Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 0

Wikipedia talk:Warn readers about spoilers/Archive 1

Supporters of this rule include

• Koyaanis Qatsi (but please include some plot description above the spoiler warning. Update: June 7, 2003: this spoiler warning is so universally abused that I'm leaning away from it altogether, and beginning to dislike it intensely. There's no reason to have a spoiler warning before a brief plot description such as one would find on the back of a VHS cover or paperback book, yet I keep finding them there.),
• Larry Sanger,
• tbc, Robert Merkel,
• maveric149 (yes for works of popular culture, no for more academic, old or historical works—this will change as time goes by)
• Martin
• KF (especially as far as unexpected twists and turns of the plot are concerned; as to crime fiction and whodunnits in particular, the spoiler warning should be placed at the very beginning of the article or at least immediately after the introductory paragraph)
• Smack
• Card I would prefer articles which avoided spoilers altogether, but sometimes this isn't practical or feasible. Giving the warning when necessary is a Good Thing.
• User:Nathanlarson32767 I think it's a useful service to the reader to let them know not to read any further if they don't want to spoil the experience of watching the movie.

Opponents include

• The Cunctator,
• Josh Grosse (not that we should tell people the butler did it, but in historical and mythological materials the audience might as well know—thinking of the Odyssey here),
• 24 (let's give 'em the answers to the test on Friday too),
• Eclecticology (If they know the conclusion, the time they save from watching the movie can be used to write a Wikipedia article)
• Tristanb, I'm not strongly opposed... but when I don't want to know the American Idol result before it's on TV here, I don't look it up on the net.
• Fonzy The word synopsis in a heading is enough for me to know that i will get the storyline.
• stewacide — highly unencyclopedic.
• Goatherd — It's lame and I'm tired of seeing it. No need to "warn" about the presence of information. Perhaps not as bad as the stub message though.
• Jie — Placing a spoiler warning smacks of a celebrity fan site and not of a serious encyclopedia. What encyclopedia you've seen has spoiler warnings? If we want Wikipedia to be treated seriously as an encylopedia and not as some sort of movie or book database, then we should get rid of spoiler warnings altogether.
• Zosodada - I'm in agreement with the above; this nasty "netiquette" habit reeks of appealing to the lowest common denominator. Not only is it unencyclopedic, it is un-literate. It is also "netiquette" to use shorthand in casual communications (e.g. "LOL"), but one certainly wouldn't expect to find "LOL" in a formal document that attempts to attain the highest standards. While this affectation might be more acceptable in articles about Agathie Christie mysteries or films with shocking twist-endings, the suggestion that every film article needs a spoiler is shortsighted and naieve. Does an article Mel Gibson's "the Passion" need a spoiler to discuss the crucifiction scene? I think we all already know the ending to that one at least. Moreover, the enjoyment of a film is in the journey, not the destination. Why else would great films be deserving of multiple viewings? Knowing, for instance, that Alex is rehabilitated and back during the course of A Clockwork Orange doesn't spoil it for me.
• Cjnm - Strongly agree with Jie. For the new Wikipedia reader, it undermines the image of the encyclopedia by making professionally-written articles look like some kind of amateur internet site. For the regular reader, it's irritating and tiresome. As a bare minimum avoid the word "spoiler" which is internet culture not general use.

---

I think that the current text is effective—it says "Warning" after all—but I know it's not the best. Anyone want to make up a better one?

---

I suggest changing the text to "Warning: Plot details follow". Since the spoiler warning is typically used directly within the text of the article and not at the top, it makes sense to use a text that is more specific. Furthermore, I am mildly concerned about the text "Wikipedia contains spoilers." Wikipedia should avoid referencing itself in articles, so that it is easy to re-use its material elsewhere. --Eloquence 05:12 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I can buy the deletion of "Wikipedia", but "spoiler" is more succinct and accurate than "plot details"—book jackets offer plot details too, just not enough to spoil the suspense. How about just "Warning: spoilers follow"? Stan 05:35 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I would like to see some context markup that lets you put the warning and the spoiling material inside some kind of box, so that

• The warning can go where the spoiling material is,
• The spoiling material can go at its 'natural' location in the article,
• People who don't want to see the spoilers can see at-a-glance how far to skip. (I.e., to the end of the spoilerbox.)

Presumably that could be done with some kind of table to create the box. At any rate, the warning itself needs to be both local and preemptory ("Spoilers Follow!") or it will not do readers any good. The traditional "Wikipedia contains spoilers" will not do newbies any good regardless of where it appears.

--- B.Bryant 05:44 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I don't like complicated boxes, but I think the warning could be indented with a ":". --Eloquence

It would be nice to just get everyone to use <spoiler></spoiler> tags around spoiling material. Then as a consensus emerges or changes re what the message should say and how the spoiling material should be separated from the text, the Wiki engine could be modified to render the tagged material appropriately and you'd get instant global conformance to the consensus. `--- B.Bryant 06:37 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Some people (especially avid moviegoers like myself) would consider nearly any plot detail to be a spoiler. The term "spoiler" is subjective, and that is why it needs to be used before the plot synopsis is given. -- goatasaur

That's true, but you still need to clearly mark how far a reader needs to skip to miss the spoilers. Also, sometimes an informed discussion of a book or movie will need to make spoilish statements in places other than the plot synopsis. --- B.Bryant 06:37 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Is "spoilers" a term that is generally used and understood in English, or only on the Internet? --Eloquence 05:51 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I can't quite believe we decided the photograph of a clitoris was perfectly ok, but that people should be protected from the ending of Ernie Goes to the Beach. CGS 06:26 24 Jun 2003 (UTC).

Maybe it's a bad ending. --Eloquence

Warning: Wikipedia contains spoilers

He goes to the beach. CGS 06:29 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I don't like the new spoiler warning, and I'm changing it to a new, non-self-referential form. It's not true that all plot details are spoilers; it is apparent in describing a movie you've seen where the spoilers are. Reviewers know that and typically work around them, though if it's a movie they hate emphatically, they may deliberately spoil it for the readers. A second point I emphatically dislike, which I guess follows from the first, is when the spoiler warning appears in articles before any plot description. If people are that averse to reading about a movie's plot, they shouldn't read about movies at all. And, again, if I had known some Wikipedians would take the "policy" to such extremes, I wouldn't have lobbied for it to begin with. Koyaanis Qatsi 22:33 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hm, OK, I can agree with what you said,[sic] I just don't like the text "Spoiler warning: Spoilers follow", because it sounds like something approved by the Department of Redundancy Department. I would like this to be a catchy phrase. "Wikipedia contains spoilers" is catchy, but unfortunately self-referential. How about something tongue-in-cheek like "Spoiler warning: The following details may adversely affect your enjoyment"? Well, I won't change it until I have any good ideas. --Eloquence 23:05 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

What was wrong with "Warning: Wikipedia contains spoilers"? If the self ref needs to be removed then just say "Spoilers follow" or "Warning: spoilers follow." --mav

I'm fond of "Wikipedia contains spoilers", self-reference be damned. It reminds users that other articles they come across may be spoilery, and it just has a nice ring to it. Phil Bordelon 06:00 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I guess the word "Wikipedia" is something of an impediment to our sub-licensees, so non-ideal. Not important, though. Martin

I don't like it because it's not too clear. To reduce awkwardness, it would be better to use "Warning: Contains spoilers", so that it's fully clear that it means "this article contains spoilers", rather than "Wikipedia as a whole contains spoliers". Although it's obvious, when you're reading an article about a movie or a book, you're looking for info about the movie or book, not about Wikipedia. – Olathe November 30, 2003

I changed back (unfortunately before checking this discussion) to the "Wikipedia contains spoilers" text, as that's what's on Wikipedia:Boilerplate text. If there is a consensus to change to a new warning format, please update both simultaneously so things are consistent. --Delirium 09:07, Aug 30, 2003 (UTC)

I plan on changing all uses to "Warning: Contains spoilers" fairly soon, unless there are objections – Olathe November 30, 2003

What do you mean all uses??? --KF 21:44, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious, just look at what I replied to ("please update both simultaneously so things are consistent.").

Also, after reading the boilerplate article, and noting the useless argument about whether to prepend "Warning" or "Note" to the thing, I have now decided to change it to "Spoilers follow". This will have three benefits: it will make it readily apparent where the spoilers are (which was a point by B.Bryant above), it clarifies that the comment is about the article, rather than some off-the-cuff comment about Wikipedia in general (which is bad style), and it eliminates the pointless argument about whether to call it a warning or a note.

And, now that I think about it, why have the argument in the first place. Who says there has to be a consistent (boilerplate) snippet of text to begin with ? So that we can have endless quarrels over nothing ? – Olathe November 30, 2003

Thanks for explaining things to people like myself who are a bit slow on the uptake. If it had been obvious to me, I wouldn't have asked: I was afraid you were going to run some bot changing all spoiler warnings in already existing articles, which I wouldn't have liked at all. --KF 22:07, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm sometimes a bit slow in getting things also (especially technical things). Sorry for the abruptness. – Olathe December 1, 2003

---

Added No Way Out as (to my mind) the supreme example of a movie with a plot twist. Unfortunately I don't remember the movie as a whole well enough to write the article for it :p

---

I've gone ahead and changed the boilerplate in this article and Wikipedia:Boilerplate text (see reasoning above in a few different threads). I haven't changed any actual articles yet, in case there are objections from people who haven't gotten on Wikipedia recently.

I'm thinking of archiving the whole discussion in a few weeks or so (to allow new discussion topics without a lot of clutter) if there aren't any major objections (to the new boilerplate or the archiving). – Olathe December 1, 2003

---

Harry Potter Madness

(moved from Wikipedia:Village pump)

Earlier I removed the synopsis of the Harry Potter series from Harry Potter to Harry Potter (plot) in order to remove the spoilers from the main article.

I just added links from that page to the individual books, and noticed that there is not only a lot of duplication between the various Potter pages, but that there seems to be far too much detail. For example Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets has over 6 screens of plot "synopsis". And this is one of the shorter books!

What is the policy on this? And is that policy enforceable on what are obviously big fan pages? --HappyDog 02:22, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If it's just that there's information there that doesn't interest you personally, I preach caution. As for the duplication, it's impossible to eliminate it all, and probably not even desirable IMO.

If the articles are poorly written and|or have excessive duplication, and you think it's good use of your time to fix it, do so. But the better articles are generally by people with a keen interest in the subject, so again I preach caution. Andrewa 00:06, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I was wondering if spoilers were appropriate at all, and having just read Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, thought I would check its spoiler. I couldn't believe how long it was! It looked like it made up 95% of the article! It is long enough to make me wonder how long a spoiler can be before J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros. Entertainment are able to sue Wikipedia for breaching their copyrights. Brianjd

Format of the spoiler warning

Whatever happened to the nice, bold Warning: Spoilers follow? The non-bold version doesn't look like a warning, it just looks like part of the text, which is sort of annoying. Also, why the change from spoilers to "plot details?" --Alex S 06:42, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree on both counts: 1. it shouldn't look like just the rest of the text, and 2. it should say "spoilers" instead of "plot details" (Not all spoilers are plot details; for example, in descriptions of amusement park rides, they may not necessarily have a story or plot, but they still have surprise elements we want to warn before "ruining".). I personally think the way the French spoiler warning works is awesome. -Branddobbe 18:18, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

Someone changed the format to be a red bar the width of the article. When this sticks up against a table of contents (as in Red vs Blue), it looks silly. - Brian Kendig 18:24, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Novel Synopses

from village pump

General comment here, is it really necessary for article writers to detail every event in the entire plot? (See my edits to Dune.) I think it not only makes the article too long and unwieldy, it also opens the door to more errors, inconsistencies, etc. A synopsis is just that—a brief summary to lay out the essential theme, plot, idea of the book, so that a reader has some notion what it's about. Not what happens at every turn. Wiki articles shouldn't be book reports. OK, off my soapbox now. User:Alcarillo

I try to lead through it without putting in every detail. If a scene is not essential to the plot, then out it goes, but all of the major events should be outlined. - Woodrow, Emperor of the United States 23:04, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For an egregious abuse of synopsis see The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:16, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was no more egregious than the one I chopped for Dune (novel)—at least the WWoO was fairly well written (can't vouch for the accuracy not having read the book). -- User:Alcarillo

Not every event as to reading the Wp synopsis instead of the book/movie, but I think it should give an extensive idea of all of the themes, issues, and characters' stories in the work. But of course there is reason not to have it blow out of control... Dysprosia 10:05, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I dunno. The Dune (novel) entry left me wanting more. It's been many years since I read it and it didn't refresh my memory at all about what happens later in the book among the Fremen. -- Decumanus | Talk 14:08, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Given that some (series of) novels have whole sets of pages devoted to them (see dozens of articles on Tolkien's Middleearth), I don't think we need to worry about excessive detail on a single page. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:11, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Spoiler warning—various versions

Who is messing about with the spoiler warning all the time? I'm faced with different texts all the time. Is this some hopeless attempt to find one text suitable for all occasions? That certainly doesn't exist. The current disguise ("Skip the next passage, buddy" or whatever) is not good I think.

I would so much like to use my own spoiler warning, but each time I write one some user I don't know comes along and changes it again. |l'KF'l| 01:05, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

At the start of article?

"The standard way to warn readers of potential spoilers is to write {{spoiler}} before the revealing text."

With the above policy and contents links, readers may read spoilers without seeing the warning. -- Jeandré, 2004-08-24t18:58z

---

And the article page is contradicting itself. First it says you should place the spoiler warning just after the definition paragraph. And then it tells you that it should be placed before the spoiling paragraph. Which one should we keep? xDCDx 12:49, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't, really. The work's definition is not its details. lysdexia 00:55, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Spoiler debate

There's debate about the wording of the spoiler message, and indeed over whether we should be advising all editors to include them, at Template talk:Spoiler. Gdr 22:57, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)

Well, there is a spoiler debate here as well. Whoever came up with "Plot or ending details follow"? Who apart from Wikipedia uses the word "ending detail"? Also, how many more lines do we need? One immediately below ==Plot summary== followed by another line above, and a third one below, the spoiler warning? <KF> 20:11, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Whay does this mean??: "However, ideally the article should also contain much that cannot be seen from only reading the book or seeing the film in question." Is that about the supertext, as in other works or sources? lysdexia 00:55, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It means that articles should not be virutally copies of books, as is Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (see "Harry Potter Madness" above). Almost all of the information in that article can be gained from reading the book, in a much more enjoyable way. Brianjd

Spoilers in search contents

Is there a way in which we could (give the option to) hide the sample text show in search for pages that have a spoiler warning?--Sketchee 04:44, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

Problem solutions

Some of the spoilers in Wikipedia aren't the plot of a story, film or anything, but the solution to a puzzle. So the message "Plot or ending details follow" isn't exactly appropriate. But it is equally appropriate to have a warning, so people don't get carried away reading and deprive themselves of the challenge of the puzzle. We ought to have a template for these as well. It could look like this:

If nobody objects or gets there first, I'll create this template and adjust the page accordingly. -- Smjg 11:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nomenclature

Since the notice for a spoiler warning is for storylines about the articles; when they say "ruin their enjoyment"; does that mean it can ruin the surprise of watching the movie, playing the game, etc.? --SuperDude 01:58, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Main Hoon Na (Recent movies)

User:Zora has asked me to remove my plot details for the film Main Hoon Na. (S?)he thinks that for recent movies, that's too much information.

Do you want to add your opinions? --Error 22:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

It is not necessary to remove the plot details. Just add a warning spoiler message. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

How much warning is required?

I always left that spoiler warnings were appropriate only in the obdy of an article, where a reader might not expect certain details. If I summarize the plot of a play or opera, and clearly label this summary as Plot, must I also include that template "Warning: Plot follows"? I think the template is only useful for unexpected reveals. --DrG 02:51, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Unexpected reveals? Well, that is a very relative concept. The reason is clear. There are many different types of audiences with different intellectual capacities. What one may find an expected outcome could very well be a totally unexpected ending for another. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)