This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Spoiler. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Instead of the ambiguous situation whereby readers are required to either guess or avoid all plot summaries, why not have a distinction in the subtitle between full plot summaries and incomplete ones (i.e. back of the box material only). This is avoids any aesthetic concerns about templates, adds to the descriptive value and has no real downside.--Nydas(Talk)18:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
It's an encyclopedia. The lead sentence of our article on the subject says that this means "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge". The term "comprehensively" here implies completeness. --Tony Sidaway18:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't see this helping too much. This proposal simply makes the word "Full" a spoiler warning of sorts. There would be endless arguments over whether a summary was full or incomplete or whether "back of the box" material was actually a spoiler (quite common actually). ChazBeckett18:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so far we have semantics and an argument to personal incredulity. Would you agree, Chaz, that 99% of the time, there would be no argument?--Nydas(Talk)18:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that answer was purely semantics. This would be helpful and carries none of the redundancy or disclaimer problems of the spoiler tag. It's simply a better description of what the section contains. Equazcion•✗/C •18:50, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Many (most?) of the arguments on Wikipedia are over semantics. The word "Full" adds little or nothing to the description, but opens up plenty of new avenues for arguments. ChazBeckett19:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I actually think arguments would be rather common. I'm not going to put a specific percentage on it, but I'd estimate far higher than 1% of the time. For example, editor A considers a summary to be partial since it's only two paragraphs, while editor B considers it to be full since it reveals too much of the plot (in his opinion). It seems quite likely that this would turn into yet another battlefield for the spoiler warning wars. ChazBeckett19:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
By that logic, we should see plentiful arguments over the composition of 'early life' subsections in biography articles, since editor A believes that early life ends at 20, whilst editor B believes that early life ends at 30.--Nydas(Talk)19:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
We should rather mark incomplete plot summaries as defective (via templates?) than invite overly long plotcruft by asking for "full plot summaries". Kusma (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
That also concerns me: that the term "full plot summary" might seem to invite editors to pad out plot summaries, when many of our summaries are probably in need of a good trimming. --Tony Sidaway19:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
We should rather mark incomplete plot summaries as defective -- this seems like the best solution here. The more we show that, yes WP is supposed to have more than just 'back of the box' descriptions, the better. But also keeping them toned down is needed, so full is potentially bad in that respect. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This is going backwards. Plot summaries should only hit the highlights of the plot and not be a blow-by-blow retelling, which is what "Full plot summery" implies. Let me give the example of Maburaho#Plot synopsis. It simply gives an abbreviated version of the entire story as told in the 26 episode anime series. It includes a major plot twist in the middle and just briefly describes the ending of the series and how it differs from the light novels. However, many details leading to the plot twist and the ending have been completely left out for brevity and because it can be better covered by the episode list article. So it would be completely inappropriate to label the section "Full plot summery" or insist that all details be included in that section. --Farix (Talk) 19:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
All good points. I do think the word "full" might have the effect of inviting an unsavory level of meticulousness. Equazcion•✗/C •19:38, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Here's another example of why such a distinction doesn't make sense. Consider a four sentence description of The Empire Strikes Back. The last sentence reveals that Vader is Luke's father. Such a short summary could hardly be called a "Full Summary", yet it reveals one of the biggest plot twists in movie history. If this is labeled as a "Full Summary", it would effectively make it a spoiler warning. If it's not labeled "Full Summary" this defeats the whole purpose of eliminating the need for readers to "...either guess or avoid all plot summaries." ChazBeckett19:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I've got some examples of tagging incomplete plot summaries: [1][2][3].
In the first, the plot summary was obviously a "back of the DVD box"-style summary (although it didn't look like a copyright infringement, else I'd have removed it). The second and third had been described as incomplete and I simply replaced this with a uniform tag. --Tony Sidaway22:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to suggest "Detailed plot summary" instead of "full". If I see a heading called "detailed plot summary", I'm going to assume it has spoilers. "Full", on the other hand, suggests a scene-by-scene description, which in most cases is not something an encyclopedia should need.--Father Goose (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
"Detailed summary" is somewhat self-contradictory and doesn't seem like a good heading. Anyway, this discussion seems to be about creating Wikipediaspeak versions of the deprecated headers "==Plot (including spoilers)==" and "==Plot (not including spoilers)==" - it won't be obvious for non-insiders which adjective describes the "spoiler" content. Kusma (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Ideally, we should adopt a style convention of not including major spoilers in short plot summaries (as opposed to detailed ones). Until that happens, one must learn the hard way to never read any Wikipedia article about a work of fiction one hasn't seen/read yet.--Father Goose (talk) 08:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I would actually opposes such a convention. While plot summaries should be much shorter then they normally are, they should include all necessary details for the reader to understand the overall plot of the work of fiction. That includes "major spoilers", plot twists, and the ending. There is also the issue of objectively defining when a plot detail as a spoiler. --Farix (Talk) 12:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
That's why it's called a 'summary' and not a 'premise' or some such word. The whole story needs to be there, not just 'what it's about'. The major details are important, the nitty gritty isn't. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
"Detailed" has the same issues that "Full" does, mainly because the two are treated as synonyms in this instance. I again point to the plot summery of Maburaho. With a mere five paragraphs, there is no way in hell it can give a full or detailed explanation of the plot for a series that is 26 episodes long and with an accompanying 18 volume light novel series. Actually, I like pointing to Maburaho's plot section as an excellent example of brevity, which is often lacking on Wikipedia. There is still plenty of details that some would consider "spoilers", but it doesn't get into the minutia of retelling the entire story. --Farix (Talk) 23:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think "Full Plot Summary" describes what we are looking for. Spoilers could very well be present in a very brief plot summary that omits many details. Indeed, this is likely, as plot twists are often the most memorable parts of a story. Even a three sentence summary of Romeo and Juliet probably could not sensibly omit the fact that the lovers die at the end, but no one would call it a "Full Plot Summary". I also agree that this label would give the false impression that we are looking for plot summaries with no details of any kind omitted. Lastly, isn't "Full...Summary" an oxymoron? Marc Shepherd (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't like this idea for reasons already stated. Using full would encourage padding when we already want to limit plot summary per WP:NOT. HidingT22:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
You can't require every visitor to read the disclaimer
It's a "spoiler" if it detracts from the user's experience and/or enjoyment. Arguments I've seen for the current "no-notice" policy are mostly that spoilers are covered in the disclaimer. Be real. You can't require visitors to read the disclaimer. What's needed is some way to tell the visitor what a piece is about, without revealing how it happens. rowley (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, if every websurfer was required to read the content disclaimer before accessing Wikipedia, I would agree that spoiler warnings would be unnecessary. But we don't require people to read it. --Pixelface (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
There are many reasons for the spoiler policy, and this isn't the main one, or even the best one. The main reason is that encyclopedias are in the business of imparting information, not concealing it. The consensus (as Wikipedia defines that term, but not to everyone's satisfaction) was that helping readers avoid information wasn't our mission, and that the attempt to do so was an unsuccessful distraction.
Personally, I felt that it was extremely difficult to define how much of the story a reader would want to know, before considering it "spoiled". Because of that, there wasn't much rhyme or reason to the way the spoiler warnings were placed, and this inconsistency would have hindered their usefulness—even by those readers who were inclined to find them useful.
Even when the warnings were widespread, a reader had no way of knowing (until it was too late) whether a particular article had employed the warnings the way that reader would have liked. If the warnings were absent, a reader had no way of knowing if the article contained no spoilers, or if the warning was just not there for some reason. The current policy at least has the virtue that you can only be "spoiled" once before realizing that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and does not strive to warn its readers when to stop reading. Marc Shepherd (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
If people are going to keep saying encyclopedias do this and encyclopedias do that, I'm going to keep asking people to show me an encyclopedia that reveals spoilers for fictional works — and not just fictional works that are over 400 years old. --Pixelface (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah Chaz, I spotted that one too. That's the only spoiler I've found in Encarta. So does that mean that websurfers expect to read spoilers in encyclopedias? --Pixelface (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Some will, some won't. You asked for spoilers for a (contemporary) fictional work in another encylopedia and I gave you one. From past experience, I have a feeling that even if I were to provide you with a bunch more, you'd still claim that websurfers don't expect to read spoilers in encyclopedias. So I'm not going to waste my time. ChazBeckett15:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Well we could leave a spoiler warning out of the Empire Strikes Back article and remove spoilers from The Sixth Sense article if we were to follow Encarta on this. --Pixelface (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone /expects/ everyone to read the disclaimer, but noone expects only 18+ year olds will look at porn, or that most people will read through the EULA of a program. But it's there, just as a Terms of Service is there when you sign up for something, and it's really not the fault of the provider if the end user doesn't bother to read it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The anti-spoiler people appear to believe that instead of being an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a sort of personality detox service. According to their doctrines, spoiler warnings cause insanity, demons, personal irresponsibility, lack of rule-following and other maladies. These can be cured by having fiction spoiled, or in their lingo, being 'burned'.--Nydas(Talk)00:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that comment really came out of nowhere. I'm not sure how outlandish rhetoric is going to accomplish anything. Unless you really believe that stuff... ChazBeckett01:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
If you believe it, defend it and please try and be civil. If you don't believe it, please don't say it. Comments like that are not productive. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Nydas said, "The anti-spoiler people appear to believe that instead of being an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a sort of personality detox service. According to their doctrines, spoiler warnings cause insanity, demons, personal irresponsibility, lack of rule-following and other maladies."
I am not aware of any anti-spoiler [warning] person who has said that, or anything close to that. I therefore have to conclude that this tirade of insults is merely uncivil. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid it all boils down to my blank incomprehension of suggestions that we should put redundant warnings into our articles just to mollycoddle people who, knowing of their own personal wishes not to have foreknowledge of the details of fictional works, would stupidly or perversely choose to read articles about those works.
If they want to read about the work, let them read the article. If they don't, let them refrain. It's not Wikipedia's business to tell people what to read, but it isn't Wikipedia's business to put redundant warnings into articles. These people have to wrestle with their own demons, and good luck to them.
That's one. There are others about, some still on this page.
Now, what has been achieved? Wikipedia has presumably been improved, according to the self-contained logic of the anti-spoiler people. As far as I can tell, the fundraising also failed to achieve its goal. There's no point pretending that spoiler warnings are very important in the grand scheme of things, but the removal of them is part of a wider problem of user-bashing.--Nydas(Talk)15:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I stand by what I said. It is not user-bashing to make a decision that places the onus of deciding what to read and what not to read on the reader himself. But we've been through all the arguments pro- and con- and I see little value in a rerun. It's over. --Tony Sidaway16:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You're saying people are deciding to read spoilers when they start reading an article. The thing is, they don't know Wikipedia contains spoilers when they get here. I honestly don't think the majority of people expect to read spoilers (without warnings) on Wikipedia. Do section headings mollycoddle readers? --Pixelface (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
What a wonderfully sanctimonious reply from Tony. It is not "molly coddling" to label things appropriately so that users can make an informed decision. As cooler heads have repeatedly said many times, it is NOT obvious that a "plot section" would give away a surprise ending. Not at all. It is very conventional to read reviews that hint at the plot without giving away details. That is why spoiler warnings on our articles remain the best approach to informing our reader. Johntex\talk16:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't making a personal attack, just commenting on your sanctimonious statement and the obvious factual deficiencies in your argument. Johntex\talk16:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
<outdent> As cooler heads have repeatedly said many times, it is NOT obvious that a "plot section" would give away a surprise ending. Not at all. It is very conventional to read reviews that hint at the plot without giving away details. We could keep going in circles here, saying the same thing again and again. But still, since when is WP supposed to be a review site? Last time I checked, it wasn't. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Not to beat a dead horse, but I don't see why it's a bad template, it helps people who don't want to have a story or movie ruined. Why not make a spoiler template that has a link to the main disclaimer? --AW (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
That is not precisely accurate of consensus, which was against the specific tag but for using the current fiction tag in its place. Unfortunately, that tag was deleted for unrelated reasons, and no one has gotten around to creating a spoiler-specific tag to replace it. Yet. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Because a bunch of 15 year olds with laptops, the most powerful ones on this site, didn't like it. Twenty six editors voted to keep the tag, while 22 voted to delete it. And then it was deleted. Don't ask me how that makes sense. --YellowTapedR (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Er, the template was deleted although many of our younger, more fiction-oriented editors voted for it. As far as I can tell, most of the people accused of the "spoiler coup" are well above the age of 15. Perhaps the power comes from the laptops, not the age. Kusma (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You affectively called other editors immature by declaring that they were 15 year old, which is a personal attack. --Farix (Talk) 23:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Calling people 15 year olds and saying they have laptops isn't personal or an attack. I wouldn't mind being 15 years old and having a laptop. :) Equazcion•✗/C •23:51, 28 Jan 2008 (UTC)
You're kidding, right? I said the people who control this site are oftentimes of the teenage variety. There's no disputing that. I didn't use the word immature, either, nor did I say "other side."
Moving on, though. The point is that the way it was deleted was illegitimate. I'm not going to contest it and wouldn't know where to begin, but maybe someone else does. --YellowTapedR (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Said the completely non-polarizing editor known as Farix. {sigh} Your constant accusations remind me of an old Usenet staple: "you telling me I'm off-topic is off-topic." You are free to figure out how that is relevant on your own. I trust that you are both intelligent and mature enough to catch my meaning. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You're very clever. I don't really see the use in ridiculing anyone who posts here who you don't agree with, automatically pulling the dead horse card. --YellowTapedR (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you're misinterpreting my statement. Even the editor starting this thread recognized that the horse has been laid to rest. If you're not going to contest deletion, perhaps it is time to declare the matter dead (at least for the near future). Just a suggestion.ChazBeckett02:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the policy: for Wikipedia to be comprehensive, it can't avoid revealing plot twists. I accept the arguments against spoiler tags. However, I feel that this shouldn't be taken as justification for ignoring the needs of the Wikipedia user who wants a little background on a story without ruining the ending. (eg. 'Is this the sort of film I might want to watch?').
I don't think this is difficult to achieve. Look at The Sixth Sense - a casual reader has every opportunity to avoid reading the twist, which is buried in a comprehensive plot summary.
It isn't 'encyclopaedic' for an article to just list the spoiler, without giving much information about the narrative. Nor is it helpful to unfairly draws a casual reader's attention to the spoiler - for example, by giving it away in the synopsis.
So, I believe it might help reduce the amount of noise if WP:SPOILER were changed to say something along these lines:
It is acceptable to alter the wording of an article so that it is easier for a casual reader to avoid accidentally reading the spoiler.
AndrewBolt (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
If we have two versions of an article, one which makes it easy for a casual reader to avoid reading a spoiler and one which doesn't, we should choose the version that is more encyclopedic in tone and has the more appropriate lead section. In other words, the question of spoilers should not influence our decision. Kusma (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The funny thing with Encarta's article is that it fails WP:NOT completely. So we really can't use it as an example of how Wikipedia's articles should be. However, it is an example that demonstrates how Wikipedia does a much better job with coverage of works of fiction then other encyclopedias. --Farix (Talk) 22:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that we should look at what other encyclopedias do to determine which version Kusma talked about would be more encyclopedic in tone. What encyclopedic purpose does revealing the twist in The Sixth Sense provide? Why would it be "unencyclopedic" to let readers know they are about to read a twist? I personally can't recall ever reading an encyclopedia that revealed the ending of Citizen Kane. If Wikipedia articles reveal more than other encyclopedias, I see no reason why articles cannot also include spoiler warnings. Revealing spoilers appears to be a new feature of encyclopedias (if Wikipedia is any indication), but spoiler warnings have been used on the Internet for very many years. If no article is allowed to have spoiler warnings, the next step is for editors to remove plot details that don't cite reliable third-party sources per WP:RS. That's what this issue has come to. --Pixelface (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Really Andrew, you're pretty much saying what's already supposed to happen in the first place. It's always nice to see someone new coming here and agreeing with the (current) guideline, though. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
What plot details may be spoilers should not be taken into consideration when writing an article, particularly the plot summary. Plot summaries should be as concise as possible while still covering the main plot points of the work of fiction. Also, Wikipedia's articles are not suppose to help the reader determine whether he or she would want to read the work of fiction. That is treating Wikipedia as a review site instead of an encyclopedia. --Farix (Talk) 21:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is supposed to provide educational content. Someone reading an article to get a general idea of what a film is about does not turn Wikipedia into a review site. Are you suggesting that only people who have read a book should read the Wikipedia article? Why would they need to read a plot summary? Readers can use our content in any way they want to. You're right, this is an encyclopedia — not themoviespoiler.com --Pixelface (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Farix. Wikipedia is for information, not reviews. And who is to decide what goes into a spoiler, and how long it stays up? When you're dealing with the analysis that goes into our articles, who would decide what must be left out? Tyler Durden? Luke Skywalker's dad? Rosebud? Snowfire51 (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
And who is to decide how the users want to use Wikipedia? If they want to use it as a review site too, why should they be prevented to do so? Samohyl Jan (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
If a reader wants to use Wikipedia in a capacity that it's not for, that's fine, as long as no editors actually go about changing things to reflect that. No matter what anyone 'wants', the fact is simple. WP is an encyclopedia, and any other use people get resulting from its uniqueness is merely extra benefit. But to say that "well they might use it as a review site, so we should follow the conventions of such" is as silly as trying to make it into a phonebook, or a game guide, or a social network, or a map, or any of many other things. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
However, if we disclose all the key details of the plot without any other part of the article necessitating it, then we're treating Wikipedia as a digest, not an encyclopedia. We should neither avoid spoilers nor put them in unless we have an encyclopedic reason to do so. It's a pity this common sense has been drowned out by those who have been waging war for and against spoilers. Both sides have got the issue wrong, and the encyclopedia is shit as a result.--Father Goose (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome, Melodia. I don't disagree with any of the above comments, and may be my suggested wording is not ideal. My observation (from a limited sample of articles) is that well-written, encyclopedia-quality plot synopses don't need to warn that they will reveal the spoiler. The pages that produce debate are the ones where the plot summary fails to 'cover the main plot points', and exists mainly to reveal the spoiler. It often seems that people treat WP:SPOILER as justification for the latter, rather than as an incentive to improve the overall quality of the article. I feel that suitable wording of the policy would help shorten these debates, leaving more time for people to contribute new material! AndrewBolt (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Spoilers outside of fictional-work articles
The "Humor and cultural references" section of version 183809147 of the article P = NP problem contains a spoiler in the second episode of the TV show NUMB3RS. I deleted it rather than add a spoiler warning directly into the article. This seems like a perfectly good statement being deleted for no good reason. It seems to be in compliance with the current guideline:
It is not acceptable to delete information from an article about a work of fiction because you think it spoils the plot. (emphasis added)
Especially as the first season of that show is years old now. On the other hand, why stop at deleting it when you could delete the rest of the section too? Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I meant that I haven't seen anything in past discussion about the general issue of spoilers outside of articles on the topic of fictional works. Why not keep the section, since "it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail." (Wikipedia:Spoiler) BrianJasonDrake09:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Spoiler tags outside of articles on fictional works were already deprecated as ridiculous. In most cases the information is cruft in the article itself (no-one looking up the P = NP problem is going to give a hoot about NUMB3RS. Really) and should be removed. - David Gerard (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I am just a casual reader of Wikipedia, and at some point noticed these spoiler warnings disappeared; checking here I see a heated debate that must have gone on for months. I have an opinion about this, but it seems pointless to divulge it argue about it. What I do think might be useful, though, is that this guideline article be a bit more informative about the argument/discussion. The article just states the policy, and that is fine; but in light of how divided some of the community is, it might be good to add some of the pro/con arguments and the reached consensus (if there is one). Of course it can all be found in the discussions, but it is rather long and tiresome, and at times one might question whether people argue in good faith.
For people who encounter this policy and wonder about it, I think there should be some unbiased extra information in place (clearly separated from the policy itself, maybe in a different article even). (Ant6n 20.04.08)
quick thought
i know there's endless discussion about this but: what if it's my first time in wikipedia through an article containing spoilers? what if i DON'T know i should EXPECT them?
it would seriously suck if it were for example the ending of the harry potter series...24.232.74.200 (talk) 05:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
This is ridiculous
It seems there is some expectation that, being an encyclopedia dedicated to completeness, I should therefor expect spoilers.
This is ridicules, i expect a concise summary of the plot that is spoiler free so i can use this information to decide if i will like a particular movie/game without having the plot spoiled.
I argue this point for several reason:
1. An encyclopedia's primary purpose is to be useful. If you have seen the movie, you already know the plot, thus having it written out in full is of no use. If you haven't seen it, you cant read it because it will spoil the plot for you and thus it is of no use. To some small minority of people that haven't seen the movie, don't want to and don't care if the plot is spoiled but for some reason want to know what the plot is, perhaps there is some use. but these people are definitely a minority since if you don't care about the plot being spoiled, you probably don't care enough to want to know what it is.
Therefor it would be far more useful to have a spoiler free summary that people can use to find out about a movie before they go and see it for themselves.
2. An encyclopedia doesn't need to contain the plot in full anyway, there is absolutely no reason for this. Its an encyclopedia not a script, its job is to tell you important information about a subject, not reiterate the entire plot/book/movie/game. I actually think lengthy plot descriptions should be discouraged in general because its really not very encyclopedia-like.
Though Wikipedia is not a script, it is supposed to offer information that either pertains to the medias described or about the media itself. While a script like feel should be disapproved, users should understand the difference between a synopsis and a script. Some stories and movies may necessitate a lengthy plot description, but it is the detail in which that description is written that should be discouraged, leaving crucial points vague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slapshot24 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Whats wrong with spoiler tags? if an article needs to have a plot description, whats wrong with having a spoiler warning? why does it have to be implied? spoiler tags are good for marking the distinct beginning and end of spoilers, so someone can read everything else without having the plot spoiled. They greatly help to inform the reader that they might wish to skip a section, what harm do they do?
I'll give you one simple reason. Were not going to sell articles short of content and quality for the likes of people who want plot details without the ending in it. If you don't want the potential-ending spoiled by reading Wikipedia, don't read it. As for what's wrong with spoiler tags, I suggest you take the argument to Deletion review and see how you do. And as for your comment, "This is ridicules, i expect a concise summary of the plot that is spoiler free so i can use this information to decide if i will like a particular movie/game without having the plot spoiled", isn't what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a review site. — Save_Us†11:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
If you read the 15 volumes of archives of this page, you'll find a whole encyclopedia's worth of discussion of those very points. --Stormie (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Pardon my ignorance but was there a DRV for the spoiler templates? Equazcion•✗/C •11:48, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)
A lot of the fiction articles here don't have encyclopedic plot summaries anyway. They have blow-by-blow accounts of what happens, which isn't particularly useful to anyone. Except maybe people who fall asleep during a movie and want to see what they missed.--YellowTapedR (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Mloren, I agree with point 1. Unfortunately, many people on Wikipedia have some other criteria than usefulness, which makes Wikipedia less useful than it could be (like too strong notability policies or deleting things instead of leaving them to be improved). I believe that Wikipedia could contain almost everything and be used in all possible ways, it's just a matter of organization (which is mostly technical solution). The other side believes that such organization is impossible. Samohyl Jan (talk) 06:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
These have been policy and practice since long before you or I arrived, and User:Uncle G/On notability explains in handy terms why we need to have such guidelines, so perhaps you could dispense with the assumptions of bad faith and evil intent on the part of those who delete articles which do not meet inclusion guidelines. Guy (Help!) 16:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I don't mind if "non-notable" things are in their own article or in some other article. As long as whatever I am looking for is described in Wikipedia, it's fine. That's usefulness. The examples of non-notable things given in the article you refer to all satisfy this. I have problem with deleting content that people are actually looking for (because they read or heard about it somewhere, and want to get more information), and it is deemed non-notable. If users are looking for it, it should be in the encyclopedia. Similar with spoilers. Wikipedia shouldn't limit any user case for its content (that's original freedom zero) - if people want to use it as a review site (without POV or original research, such as ratings, of course), they should be able to do it. That's usefulness too. Samohyl Jan (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is there no need for SWs if there are sources? For many people (including me), Wikipedia is the first stop to learn about something. You are doing the same mistake again - presuming a specific usage. Many people have explicitly supported this as their use case too. Samohyl Jan (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
If something is discussed in the sources, then we can safely assume that it's widely known. We do not take special measures to prveent people seeing things that might alarm them (see Muhammad). Guy (Help!) 20:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This is false logic. It may be widely known, but it doesn't follow it's widely known among the readers/visitors of said article. As for Muhammad, being an atheist, I don't understand religious people's thinking (if they believe it's a sin to read about something), so I can't really reason about that. But I understand and I am explaining you my thinking - I don't think to learn ending of something is a sin, but still may prefer to learn it from the original work. Samohyl Jan (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
a Please at least try to spell correctly.
b In order to provide complete plot summaries, we need to tell everyone who may not know what happens and wants the end to be a surprise that there may be spoilers.
At this point I think it has been well established that no one is trying to remove spoilers. The question is whether or not, in certain instances, to have spoiler warnings. That is a much different issue. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I do occasionally run into people who remove material from articles because of concern about spoiling someone's experience. I don't know to what extent this happens, or really how one could go about measuring it. I don't think it's likely to be a widespread problem, though. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The12:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Attempt
Ok, before the previous discussion I started about the template got out of hand, this is what I was thinking: a template that reads something like "As is stated in Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer, this article may contain spoilers". That way it gets the message across and tells people about the Content Disclaimer. The disclaimer is hardly the most well known thing, I didn't know about it before, and I welcomed seeing the spoiler template on articles where I ditdn't want to be spoiled. I don't see why we can't help people and teach them about the disclaimer at the same time. --AW (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I've seen that, but I still think it's useful. Ignore all rules, right? And it mentions the general disclaimer, the lack of which some people had a problem with apparently. Aren't many templates just repeating Wikipedia guidelines anyway? Don't vandalize, this is a heated topic so keep cool, etc. --AW (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The articles themselves don't repeat the disclaimers, or the guidelines. Such notices are placed on the talk page. Usually if you see a warning template of any kind actually within the article it's to tell you that there is a problem with article quality in relation to policy. --Tony Sidaway07:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Most of the time such notices are either temporary, or are put on talk pages. People are wanting spoiler warnings permanently, which puts them into an entirely different catagory all together. Think of it this way -- templates are ok in article space to tell people to fix a problem. When the problem is fixed, it'll be removed. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Except, as I tried saying before, that's not what consensus was prior to a few deus ex machina events. Consensus here was to severely limit the usage of the spoiler tag (which, I might add, makes all arguments about the tag's number of instances null and void—a logical conclusion not grasped by many of the tag's opponents). Despite such an agreement, {{spoiler}} was deleted in a bitterly fought TfD that largely ignored the conversation here (except for repeating some superficial aspects of it). I have some issues with how that came about, but it did. During the TfD, however, {{current fiction}} was offered as a substitute (both here and on the discussion page) to be placed at the top of articles. There was some opposition to this compromise, but there was consensus on it. Then {{current fiction}} was deleted for unrelated reasons. The fact that it was meant as a substitute for {{spoiler}} was mentioned but ignored in that TfD. It would be contrary to good faith for those less sanguine about the existence of spoiler warnings to suddenly retract their compromises in the wake of what can only be described as a bizarre series of events. As such, I assume that the old consensus is still operative, but without a meaningful means of following through on it. Given that, what we need is a new tag—similar to {{current fiction}}, I suppose, but more specific—that fulfills the role that {{current fiction}} was meant to fulfill. I will make it if I can learn to make templates (it's never been a high priority of mine), but someone else should feel free to create the frame of it and submit it for editing. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
You can just use an existing template as a frame. However if you tell me what you want the template to say and how you think it should look, I can create one for you. This would be simply as a visual aid for now, regardless of whether it actually gets put into use. I can create it in your userspace for now, to avoid it causing "trouble" in the template space. Equazcion•✗/C •14:04, 1 Feb 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's a good idea. There seems to be a misapprehension that there was "consensus" for having spoiler warnings before - I don't believe there was, I think there was mainly apathy. Guy (Help!) 16:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure apathy doesn't count as consensus. Consensus is a lack of objection, so apathy would qualify. In order for something to exist, you don't need a bunch of people agreeing in a discussion. Equazcion•✗/C •16:10, 1 Feb 2008 (UTC)
Re: Equazcion - Apathy would count as consensus to a certain degree, and since Guy is stipulating a belief in apathy on the issue, your comment is accurate. We should note, however, that apathy cannot necessarily be inferred from inaction. I, for instance, have not taken action on what I believe consensus to be because I have been trying to get my ducks in a row. I am finishing my essay on the common arguments against spoiler warnings (and their failings) as well as trying to learn how to make templates. I will take you up on your offer of providing me a shell, however, as that would be much more efficient. Just place it here, if you would.
Re: Guy - stonewalling is not a recommended tactic on Wikipedia. You may have your opinion on this issue, and you may not like where consensus has ended up, but it is consensus all the same. Even David Gerard found the {{current fiction}} compromise to be worthwhile, as did Phil Sandifer until it looked like he could have his cake and eat it, too. And it is worth noting that after your abrupt closing of the TfD was reversed, Xoloz specifically mentioned the {{current fiction}} compromise as a reason for re-closing the issue with the same result. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Stonewalling? Don't be absurd. I'm merely pointing out that the only discussion here resulted in a pretty clear lack of consensus for spoiler warnings. Quite the opposite, if anything. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
No, you are once again substituting your opinion for consensus. That's why your close was reverted, even if the same decision was later reached by another administrator. I would like to assume good faith, and I am trying desperately to do so, but you make it very difficult. Refusing to admit to what has happened and simply insisting that what you wish happened really did is stonewalling. Those opposed to spoiler warnings did not manage to obtain consensus for their removal, thus the default guideline of including them should have stayed in place. However, consensus was reached to limit their use. They were, after all, completely out of control. And when {{spoiler}} was deleted, a further compromise was reached to use {{current fiction}} as a replacement. Such a compromise couldn't have been reached if there wasn't consensus for some sort of spoiler warning. But as you know, {{current fiction}} was deleted for unrelated reasons, and thus my position as stated above. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
No I'm not. There was never any debate about addition of spoiler templates, there was extensive and prolonged debate about their removal. There is very clearly not a consensus for the use of spoiler tags in articles. To have something removed is much harder than adding something, on Wikipedia, and it's clearly the case that spoiler templates were removed. Tis required a lot of support from a lot of people for that removal, and support for removal had to be (and was) substantially more than the support for inclusion. This is documented fact, not "stonewalling", and there is no need to personalise it as you did. Guy (Help!) 18:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Argument by assertion is both a logical fallacy and an instance of stonewalling. But fine, let's just say we disagree. As for "personalizing" things, I'm not sure what you mean by that, except maybe that I mentioned your close. That was a relevant fact and was not meant to be insulting in any way. My apologies if it is a sore spot. But if you need evidence of consensus for the warnings, consider that even those editors who were initially opposed to spoiler warnings in their entirety voiced support for the {{current fiction}} compromise during that templates TfD. They would not have done so if they had not decided that some spoiler warnings were appropriate (as a result of the very long conversation that you mention). As for the {{spoiler}} TfD, an up and down vote is not supposed to be decisive. As we are discussing below, it is arguments that count. And when that is taken into consideration, I find that the support for deletion evaporates. You will be able to read why shortly. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
They were referring to spoiler warnings in general, not {{current fiction}}. And, I was on a break when {{current fiction}} was around, but it would be my guess that people were hesitant to use it since it was a replacement for {{spoiler}}, whose use was to be extremely limited at the end. Also, in the time I was on a break, which was maybe a month or two at most, the {{spoiler}} template and the {{current fiction}} templates were deleted, so {{current fiction}} probably didn't get much of a chance before it got deleted for unrelated reasons. Equazcion•✗/C •16:54, 1 Feb 2008 (UTC)
Kusma, you have missed my point about the invalidity of "lack of use" arguments. The consensus was to limit the usage of spoiler warnings. If this was meant as some sort of Trojan Horse by those opposed to spoiler warnings, then they were not operating in good faith and we are back to square one (that is, the consensus is non-binding due to fraud). If, however, we assume good faith (as I am currently doing), then the fact that the tag wasn't used much cannot be used against it because consensus was to use it, but rarely. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no proof that there's consensus against spoiler tags, despite what you may be told from some editors, a few acting rather trollish, on this page. --YellowTapedR (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
There's really no need for namecalling here. As for consensus, if there's already a wikipedia policy in place against spoiler tags, that would seem to indicate it's been discussed at one point and a consensus reached. It doesn't mean the consensus can't be changed, but there's certainly one in place. Snowfire51 (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about a select few editors on this page who have been bullies to anyone who disagrees with them. They call people who disagree with them trolls and uncivil. They delete comments they disagree with. Yet, one editor here who frequently calls opponents "trolls" -- I won't name names -- has multiple web pages dedicated to cataloging his trollish behavior and has been blocked for incivility.
As for the second point, no there is not consensus in place against tags. When the tag was up for deletion, 26 voted to keep it versus 22 voting to delete it. That's consensus? Come on. That wouldn't have happened if certain editors weren't acting out of line. --YellowTapedR (talk) 08:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
So, by that rationale, the minority automatically has the consensus? No. If anything, there was consensus to keep the tags by default since there wasn't an overwhelming majority either way. Perhaps the editors most against spoiler tags are more versed in meaningless wikipedia beurocratic nonsense, so good for them. If you read this talk page's archives, you'll see that countless editors have showed up who are all for keeping spoiler tags on the site, while the editors who want them banished, by and large, are the same throughout. --YellowTapedR (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
XfDs are discussions, not "pure votes". Equazcion•✗/C •09:21, 2 Feb 2008 (UTC)
Stop beating the hole what was one a dried up bloody spot that use to be a dead horse. If you are not going to take it to DRV, then stop acting like a sore loser and simply let it go. Complaining here is only going to annoy everyone else. But that is ALL that you've been doing.
And just to note, it has already been to DRV once before and the deletion was overwhelmingly endorsed. But if you still want to attempt to restore the template, you can try a second time and see if consensus has changed. --Farix (Talk) 10:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
YellowTapedR, I will not proclaim that the template had consensus for deletion, as I actually don't think it did. But honestly, you really need to look up just WHAT an AFD/MFD/whatever is. It's not about voting. It's about who has the best arguments. If twenty people say "keep, it deserves to belong on WP" and five say "delete" while giving logical reasons why it shouldn't belong rather than just saying it shouldn't, an competant admin should close it as a delete. As if often said, WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDON'TLIKEIT are not valid deletion reasons. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I was just getting sick of the rherotic on this page saying that there is wiki-wide consensus for this guideline and the absence of tags when that's clearly not the case. (But I'll also acknowledge there isn't wiki-wide consensus the other way, either). Other editors can say there is consensus, but I can't counter that? Of course not. --YellowTapedR (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You are correct, Melodia, that it is about who has the best arguments. That is why I am writing an essay on the arguments presented to date. And insofar as arguments rule the day, those against spoiler warnings have yet to provide compelling reasons for their position. I say this, remember, as someone who is neutral. I don't care if there are tags or not. I simply have serious reservations about the way in which all of this has occurred. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Writing an essay on your interpretation of the arguments is probably a waste of time; the arguments were weighed, and the arguments for not having spoiler warnings were more persuasive per long-standing policy, including "no disclaimers". Guy (Help!) 18:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
But I won't be writing an essay on "my interpretation of the arguments," but rather on the arguments themselves. It is standard philosophical method to take an argument, break it down into its logical form, and test it. I did it several times on this very talk page, and was routinely ignored. But that doesn't mean I was wrong (indeed, no one ever contradicted me—and either apathy or agreement cuts in my favor here). And if the arguments are not logically valid, as is the case with the arguments employed against the inclusion of spoiler warnings, they are not (as Melodia has agreed) applicable. And if they are not applicable, they (and all of their consequences) are to be ignored. Thus the relevance. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Then you'll be wasting your time. The debate was had, the community decided, all but a handful have moved on. Spoiler warnings have gone the way of all disclaimers, and hardly anyone cares either way. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that hardly anyone cares either way. You care enough to come out of your Wikibreak for it, and the conversation has gone on in your absence and is going on now. I probably wouldn't bother if I believed no one cared, because I don't particularly care if there are spoiler warnings or not. I do care, however, about bad logic. I am very open to being convinced that spoiler warnings should go, but no one has offered anything tangible. All I get are a pile of false dilemmas, ill-considered quips, and emotional reactions. And since any decisions made upon the basis of bad logic should be null and void, I am currently for reversing the imposition of a minority opinion onto the project—unless, of course, someone can come up with logically compelling arguments against warnings. This isn't to say that the other side does not also hold a minority opinion (there may be a large undecided or apathetic group), or that the other side is correct. I'm just saying I haven't seen anything definitive yet, nor have I seen consensus for anything other than what I've mentioned above. Furthermore, while plenty of people are sick of discussing this topic, we've never had much genuinely honest discussion. And that, I think, is what we need. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
No, not really. It's on my watchlist and sometimes I pop by out of idle curiosity. The present situation is perfectly satisfactory to me, but I didn't care that much before until people started applying warnings to articles like Three Little Pigs and works of classic literature. If you don't want to know that the boat sinks, go to a film review site where they won't let the cat out of the bag. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course the present situation is satisfactory to you: you got your way. But you don't need a nuclear bomb to kill three rebels in Kansas. Only an appeal to the slippery slope fallacy gets you from removing obviously misplaced spoiler warnings on the Three Little Pigs to deleting {{spoiler}}. So if this is the line of reasoning that convinced you, you'll have to forgive me for remaining unconvinced. Furthermore, on the compromise I proposed, the boat sinking wouldn't count as a spoiler, either. This does not have to be a case of all-or-nothing, yet some editors seem to be misrepresenting the situation in this way. It is possible to come up with a guideline that keeps warnings off of fairy tales while allowing them on certain books or films. Some have pointed to the difficulty of such a task, but it would be a dereliction of our responsibilities as editors to avoid the work on these grounds. If you're looking for something easy, don't try writing or running an encyclopedia in your spare time. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't "my way", I had no interest in this before it was brought up in debate while Tony and others were removing the spoilers. I was persuaded by their arguments, and remain so. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The articles themselves don't repeat the disclaimers, or the guidelines. Such notices are placed on the talk page. Usually if you see a warning template of any kind actually within the article it's to tell you that there is a problem with article quality in relation to policy. --Tony Sidaway07:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Most of the time such notices are either temporary, or are put on talk pages. People are wanting spoiler warnings permanently, which puts them into an entirely different catagory all together. Think of it this way -- templates are ok in article space to tell people to fix a problem. When the problem is fixed, it'll be removed. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Except, as I tried saying before, that's not what consensus was prior to a few deus ex machina events. Consensus here was to severely limit the usage of the spoiler tag (which, I might add, makes all arguments about the tag's number of instances null and void—a logical conclusion not grasped by many of the tag's opponents). Despite such an agreement, {{spoiler}} was deleted in a bitterly fought TfD that largely ignored the conversation here (except for repeating some superficial aspects of it). I have some issues with how that came about, but it did. During the TfD, however, {{current fiction}} was offered as a substitute (both here and on the discussion page) to be placed at the top of articles. There was some opposition to this compromise, but there was consensus on it. Then {{current fiction}} was deleted for unrelated reasons. The fact that it was meant as a substitute for {{spoiler}} was mentioned but ignored in that TfD. It would be contrary to good faith for those less sanguine about the existence of spoiler warnings to suddenly retract their compromises in the wake of what can only be described as a bizarre series of events. As such, I assume that the old consensus is still operative, but without a meaningful means of following through on it. Given that, what we need is a new tag—similar to {{current fiction}}, I suppose, but more specific—that fulfills the role that {{current fiction}} was meant to fulfill. I will make it if I can learn to make templates (it's never been a high priority of mine), but someone else should feel free to create the frame of it and submit it for editing. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
You can just use an existing template as a frame. However if you tell me what you want the template to say and how you think it should look, I can create one for you. This would be simply as a visual aid for now, regardless of whether it actually gets put into use. I can create it in your userspace for now, to avoid it causing "trouble" in the template space. Equazcion•✗/C •14:04, 1 Feb 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's a good idea. There seems to be a misapprehension that there was "consensus" for having spoiler warnings before - I don't believe there was, I think there was mainly apathy. Guy (Help!) 16:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure apathy doesn't count as consensus. Consensus is a lack of objection, so apathy would qualify. In order for something to exist, you don't need a bunch of people agreeing in a discussion. Equazcion•✗/C •16:10, 1 Feb 2008 (UTC)
Re: Equazcion - Apathy would count as consensus to a certain degree, and since Guy is stipulating a belief in apathy on the issue, your comment is accurate. We should note, however, that apathy cannot necessarily be inferred from inaction. I, for instance, have not taken action on what I believe consensus to be because I have been trying to get my ducks in a row. I am finishing my essay on the common arguments against spoiler warnings (and their failings) as well as trying to learn how to make templates. I will take you up on your offer of providing me a shell, however, as that would be much more efficient. Just place it here, if you would.
Re: Guy - stonewalling is not a recommended tactic on Wikipedia. You may have your opinion on this issue, and you may not like where consensus has ended up, but it is consensus all the same. Even David Gerard found the {{current fiction}} compromise to be worthwhile, as did Phil Sandifer until it looked like he could have his cake and eat it, too. And it is worth noting that after your abrupt closing of the TfD was reversed, Xoloz specifically mentioned the {{current fiction}} compromise as a reason for re-closing the issue with the same result. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Stonewalling? Don't be absurd. I'm merely pointing out that the only discussion here resulted in a pretty clear lack of consensus for spoiler warnings. Quite the opposite, if anything. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
No, you are once again substituting your opinion for consensus. That's why your close was reverted, even if the same decision was later reached by another administrator. I would like to assume good faith, and I am trying desperately to do so, but you make it very difficult. Refusing to admit to what has happened and simply insisting that what you wish happened really did is stonewalling. Those opposed to spoiler warnings did not manage to obtain consensus for their removal, thus the default guideline of including them should have stayed in place. However, consensus was reached to limit their use. They were, after all, completely out of control. And when {{spoiler}} was deleted, a further compromise was reached to use {{current fiction}} as a replacement. Such a compromise couldn't have been reached if there wasn't consensus for some sort of spoiler warning. But as you know, {{current fiction}} was deleted for unrelated reasons, and thus my position as stated above. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
No I'm not. There was never any debate about addition of spoiler templates, there was extensive and prolonged debate about their removal. There is very clearly not a consensus for the use of spoiler tags in articles. To have something removed is much harder than adding something, on Wikipedia, and it's clearly the case that spoiler templates were removed. Tis required a lot of support from a lot of people for that removal, and support for removal had to be (and was) substantially more than the support for inclusion. This is documented fact, not "stonewalling", and there is no need to personalise it as you did. Guy (Help!) 18:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Argument by assertion is both a logical fallacy and an instance of stonewalling. But fine, let's just say we disagree. As for "personalizing" things, I'm not sure what you mean by that, except maybe that I mentioned your close. That was a relevant fact and was not meant to be insulting in any way. My apologies if it is a sore spot. But if you need evidence of consensus for the warnings, consider that even those editors who were initially opposed to spoiler warnings in their entirety voiced support for the {{current fiction}} compromise during that templates TfD. They would not have done so if they had not decided that some spoiler warnings were appropriate (as a result of the very long conversation that you mention). As for the {{spoiler}} TfD, an up and down vote is not supposed to be decisive. As we are discussing below, it is arguments that count. And when that is taken into consideration, I find that the support for deletion evaporates. You will be able to read why shortly. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
They were referring to spoiler warnings in general, not {{current fiction}}. And, I was on a break when {{current fiction}} was around, but it would be my guess that people were hesitant to use it since it was a replacement for {{spoiler}}, whose use was to be extremely limited at the end. Also, in the time I was on a break, which was maybe a month or two at most, the {{spoiler}} template and the {{current fiction}} templates were deleted, so {{current fiction}} probably didn't get much of a chance before it got deleted for unrelated reasons. Equazcion•✗/C •16:54, 1 Feb 2008 (UTC)
Kusma, you have missed my point about the invalidity of "lack of use" arguments. The consensus was to limit the usage of spoiler warnings. If this was meant as some sort of Trojan Horse by those opposed to spoiler warnings, then they were not operating in good faith and we are back to square one (that is, the consensus is non-binding due to fraud). If, however, we assume good faith (as I am currently doing), then the fact that the tag wasn't used much cannot be used against it because consensus was to use it, but rarely. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no proof that there's consensus against spoiler tags, despite what you may be told from some editors, a few acting rather trollish, on this page. --YellowTapedR (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
There's really no need for namecalling here. As for consensus, if there's already a wikipedia policy in place against spoiler tags, that would seem to indicate it's been discussed at one point and a consensus reached. It doesn't mean the consensus can't be changed, but there's certainly one in place. Snowfire51 (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about a select few editors on this page who have been bullies to anyone who disagrees with them. They call people who disagree with them trolls and uncivil. They delete comments they disagree with. Yet, one editor here who frequently calls opponents "trolls" -- I won't name names -- has multiple web pages dedicated to cataloging his trollish behavior and has been blocked for incivility.
As for the second point, no there is not consensus in place against tags. When the tag was up for deletion, 26 voted to keep it versus 22 voting to delete it. That's consensus? Come on. That wouldn't have happened if certain editors weren't acting out of line. --YellowTapedR (talk) 08:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
So, by that rationale, the minority automatically has the consensus? No. If anything, there was consensus to keep the tags by default since there wasn't an overwhelming majority either way. Perhaps the editors most against spoiler tags are more versed in meaningless wikipedia beurocratic nonsense, so good for them. If you read this talk page's archives, you'll see that countless editors have showed up who are all for keeping spoiler tags on the site, while the editors who want them banished, by and large, are the same throughout. --YellowTapedR (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
XfDs are discussions, not "pure votes". Equazcion•✗/C •09:21, 2 Feb 2008 (UTC)
Stop beating the hole what was one a dried up bloody spot that use to be a dead horse. If you are not going to take it to DRV, then stop acting like a sore loser and simply let it go. Complaining here is only going to annoy everyone else. But that is ALL that you've been doing.
And just to note, it has already been to DRV once before and the deletion was overwhelmingly endorsed. But if you still want to attempt to restore the template, you can try a second time and see if consensus has changed. --Farix (Talk) 10:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
YellowTapedR, I will not proclaim that the template had consensus for deletion, as I actually don't think it did. But honestly, you really need to look up just WHAT an AFD/MFD/whatever is. It's not about voting. It's about who has the best arguments. If twenty people say "keep, it deserves to belong on WP" and five say "delete" while giving logical reasons why it shouldn't belong rather than just saying it shouldn't, an competant admin should close it as a delete. As if often said, WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDON'TLIKEIT are not valid deletion reasons. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I was just getting sick of the rherotic on this page saying that there is wiki-wide consensus for this guideline and the absence of tags when that's clearly not the case. (But I'll also acknowledge there isn't wiki-wide consensus the other way, either). Other editors can say there is consensus, but I can't counter that? Of course not. --YellowTapedR (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You are correct, Melodia, that it is about who has the best arguments. That is why I am writing an essay on the arguments presented to date. And insofar as arguments rule the day, those against spoiler warnings have yet to provide compelling reasons for their position. I say this, remember, as someone who is neutral. I don't care if there are tags or not. I simply have serious reservations about the way in which all of this has occurred. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Writing an essay on your interpretation of the arguments is probably a waste of time; the arguments were weighed, and the arguments for not having spoiler warnings were more persuasive per long-standing policy, including "no disclaimers". Guy (Help!) 18:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
But I won't be writing an essay on "my interpretation of the arguments," but rather on the arguments themselves. It is standard philosophical method to take an argument, break it down into its logical form, and test it. I did it several times on this very talk page, and was routinely ignored. But that doesn't mean I was wrong (indeed, no one ever contradicted me—and either apathy or agreement cuts in my favor here). And if the arguments are not logically valid, as is the case with the arguments employed against the inclusion of spoiler warnings, they are not (as Melodia has agreed) applicable. And if they are not applicable, they (and all of their consequences) are to be ignored. Thus the relevance. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Then you'll be wasting your time. The debate was had, the community decided, all but a handful have moved on. Spoiler warnings have gone the way of all disclaimers, and hardly anyone cares either way. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that hardly anyone cares either way. You care enough to come out of your Wikibreak for it, and the conversation has gone on in your absence and is going on now. I probably wouldn't bother if I believed no one cared, because I don't particularly care if there are spoiler warnings or not. I do care, however, about bad logic. I am very open to being convinced that spoiler warnings should go, but no one has offered anything tangible. All I get are a pile of false dilemmas, ill-considered quips, and emotional reactions. And since any decisions made upon the basis of bad logic should be null and void, I am currently for reversing the imposition of a minority opinion onto the project—unless, of course, someone can come up with logically compelling arguments against warnings. This isn't to say that the other side does not also hold a minority opinion (there may be a large undecided or apathetic group), or that the other side is correct. I'm just saying I haven't seen anything definitive yet, nor have I seen consensus for anything other than what I've mentioned above. Furthermore, while plenty of people are sick of discussing this topic, we've never had much genuinely honest discussion. And that, I think, is what we need. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
No, not really. It's on my watchlist and sometimes I pop by out of idle curiosity. The present situation is perfectly satisfactory to me, but I didn't care that much before until people started applying warnings to articles like Three Little Pigs and works of classic literature. If you don't want to know that the boat sinks, go to a film review site where they won't let the cat out of the bag. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course the present situation is satisfactory to you: you got your way. But you don't need a nuclear bomb to kill three rebels in Kansas. Only an appeal to the slippery slope fallacy gets you from removing obviously misplaced spoiler warnings on the Three Little Pigs to deleting {{spoiler}}. So if this is the line of reasoning that convinced you, you'll have to forgive me for remaining unconvinced. Furthermore, on the compromise I proposed, the boat sinking wouldn't count as a spoiler, either. This does not have to be a case of all-or-nothing, yet some editors seem to be misrepresenting the situation in this way. It is possible to come up with a guideline that keeps warnings off of fairy tales while allowing them on certain books or films. Some have pointed to the difficulty of such a task, but it would be a dereliction of our responsibilities as editors to avoid the work on these grounds. If you're looking for something easy, don't try writing or running an encyclopedia in your spare time. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't "my way", I had no interest in this before it was brought up in debate while Tony and others were removing the spoilers. I was persuaded by their arguments, and remain so. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
As all of the arguments I've seen presented were terrible, I am curious as to which ones convinced you. Perhaps I missed them, given how infrequently I check in on Wikipedia in general (let alone this page). If you have time, perhaps you could summarize them on my talk page? Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
In/On
The second line of the spoiler page reads "In Wikipedia, however..." Should this be "On Wikipedia, however..."?
So now every article for every film, book, game, and show I look up on this horrible site will divulge every last detail of plot and character development without using a single spoiler warning. (Sometimes even in the introductory paragraph.) I've had enough of this. It's bad enough when a single article completely and nonchalantly ruins an entire thing for me when all I want to know is a character's name, but this is so commonplace that I'd swear it had become official policy. It's laziness, not bothering to place a spoiler warning, is what it is. Pure laziness. (Momus (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC))
Is it not true that all the spoiler warnings were removed *before* any police was agreed upon, as a means of justifying the policy of not having spoilers? Dirty tactics if you ask me. . . At any rate, this talk page should have a complete list of everyone who has ever voiced a Yes or No on spoilers, for the record.--Carterhawk (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The archives are there. You're free to complied it. Of course, that won't say people who've only voiced on the issue elsewhere in WP, or on external places on the web... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Blah blah blah. So is it actually worse to have no warnings -- and thus any time you read about something you know in advance there MIGHT be info about the topic -- that is, is it really better to have SOME articles with warnings, thus you NEVER know, you expect them but don't get them (which is how it was before this all went down, after all). I'm curious at to your answer. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Melodia, we've been over this before. Policies and guidelines are about ideal conditions, not actual conditions. As such, the state of an ideal Wikipedia that included spoiler warnings would have them in all the places that they are appropriate and none of the places where they aren't. After all, we don't throw out WP:NOR just because some articles have original research and we don't know which are which prior to reading the articles. That would be (and is in this case) a bad argument. An illogical argument, as it were. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to state it as diplomatically as possible: the purpose of Wikipedia is to expand the scope of human knowledge, and sometimes that is incompatible with some people's privately-conceived purpose of remaining in a state of selective ignorance. If you are one of those people who need to remain ignorant about certain facts, it's best to stay away from the products of projects whose avowed purpose is to disseminate information widely, and it's unrealistic to expect such projects to take steps to promote your private purpose in addition to its own publicly declared one. --TS20:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec, to Melodia) Blah blah blah, the responders are just as repetitive as the complainants. In fact more so, since it's the same responders each time, but different complainers. So blah blah blah, say the same shit over and over again, it doesn't change the fact that all these people disagree with you. Equazcion•✗/C •20:27, 18 Feb 2008 (UTC)
And to Momus: I'm too tired of this particular area of Wikipedia to repeat my own thoughts on this when it won't do any practical good, but just so you know, the Wikipedia community is very divided on the subject of spoilers and spoiler warnings. As authoritative and "end-all" as the responses are on this page, rest assured, many many people agree with you -- and the next time this issue is brought before the community, there will be a very lengthy and lively debate about it, I assure you. Equazcion•✗/C •20:32, 18 Feb 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't use spoiler warnings because nearly 100% of the time, labeling a plot detail as a spoiler is entirely original research. That's because what constitutes a spoiler differs from one person to another. And even then, most plot details aren't considered spoilers forever, or even a few weeks after the work has been published. Also, no one has provides a suitable explanation as to why we should add article disclaimers for spoilers while we forbid all other article disclaimers. Are spoilers really more important then graphic images or other objectionable content? --Farix (Talk) 21:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This sounds sarcastic to me, but that could be because I'm so used to you joking lately. Are you serious? Just curious. Equazcion•✗/C •05:07, 19 Feb 2008 (UTC)
It was sarcastic, because it's so frustrating to me to see people throwing the rules around so selectively to justify their POVs. Wikilawyering bites the big one.--Father Goose (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It's arguably true that JFK was killed by death rays from Mars. What matters is whether or not it's actually true. No one has yet demonstrated that it would be impossible to create a non-arbitrary standard for what is and is not a spoiler. Indeed, I have given the beginnings of just such a standard before. Hard work and tough decisions are part of being an editor. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. I hate to see rules invoked in a manner divorced from the ideas that underlie them to try to bludgeon away things that are more a matter of opinion than universal principle. The question of what details could be considered "spoilers" could in most cases be handled through editorial discretion without a problem, and resolved through discussion and consensus-forming in the case of disputes.
Unfortunately, in this instance, that approach has been swept off the table, and the table chopped into kindling. Anybody but Wikipedia's most influential editors engaging in this kind of behavior would have been banned from the site for subverting our most fundamental rules of conduct. That this issue will not go away should evoke no surprise; it is something of a tell-tale heart.--Father Goose (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Funny, said that way you make a very strong case for the removals. These were some very long-standing editors, stepping in to reverse something which might have seemed like a good idea at the time but rapidly spiralled out of control and escalated beyond all sense, as the numerous patently absurd examples amply demonstrate. Sometimes you need someone to come in from essentially outside the situation and point out the blindingly obvious that you couldn't see because it was under your nose. It's my strong belief that that is exactly what happened here. And do bear in mind that I've had stand-up rows with the people concerned about other things, there is no hive mind here, just a case of "what has that got to do with the Five Pillars". Guy (Help!) 17:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Farix, all these things have been discussed before, so please don't say "no one has provides a suitable explanation as to why we should add article disclaimers for spoilers". I have made an argument about this several times; if it isn't suitable for you, it's your problem. Samohyl Jan (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It's what we're doing. We're increasing knowledge. Sometimes it's good not to know something. On such occasions, you must learn to avoid knowledge. Wikipedia will not help you in that regard; its mission conflicts with that. --TS17:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Ever hear of an encyclopedia that publishes all of its content for free online and allows anyone to edit it? No, neither have I. In other words, this kind of argument doesn't work for either side of this debate unless it focuses on attributes that are central to the very concept of being an encyclopedia. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
AFAIK, Wikipedia is the only general encyclopedia that contains spoilers (ie. reveals the complete plot to the reader); therefore, it is best of its kind (has more information) and therefore is not comparable to any other encyclopedia. However, you probably meant spoiler warnings, which is indeed true, since there is nothing to be warned about (if they just omit the plot ending). If there would be an example of general encyclopedia that contains spoilers (general means "for general audience, not just specialists"), then we could perhaps take it as an example whether or not there should be spoiler warnings. If you know such an example, I am interested. Samohyl Jan (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Both very good points. I wasn't sure if HalfShadow meant "spoilers" or "spoiler warnings," and so I assumed he meant spoilers, but both your point and mine stand either way. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
← See, Momus? Make one little comment and it triggers a mile-long regurgitation. This is what always happens. It'll happen another 5 times in the next 3 months. One thing we should all be ale to agree on is that the status of this "guideline"(?) is disputed. But this is just me talkin'. Equazcion•✗/C •19:42, 19 Feb 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have seen no new arguments from either side in some months and would be perfectly happy if everyone were to drop it. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually I think the fact this isn't even coming up once a week these days says that most people HAVE dropped it, no matter their personally feelings on the issue. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
...with the exception of a few editors frequently vocal here it would seem. If most people have indeed dropped the issue you don't seem to be one of them. Not that I agree people have dropped it, and I don't think you think they've dropped it either, or else you wouldn't feel the need to retort, rather harshly I might add, to any comments appearing on this page in support of the templates. Your behavior suggests the opposite of what you claim, in my opinion. Were you actually confident that people have generally dropped the issue you'd be much more calm in your responses, if indeed you would even choose to respond at all. But that's again just my opinion. Equazcion•✗/C •07:11, 22 Feb 2008 (UTC)
The words are there, but they make no sense. I haven't dropped it, in the sense that I still watch the page, true. But I've been doing that since long before the shit went down, as it were. I decided to not stop doing that, and I contribute my thoughts on the (now pretty rare) times people make comments to the page. Why is that so wrong? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The words are there, but they make no sense, as I didn't say you were doing anything wrong. I'm merely pointing out inconsistencies in your statements. Equazcion•✗/C •14:22, 22 Feb 2008 (UTC)
Except that fact tags are meant to help direct editors to what needs to be changed, and improve the encyclopedia. Spoiler tags are meant to tell readers what not to read. Quite a large difference there. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Anon's comment aside, please don't make strawman arguments. Spoiler tags are of course not meant to tell readers what not to read. They're meant to tell readers what they might not want to read. You already know this. If your position isn't convincing enough without misrepresenting your opposition then perhaps you should reconsider your stance. What we're proposing in advocating spoiler tags is to do the reader an additional favor, and that, for reasons that, unlike you, I will not attempt to restate, is something many people oppose. Equazcion•✗/C •23:35, 23 Feb 2008 (UTC)
This is one of the reasons why we don't have spoiler warnings anymore. You don't want, as you put it, Wikipedia to "divulge every last detail of plot and character development" then don't read the sections labled "Plot", "Plot summary", "Plot synopsis", ect. I mean, honestly, it's ridiculous for people to read plot summaries and not expect spoilers (and on an encyclopedia to boot) isn't it? .:Alex:.17:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
However the reason I have popped into this talk page is not because I saw something I didn't want to know about while reading sections labeled "Plot summary" or containing the word "Plot" in any way. I was reading the "Cast" section of NCIS, the third section on the page, only after the lead section and "Overview", and I find the character Jenny Shepard listed amongst "Former regular" characters and her occupation noted as "Killed during a gunfight (etc).." and a "†" symbol next to her dates, which the note at the bottom of the table indicates that she is deceased.
I came here looking for some additional information on an episode that just finished airing here in Australia (which is 8 episodes before the last episode of the season) and while scrolling past the Cast I find out one of the suspenseful parts of the end of the season. I agree with everyone that says this information has a place in on Wikipedia, but I am not convinced it needs to be in the characters section, a single screen's worth of scrolling down the main page of a TV series. Besides, since when is "Killed during a gunfight" an "Occupation", as is listed in the article?
And please don't send me back to the NCIS talk page to discuss this, as someone already posted about spoilers there, and was directed rather bluntly to this policy we are now discussing. I do not know if there is any amicable kind of solution to this problem, but I still contest that the information was given unnecessary prominence in the article. Perhaps Wikipedia is not suited to my requirements for this kind of information, at least until Australia stop airing new seasons episodes of TV shows 6 months after their initial airing in America. And remember that this is the English Language Wikipedia, and while it is hosted on servers in the United States, it is not American Wikipedia.
Because this is an encyclopedia and we need to cover all possible aspects of information? As far as I am concerned, the internet in general should be avoided if you don't want spoilers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by .:Alex:. (talk • contribs) 15:48, 3 June 2008
Archived
Since either way the warred-over argument is over, I've actually placed it in the archives rather than merely boxing it. This should be an adequate compromise, as the point of removing or closing arguments is to prevent them from continuing, not to actually make stuff disappear. So this matter should now be settled, since either way, that particular exchange ain't continuing. Equazcion•✗/C •07:01, 22 Feb 2008 (UTC)
Censor?
I know the whole spoiler debate is over and the tag has been deemed unneeded, but one argument (that I found in a userbox) I just don't get is that the spoiler tag is some sort of censor. Wasn't the whole point of the tag to prevent censorship? I'm not saying bring back the tag, but I find this argument kind of ridiculous, contradictory to itself and contradictory to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. -69.158.20.210 (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I would agree that it's not a censor, per se. But the whole 'war' bordered on ridiculous at times, so thinking that here isn't anything all that new. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
It never was a censor. Censorship involves concealing or editing material to prevent perusers from seeing the censored material. All the tag did was tell people, "if you haven't viewed the subject matter of this page don't read this bit!" and yet Wikipedians - including at least one admin - fought a "war" over it. From there it just got way out of hand, which is why I TFD'd the tag. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
That's one interpretation. Another was that it was used completely indiscriminately, beyond all sense, that those who supported the tag refused to be discerning in the places where they wanted it, that "plot" sections should be expected to contain plot details, and that in the end the general principle of "no content disclaimers" won out. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Unreleased material
Is there any consideration taken for spoilers of unreleased material? It's not uncommon for spoilers to leak before a book/movie/whatever is released - are those treated the same way? I can understand that people clicking on an article of something they haven't seen/read would expect the plot to be described there, but for things that aren't out yet is that a reasonable expectation? --Minderbinder (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Typically the problem with this information is that it cannot be sourced to a verifiable source, and I would expect that if this is information pre-release, that reliability standard needs to be much higher than for other information. For example, for reality TV shows I work on, while there are spoiler lists for who's going win or who's booted, the sites have a very low reliability level. But, take the other example where JK Rowlings admitted a major character would die in Deathly Hollows months before release, that's usable (though arguably not that much of a spoiler). --MASEM20:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It would have been nice to have some warning, or announcement for the average Wikipedian to know. In a very brief article with no warning an entirely trilogy I had intended to read was ruined in a few sentences. Is it too late to bother with anything like this so it doesn't happen to others? Assuming not everyone will just skip the Story section for instance, when they've previously known of Spoiler Warnings, plot details may come as a surprise to some.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.34.32 (talk)
No translation necessary. It's covered by the general disclaimer. If you don't want to know details of plot and so on, please don't read Wikipedia articles on the subject. Also, if you don't want to see pictures of the Prophet, don't view our articles on Mohammed. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
More broadly, if you haven't yet seen or read a given work of fiction, don't read the Wikipedia article on it -- don't even glance at it -- because it will be spoiled for you, usually at the top of the article.
So you prefer an encyclopedia where the editors add in their point of view and/or engage in original research based on their point of view? --Farix (Talk) 22:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
We no more rely on outside sources for what a "neutral point of view is" than we need to to determine what counts as a "spoiler". Calling spoiler tags "original research" is an implausible rationale.
Regarding Phil's comment, Wikipedia of course has in many ways a different role, form, and mission from previous encyclopedias. We should take that into account to in trying to fulfill its mission in the best way possible.--Father Goose (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
But JzG is correct that the conversation is over, regardless of who was "right." I wasn't so sure a month ago, but I am now. I am still going to write my essay, because I think some of the observations (about how bad arguments convince smart people) and questions (about consensus trumping logic) are relevant, but they will have to be relevant to future (read: other) disputes. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe some of the idiotic comments made here. I don't visit for a few months and this happens. It should be patently obvious what constitutes a spoiler. Anything that does not appear on the backcover of a book, DVD/VHS box, videogame's box or in a movie synopsis found on commercial websites, should be classified as a spoiler. If you want you can also count information found in videogame instruction manuals as non-spoilerish.
In essence, a spoiler is any plot-based information about a book, movie, television series or videogame that you can only get if you read, watch or play the book, movie, television episode or videogame respectively. Last time I checked the site's policy on this, it was made very clear that plot sections should not be exhaustive, thus I did not even anticipate the existence of spoilers in The World Ends with You article. I was just thankful I was searching for information, thus I didn't really read the section properly. (I was scrolling up from the reviews section and hit the end of the Plot section without warning).
This is your definition of what is a spoiler. It is not the same one used by everyone else, and it doesn't even agree with the vague definition given on the spoiler article. That is problem with defining which plot details are spoilers, everyone has a different opinion. And adding your own opinion into an article is a violation of both the policies on neutural point of view and original research. There is simply no accepted standards, much else a scholarly standards, to determine which plot details are spoilers. --Farix (Talk) 14:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Fact of the matter is, if you don't want to experience spoilers, don't visit Wikipedia articles on the subject matter. If you want a reviews, try www.Metacritic.com . xenocidic (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
This seems like yet another a case of the ideology vs. usefulness. What you're saying is "don't read WP's entertainment articles until after you've seen/read the movie/book/etc." I really don't get that... then again I see that none of the 5Ps says Wikipedia should be useful to its readers, so your view is justified. This is why I quit editing Wikipedia. 128.237.224.24 (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
We really do intend to tell you everything important on a subject, and in the case of a piece of entertainment the "spoiling" of such entertainment, if you're the kind of person for whom knowing about the plot spoils the fun, is implicit. I recommend that such people shun Wikipedia for the same reason as I recommend that people allergic to peanuts avoid commercially produced chocolate confectionery.
When you open a Wikipedia page about a fictional subject, imagine you're putting on flippers and goggles, and diving into the sea of knowledge. Try as you might, you will find it difficult to emerge from this sea without the risk of all that briny knowledge clinging to your lips and worming its way to your tongue. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The01:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Who defines what is important? Isn't that a point of view, just like defining what is and isn't a spoiler? --Stozball (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
We can arrive at consensus on what is and isn't important, by discussion. By its nature, however, a spoiler is likely to be considered important by the very party who proposes its removal or tagging. Knowledge of an unimportant detail about a fictional work is unlikely to spoil one's enjoyment of it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The15:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
"This is your definition of what is a spoiler" Well, then this is your definition of what is an encyclopedia. In fact, if you could actually ask all wikipedia readers if they want spoilers in movie articles or not (as in a democracy) you would be impressed with how many people don't agree with your concept of encyclopedia - not that you're interested in it, of course.
If we can arrive at consensus on what is and isn't important, we could do it for what is and isn't spoiler - sorry, this is plain logic. But good thing is we don't even have to bother! we can simply put a "Warning: may contain spoilers" message at the beginning of every Plot Synopsis sections and a "Spoilers end here" at the end. You see? No need for defining spoiler and no violation of Wikipedia policies whatsoever. Plus a bonus for being respectful.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.43.141.29 (talk • contribs)
I think we should also add a warning "may contain traces of peanuts" at the beginning of every plot section. Seriously though, we had our plot sections start with "==Plot== warning! plot details follow", which was amazingly redundant. Kusma (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
This was a quite redundant warning indeed. But if you had defined a "==Plot== warning! will contain spoilers" it wouldn't be redundant at all.
I think we can safely assume there are people who want to research something about a movie still not be interested in having the movie spoiled. I've read a lot of "if you don't want to spoil a movie stay away from the article". I think the usefulness of a movie article that can only be seen by people who saw it is objectionable.
I understand some people consider a movie plot relevant encyclopedic knowledge, I just can't see what's the harm in protecting the casual reader from an unpleasant experience. I'm not defending censorship or arbitrary definition of "spoiler".
Wikipedia articles often disclose critical plot details in numerous sections—not just the section labeled "Plot". If there is going to be a general warning, then it needs to go at the top of the article. Putting a spoiler caption on the "Plot" section alone won't suffice. For an example, see Psycho. There are spoilers throughout the article.
Unfortunately, a "general warning," whether it goes on the entire article or at the head of the plot section, still leaves many readers unsatisfied. A common complaint is that readers want to get a general idea about a work, without having the "surprise(s)" spoiled. A general warning, either at the head of the whole article or at the head of the plot section, doesn't tell the reader how far s/he may safely read without learning a surprise.
Others favored spoiler warnings only on the specific sentences or paragraphs that are likely to give offense. But again, have a look at Psycho (1960 film), and ask yourself how many warnings that article would require. Marc Shepherd (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
There's an interesting and fairly complex case in television this week. Last Saturday's episode of a well known science fiction series ended with a cliff-hanger in which the hero appears to have been mortally wounded. In this series, it is traditional for the producers to procure another actor to play the part, and then show a scene in which the hero is revived, with the side effect that his appearance and characteristics undergo a radical change, and from then on the part is played by the new actor. It's a recognised feature of the series, and has happened more than half a dozen times in the past forty years.
In this cliff-hanger, the hero is seen beginning to undergo the transformation, and he states that it is happening. The special effects associated with the transformation (which are quite startling and cannot be mistaken for a bout of whooping cough or an epileptic seizure) are shown. Nothing is known about what happens next, but the two questions on everybody's lips are: is this the last we'll see of this popular and charismatic actor in the part, and who is to play the hero next week?
Without going into too much detail, I can state that the answer is on several associated pages of Wikipedia, where contractual details are revealed. Strictly speaking, those details are spoilers, are they not? By reading them, the unsuspecting reader, who is only coming to those articles to read something general about the show, is being told who will play the hero in the next episode and in the next season of the programme. His questions, which he may want to be answered only by watching next week's show, are being answered in an unexpected way. His experience is being "spoiled". If he had any expectation of remaining ignorant, that expectation has been unexpectedly dashed by an innocent-looking snippet of information about the exchange of contracts. --Jenny15:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
But Why?
I am just a casual reader of Wikipedia, and at some point noticed these spoiler warnings disappeared; checking here I see a heated debate that must have gone on for months. I have an opinion about this, but it seems pointless to divulge it argue about it. What I do think might be useful, though, is that this guideline article be a bit more informative about the argument/discussion. The article just states the policy, and that is fine; but in light of how divided some of the community is, it might be good to add some of the pro/con arguments and the reached consensus (if there is one). Of course it can all be found in the discussions, but it is rather long and tiresome, and at times one might question whether people argue in good faith.
For people who encounter this policy and wonder about it, I think there should be some unbiased extra information in place (clearly separated from the policy itself, maybe in a different article even). (Anton 20.04.08, added again (after wiki bot removal) 24.201.100.166 (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
I agree. This article only tells us that "Wikipedia carries no spoiler warnings". It does not acknowledge the fact that Wikipedia did previously have facilities for spoiler warnings. To the occasional user, who is unaware of this rule change, this may cause some confusion. It seems like the policy-makers are just hiding the fact that there has been a wind change on this. I think that, for the sake of clarity and self-documentation, this article should briefly mention that spoiler warnings were used in former times, when this came to an end, and why. I have tried to find this out by trawling through the article history but it looks like it's been a long and bitter conflict, so I haven't been able to track down exactly when things shifted this way. For now, I have added slightly to the explanatory text, and noted that Wikipedia previously included some spoiler warnings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weasel Fetlocks (talk • contribs) 23:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles (WP:NDA) for a more extended rationale for omitting disclaimers from articles. A reference to that guideline is included in the "See also" section of this one.
The old spoiler guideline died because the spoiler warnings were removed and not restored in great numbers, and the discussion while acrimonious at times resulted in the eventual successful nomination for deletion of the templates formerly used to mark spoilers. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The23:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added a link to Wikipedia:Content disclaimer as well, as that covers spoilers too. However, I still think it is important to mention here that spoiler warnings have been used on Wikipedia in the past. For example, I came to this page looking for a template for the spoiler warning tag, & was unaware until then that it was no longer in use. Other occasional users like me might be confused by this change.
I also think it is very important for Wikipedia to document itself. Many readers & editors may be interested in Wikipedia as a subject: how it works & how it has changed. So changes like this should be recorded openly and not brushed under the carpet. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that the anti-spoiler folk mainly bristle at the thought of Wikipedia itself being compromised by the indulgent intentional ignorance encouraged by spoiler awareness. I agree with that view, but I also think it's tragic that an entire category of use--casual browsing--has been essentially locked away.
So, what if there was a compromise? It would be entirely possible to have an external database project detailing Wikipedia spoilers that could be overlayed using, for example, a Greasemonkey script that turns them into "click to view" sections. Something as simple as an entry for each section in each article that contains spoilers. That way, people concerned about spoilers could get the script and use it to browse Wikipedia. Actually, I guess the same thing could be accomplished with custom user javascript. Max (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The only problem with this (other than the technical hurdle) is the majority of people who complain about the spoilers are just naive folks who wouldn't have special settings or greased monkeys turned on. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 17:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
If this is so, why not make the compromise the other way around - SWs are visible by default and hideable by CSS. As far I can tell, against SWs are mostly editors, no one really asked users about it AFAIK. Samohyl Jan (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
"... and Wikipedia puts huge capitalised signs up saying SPOILER WARNING when its plot descriptions of films or TV dramas edge towards the ending."
This guideline seems to suggest otherwise, and I can't say that I've noticed any spoiler warnings recently. Has there been a shift in policy? --Skinheed (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there has been a shift & David Baddiel is obviously not up to speed with it. I dunno exactly when the change took place, but sometime around the beginning of this year. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, i am just another casual Wikipedia reader, i just got a good game spoiled because i expect most pages on the internet to have some kind of spoiler warning. It is, or at least was some kind of standard (and surprise wikipedia is NOT encyclopedia britanica, it is a webpage) On pages or pieces of pages that contain spoilers. And i know that most of the Wikipedia elitists fight hard to make sure that Wikipedia does not contain "all human knowledge" (what do you mean "not notable"? I liked it.. No none of my articles has ever been removed, but some articles i found useful.)
But relay, get real, a work that can be edited by any monkey on the planet will never be viewn as a reliable source for information, for real, important business. All this "encyclopedic tone" and "notability" is just a thin veil to make you (the elite, that has the know how, that walks the walk and so on) feel more important.
And realy, what kind of lame argument is "different information are spoilers to different people"? I mean get real, some things are pretty obvious that they will tick people off. But then again, you elitist probably don't even read this page any more, since your mind is already made up, and agreeing to have a spoiler tag would again bring you down to being a mere web page author instead of someone writing a encyclopedia. So i could just erase all this, but then, i have already wasted quite some time so i will leave it, maybe it will make a slight impact on some one. And i am sure one of the editors will do that for me, since it is not encyclopedic enough, and then, i will for the first time have had any content of mine erased from this page.
83.226.168.225 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The comment above does seem more suitable for a personal blog, or perhaps the Village Pump. It covers a much broader range than the subject of this guideline. On the other hand, it's not the most constructive comment I've seen, so maybe we should leave it here. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The02:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Recommendation
I know, understand and comprehend that Wikipedia is not censored (after all, it prefers damaging the readers' joy over censoring itself; talk about selfishness ¬_¬), but I think the article (this article, I mean) should encourage users to add spoilers only on sections that naturally require them (this is, sections focused directly on the plot of the series/movie/game/book). For example, is it really necessary to write Snape kills Dumbledore, Luigi is unlockable or Yusuke is a Mazoku in the introduction text of the article? Thanks for your attention, and Godspeed. --200.71.160.128 (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
If the spoiler is the most relevant thing about the article subject from an out-of-universe perspective, it needs to be in the introduction. Otherwise, it probably doesn't (lead sections with spoilers are comparatively rare). Wikipedia:Lead section explains that the lead is not a teaser. Kusma (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
What is common, however -- in fact, it's our typical format -- is to have a big "plot" section immediately following the introduction that contains every possible spoiler. Given that this format destroys Wikipedia's usability for anyone who wants to learn something about a work without spoiling all the fun of seeing or reading it (this is why they call them spoilers), Wikipedia's handling of spoilers is still badly in need of reform.--Father Goose (talk) 06:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
You'll probably have better luck if you make a suggestion on the specific articles that concern you. As a general matter, the only thing we can say is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are designed to convey information, not to suppress or conceal it. Marc Shepherd (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I correct you, an encyclopedia is make to give information to people that doesn't know some info. If these people has not read a book, and wikipedia explain this book in detail, this make the article itself meaningles.unsigned 20:50 17 Nov 2008 (UTC+1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.193.49 (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The Dark Knight
At The Dark Knight (film), a non-free image of Two-Face was added. I removed it on the basis that it gives away the appearance of a character too visibly. I am a proponent of including spoilers on Wikipedia (The Dark Knight has a fleshed-out plot summary), and I believe we've operated on the premise that the Plot section will be contained with plot details. We don't explain each character's ultimate fate in the Cast section and only among critical commentary if necessary. Still, though, with the film not yet released in the United Kingdom and other territories, I was thinking it would be best to apply common sense in excluding the image for now. I support the eventual inclusion of the image with critical commentary, but I don't think we need to be so quick about it. WP:SPOILER only mentions spoilers within the text, so I don't know if images were ever discussed here in the context of spoilers. There is a discussion at Talk:The Dark Knight (film)#Image of Two-Face, and I invite input to determine consensus. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Spoilers of unrelated articles
I understand and expect that if I am reading an article about something that I might find out a bit of information about that, for example I would go to an article about a film I hadn't seen yet. But I wonder what peoples opinion is on spoilers that aren't directly to do with the article. I'm talking about an episode of Dr. Who from season 4 that had information about the season finale in it, I added a spoiler tag (to that one sentence) and it was removed and I got a message off someone about wikipedia policy.
I personally agree that an article should not contain a spoiler form something not directly related to the article. I don't think it should have a spoiler tag though, rather I question why the info is even in the article in the first place. A page about a specific TV show episode should not contain information about other episodes. Mloren (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Policy not well enough defined
I'm in a discussion over spoilers in the game of Nethack for that article. It's just now come to my attention the new policies on spoilers at Wikipedia. It's obvious that there's no firm rules that are going to clear up this issue and the spoiler policy is indelibility linked to the Wikipedia:Use common sense policy. Currently there isn't even a hyperlink to that policy! I think there should be a guideline that the lead section tends not to contain elements that would be considered by most as spoilers and that they be delegated to the sections like "Plot" or "Ending" that it is common sense to skip if you are censoring yourself from such things. That would be fully in-line with the other goals of Wikipedia while maintaining expected social norms. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Defining what is a spoiler is original research as it is an interpretation that knowing the information will "spoil" the experience. But more importantly in your case, the guideline clearly states that information should not be removed on the bases that it is a spoiler. --Farix (Talk) 11:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The current guideline is pretty clear; some people just don't like it. The previous guideline was a whole lot less clear; and some people still didn't like it. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The spoiler guideline itself defines the word spoiler so it is not original research. Even if you ignore that definition, it is logically inconsistent to say you cannot define what a spoiler is and yet also say that spoilers cannot be removed from an article. The current spoiler guideline can be circumvented by always claiming information was removed for some other reason. This guideline seems to encourage people to lie in their edit summaries. I don't like it and it has angered many readers as a perusal of this archive proves. As I stated above, this guideline should be indelibility linked to Wikipedia:Use common sense and therefore Wikipedia:Ignore all rules policy. It is the expectations of readers that major spoilers not be included in introductory sections and so on. It is also their expectations that spoilers probably do exist in section like "plot" without a very good reason. The guideline should be something like "major events meant to be a surprise should usually not be in the introduction but in sections that the reader can recognize as likely to contain major spoilers." Notice I am using the word "guideline" now whereas I was incorrectly saying "spoiler policy" before. WP:SP is not a policy. It is a guideline. So even the phrases in the guideline like "it is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot" are poorly written because they are the words of a policy, not a guideline. This entire guideline needs to be rewritten from scratch. I will eventually draft a new version myself that hopefully solves some of the confusion while maintaining the reasoning the current writers intended. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
First of all, you are completely misrepresenting previous discussions. They were about the placement of "spoiler warnings" into articles. It was never about the inclusion of spoilers in articles. The guideline has always stated, through every variation, that information should not be removed on the bases that it is a spoiler. That statement has had near unanimous support, even during the discussions about the use of spoiler warnings. Secondly, even if the guideline does give a loose definition of a spoiler, exactly how to apply it is original research. Rarely can you provide a verifiable source stating that knowing a piece of information will spoil the experience. As for spoilers in leads, that really depends on the peace of information. If the reason the subject is notable is because of a piece of information that some may consider a spoiler, it should be mentioned in the lead because it explains the subject's notability. Also, the lead should summarize the entire article. If you have a section about "spoilers" the it should be summarized in the lead as well. --Farix (Talk) 20:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
TheFarix covered it well, but I'll add just one more thing. It is true that an editor could temporarily circumvent the guideline by lying in the edit summary, but this seldom works. Editors who regularly follow an article will generally look at the underlying substance of an edit. A false edit summary usually won't deter conscientious editors from detecting and correcting bad edits. Marc Shepherd (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think my position is understood. I'm not against the inclusion of spoilers in articles. Far from it. My position is that, if possible, spoilers should be placed in the article such that readers don't get blind-sided by them. It should consider the desires of all readers. If the document is well-structured, it will allow readers the chance to identify sections (like "Plot") that are likely to contain spoilers so that they can choose to skip them if they desire. I put forward that this makes for a better article when it is written that way. The guideline's wording should also be flexible enough to allow for violations of this if the material warrants. The guidelines' tone does not seem to match its own boiler. I have faith that the wiki-discussion process can arbitrate on a case-by-case basis any gray-area problems that arise over what constitutes as spoiler and if it should be in a section or not. Also, any spoiler guideline that doesn't at least notice the social norm that it is rude to tell somebody something about a movie, book, or game that they didn't want to know is incomplete. That would help guide Wikipedians to writing a great article. Currently WP:SW doesn't really guide at all. It dictates. And the current version's wording seems to overstep its bounds as a guideline and gives people the impression that it is policy. I don't like the situation where people avoid visiting an article until after they have seen, read, or played something because they are scared of spoilers being in unexpected places. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious what is and what isn't a spoiler; I mean, sometimes leads include a synopsis of a whole work (eg. Hamlet). If a review or summary on the back of a book, movie, etc. wouldn't say something, then don't include it. A user should be able to read at least part of an article if they want to know what the subject or general plot of something is.Petero9 (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it isn't that obvious. Two people can read, watch, or listen to the same work of fiction and have different opinions of which plot elements are spoilers and which are not. There are even some who consider any plot element a spoiler. On top of that, many so-called spoilers are only considered a spoiler by most people for a limited time (ex. Vader is Luke's father, Snape kills Dumbledore). Since all of this is interpretation and based on editors' individual opinions, it is better for Wikipedia to not label plot details as spoilers. Also, calling a plot detail a spoiler based on the lack of coverage by independent sources can be viewed as a violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Farix (Talk) 01:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Except that the new proposed paragraph would not account for (as one example of the top of my head) Hard Candy, which does reveal the main twist in the lead (which is in direct opposition to Thus, there is normally no need to include spoilers in the lead section or any other section but those dedicated to narrating the plot.). Darrenhusted (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I for one, can't support the amendment. It is attempting to confine plot details to certain sections instead of allowing plot details to be mentioned were needed. --Farix (Talk) 11:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The point about real-world perspective struck me as very valid; it should be incorporated in some fashion. It's true that fiction-related articles are often too plot-centered. I'm fairly biased on that issue (disclosure: I'm the one who initially wrote real-world perspective), but am rather indifferent as to the issue of spoilers per se. So I'm agreeing with Vesal's underlying reasoning for "selfish" reasons other than those related to spoilers. He does have a point though: Plot details in general should be kept at a useful minimum and should be used anywhere in the article only where they serve to advance an overall real-world perspective. That may in some cases be in the lede, but he's also right that plot details are, in the staggering majority of articles, not necessary nor useful in the lede (that's how I read it, may need some tweaking to clarify and advise editors to exercise discretion, with both eyes fixed on RWP). Everyme13:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I accept that the original proposal was too rigid. There are cases where one must indeed reveal plot details in the lead. Hard Candy seems like a perfectly valid example: the plot twist defines the very nature of the film. But I'm concerned with unnecessary and careless spoilers that add no information of real-world significance. This guideline, being more concerned with Spoiler Warnings, does not carefully address the issue of when spoilers themselves are justified. It gives the impression, contrary to MOS:FICT, that completeness implies complete coverage of the plot. Rather, I suggest we say that spoilers are justified outside plot sections, when they convey information about the impact and nature of the work, as is the case with Hard Candy. If we can agree on the underlying intentions, perhaps, a less extremist and less polemical amendment can be found. Darren and Farix, do you agree with the basic ideas behind the edit as explained by Everyme and myself? Vesal (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
No. How about Teeth, in which the film's title alludes to a spoiler? Or is Luke Skywalker's father a spoiler for EpV but already revealed at the end of EpIII, so can I mention it in the EpV lead? How long is a spoiler a spoiler? Do I keep Julius Caesar's demise a secret when writing about the play by Shakespeare? To dictate that "Spoilers" cannot be discussed anywhere outside of the Plot section is unworkable. In discussing the film in the lead it may be necessary to allude to a spoiler, or with Hard Candy or Teeth give the spoiler away to describe the basic premise of the film. The current wording if fine and tells those who attempt to add "SPOILER". Darrenhusted (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Darren, indulge me when I take this to a meta-level for just a moment. You see, I'm a self-ascribed zealot on many things and I have the ability of finding a new favourite pet peeve in almost anything. Spoilers are not among those, never were. But I seem to recognise a familiar fallacy in your rather strict rejection of Vesal's amendment as in your revert and also in your comments here. Consider that there is a bit of a difference between neutrally assessing consensus and simply being on one side of an issue. Just saying, since you've recently reverted edits with a comparable underlying thrust at least three times. Also, please understand that it rings an alarm bell when I see a strong (and in this case wholly inaccurate) term like "dictate" being employed. I for one am not proposing anything like that. Where I am in agreement with Vesal and what I do propose is implementing the imho existing relation to another, just-as-applicable guideline which advises editors, among other things, to not overuse and not overemphasise plot details anywhere in the article, including the lede.
Your valid counter-examples do not change the fact that fiction-related articles should follow MOS:FICT just as much as this guideline. So for me, the question boils down to whether or not you do recognise the connection I attempted to outline between these two guidelines. If so, we could start out by simply listing MOS:FICT under See also, and work our way up from there. Everyme15:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
My revert was done for simple reasons, it added a chunk of text which had not been discussed. Even though there are not, say, a hundred people saying to not include it we have to assume that the current state was agreed at some stage and that the wording was agreed by consensus (that being that it has stayed in a similar state for a length of time). The text as I see it is trying to emphasize that spoilers should not appear all over an article, and this is what I disagree with. WP:SPOILER is generally used to point IPs to when they try to add spoilers to (mainly) film plots. The text here serves its current purpose, and i do not feel that this page is the place to address your other concerns. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Changes generally do not need to be discussed beforehand. That in and of itself is an unacceptable reason to summarily revert, as opposed to preferably adjust and improve a bold good-faith edit. Even more so where you yourself so far appear rather unwilling to reconsider your own position for the sake of actually helping us form consensus. As to the relation to MOS:FICT: So you do not see that connection at all? Not even to the extent that you would agree placing a link to MOS:FICT under See also? I believe it is directly relevant; I'd even go so far as to say that for all practical purposes, WP:SPOILER is actually a subguideline of MOS:FICT. And the wording "generally expected to be covered in detail" currently in the page cries for a link to the guideline dedicated to that particular issue. Please don't be a zealot. Lastly some serious advice: You do not own this page. Changes to this guideline do not need your "approval". Please improve your efforts both to acknowledge the points of others and to present your own rationale beyond a mere rejection of anything that goes against your personal ideas. Everyme15:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Changes do need to be discussed before hand, if a page has remained in a single state for weeks, or months, or years then it is safe to assume that consensus was reached. The cycle of edit, revert, discuss is usually the best way to handle edits that seek to add to a page. I have no problem with a see also link. And on the matter of ownership, I never pretend to own any page (and do not like your implication) but if you (or any other editor on any other page) seeks to add content then the burden is on you to show that it needs to be added and persuade me that it is a worthy addition. If there is no consensus to add then expect to be reverted. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
"Persuade you"? No, certainly not. But it's the most concise definition that I've ever heard of what assuming ownership over a page essentially means. I've presented a few points, which you have summarily rejected without presenting any reasoning whatsoever or acknowledging anything of what I brought up. You actually went so far as to say that "i do not feel that this page is the place to address your other concerns". And also: BRD applies only where someone has valid concerns over an edit. Either there are specific reasons why the edit should be reverted as opposed to improved, or else it simply shouldn't be (summarily) reverted. You have not presented those reasons so far, but instead kept rejecting any compromise offer and even employed falsifying terminology ("dictate"). It's fun to discuss with you. Everyme16:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with Darren defending the status quo, requesting good reasons why a stable guideline should be changed, but I think he is overstating the level of disagreement. We all agreed the original wording was too limiting and naive. However, the underlying concern is that this guideline neglects WP:PLOT, which (as part of WP:NOT) is official policy. When a guideline fails to take into account a relevant content policy, it needs to be addressed. Vesal (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
