partly the quality of research library available.

If your school was a prestigious New England academy, with a huge private library or access to a nearby university library, I could understand such academic rigor. If, however, you were a public school student with access to only an average high school library, I would judge that you were down-graded for no pedagogical reason valid for your grade level. Milo 02:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that the NBC reporter, Lisa Daniels, vandalized the site during her "study". — Deckill er 19:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"Lisa Daniels, vandalized the site" Yeah, even if she repaired it later, I recall being shocked that Daniels wasn't shown fixing her own vandalism. NBC's example became 'it's ok to vandalize Wikipedia'. Milo 02:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

She didn't even fix it, although she did make a few minor edits some time later. Ironically, she also failed to mention that her vandalism was reverted within 30 seconds. — Deckill er 17:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Compromise guideline

Once again trying to be constructive, because while I can honestly believe that (at least some of) the anti-warning people believe they have consensus, I cannot honestly believe that most believe in the circular argument a few are perpetrating to prove it. Frankly, it's depressing me and making me less willing to check or contribute to wiki as a whole. This is not a result of the policy itself, but the result of the way it seems to have been formed and is 'enforced' by a minority. As such, since none have answered any of my questions that might have helped prove consensus, my only solution left is to continue to try and fix things to make it more pleasing to a larger number. To that end, I have come up with my own version of the spoiler guidelines, presented here for comment. Note that this not my "ideal" guideline, which would be more along the lines of "whatever it was two months ago with a few tweaks for obvious problems like fairy tales", but my "ideal compromise solution" because even though I honestly believe my ideal has majority support, there is at least significant disagreement and lack of consensus and so compromise is the most appopriate solution. This guideline is very similar to the current guideline but lays out a few things a little more clearly, and evens out a significant advantage of the anti-warning crowd (while trying to be very careful to make the guideline neutral). It is a _little_ more friendly to spoiler warnings than the current guidelines, but I don't feel it's that much, and what difference there is is mostly in matters where different interpretations of the previous one might assume it's more or less the same. So, here goes...

-

A spoiler is a piece of information in an article about a narrative work (such as a book, feature film, television show or video game) that reveals plot events or twists.

Spoilers on the Internet are sometimes preceded by a spoiler warning.^[1] However, it is unusual for scholarly reference works (of the sort that Wikipedia aspires to be) to warn for spoilers when discussing fictional works.^[2] Most wikipedia editors agree that a compromise is the best solution, wherein spoiler warnings should generally be avoided where they are redundant, but may be placed in other areas where there is good reason.

Concerns about spoilers should play no role in decisions about the structure or content of an article, including the article's lead section. When adding a spoiler in the lead section, remember that Wikipedia is written from a real-world perspective; what is exciting in the context of a fictional universe is almost certainly a standard plot device in literary construction.

If a spoiler is added as trivia, and does not contribute to the article in any meaningful way, that information can be removed. However, the rationale is that the information was removed not because it was a spoiler, but because it was trivial or unnecessary.

..Spoiler warnings.. ...When not to use spoiler warnings...

Spoiler warnings must not interfere with neutral point of view, completeness, encyclopedic tone, or any other element of article quality.
Spoiler warnings are usually inappropriate in articles discussing classical works of literature, poetry, film, theatre, and other fields. Classical works should generally be considered as anything older than 50 years for books, plays, and poetry, anything older than 20 years in television and movies, and anything older than 10 years in comics or video games. Fairy tales should never have spoiler warnings (unless they're of the modern variety). In grey areas, editors placing spoiler templates should use the article's talk page to discuss the matter.
Spoiler warnings should be avoided in articles on non-fictional subjects. If explicit spoilers^[3] are mentioned in non-fiction articles (e.g. articles on authors, real-life locations in which (a) fictional text(s) is set, or literary concepts like climax), consider whether the spoiler improves the encyclopedic quality of the article. It may be better to remove the example.
Spoiler warnings are usually redundant when used in "Plot", "Synopsis" or (fictional) "History" headings of any sort in articles whose subject is fictional. To insert a spoiler warning in sections of this kind requires a very compelling reason. These sections should almost never have blanket spoiler warnings covering the whole heading.
Spoiler warnings should not be used when they can be replaced by more accurate heading information. If a "Themes" heading starts with the plot, the best thing to do is break the plot into a separate heading. If there are no headings, it is usually better to add them.

...When and where to use spoiler warnings...

Spoiler warnings may (but not necessarily should) be used in articles whose primary subject is fictional, in sections where one might reasonably believe that a reader would not expect to find a major spoiler, even if that section can be expected to deal with some plot details. For example, a "Themes" section would generally talk about plot details, but a warning may be justified if discussion of the major twists is occuring. Similarly, a listing of characters with brief descriptions might be a spoiler if major surprises about their identity or fate are included. It may also be more encyclopediac to remove the spoiler information if it is not necessary.
Spoiler warnings may be temporarily added for very new media (tv shows aired in the last 3 months, movies released in the past 6 months, or books released in the past year) even in sections where it is normally considered redundant or unnecessary. Make a note on the talk page that the spoiler warning is intended to be temporary.
A spoiler warning is a courtesy note to readers, such as those who find articles from search engine results. It is a reminder note, and never guaranteed.
Very rarely, a spoiler warning may appear in the article lead. If this can be justified, the warning should be placed at the top of the article. The presumption should be that the article lead should not need to warn about plot spoilers that are significant enough to appear in the lead.

...When and how to remove or add spoiler warnings...

Where it is appropriate, a {{Spoiler}} tag can be used to mark spoiler sections, with {{Endspoiler}} to mark the end. Whether one is adding or removing, be sure to do both. Do not make home-made spoiler warnings using plain text.

Adding or removing a warning should never be an automatic process, and generally decisions should be made on a local basis by editors who are familiar with the work. People who add or remove many spoiler warnings in a short period of time can be considered in violation of WP:POINT. A good rule of thumb is that in any 24 hour period an individual can remove or add 3 spoiler warnings, similar to the three revert rule. Those who seem to be innocently in violation of the rule should be pointed to these guidelines. If someone is removing or adding dozens or hundreds of spoiler warnings in a day or over the course of a few days, one should consider it disruptive, and should feel free to revert without discussion.

Editors should always check a talk page to see the current status of the consensus and, if a discussion exists, one should argue the issue there rather than simply editing the article. If a talk page discussion on spoiler warnings does not exist, one should add one but may feel free to be bold and edit the warning once one has done so.

It has been noted that there is a tendency for people who are vehemently anti- or pro- spoiler warning to show up to spoiler warning tag discussions on talk pages or articles they're uninvolved with, and in numbers which overwhelm the local editors, in an attempt to push their view that spoilers should be rarer or more common. These people should be ignored where there is a strong local consensus one way or the other.

..Unacceptable alternatives.. (remainder unchanged)

The biggest problem with this compromise is that it doesn't compromise very much. It uses the bad "plot sections shouldn't contain spoiler warnings because everyone knows they have spoilers anyway" argument. It does limit deleting the 45000 spoiler warnings, but it's not much help to limit it now after they've been deleted; this limits further damage, but makes them even harder to put back. I would suggest something that says that you need to read the article and discuss a deletion before deleting it. (Note that to add a spoiler warning, you pretty much have to read the article, since the proper place to put it depends on the article content.) Ken Arromdee 13:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with you in principle about spoilers in plot sections, I don't think removing that requirement is fair to the, in truth, probably significant number of anti-spoiler people. Once you go past that point, I don't think you get a compromise, you get a victory - things are pretty much the same as they were before. Similarly, I think without the 'no bulk editing' we get the same, a victory on the side of those who have the advantage in bulk editing- the anti-warning side. Both, I feel, must be included in the guideline at this point for a compromise that is amenable to most. This revision addresses some of what I feel are the salient points of both sides - 1) Plot sections should not be 'blanket spoiler-warned'. 2) It does allow them to be used in plot sections with compelling reasons, but with those 'compelling reasons' to be determined by local consensus, rather than by outsiders with an axe to grind on spoilers in general. In this case, over time, we'll gradually learn what the _real_ consensus is. If you and I are correct, then local consensus will tend, over time, to put them in. If the anti-warning crowd is right, then local consensus will tend to keep them out. I think it's the fairest option I can think of. 3) It carves out specific exceptions both for 'classic works' (which should not require spoiler warnings) and 'recent works' (which probably should, as people might check the articles expecting only to see a brief tv-guide style plot outline to see whether they should get interested, but not full details). Wandering Ghost 14:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Some comments on the above, not intended to be comprhensive but the result of a quick first reading:

"where one might reasonably believe that a reader would not expect to find a major spoiler, even if that section can be expected to deal with some plot details."
- All of our articles should contain all major plot spoilers. We don't need to give a warning if this is so, because if the plot isn't interesting it won't be discussed at all, and what there is of the plot will cover every single spoiler.
"Spoiler warnings may be temporarily added..."
- In practice people seem to be happily removing them. I gave examples from two new films and a very recent television program last night. A specific guideline isn't required here because it's covered by "compelling reason" and subject to consensus on the page.
"Adding or removing a warning should never be an automatic process, and generally decisions should be made on a local basis by editors who are familiar with the work."
- Not compatible with Wikipedia's principles. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles (WP:OWN).
"People who add or remove many spoiler warnings in a short period of time can be considered in violation of WP:POINT."
- Please read and try to understand the guideline you're referring to here. Adding or removing spoiler warnings is the same as any other form of editing.
"A good rule of thumb is that in any 24 hour period an individual can remove or add 3 spoiler warnings."
- No. If you create ten articles that need them add ten of them. If you encounter ten articles that don't need them, remove them all. This is the same as any other tag. No special rules apply.
"If someone is removing or adding dozens or hundreds of spoiler warnings in a day or over the course of a few days, one should consider it disruptive, and should feel free to revert without discussion."
- Again no special rules apply.
"Editors should always check a talk page to see the current status of the consensus and, if a discussion exists, one should argue the issue there rather than simply editing the article."
- Commonsense advice. I agree with this. On the other hand one may always choose to be bold. Sometimes amazingly effective.
"It has been noted that there is a tendency for people who are vehemently anti- or pro- spoiler warning to show up to spoiler warning tag discussions on talk pages or articles they're uninvolved with, and in numbers which overwhelm the local editors, in an attempt to push their view that spoilers should be rarer or more common. These people should be ignored where there is a strong local consensus one way or the other."
- Again see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.

I hope this will be of use to you in redrafting. --Tony Sidaway 14:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A comment that articles should, in general, be edited by those who have read them does not contravene WP:OWN. Articles should be edited with intelligence; bots cannot supply this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This isn't an article about general editing, and the measures I've commented on above, "should be made on a local basis", and "These people should be ignored", specifically and unambiguously contravene WP:OWN. They're also couched in rather clumsy and prejudicial language, but that's the least of their problems. --Tony Sidaway 15:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The big problem with this proposal is that it won't endure. It's a guideline designed to retroactively make waggy-finger at David and some others for removing the spoiler tags. That's fine if you want to criticize them, but making a guideline prohibiting it after it already happened is silly - it's unlikely to happen again, for one, and for another, coming up with specific guidelines to ban or permit specific things you want to do doesn't work very well. Phil Sandifer 15:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's not designed to do that. Since I designed it, please believe me, even though I do think the bulk deleters have, in general, behaved poorly. It's meant as the equivalent of a truce while consensus can be determined. As part of dispute resolution is to 'take a step back', that's what this is an attempt to do for the spoiler warning debate as a whole. Perhaps something in the guideline itself should say that it's a step back with an eye to eventually determining consensus, but I was worried that that might be taken as a challenge for people to game the system. The bulk editing is still happening. I think that's one of the biggest problems with the debate. I can accept the guideline if I believe a significant majority endorse it. But when one side has decided on a blanket policy of 'revert pretty well every spoiler there is', and they have the technical means to do that easily, while the other side (or sides, as there's probably a vast middle ground) has to make their edits one at a time (as it's easy to look for which pages have spoilers, and go after them, but impossible to get an at a glance look at which pages, in their own judgement, might need spoilers and to properly place them), the balance of edits will be tipped in the favor of the side with the advantage, and distort any consensus. In the spirit of WP:IAR, I think it's the best temporary redress while the situation can be truly explored. Remember, this big change happened basically over the course of a month. I still wonder how many fiction pages with spoiler warnings removed have people who haven't edited in that long because, as a lot of fiction things are, they're relatively 'niche'. Wandering Ghost 15:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Viewed as a stepping stone in dispute resolution it's quite good because it shows how close we are--all the meaningful points that don't contravene important policy like WP:OWN, or attempt to redefine disruption and so on, are covered by the existing guideline, which has the advantage that it's been proven to work to the benefit of the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 15:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The best compromise would be a variant of WP:ENGVAR, stressing that spoiler warnings are neither good nor bad, with clear indications of exceptions.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting call on WP:ENGVAR, Nydas. Though I confess I'm not sure how to word it to make it work, perhaps someone else should take a crack. I do believe bulk spoiler warning removals are in violation of, if not WP:POINT than the principles that went into it, because it is the textbook definition of disruptive they use: it takes a large number of nonpartisan editors to revert. Still, for this guideline it might be a better idea to take the reference to WP Point out, and simply have people who bulk remove spoiler warnings in violation of the spoiler guideline itself. As to WP:OWN, I've already suggested elsewhere that I believe people who 'spoiler squat' (no matter which side they are), are in violation of the spirit of WP:OWN, by claiming ownership of the spoiler guidelines. Tony and others seem to do this by following any attempt to put in a spoiler warning and deciding on whether it needs to be there. As such, allowing local consensus to prevail about whether to put a spoiler warning seems to be in the spirit of WP:IAR because in this case it's being allowed to counter the worse problem in view of the lack of consensus on the issue, and as you pointed, there's some precedent in WP:ENGVAR. Wandering Ghost 11:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Er, I am against spoiler warnings. A typical violation of WP:POINT would be if I add spoiler warnings to the Bible, to fairy tales or to the Trojan War, so everybody can see how ridiculous they are. Instead, I argued for the removal of bad spoiler warnings and removed them, concentrating at first on the worst cases of spoiler tag abuse (I went through the categories of fairy tales and classical literature, which was more work than just checking for transclusions of {{spoiler}}). In fact, I think I was weakening my case that {{spoiler}} should be deleted, since I was (on average) making sure it was used more appropriately. To argue that I did something wrong, please find something else to cite than WP:POINT. Kusma (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Although WP:POINT is, in phrasing geared towards 'ironic' disruptions, I don't think it's meant exclusively to apply to them. I think that indiscriminantly erasing spoiler tags qualifies. Now, if what you say you did is correct, I don't think you did anything wrong, no. That seems more in line with good faith editing. Following all spoiler warnings and erasing them, even in a state where there are relatively few to follow, I believe is against the spirit of the guideline. You're disrupting the process to make a point. I go back to my old standby - if there really is consensus on the issue, then the tags will be removed whether people there are people who are watching for every spoiler tag inclusion and then removing them, or whether there are many independant people doing independant edits to remove them where they happen to come across them. It's in the other case, where there's not consensus, or where the state of consensus is not clear (as in this one - I still try to refrain from claiming I have consensus on the issue and have repeatedly said that I'm open to the idea that consensus might be on the other side... my argument is that it's unclear due the actions of a few), that spoiler-targetting is disruptive, especially where it obscures attempts to detect what consensus is. Seeing as how wikipedia is run on consensus, things which obscure attempts to detect what consensus is would seem to be the height of disruption.Wandering Ghost 13:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I was one of those who originally wrote WP:POINT, and can confidently state you've completely missed its point - David Gerard 16:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, he isn't the only one. While being one of the clearest guidelines we have, it's also one of the most widely miscited and misunderstood. Perhaps the sheer weight of the mis-citing has confused many people. --Tony Sidaway 19:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

We can confidently state that those accused of disrupting Wikipedia will claim they weren't.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you attempting to WP:OWN WP:POINT? No, don't get offended, that was a shot at humor. Alright, let's see what we have here.

"Discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with policies or the way they are implemented." Discussion, for those who don't know, is what is going on here. Unilateral action would be something like removing every spoiler tag in existence because you dislike them.

Edits are defined as "disruptive". From the "Disruptive Editing" page: "continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors." There's plenty of pro-spoiler opposition going on, yet instead of stepping back to discuss before proceeding, the anti-spoiler editors are continuing to remove them at will. While it's a bit of a stretch, I admit, it's an interesting point to consider. This is in additoin to requiring a vast number of editors to undo.

If you wish to change a guideline, WP:POINT recommends "do set up a discussion page and try to establish consensus".

In conclusion: while it may have been written to combat irony and sarcastic editing, it's still not a good idea to disrupt wikipedia to prove a point, even if your disruption is not of the examples mentioned on the page. Kuronue 01:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

What if Harry dies? According to the anti-spoiler admins, WP:LEAD is sacrosanct, even though it's only a guideline. Are we going to give away the ending in the lead, from the first hour of the release? Will this be a fine opportunity to 'burn' people who just don't get it?--Nydas^(Talk) 14:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that article will need to be protected for the first couple weeks after its release. The SKD mess wasn't pretty either. Radiant! 14:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Harry Potter's death would obviously have to be in the lead. No sense in keeping it out--if Harry Potter dies it will be on the ten o'clock news in every country. --Tony Sidaway 14:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That is extraordinarily doubtful. No news organisation in the world would want to deal with the flak for blowing the ending. Only a small number of readers will have finished the book within a day, and to ruin it would be be unspeakably unprofessional journalism.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Even granting that TV news is not very professional, some people avoid the ten o'clock news because it covers stories like that; others will avoid it until they've read the book. Wikipedia is still not a news source (as Tony keeps pointing out in other contexts); that's Wikinews. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If they avoid even the news, they're bound to avoid searching the internet for the book title, and knowing that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia they're not going to come to our article. Which will contain information about the ending. And (if he dies) almost certainly should give that information in the lead. But no, if Harry Potter dies this will be world news and will be on all channels. --Tony Sidaway 15:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This strikes me as special pleading. Please consider taking a break from one or the other of your two causes, and actually editing encyclopedic content, independent of spoilers and BLP. You'll feel better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The argument that we should suppress information about the content of novels from our encyclopedia because some of our readers may come to the article but not want to know about the book, does seem like special pleading to me. My own points above are simple refutations of the notion that we'd be alone in presenting such information. Readers are responsible for what they read and if they don't want to know about something they should avoid encyclopedias. --Tony Sidaway 23:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about suppressing information? Obviously various fansites will give away the ending without warning within an hour, and the limited worldview of the anti-spoiler admins means that we'll join them. After all, if the bloggers have blogged about it, then 'everyone will know'. Never mind that most people don't read blogs, or won't read it within a week. Fans deserve spoiler warnings. Real people don't. That's the clear message here.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

First, spoilers are not "suppressing" information, only highlighting the controversial information for readers to make their own decisions (read, stop reading). Also, I suspect you're using a crystal ball in asserting that "it will be on the news," and as I'm sure you know, OR and crystal balls are discouraged here. Let's stop soapboxing on what we think "absolutely will happen," and instead make WP a usable reference for the widest possible audience. If Harry Potter snuffs it in the last book, certainly, don't spoil the surprise for millions of readers just because we "don't like" the tag. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 14:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is that it's not our job to protect people from information they didn't want to learn. Suppose that in book seven Snape kills Dumbledore, that will be all over the internet, way beyond our power of stopping it (remember that hexadecimal string last month? Same idea). In essence, using a spoiler tag for this would be akin to placing a sign "caution: this may be wet" on the Atlantic Ocean. >Radiant< 15:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- On the other hand, if the book has plot details that must go in the lead, I, at least, would not be averse to a week or two of a spoiler tag at the very top of the article, at least until we start to see the discussion spilling into national news sources. (Much like the ending of The Sopranos was news about 24 hours after it aired.) Phil Sandifer 15:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  - And it is not clear that Potter's death must be in the lead, even if he dies. Consider The Old Curiosity Shop; the death of Little Nell is certainly the best known incident in the novel, and it's not in the lead. (I set aside the question of whether Potter may get better, like Gandalf.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    - Well, yes. I'd suggest that events that happen at the end of the book should be mentioned at the end of the "plot" section of the article. I doubt that Harry is going to die on page one :) >Radiant< 15:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
      - Finally, Radiant has raised an interesting point about nonlinearity. Let me quote: "Russian formalism divides narrative into two parts, the fabula and the sujet. The fabula is the arrangement of the events in a story in chronological order, the sequence in [which] the events occur. In contrast, the sujet is the events of the story in their order of presentation." [1] Hence, a plot summary gives us the fabula, and that's why in a plot summary spoilers can appear already at the very beginning. And if that's the case, that's exactly where we need spoiler warnings. Anyone can imagine the very first sentence of a novel going something like, "The coffin was slowly lowered into the ground, and the mourners dispersed" without the identity of the deceased being revealed for another 300 pages. <K F> 23:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The article about the novel is not the novel and the techniques of concealment and surprise are not appropriate to an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 23:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. That's exactly what I'm saying. <K F> 23:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because it's not written "in-universe" doesn't mean you cannot (or should not) be sensitive to plot spoilers! Does the article on The Prestige (film) detail the film's central mystery in the lead? I should hope not. Same if Harry dies (I say IF, as i don't know and don't care personally; but millions upon millions of readers DO care). Editors who think that "writing encyclopedia-like" means "insensitive to plot twists" need a course in creative, nonfiction writing. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 14:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd expect any good article about the film version of Christopher Priest's novel, written to Wikipedia standards, to discuss in the lead the chilling plot twist at the end: that Cutter lied to Angier when he said that drowning is a peaceful way to die. Angier's macabre method of disposing of the by-products of his trick must also be discussed. These are what makes The Prestige such a great film. --Tony Sidaway 20:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone reading the Wikipedia article on the latest Harry Potter book without realising that it is going to say what happens in the book deserves to have it spoilt. An article on a book says what happens in the book, there is no way to avoid it. Our article on the character, however, should have spoiler tags before revealing his death. Someone might, for example, want to read about the character before reading the book to remind themselves what was going on, and that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Reading the article on the book before reading the book is just silly. --Tango 15:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is it silly? What if I wanted to know how many copies of the book were sold for example, or some other marginal information? You're underestimating creative ways people can use the articles. Samohyl Jan 17:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's silly to ask us to put a horrible, ugly, insulting template into an article that tells everybody that they're about to learn something when the very reason they came to the article was to learn something. If there are things they don't want to know about, they should ask a relatively sane, levelheaded friend to search the article and tell them only the things they want to know. --Tony Sidaway 22:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

How about a template which says 'fans only, go away non-fan scum' on all our fiction articles?--Nydas^(Talk) 23:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Occasional users of Wikipedia are certainly not familiar with (ever-changing) Wikipedia policies and may actually expect to be warned. I'm not talking about each and every film or novel here (spoiler warnings after every "Plot summary" subheading are indeed redundant) but about those works where knowing all along about plot twists which are introduced towards the end do spoil the fun. I usually never read what it says on the back cover of newly published novels before I have almost finished reading them, and I don't read reviews either. I used to, with disappointing and frustrating results. I wouldn't read a Wikipedia article on a newly bought book either, but we're dealing with average people here as our target group, not Wikipedia admins. <K F> 23:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think we're dealing with average people, the kind of person who upon reading the word "plot" will think that what he is about to read is the plot. Moreover, I repeat, it's an encyclopedia, and they know it because the word "encyclopedia" is at the very top of the page. --Tony Sidaway 23:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought we were tentatively moving towards compromise, but your recent edit of From Nine to Nine, in which you removed the spoiler tag I had reintroduced only a few hours earlier, has really spoiled a lot. Weren't you the one who claimed there was little or no resistance to the wholesale removal of spoiler warnings because no one was taking the trouble to reinsert them again? Do you even realise that I only reinserted one spoiler warning (in the article on the novel cited above), i e only where I think it really belongs and not in all the novel articles I have so far edited? And aren't you the one who has warned others that they might be blocked for edit warring if they revert your edits?

As I said, your edit of From Nine to Nine has spoiled a lot. <K F> 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. I don't believe you have fully understood what I quoted above about sujet and fabula, otherwise you wouldn't have agreed with me. I think what will happen in future is that when people write new articles on novels and films they will leave out the spoilers altogether: No spoiler warnings, no spoilers. That, however, is the exact opposite of your current "encyclopaedic" efforts (and mine as well, by the way). But as you can't have read all the books whose articles you edit, you will not notice that the plot summaries are incomplete. I wonder if that's what you really want. <K F> 23:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought it irrelevant to the Deathly Hallows, which is almost certain to be told in chronological order. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:From Nine to Nine. I'm allowed to disagree with you. I think it unlikely that good plot summaries on Wikipedia will fail to discuss all important elements of the plot. --Tony Sidaway 00:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comment at Talk:From Nine to Nine only confirms my fear that you have not understood the relationship between sujet, fabula, and plot summary. Some people will not want to write "good" plot summaries if they are categorically denied the chance to use a spoiler warning. And as no AWB has yet been designed to assist you in spotting faulty summaries you won't be able to do anything about it. KF 00:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you yet appreciate that Wikipedia style guidelines say nothing about sujet and fabula. Write what you will. There is no categorical denial, please obtain consensus on the talk page if your edits are reverted. --Tony Sidaway 00:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

How, exactly, is one to obtain consensus? The minute "spoiler" shows up, you insist that it's against this policy to put one at all, and that this policy has consensus. So how would one go about obtaining a consensus that you don't like? To be fair, I'll answer my own question: if I came to the talk page for a policy with objections and most people argued against me, I'd be disgruntled, but I'd begrudgingly accept that consensus is not with me, and leave it alone. If there were an accurate straw poll (one that wasn't closed early) indicating the vast majority of editors are anti-spoiler, I'd sigh about what wiki is coming to but leave it alone. However, it seems to be the case that there are perhaps 3 or 4 editors that are willing to defend the anti-spoiler POV, and more and more people flocking to this page to argue in favor of spoilers; furthermore, the 3 or 4 that are anti-spoiler keep removing spoiler tags, insisting they have consensus because hundreds of silent, unnamed editors agree with them (hey, if I put a picture of a penis on the bicolor cat page, while a few people might revert me, there are millions of editors who don't even notice, so I must have consensus!), which to me seems to be a conspiracy of sorts. So how would one go about proving to you that there is no consensus, or acheiving a consensus you dislike? Kuronue 02:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tags are not against policy and I've never said that they were. I've never encountered a case where I had a problem reaching a reasonable working consensus on placing a spoiler tag, and I'm very liberal in what I'll tolerate. Other editors may have a different approach, but I'm not the arbiter of the eventual state of the wiki. It's all a result of hundreds of interactions across the wiki every day involving edits and discussion. --Tony Sidaway 03:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is very interesting. As a casual editor, I visited this page back when the mass edits began, and I even contributed a bit. At the time, I was not strongly for or against spoiler warnings, but simply participated in discussions.

At no time did I ever realize that I was part of a "consensus" to remove spoiler tags simply because I didn't put them back into articles when they are removed. So are you really suggesting that several editors here simply start putting them back in as quick as they can, because "'Silence equals consent' is the ultimate measure of consensus."? I refrained from reverting their removal because I thought the policy was a work in progress, not because I supported their removal. TK421 05:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes please do replace them on articles where you think they belong. I don't think anything is gained by simply sitting here and moaning about it. --Tony Sidaway 05:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright one and all, put in spoiler warnings wherever you think they belong. Go for it. TK421 05:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. This is evident to anyone who reads the guideline. --Tony Sidaway 06:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I put one back in an article some time ago because it happened to be on my watchlist anyway. I can't put them back in 45000 articles. It's just not possible, logistically. Deleting them is far easier than adding them, because deleting them can be done in a few seconds, and adding them requires reading and understanding the article. Moreover, I don't have access to the AWB software used to delete them. Ken Arromdee 17:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Besides, it's Harry Potter. How complex can a plot aimed at children be? (Okay, maybe I'm being a little sarcastic...) :) — Deckill er 16:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternate template proposal: {{current fiction}}

I think one reason some people dislike {{spoiler}} is that it seems unprofessional. And one reason some people like it is that they don't wish to affect people's enjoyment of recently released fictional works. So here's a compromise: {{current fiction}} gives this box:

Template:Current fiction

This could be put at the top of the article, like {{current}}, to clearly warn the reader that the article may give secrets away. But it doesn't force us to keep things out of the lede, either. Comments appreciated. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

While I sincerely appreciate the attempt at compromise, I think this is a problem in that it makes the spoiler warning exactly what many on the anti-warning side have a problem with - that it's essentially a blanket content disclaimer. For that matter, I don't think most pro-warning people want that either. I think most pro-warning people want targetted spoiler warnings, ones that are clear where they are, so they can feel free to read sections they want, and not the ones they don't. This works both for people looking to avoid spoilers, and for those looking to _find_ spoilers. On many occasions I've gone to a wiki page and scrolled down to find where the 'spoiler begins here' page is, and I can't believe I'm the only one who does that. They say compromise is the art of coming up with a solution that nobody is happy with, I think in this case it goes a bit too far in that. ;) Wandering Ghost 22:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I am one of those who dislikes blanket disclaimers. The point here would be to have them only for recent works, when the claimed potential for damage is the greatest, and not have them for older works, where there is an even greater expectation of professional, encyclopedic coverage. In the few cases I have seen where a spoiler tag is actually justified, part of the justification is that the work is very new. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This is good but it needs work. How about

This encyclopedia page documents a recently released work of fiction.
It may not yet contain full information on the characters and plot of the work of fiction it describes.

Notice the subtle difference of emphasis, which in my opinion makes it more suitable for an encyclopedia. The first version seems to be apologizing for including information the reader may not yet know. My version adopts a "glass half full" approach, apologizing for the article not yet being complete as it should be.. --Tony Sidaway 22:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Both versions are far more unsightly than the original spoiler tags, and the wording is extremely poor, like the guideline itself. Use the word 'spoiler' instead. It is, after all, no more a neologism than 'fandom'.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's ugly and even more intrusive than the spoiler tag. The language is better, though, because it treats the reader as if he came to the article to learn something, and not despite a perverse wish not to learn something. --Tony Sidaway 08:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The language is worse because it's verbose and redundant. Your cries of 'perversity' are as rude as they are irrelevant.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea to write any controversial part of this policy into the template. Once the template says that spoiler warnings only go on recent material, that makes it very hard to change the policy to remove the reference to recent material. It also risks forming another fake "consensus": "this template is used thousands of times and nobody's complained about limiting it to recent material. Obviously the part about recent material has consensus."

I also think the argument about a "perverse wish not to know something" is absurd. People may want to know something, yet not want to know some other thing. It isn't all knowledge or none.

Moreover, this tag has another big problem: it refers to pages and can only really be used to warn about an entire page. The tag doesn't make sense if the spoiler is halfway through a section and the spoiler warning best goes in the middle of the section. A spoiler warning at the top of the page is only appropriate if the spoiler is in the lead.

And I think this is one of the persistent misunderstandings by the anti-spoiler crowd: the idea that a spoiler warning can't be specific. No, spoiler warnings aren't redundant in plot sections; a spoiler warning can mean a spoiler's at a particular *place* in the plot section. No, the presence of the word "encyclopedia" isn't enough warning that there is information; spoiler warnings say that certain information exists *in a specific place*. And no, a spoiler warning that can only be used on a whole page is not acceptable; spoiler warnings may be used in specific places, not just on whole pages. Ken Arromdee 17:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "fandom" has a first use dating back to 1903, making it less of a neologism than "spoiler," which still isn't in the OED, by any definition. Phil Sandifer 12:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

...according to our article on fandom. It derives from sports, and I bet that's the definition still used in the OED.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

However, the literary sense goes back to the 1930's. (Our articles would indicate the late 30's or 1940, but I think we've missed some things.) Nevertheless, I find {{spoiler}} less intrusive than any box. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It does indeed derive from sports, but the OED does not treat them as separate concepts: "The world of enthusiasts for some amusement or for some artist; also in extended use." Phil Sandifer 18:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

(←) I don't find it more intrusive than a spoiler tag. I'm conditioned to ignore lots of boxes at the top of an article, as a result Category:Cleanup templates. I'm not conditioned to ignore random warnings interspersed with the text of an article.

The word spoiler strikes my ear as unprofessional as it is used here strikes my ear as amateur, and I would really rather not see it in any text we produce.

Tony Sidaway, I think your proposed language is too clever. If the point of the box is to warn the users about content (ignoring for the moment whether that is necessary), the warning shouldn't be disguised. Example: "Warning: the voltage on this fence might not yet be high enough to kill you if you touch it."

Also, I have learned of {{future film}}, and I think this complements it nicely. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be clever, but to remove damaging assumptions from the tag. As it stands it seems to assume that people come to Wikipedia to avoid learning something. That there exist some people who do indeed do this doesn't give us an obligation to pander to them by warning them of those (hopefully very common) situations in which they might learn something they didn't know on Wikipedia. As an encyclopedia we should not apologise for, or warn about, the fact that we're in the business of disseminating information. The word "encyclopedia" at the top of the page is quite enough. --Tony Sidaway 16:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should never apologize for that. I tried to make the wording as neutral as possible – it doesn't say the details should be avoided or sought out, only that they may be present. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

When you imply that nobody comes to Wikipedia to avoid learning something, you're lumping together all "somethings" into one category. Once you realize that "something" can be specific, yes, people do come to Wikipedia while trying not to learn certain things. They come to learn *other* things--there are two categories of "something", some of which they want to know and some of which they want to avoid.

Moreover, a spoiler warning is more specific than the word "encyclopedia". "Encylopedia" just means "this contains information". A spoiler warning means "this contains a particular type of information in a particular place". One cannot substitute for the other. Ken Arromdee 17:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

People who come to an encyclopedia to avoid learning things should probably be discouraged, because they're coming to the wrong place. --Tony Sidaway 18:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The encyclopedia is the wrong place to come if you want to know nothing at all.

But who says the encyclopedia is the wrong place to come if you want to learn some things but not other things?

You're continuing to confuse these two by using the phrase "avoid learning things" to describe them both, even though they are very different. It's obvious that if someone wants to learn nothing at all, an encyclopedia is the wrong place, but it's *not* obvious that if someone wants to learn some things but not others, the encyclopedia is the wrong place. Ken Arromdee 02:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly I understand what you're saying. I'm saying that it's the wrong place to come to, and rather than put silly tags all over the place we should just ensure that people who come here don't mistake Wikipedia for an information source that is geared towards conniving with them in their wish to remain selectively ignorant. --Tony Sidaway 02:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(←) There are other areas where that claim could be made. Wikipedia is not censored, and we include lots of information that people might like to avoid. We have images which might be considered obscene or pornographic. We have images of things that several major religions find offensive or sacred. We have articles describing private aspects of religions. We have information on illegal drugs and suicide methods. None of these things carries a warning that the reader might want to avoid it, because there is a reasonable expectation that an encyclopedia will cover things in a thorough, neutral manner. Warnings have been proposed many times but never accepted by the community. In comparison to truly sensitive and controversial topics such as these, "spoilers" are extremely inoffensive and unimportant, and there is no reason for them to carry general disclaimers. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, that's exactly why we MUST have the warnings! They don't do any harm, see! Whereas, the other pages, people can just forget about, while finding out the ending to Romeo and Juliet will spoil people's lives forever and ever and ever! (and ever!) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Melodia, please note how spoiler-favoring editors are refraining from mocking you or yours. Neither are they trivializing opposing arguments off-hand, using what have been repeatedly and quite unopposedly stated to be extreme examples, or disregarding attempts at discussion in favor of inane gobbledygook. They are also not gloating in their apparent victory. Thank you. --Kizor 14:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Attempts at discussion? I haven't seen anything new on the table in days, if not a couple weeks. Sure, people keep discussing, but they say the same thing over and over again. I'm sorry if you were offended by my sarcasm, but if I have to read about those 45,000 edits one more time... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

...then please work out your frustration by going to yell at a houseplant, which will enjoy the carbon dioxide. --Kizor 16:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, informal polls indicate spoiler warnings are useful for a lot of people. I am not sure if the same can be said about the obscenity warnings (it should be obvious from the lead section what the subject is about). Usually, if people find something offensive, they want to censor it from other people too, not just themselves (some could for example set up filtering software to filter pages containing such warnings). Spoilers are special, because by having spoiler warnings (or avoiding spoilers at all, but nobody wants this Wikipedia to do, I think) you are giving user more freedom, not less. Also, I read the discussion about general warnings a little, and the common problem here was to define what exactly is objectionable. But in 99% of cases there is a consensus about what constitutes a spoiler. Samohyl Jan 21:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What about people who want to keep possibly obscene or sacred material from themselves (personal preference) but don't care if others see it? That would give them "more freedom, not less" but we would never accept a warning message for obscene material. In fact, your argument would be even more compelling for obscene material than for spoilers, but it's routinely rejected in that context. As you say, the lede section and title are enough warning – spoilers are no different. You're right that obscenity warnings are rejected partly because once they exist everything ends up tagged. It appears that's exactly what happened, unnoticed, with the spoiler tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to correct misnamed spoiler "warnings" as spoiler "notices"

"What about people who want" Here we go again with the "warning" red herring. Let's put a stop to this irrelevant sideshow debate. There are plenty of genuine disputes — this isn't one of them.

Spoiler tags aren't true warnings, they are just named that way for dramatic promotion of fictional surprises. Bone fide warnings are primarily defined in relation to danger:

"...:a notice or bulletin that alerts the public to an imminent hazard (as a tornado, thunderstorm, or flood)" (m-w.com)

Even though religious extremists persist in a belief that obscenity is a danger rather than a cultural competition, and so claim obscenity warnings are needed at Wikipedia, none of those same extremists would claim that spoilers are dangerous to anyone, anywhere.

The maximum risk of reading a spoiler is that one may become disappointed by learning a surprise detail too soon. Disappointment is not dangerous, therefore spoiler tags aren't warnings, therefore spoiler tags are logically unrelated to Wikipedia warning policies.

I propose that supporters of spoiler tagging agree to stop using the term "warning", work to remove the term "warning" from the spoiler guide (except to dismiss the term as confusing), and remind any future poster who uses the term here that 'Spoiler tags should not be called warnings — everyone agrees spoilers pose no danger.' Milo 00:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If spoiler tags aren't warnings then they're simple clutter and should be removed on sight. --Tony Sidaway 00:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Not relevant, but it's a humorous extremism. Anyway, I laughed. Milo 03:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well they're warnings. If they don't perform a warning function they're valueless. --Tony Sidaway 06:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"Well they're warnings" If you dispute the dictionary's definition of a common word, then that's your private language not permitted in Wikipedia.

"don't perform a warning function they're valueless" 40+% of editors/readers disagree with you that spoiler tags are valueless, even though they don't give notice of imminent danger and thus can't be warnings.

Either way, your extreme positions are isolated and irrelevant. Milo 14:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Carl, if there is an evidence that significant number of people want to censor obscenity from themselves, not others, and they can actually agree what is obscene, then I may reconsider my opinion on "no disclaimers in articles". IMHO, the generalization of rules by analogies shouldn't go too much against usefulness. Also, I would like to see a significant user case for this, ie. at least several tens of articles containing both objectionable content someone would like to censor from himself and other content he could find useful. But I am afraid that history shows that people who care about obscene and sacred things usually want to censor it to others. Spoiler warnings don't have these problems. Samohyl Jan 05:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"Spoiler warnings don't have these problems" That would be because they are not warnings — there is no danger. Milo 14:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What function does a spoiler tag perform? --Tony Sidaway 19:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

A spoiler tag, not being a true warning or a caution, is a notice. Wikipedia routinely uses notices in articles.

In the attention centerhead/sidehead hierarchy of technical writing:

Warning flags danger to humans (e.g., laptop computer batteries that may catch fire);
Caution flags non-dangerous malfunction risk to equipment and software, or potential loss of something of value (such as key entry labor preceding a program crash); and
Notice (or Note, or just the bare notice text) flags every other information text that's worthy of centerhead/sidehead or boxed attention.

Specifically, a spoiler tag is a forward-looking content notice, categorically similar to the boxed table of contents notice and disambiguation notices.

A spoiler notice functions inversely similar to a disambiguation notice, since a disambiguation notice primarily informs the reader of what will not be found in the article — a 'non-content' notice — although they often mention what will be found in the article as well. Milo 21:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact still remains, though, that all other meta-templates (that is, words about the content rather than the content itself) are meant to be temporary, outside of the disambig notices and redirects at the tops of articles. Why should spoilers be different? As for warning vs notice, one could EASILY say. "Notice: Nude photo follows" or "Notice: Curse words follow", etc etc. ? Melodia Chaconne ? 21:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"outside of the disambig notices " Spoiler tags should have the same status as disambig notices because, along with the contents box, they are all content notices.

"Notice: Nude photo follows" The only people who demand to say that also claim a danger; and danger requires a warning, not a notice. Milo 19:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's amazing the poor arguments that get used here. www.m-w.com has one definition of "warning" as "something that warns"... and then the definition of "warn" includes

c : to call to one's attention : INFORM

A spoiler warning informs people that a spoiler is present; contrary to the person who referred to www.m-w.com above, that dictionary does classify spoiler warnings as warnings. Ken Arromdee 02:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You apparently missed reading or didn't understand "Bone fide warnings are primarily defined in relation to danger". "To warn" necessarily includes a secondary element of "to inform", but "to inform" does not necessarily include an element of "to warn".

"To warn" has a primary meaning of communicating danger. Demoting the critical importance of "to warn", by promoting its secondary included meaning of "to inform", is rhetorically inaccurate and potentially a cultural threat. The corollary misusage of promoting a notice text to the status of a warning is an equivalently inaccurate exaggeration.

While "spoiler warning" is a phrase relating to a fictional context, I think a sense of rhetorical dishonesty is one of the several identified reasons why it is viscerally disliked. The cure for this reason is to cease use of the inaccurate term "warning" for text which is merely a notice. Milo 19:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet there is general agreement that we don't warn people about genuinely offensive content – obscenity, pornography, heresy. Why should we leave those things unmarked but mark many spoilers, which are much less serious? — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

My theory is that spoiler warnings are different because they're also useful for people seeking out information. You don't generally have people who look would come to wikipedia to look for obscenity related to Doctor Who. Or who would come here for nudity that relates to Doctor Who. Or for heresy which relates to Doctor Who. (Or, for that matter, any of those warnings for any non-fictional topics that might apply). However, you do have people who might want to read spoilers as they relate to Doctor Who, and, for that matter, only that. They might also want the reverse, things about Doctor Who which are not spoilers. For this, the spoiler warnings are a useful tool, to find the specific information they seek quickly. We can't use subject headings (which also allow people to learn some things and not others. Screw you if you're not interested in someone's 'Early Life!', the biography should have no subheadings. Hell, there shouldn't be a heading, that way you've got to read the whole damn article to find what you're looking for, and learn as much as possible!) , everyone knows and pretty well agrees to that, so this a compromise state that's existed for a while. We tag the areas that are spoilers with a notice that can be seen while scrolling. I know it's helped me.

Also, generally speaking, the other warnings are all-or-nothing warnings, or CYA warnings. You put them at the top of a page and a person who's potentially offended with either go away (I don't want to see nudity, so I'm not looking at this article), or if they do, they've consented to not be offended. People won't say "Oh, there's a nudity warning, so I'll just read everything up to the nudity and I'll be okay." Or "Hmmm, it says there might be content that offends me. I'll just stop reading when I might get offended." That's just not how people generally use the other warnings. But it _is_ how people use spoiler warnings, because they're best used targetted. Large numbers of people be perfectly willing to read much of the article up to the spoiler part. For those who wish not to know spoilers _but DO WISH TO LEARN OTHER THINGS_ about the subject at the quality wikipedia is capable of, rather than feel compelled to go to another site that has spoiler warnings, it's courtesy and helps them get information they want. The fact that some people think it looks ugly or unprofessional is far less relevant to me. Wandering Ghost 12:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(←) If people want a review, or an advertisement, or a trailer, then going to another site is appropriate. They should only come here if they want an encyclopedic article on the subject. I think it is perfectly reasonable for people, for example, to look at an infobox but not read the plot section if they don't want to learn the plot. Dr Who is not the best example, by the way; all the spoiler warnings seem to have been left off those articles for several days. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Telling users what they should do is the best way to alienate them. Samohyl Jan 13:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If they're alienated, does that mean they'll choose a more suitable source of information? --Tony Sidaway 14:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you going on record as wanting to alienate users who come to Wikipedia seeking non-spoiling fiction information? Milo 19:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like the potential reader to accurately assess Wikipedia as an information source for works on fiction and act accordingly. This means that people who come here expressly not to learn something should look elsewhere for a website that is willing to connive with them in their quest for ignorance. --Tony Sidaway 08:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Paperwork

I've removed this bit from that the 'recent works' section: "Make a note on the talk page that the spoiler warning is intended to be temporary." Users shouldn't have to complete meaningless paperwork to add spoiler tags.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. The tag's currency is easily checked. If nothing appears on the talk page and the film is no longer current, the tag has obviously expired. --Tony Sidaway 18:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Match Point

I added a spoiler tag to the Inspiration/Adaptation sction of this article which I belive met all the criteria in this guidline but it has been repeatedly removed. Perhaps some of the contributors here would like to comment on this. Tomgreeny 21:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're putting it in but other editors are removing it, possibly the argument for inclusion isn't very compelling. --Tony Sidaway 22:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah. A spoiler tag may be justified with compelling reasons. How can you tell which reasons are or aren't compelling? Easy: removal of the tag means that they aren't. --Kizor 15:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

By george, I think he's got it! --Tony Sidaway 08:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Persuasive arguments vs. compelling reasons

I've restored the wording as "compelling reasons" rather than "persuasive arguments." Part of what is communicated here is that spoiler warnings should be needed rather than just wanted. The word "compelling" gives a sense of that - it's not enough to convince a random group of people on the talk page that it would be nice to have a spoiler warning. What is necessary is to offer a reason that would persuade any given person, rather than the group of people that happen to be discussing it. Phil Sandifer 21:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any reason exists that will persuade every single Wikipedia editor, I don't see why we need to set the bar any higher than "consensus" here. Tomgreeny 22:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Convincing every editor is too high of a bar, but that was likely just a misspoken description. I think the point is that the reason cannot be one that would apply to nearly every plot summary, but must explain why this particular plot detail is so much different than the average plot detail that it deserves a spoiler tag. For example, every plot has an ending, so the reason "it's the ending" isn't by itself sufficient for a spoiler tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And in response to Tomgreeny's comment, we're not setting the bar any higher than consensus. But consensus also isn't about the people who happen to show up for a given discussion. It could be compared to the legal concept of what a "reasonable person" would do, think, or believe. The goal is not just to persuade those present, but to persuade an imagined ideal editor, if you will. See also Original position. Phil Sandifer 02:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so we're deciding based on the opinion of User:Ideal editor? Well, this should be simple enough. See, User:Ideal editor almost perfectly resembles me in his opinions, only without the flaws that I recognize in myself. Shockingly enough, he shares my opinion on spoiler warnings in every situation I encounter. I'm pretty sure your ideal editor is the same way.

To be serious, there's a flaw with that idea. Specifically, since there's no single ideal agreed upon position on the morality nor the detriment/benefit of spoiler warnings, there's no single position for User:Ideal editor to take. So while User:Ideal editor probably won't be killing anyone in his real life, or abusing fair use images, or assuming bad faith, and certainly won't break 3RR or make legal threats, his opinion on spoiler warnings is going to be a bit too quantum for our use. I think we need to just use normal consensus here. --tjstrf talk 03:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, see, we have already thought of that: m:MPOV. The original position (which you should read about) doesn't eliminate debate, or assume universal agreement in empirical practice. It's a theoretical construct. Phil Sandifer 03:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

'Compelling reason' means whatever the anti-spoiler brigade want it to. There's no requirement to be fair or consistent, so what's good enough for Doctor Who will not be good enough for Bionicle, because of their biases. If you have to start using philosophical concepts like original position to explain it, then it definitely has to be removed. All it does is encourage people to waste their time trying to satisfy the whims of the anti-spoiler brigade.

I'm not aware of any other Wikipedia guideline or policy which uses 'compelling reasons' instead of actual guidance. Imagine if WP:WEB, instead of the clear guidance it gives now, had 'editors wishing demonstrate notability to must provide a compelling reason'.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Dr Who is not the best example; the spoiler tags seem to have been removed a couple days ago and not reinserted, and no Dr Who article currently has one. The difficulty in giving clear guidance is that the fiction spectrum is extremely broad, including movies, tv shows, books, comic books, games, and likely more. In any case, the point is that the justification for including a spoiler tag in a plot section needs to be more than "it contains the ending." — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That's another "nobody bothered to restore the spoiler warnings, so obviously there's consensus to leave them out" argument. With tens of thousands of spoiler warnings removed, it's very unlikely that any particular warning or group of warnings is going to be restored. This proves only that the logistics of restoring that many is impossible. Ken Arromdee 13:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not a particularly good example to use in this context: the Doctor Who articles are very heavily patrolled by the associated WikiProject, and you can be assured that the spoiler warnings will be restored wherever appropriate (assuming obviously that your idea of what is appropriate matches theirs): they certainly seem to be very prompt in dealing with images when being used inappropriately. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"Spoiler warnings may be temporarily added for very new media"

I'm a bit confused about the following:

Spoiler warnings may be temporarily added for very new media (TV shows aired in the last three months, movies released in the past six months, or books released in the past year).

As this is currently phrased, it doesn't really mean anything. Is is supposed to mean that spoilers should only be used for very new media? Are there supposed to be a special kind of "temporary spoilers" just for very recent releases? So, firstly I think this needs some clarification.

My view of this is that I don't think that restricting spoilers to only recently produced media is sensible: The argument that seems to have been presented is that consumers of the work will read/view/whatever it within a given time frame of its being published. This seems to disregard people who only encounter the work several years afer its release, and want some more background on it without having the plot details given away. Although there seems to be a good reason for certain historical, very widely-known works of fiction to not include spoilers simply out of their fame and pervasiveness, I think this is something that should be left to the editors of individual pages to form consensus on, and not included in the style guideline. -Kieran 13:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's an attempt by the anti-spoiler crowd to restrict spoilers as much as possible without actually getting rid of 100% of them, by defining the appropriate circumstances so that almost nothing is appropriate. Of course the limit to recent media isn't sensible. There's no real consensus for it; it's just about all from one side. Ken Arromdee 13:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You do potentially have a point. Let's see how the discussion develops, and if it is generally agreed that this is unreasonable, then it can be removed. Keep cool, though, you're getting worked up. -Kieran 13:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a silly line to draw - first of all, those windows are, in 95% of cases, too long. They would support still having a spoiler warning on the final episode of The Sopranos, which has been parodied by Presidential candidates. Similarly, the spoiler on Utopia (Doctor Who) was wholly appropriate for the few days it was there, but would be insane to have now, when the central revelation has been revealed on magazine covers. Second of all, and worse, those windows aren't even always too long - one of the few articles with a sensible spoiler warning right now, Sōsuke Aizen, deals with material that aired well outside the three-month window. It just aired in Japan, whereas the vast majority of people who read the article in the English Wikipedia are going to experience the twist in English. Accordingly, it's spoiler warninged, and it should be for a good deal longer than those windows suggest.

Which is why white line distinctions are a poor idea here - worse, in fact, than the old version of the guideline. Where that encouraged poor judgment, white line distinctions encourage no judgment whatsoever. Phil Sandifer 13:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, since the sentence as it currently stands doesn't really say anything, I'm going to remove it for now. There hasn't been a lot of discussion yet, though, so if someone can come up a form that everyone agrees on, then please put that in. -Kieran 13:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Since I was the one to write that part as part of my 'compromise guideline' attempt, although I'm fine with the section being edited or removed (I was more throwing a draft of the section out there as an attempt to be complete, and, in the wiki spirit, hoped others would bang it into better shape than my initial thoughts), I just want to clarify that my intention was not on the anti-spoiler-warning side. It was more intended to say "spoiler warnings are okay for new media, without debate" rather than "spoiler warnings are okay for new media (and by the lack of clarification, they're not okay for old media)", as an attempt to divide things into 3 categories as some had suggested - things which should require no warning, things for which the need for a warning is debatable and should be reached by local consensus, and things for which warnings should be allowed to stay pretty well no matter what.

But of course when some of the changes I suggesed made their way into the guideline, it was done incompletely and sadly in some ways made it even more spoiler-phobic. I still really think there needs to be some form of a 'no spoiler patrol' (in either direction) rule, where if your only interest in editing an article or joining a discussion is to add or remove a spoiler warning, and you're doing that on multiple pages, then you shouldn't do it at all.

I'll be happy resting with the policy if there's something like that in there, so the anti-warning crowd doesn't keep removing spoilers or jumping into debates to vote 'no warning' to skew the numbers, and we can actually get an idea of what the consensus is from people who actually use the pages. Likewise, the pro-warning side shouldn't do it either, but it seems the anti-warning side that seems to be the most reluctant to give up that power. And no wonder, what a power it is, when aided by the ability to seek out spoiler warnings and use things like AWB. It's simple math: If 10 people do that, then any page with less than 10 people interested in watching the page for reasons other than spoiler patrols, and all the potentially thousands of different editors on those pages, get automatically overruled, _whatever_ their vote, by those first 10 obsessive people. But wikipedia is not a battlefield, and so there should be no terror of giving up weapons the other side doesn't have. We're all supposedly trying to reach consensus.

Anyway, getting back to my initial point and the topic, if we were going to go that compromise route (where there's "not okay", "okay", and "debatable and resolved by local consensus" categories), it might be better to actually split up the guideline that way, rather than a "when it's okay" and "when it's not okay" that occasionally cross over with each other and it being a little unclear about where the 'debatable' actually comes in. Wandering Ghost 14:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Change guideline tag to proposal

According to Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines, "A proposal is any suggested guideline, policy or process for which the status of consensus is not yet clear, as long as discussion is ongoing.". Clearly discussion on this policy is still ongoing, and consensus has not been reached. I don't know if consensus was actually reached at some point in the past (in which case I would appreciate if someone could provide a link to the relevant section of the talk page). Just looking at the amount of ongoing discussion on this issue, however, it seems quite clear that the proposed guideline does not reflect consensus, and that it should not be tagged as such.

This is not to say that work shouldn't be done to try and reach consensus, but it looks like we have a long way to go on that. -Kieran 13:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the "controversy" here is mainly that the handful of people who doggedly oppose this guideline haven't gotten bored, whereas most of the people who saw this as sensible have better things to do than repeat the same points for over a month. There is, in reality, very litttle opposition to this guideline, and less thoughtful opposition. Phil Sandifer 13:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about "controversy". Just looking at the number of names of people who are unhappy with the guideline, I would say that there are more who are unhappy with its current form than are happy. There are also a large number of unresolved RfCs. For a guideline to be considered policy it needs to have consensus. This one doesn't. -Kieran 14:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that's Phil's point. There seems to be a silent majority at work here (or to be more precise, a loud minority, dunno if there's any term for that). Those unhappy with it are the ones speaking out, while those who are happy either left the discussion, or never came in the first place. The issue, though, is that it seems with the way things have gone, there either can't be consensus, or there already is and a few people are just blasting words to try and fight it (I still don't understand how consensus is formed in such situations...it seems as if it's impossible if there's simply a few outspoken people on one side, even if the large majority agrees....but eh.) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 14:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

However, it does seem that this page has gone through a few proposed -> guideline - > proposed - > guideline cycles before, and that the productive thing will be to rather try and modify it to reflect consensus. While it's under dispute, though, I'm going to put a disputed tag on instead. -Kieran 14:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"others claim it was Nixon's way of dismissing the obvious protests going on around the country, and Nixon's attempt to get other Americans not to listen to the protests." Silent Majority seems wholly appropriate here, no? Kuronue 15:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Piffle. We've moved firmly into the realm of asking the other parent here. There is no consensus for widespread use of spoiler tags and, from the lack of outcry in their removal, not even much opposition. A few dogged opponents of this guideline continue to protest here in the hopes that eventually the majority, which was not, in fact, silent at the time this guideline was discussed, will wander off and they can quietly change it back. Phil Sandifer 15:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There's plenty of opposition, although the anti-spoiler brigade will never admit it, since they've been hiding behind a dodgy 'consensus' since day two.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

While I hide my righteous indignation a bit better, I have to agree. The rewrite of the spoiler guideline started after two days on an RfC on a "consensus" that evaporated as soon as public announcement was made (and taken down two days later, with the edit summary "get on with your lives".) Since then we've had more of a 60-40 situation, and the hardliner sixties have steadfastly refused to budge an inch. --Kizor 19:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the state of this guideline to its state prior to the recent silliness. --Tony Sidaway 21:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove the guideline dispute tag when there is a guideline content dispute? Milo 22:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no significant opposition to the guideline. --Tony Sidaway 22:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The "silent majority" argument (most people would act against the guideline) is a thin ice. By this logic, before May, there was a consensus by silent majority to have spoiler warnings in lot of articles, plot sections, etc. for like 3 years. So why it did changed so suddenly? Actually, I have reasons to believe it didn't. SWs were added by many editors over time, but removed by only a few, and almost simultaneously, this guideline was set up. And some people even complained they couldn't participate in the discussion before this was changed from proposal to guideline (it happened in one week). Samohyl Jan 05:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputed Dispute tag poll

(Copied from #Change guideline tag to proposal)

"Why did you remove the guideline dispute tag when there is a guideline content dispute? Milo 22:15, 25 June 2007"

" There is no significant opposition to the guideline. --Tony Sidaway 22:18, 25 June 2007"

The Help Desk told me that only one editor with a talk page explanation is needed to place a dispute tag, but that there are no formal rules for such things. Therefore, the editors who have placed the dispute tag have as valid a claim as Tony's claim of "no significant opposition to the guideline". This calls for a poll, to determine whether or not there is a dispute with the Wikipedia:Spoiler guideline to be indicated by a Dispute tag. Milo 00:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Poll question: Is there a taggable dispute?

Putting aside your opinion of the guideline itself, do you agree that there is a Wikipedia:Spoiler guideline dispute and that a guideline Dispute tag should be in place?

Agree, a dispute exists and a dispute tag should be placed. Milo 00:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Duh Hello? Dispute about whether disputed or not = dispute. BTW, Look at the this talk page! Sethie 01:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Duh This, that we're participating in, is a dispute. The real question is, what does Tony have to gain by suppressing that information? Kuronue 01:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. This page used to be archived once per year, and look at the last month. Samohyl Jan 05:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Though I doubt if even tagging it will stop certain people from 'enforcing' the guideline anyway.Wandering Ghost 12:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Enough with the polls. The guideline has been working very well for weeks. If you think it needs to be changed in some way, change it and we'll see if there is consensus for your change. --Tony Sidaway 00:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Polls are evil and anyway, the problem that the supporters have by this point gone on to other useful things isn't going to disappear with a poll. Phil Sandifer 01:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the guideline itself is in opposition, but clearly the mass warning removal has opposition. In other words, how people are applying the guideline, not so much the guideline itself. I was hoping that we'd be able to ease people into this, but the change was too much and too sudden. This would have gone a lot smoother if the warnings were not removed via scripts. There is a dispute on how people are handling spoiler warnings. Originally I was opposed to tagging the page as disputed, but I'm not sure where else we would note the dispute. -- Ned Scott 02:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

- I can't believe there is a dispute going on about if there is a dispute on this page or not. Can't we all just play nice and build an encyclopedia? Darth Griz98 03:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

^ Examples include GameFAQs, Television Without Pity, and TV.com.
^ Macnab, Geoffrey. "BFI - Sight & Sound - The Lives of Others (2006)". Retrieved 2007-05-28.
^ An explicit spoiler mentions the work of fiction concerned.

[1] Examples include GameFAQs, Television Without Pity, and TV.com.

[2] Macnab, Geoffrey. "BFI - Sight & Sound - The Lives of Others (2006)". Retrieved 2007-05-28.

[3] An explicit spoiler mentions the work of fiction concerned.

[1]

[2]

[3]

Archives