Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Nutshell

Unfortunately, the nutshell is still missing a sentence explaining that although spoiler tags are used, they should not be used in places where the reader reasonably expects to find spoilers. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That's been fixed. --Tony Sidaway 15:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced a mention of readers in that sentence. The fact that 45000 spoiler warnings were placed in such sections implies that it is not universal that spoilers are expected in such sections. While this is certainly something like the consensus now, we need to be clear that it is an assumption we are making, and imposing on our readers, for better or for worse. -Kieran 16:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot details are expected in plot sections. That's a statement of fact. --Tony Sidaway 16:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot details are not necessarily spoilers, and the question is whether spoilers are expected in plot sections. We have seen people post on this page that they were accidentally spoiled, so clearly this is not an assumption that everyone makes, whether we expect them to or not. Philip Reuben 16:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur that plot sections, with a robust NPOV, will contain pertinent details including "twists," "surprises," etc. Elsewhere, the notice may be called for. E.g., what about a page about the singer in THE CRYING GAME ... could a character article contain the surprise in the lead paragraph (making a notice arguably supported), or in a "storyline" or "history of character" section (in which plot details are expected)? Personally, I think a nutshell is a summary, and need not contain detailed information. If an editor needs details,... s/he must read the guideline! :D David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 16:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained that there's good justification for leaving warnings in plot sections. In short:

Not all plot elements are spoilers and it's possible for a plot section to not contain spoilers, especially if the plot section is not at the level of detail where the spoiler would show up.
Even if it was true that every plot section contains a spoiler, that doesn't tell the reader where in the section the spoiler is located. A spoiler warning can be put in the middle or end of the section if the spoiler isn't at the top.
It's a better user interface to consistently put spoiler warnings on all spoilers, even if the reader could deduce the existence of some of them without a warning. Human communication is filled with redundancy.

Ken Arromdee 17:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agreed with you ... a month or two ago. In the process of writing/editing synopses for some films with significant plot twists on which I have some expertise, I realized that a spoiler warning in the midst of a detailed plot description was not only redundant, but condescending to the reader. I mean, here I am writing clearly and succinctly about surprises in The Other (plot) and The Yakuza (plot), in which I reveal information which is meant to be an ephiphany to the characters and/or the viewer/reader, and I'm putting in a notice that says, "hey look out, David's going to reveal some plot information." Well, duh, that's what the plot section is for. As a reader, I want a movie reviewer to either hold back that information, or alert me that he's going to spoil a surprise, because I'm reading the review with an intention to see the film. No such intention is assumed when I'm reading a scholarly/serious/retrospective discussion of the film, as we write here. Within the confines of a plot exposition, imho, a notice that we're going to divulge a detailed plot description is rather pedestrian writing. Like a paper which starts, "(heading)Outline:(new line)This is the outline of my paper. In this outline, I will detail the sections of the paper and what is covered in each section...." I'm not confident that I'll sway your opinion, but if you've never seen either of those films, take a look at the synopses and let me/us know if you're honestly, sincerely shocked by what I divulge, considering you're reading a plot description.... David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ken, why should we strive for redundancy? If we liked everything redundant, when I wanted to click on my email, a notice would pop up that I'm clicking on my email. Just because human communication can be filled with redundancy does not a pinnacle to strive for make. If we based everything on the wiki on human communication and such, Wikipedia would be a mess. Readers are not babies; they shouldn't have to be coddled. David Fuchs 22:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not "striving for redundancy" (that's a strawman), it's accepting some redundancy for the sake of the greater good. Philip Reuben 23:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

We've recently passed through these two incarnations of the nutshell:

This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia contains revealing plot details of fictional works. This is expected, and spoiler warnings are rarely called for. Spoiler warnings should only be used in articles about fictional subjects. When adding a spoiler warning, be prepared to obtain consensus that this is necessary.

This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia contains revealing plot details of fictional works; this is expected. Spoiler warnings should only be used in articles about fictional subjects. When adding or removing a spoiler warning, be prepared to obtain consensus.

The edit was described as: "cleanup to make more neutral, sound more fluid prose-wise." I agree that it's more fluid, I like the brevity, but I don't think we really are neutral on the issue of whether spoiler warnings should frequently be used. The trend of the article, and discussion, for quite a while has suggested that we're generally against spoiler warnings except in unusual cases (which we've completely failed to deliniate) where their necessity can be demonstrated. Anyway, I don't want to go crazy over this, so maybe a third party can again strike a compromise between these versions.zadignose 00:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The second version listed above seems fine to me. --Parzival418 _Hello 09:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to defend my version as simply encapsulating all that has been definitively set down. There's still arguments about exactly what occasions mark a spoiler, but we do agree that they shouldn't be used in nonfiction, and consensus should be reached regardless. David Fuchs 18:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Compromise proposal (Yet Another One...)

I know there have been many various "compromise" proposals and there is no chance in hell of anyone accepting anything like this, but I just want to say it:

If a section named "Plot" or "Synopsis" or suchlike, or any other section for that matter (e.g. "Background" or "Characters" etc.) contains spoilers in some particular part (but not in others), why not make a subsection of that section and name it appropriately, for example "Plot twist" or "Surprise ending" or "Identity of the murderer" or anything like that, as appropriate? This way the readers are sufficiently warned about the content, but the warning is not in the form of any intrusive tag or notice but just a part of standard wiki-formatting.

Here's more or less an example of what I mean:

 ==Plot==
 ===Main story===
   ...
   <here goes the main plot story, no spoilers>
   ...
 ===The surprise ending===
   ...
   <here is the "spoiler" part>
   ...

etc.

This way the significant ("spoiling") part of the story is sufficiently separated and signposted, but no intrusive warnings are used. 131.111.8.104 00:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That isn't a compromise. Such edits are well within the current guideline, subject to consensus. --Tony Sidaway 00:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a compromise in the sense that those who really want to have spoiler notices can do it in a "neutral" way, without using any tag or template; even, in a sense, improving the structure of the articles, by dividing sections into appropriate subsections. I don't see anything wrong with it. 131.111.8.104 00:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds pretty reasonable actually. I interpret it as "no spoiler tags, but use section titling appropriately." Though I wouldn't really like to see a section that says "surprise ending." It's probably enough to say "ending." Certainly no one would read that section if they don't want to know how the plot ends. In something like the Crying Game there could be sections such as "Introduction to the relationship," and "A Surprising Revelation," or something similar. This would also address my concern that we really shouldn't have a template that's required to be used. Heck, sign me on for this compromise.zadignose 00:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, "surprise ending" was just an example. One can use anything that is appropriate for the occasion... 131.111.8.104 00:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If it can be included as part of the guideline that users are encouraged to put spoilers in intuitively-marked sections (more specific than simply "Plot") where possible, I am all for this proposal as a compromise. This would of course conflict with the current part of the guideline that "Concerns about spoilers should play no role in decisions about the structure or content of an article, including the article's lead section." On a semi-related note, I would particularly like the "lead section" part to go, at least as pertaining to endings in mainstream fiction where the lead could quite happily say "XYZ is known for its twist ending" or similar as in the page for The Sixth Sense. Philip Reuben 01:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That spoilers must not play a part in decisions about article organization is, frankly, a non-negotiable point. That's the road that leads to shit like The Crying Game not mentioning its twist in the article lead despite the fact that there are serious NPOV issues in doing so. In cases where something is notable for being a twist ending it may be sensible to break it out into its own section, but this must not be a general rule. Phil Sandifer 01:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to look at The Crying Game because I don't want to be spoiled, but is there any particular reason the twist needs to be spelled out and not referred to metatextually as "a twist"? Philip Reuben 01:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a "twist" that absolutely needs to be included in this article. I strongly agree with Phil on this one -- we can't let spoilers dictate how an article is organized or what content is included in the article. I agree that this is non-negotiable. --- RockMFR 01:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The twist is the basis for most of the academic commentary on the film, and is the basis of the film's reputation amoung a particular group of people. Phil Sandifer 01:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your ability to explain this without spoiling the twist for me. (Shame that RockMFR couldn't manage the same, but oh well, what's done is done.) I agree that the spoiler belongs in the lead, but I also feel this is an exception where a spoiler tag in the lead is warranted, as allowed for by the rules and agreed by several people on the article's talk page. Also, I still feel that cases where the lead reveals the ending should be at least gently discouraged and considered the exception rather than the rule. Philip Reuben 01:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I mostly agree, but I think the discouragement should come from basic article structuring. The decision, in most cases, really makes itself. The Crying Game has to have it in the lead. Soylent Green needs to, because the spoiler is itself a catchphrase and thus important to report as such. The Usual Suspects probably doesn't need to reveal the spoiler. The Sixth Sense and Fight Club are 50/50. These decisions really all make themselves when you look at the subjects, without having to consider the severity of the spoiler. (Other ones that should definitely have spoilers: Valen. [[Sue Dibney].) Phil Sandifer 02:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, if people were really not considering spoilers when writing their lead text, almost any lead text about a movie with a famous twist would reveal the twist. There was even a 50/50 split on the Crying Game talk page about whether the lead should explain the twist, and that's a fairly extreme example since the twist is very specifically relevant to the film's notoriety. I think the guideline should reflect the reality that people do (and should) consider spoilers when writing the lead text, and should specifically ask themselves whether a major spoiler at the top of the article is really necessary or appropriate in any given case. Philip Reuben 02:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that lead section is fairly clear on this, to wit:

The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article.

At the same time, not everything should go into the lead. The fact that Superman brings Lois Lane back to life by making time go backwards is a well known plot element of the film, but reliable sources don't identify it as a crucial part of the plot. The fact that Rick's cynicism is a cover for his idealism and nobility has been covered widely in commentary and this theme should probably be covered in the lead (as part of the allegory on US isolationism). --Tony Sidaway 15:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, we are free to make a decision that conflicts with Wikipedia:Lead section if we feel it's appropriate. Philip Reuben 19:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles

I've performed the following edit:

Spoilers on the Internet are sometimes preceded by a spoiler warning.^[1] In Wikipedia articles, for purposes of style and clarity, it is recommended that the use of spoiler alerts be minimized, though they are acceptable when the editors working on an article have consensus for their inclusion.

is changed to:

Spoilers on the Internet are sometimes preceded by a spoiler warning.^[2] In Wikipedia articles, for purposes of style, clarity and neutral point of view, use of spoiler alerts is deprecated in accordance with our general guideline, No disclaimers in articles, but may be included where they do not affect article quality and consensus exists for their inclusion.

This brings the spoiler tag into the context of general Wikipedia policy, to which it is very much an exception. The bolded section in the second block above is the changed wording. --Tony Sidaway 14:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify the role of WP:NDT. I've reworded the relevant sentence to:

In Wikipedia articles, for purposes of style and clarity, the use of spoiler alerts is minimized, though they are acceptable as an exception to our general guideline, no disclaimers in articles, when there is consensus for their inclusion.

Note also a significant change:

when the editors working on an article have consensus for their inclusion.

This wording seems to contravene ownership of articles, so I've changed it to:

when there is consensus for their inclusion.

--Tony Sidaway 15:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that it makes a great deal of difference either way. "The editors working on an article" can include any editors who are only working on it because they routinely swoop down on all articles that have spoiler tags added. Philip Reuben 15:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's best to avoid misunderstandings. Your accusation of editors "swooping down on articles" is very, very much contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia policy, which encourages the principle that anyone can edit an article. --Tony Sidaway 15:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's been reasonably well-established on this talk page that a small group of editors overriding a much larger group of editors on the same issue across multiple articles is an exploitation of consensus policy that is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Others are welcome to offer their thoughts. Philip Reuben 15:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've also restored the reference to neutral point of view, whch is obviously a very great concern when editors decide to label this or that statement to be of a nature that it would merit an exception to our general guidelines against self-reference and disclaimers. --Tony Sidaway 15:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

And I've removed it again. There is no consensus here that spoiler tags are inherently POV, and discussion should take place before this change is implemented. Philip Reuben 15:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm very, very surprised at your statement. In marking a plot detail as significant, an editor is usually expressing his personal opinion. This is why our neutral point of view policy exists: to distinguish between the reporting of facts, including facts about notable opinions (subject to verifiability), and the recording of our personal opinions. If the editor is saying that a plot detail is significant because it has been described as a twist ending or some such in reliable sources, this is somewhat compatible with our policy, provided it is a mainstream opinion, recorded widely in such sources. So obviously there are issues of neutral point of view here. I don't think that was ever in doubt, hence my surprise. --Tony Sidaway 15:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the reference to neutral point of view was only recently removed. I don't recall any significant discussion to justify that removal. But that is a minor point. Obviously NPOV concerns belong here as in all disclaimers. --Tony Sidaway 15:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's in doubt, two people have reverted your edit. "In marking a plot detail as significant, an editor is usually expressing his personal opinion." By that line of reasoning, an editor is also expressing his person opinion by deciding which information is important enough to go in the lead. And let's say an article about a person has an "Early life" section - is an editor expressing his personal opinion by deciding when this "early life" ends? Or is he using his common sense to organise the information in the most appropriate and useful way? I think the latter. Spoiler tags are a common sense, NPOV method of organising information. Philip Reuben 15:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You're simply wrong. The lead section must conform to NPOV. From Lead section guideline.

The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources.

You will of course recognise this as a restatement of our neutral point of view policy, specifically:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources).

Spoiler tags, just as every single element in a Wikipedia article, must conform to neutral point of view. --Tony Sidaway 15:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

And the "Early Life" example? Spoiler tags don't unbalance the article towards anyone's point of view, they merely tell the reader what type of content to expect. Philip Reuben 15:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Early life" is a section heading. It isn't a disclaimer or warning. There's a subtle, but significant, distinction, though obviously section headings are still covered by NPOV, too. --Tony Sidaway 15:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to explain more clearly how this "subtle, but significant distinction" relates to the idea that spoiler tags are NPOV and section headings are not. Anyway, I really need to get on with some work so (provided I don't get distracted) I won't be back to check here for a few hours. Philip Reuben 15:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

To put it simply, a section heading describes the subject covered in the section, and a spoiler tag states an opinion about the significance of a factual statement or statements within an article. Both are subject to neutral point of view, but this requirement is more exacting in the case of an opinion. We do not decide the significance of a statement by ourselves, but by reference to reliable sources. --Tony Sidaway 16:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

'Early life' in biographical articles are still expressing an opinion regarding someone's 'early life'.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain this? What opinion is being expressed? --Tony Sidaway 18:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Early life" ends at point X. Everything after that is too late to be called "early life". This is an opinion. Philip Reuben 18:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As above. Early life could end at 15 or 35.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Both of those claims (by Nydas and Philip Reuben) are subject to verification. You can't walk away from the core policies. They're there all the time. If someone puts "At the age of 35, Winston Churchill...." under the heading "Early life" then it can be challenged. If someone moved "At the age of 5, Winston Churchil..." to a section titled "Middle age", it can be challenged. All section headings can be challenged under neutral point of view. All spoiler tags can be challenged under neutral point of view. --Tony Sidaway 00:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

And? That doesn't mean spoiler tags (or "Early Life" headings) inherently violate NPOV. Philip Reuben 00:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration declined

Arbitration reject: Spoiler Warning (19:57, 5 July 2007 )

[1]. The mediation has stalled, so that brings this down to two active venues of discussion: here and the RFC. Any others? - David Gerard 15:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

With the exception of a meta-discussion about the tone of the debate, and a digression about depictions of rape, the RfC seems to be dormant at present. --Tony Sidaway 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Any admin want to remove the RFC pointer from {{spoiler}}? I would but I expect me doing it would go down badly in itself ... - David Gerard 18:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Premature closing of things has been a contentious issue so far. This last week was a vacation for a lot of U.S. professionals due to Independence Day (July 4). There's no rush. I suggest admins wait 8 days before a closing the Spoiler RFC to give any remaining once-a-week editors a final opportunity. Milo 09:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Documenting this discussion

When we do reach some kind of consensus, would somebody be willing to try and briefly summarise the process, arguments and justifications we went through to arrive there? This policy has been disputed periodically for at least four years. I think it would be best if we left something brief and understandable for people to start from if they want to reopen discussion (as they almost certainly will). We've produced an enormous body of text here, far more than any sane reader will want to wade through unguided in the future. -Kieran 00:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

We'll try, but no doubt we'll argue about that as well =) Philip Reuben 00:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is incredibly inflamed. With the amount of process abuse and argumentum ad baculum accusations that have been going around, each side will sadly accuse the other of abuses and idiocy. I don't see how we can work out an agreement on this. --Kizor 07:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Real world perspective

I won't revert this, but I think it's a very odd thing to remove:

When adding a spoiler in the lead section, remember that Wikipedia is written from a real-world perspective.

A misconceived edit by another editor (which will undoubtedly be reverted) had removed the rationale for this:

what is exciting in the context of a fictional universe is almost certainly a standard plot device in literary construction.

This elucidates the reason why we probably don't want to put the violent takeover of the earth (yet again) into the lead of Last of the Time Lords. Although it's a huge deal from an in-universe point of view, it's a recognised and very regular science fiction plot. --Tony Sidaway 00:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I'd misunderstood that sentence entirely, which is a testament to how unclear it was. It really should have been phrased to make its point, which (I gather now) is that certain plot points that are very significant to the characters in the story are still not significant enough to go in the lead. I think that's a moot point anyway, since advice about appropriate content in the lead probably belongs in WP:Lead. Philip Reuben 00:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh - WP:LEAD is a very general guideline, whereas this is a guideline that (most of the time) applies to articles on fictional subjects. The subject-specific guidance is important. Phil Sandifer 00:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a problem with WP:LEAD though, surely? If that guideline isn't clear enough about its own topic, another guideline shouldn't be stepping on its toes. Philip Reuben 00:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so - WP:LEAD should apply to all articles, not just the subset of ones on fictional topics. This is a good place to clarify a very specific aspect of LEAD - to put it in LEAD itself is a bit instruction creepy. Phil Sandifer 01:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I felt it was condescending to say that all spoilers are just common plot elements. Isn't this situation covered by the editing of the later portion to mention that non-significant spoilers shouldn't belong in the lead anyway? Kuronue 01:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not happy about the wording of the later portion. I think the idea that "the article lead should not need to warn about plot spoilers that are significant enough to appear in the lead" is exactly the kind of thing this guideline needs to not be dictating. Philip Reuben 01:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It's the spoiler tag guideline. This is the place to say "don't be stupid" to people who want to slap a tag on an article out of the very justifiable fear that somebody might learn something. --Tony Sidaway 01:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is that we don't have consensus that "the article lead should not need to warn about plot spoilers that are significant enough to appear in the lead". We don't need to contradict this statement, but neither do we need to state it as a given. Making it clear that some people take this perspective and others don't is enough for now. Philip Reuben 01:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain why you think we don't have consensus for this statement? It seems self-evident. Shakespeare didn't need a silly warning message before he had his prolog launch into a description of the death of the star-cross'd lovers and their role in reconciling their warring families. Why are we pandering to the idiots who claim that he did? --Tony Sidaway 01:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It probably belongs to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) (WP:WAF). I see no reason not to have it here too because this is supposed to be about spoilers. --Tony Sidaway 01:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as it can be worded more directly (possibly along the lines of how I stated it above) I don't really object to this advice being concluded. I do object to the condescending "common plot device" rhetoric, so let's avoid that place. Anyway, I'm too tired to continue now; it's past 3am here in Germany. I'll look forward to seeing what the situation is like tomorrow afternoon, as well as responding to any points that are still open. Philip Reuben 01:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The wording is: When adding a spoiler in the lead section, remember that Wikipedia is written from a real-world perspective. What is exciting in the context of a fictional universe is almost certainly a standard plot device in literary construction.

Could you explain what is ambiguous about this, and to which alternative wording you refer? And why is it condescending to refer to a common plot device as a common plot device? This is getting seriously weird. --Tony Sidaway 01:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not. But it's condescending to label all plot devices and twists "common". Sometimes they really ARE surprising. Kuronue 04:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

But the fact that it's surprising doesn't make it any less banal of a plot device. Just as exceptional music written in C major is still written in C major, many excellent works of fiction use completely standard plots, which includes having plot twists. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

And what's the relevance of the fact that it's been done similarly in other works to the debate of whether they ought to be marked as spoilers and/or included in the lead? Kuronue 05:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is that spoiler tags tend to overstate the importance and originality of what are standard plot devices. See Tony Sidaway's comment at the top of this section. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's not significant, important, or original, it doesn't belong in the lead, per WP:LEAD, and per later mention on the spoiler guideline. Why do we have to be condescending critics of what is and is not original on the guideline page? Kuronue 05:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe the point is that even if a detail is significant to the plot of a single work, if the plot of that work is clearly not original (someone turns out to be a different sex than they claim, someone was abused as a child, a dead person turns out to be alive) then there is no reason why we need to put a spoiler tag on it. Our goal is to describe the work of art in an encyclopedic way. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Does it make it any less of a spoiler? I mean, one could see the Tia Dalma spoiler coming a mile away, but it's still a spoiler. Common, trite, overused plot devices are rarely the basis of notability for a subject as they are in The Crying Game, and when they're not, they're best left to plot sections anyway, rather than being flaunted in the lead JUST because they're spoilers and we want to look down our noses at anyone who didn't see it coming. Kuronue 05:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't make it less of a spoiler, but it means there is less reason for it to carry a spoiler tag. Our articles contain spoilers - the disclaimer says so - but the vast majority of them shouldn't be tagged as spoilers.

It's up to editors on an article by article basis to decide what goes in the lede, but when something is important enough to go in the lede that isn't on its own a reason to use a spoiler tag. There needs to be something special that justifies it above and beyond the typical article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine the vast majority of spoilers are not important enough to go in the lede, therefore, one would not expect spoilers in the lede. If we tag spoilers where they are not expected, it follows that at least some of the time, the spoilers in the lede must be tagged. The exceptions are absurdities like shakespeare or fairy tales where it's expected that there are no tag-worthy spoilers because the material is so old. Kuronue 06:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought the guideline already said that sometimes it's OK to have spoiler tags in the lede, but the mere existence of plot info in the lede on its own is not enough to justify a tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 06:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that it's necessary to have spoiler tags in the lead. But I don't agree that the vast majority of plots don't need spoiler tags, either. There doesn't need to be a special reason. Editors shouldn't have to get a permission slip to add spoiler tags. If there was a genuine consensus against, then spoiler tags would die out anyway.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's now been established clearly that we don't have consensus on this matter. Therefore the guideline should be ambiguous, as it is at present. Philip Reuben 10:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Dispute

It's rather silly to say that this page's "designation as a guideline" is disputed. It's not. pretty much everybody here is agreed that Wikipedia requiers some sort of guideline on the usage (or lack thereof) of spoiler warnings. What appears to be under dispute is what exactly the guideline should say, hence this is "under discussion on the talk page". Simple, no? Wasn't there an ArbCom case about this very subject? Radiant! 16:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any such trivial matter reaching arbitration, but if it did perhaps it might be a good idea to cite the case. --Tony Sidaway 16:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the guideline in dispute? or simply details and application? I say, the latter. The policy/guideline already has a notice that it's hotly debated on the Talk page. A dispute notice is redundant overkill, imho. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 16:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course if this guideline really were disputed as a guideline we'd just remove all of the tags. The No disclaimers in articles guideline would prevail in its absence. --Tony Sidaway 23:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As someone has again restored the dispute tag, I've taken the bold step of redirecting the page to No disclaimers in articles. --Tony Sidaway 23:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, WP:POINT? Regardless of whether there is dispute or not, there is clearly no consensus for this redirect. Philip Reuben 23:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm disputing this article's designation as a guideline. This is disputed, and has been hotly disputed for a long time. I've seen plenty of other guidelines given a "disputed" tag because there was heavy dispute over the contents of the page, not over the issue of whether a guideline should exist on the subject. Edit warring over the presence of a disputed tag is almost universally proof of the existence of a dispute, and the removal of the tag is inappropriate until such a time that we can come to an agreement that the page is an adequate guideline supported by consensus. We're not there yet, so stop pulling stunts like turning the page into a redirect because, by some twist of logic, this implies that the guideline isn't disputed.zadignose 00:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't out to prove a point, but I seem to have done so unexpectedly. It appears that there is consensus that this guideline should exist, after all. Therefore the disputed tag can be replaced with an underdiscussion tag. --Tony Sidaway 00:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"I certainly wasn't out to prove a point, but I seem to have done so unexpectedly"? You make it very difficult to assume good faith, I'll say that much. My main issue with the underdiscussion tag is that the wording is not strong enough, and suggests to me that there is broad agreement that that the guideline as it stands is roughly appropriate, with any possible changes being minor in nature. What we are disagreeing over is whether the article as it stands can be designated a "guideline", and clarifying that this fact is disputed makes it harder to point to this page as an argument in itself, instead promoting discussion of individual opinions on talk pages as a way to obtain local consensus. The current situation promotes circular reasoning (WP:SPOILER supports the consensus, the consensus supports WP:SPOILER) which is not desirable when such a drastic change has been made to WP:SPOILER so recently and with opposition from numerous editors across numerous articles. It's a shame that there isn't an in-between tag. Philip Reuben 01:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

So, someone else reverted Tony's redirect of this page (obviously), and I restored the shortcuts for this page with the edit summary of "rv". Tony's kind of having a cow about it, so I just kind of want to make sure it's not just me.. User talk:Ned Scott#Four reverts without adequate edit summaries. -- Ned Scott 06:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. Least controversial edit ever. (Of course, I was the one who reverted Tony, but no one else seems to be objecting to that or to this. Tony should direct his nitpicking to things people care about.) Philip Reuben 11:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

My issue is not with Ned Scott's edit, but his failure to explain his edits in the edit summary, and (when asked about it) to act dismissively and insultingly. Such behavior is absolutely not permitted on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 14:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a policy stating that all edits must have an explicitly clear edit summary? Last I checked, there was a guideline (Wikipedia:Edit_summary) that "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". His response was dismissive, but in jest and (I think) entirely appropriate to your blatant overreaction to a non-issue. Philip Reuben 15:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well not in jest, obviously. It was a naked, and rather disgusting, personal attack. --Tony Sidaway 15:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Tony, are you feeling ok?" and "Stop it, Tony, you're scaring me" are a disgusting personal attack? That's hilarious, and I'm being charitable in putting it that way. Philip Reuben 15:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No. It's absolutely beyond the norms of acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 18:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess we must agree to disagree. Philip Reuben 19:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Tony executed an disruptive edit here [2][3] and in redirects [4][5][6] which seems an example of WP:POINT, but starts sniping at Ned when he rvv (yes, I said rvv) to restore the previous versions, just because he didn't use more verbose edit summaries? And this, "I certainly wasn't out to prove a point, but I seem to have done so unexpectedly"? I really don't think you're so naive and inexperienced as to have blanked this article with a redirect, and changed all the redirects, without any expectation of someone reminding you of WP:POINT. You asserted that one of my comments (elsewhere) was trying to "poison the well," I could easily paint you with the same brush here. Tony, I humbly suggest that it's time for you to sit back and let cooler heads prevail. Blanking of guideline/policy pages is the kind of action that editors get blocked for, and I'd dislike seeing it applied to you. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 20:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

My viewpoint on the dispute tag: the dispute tag does not mean that it is disputed that Wikipedia should have a guideline page named Spoiler. What is disputed is that this page* is that guideline.
* (i.e. its content, because if we aren't talking about its content we're only left with the title)
— The Storm Surfer 00:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What we have consensus for

This appears to me to be what the guideline should say, the baseline that's agreed upon by most of us editors. I propose we legislate nothing above and beyond those things:

Spoiler tags are not needed in "plot summary" sections. "Character Background" sections are similar cases.

Consensus can overrule any rule in the guideline

No spoiler tags in fairy tales or classic literature

Use tags sparingly (might be a good idea not to spell that one out too much though)

In non-fiction articles, if there are spoilers, make sure they REALLY need to be there. If they do, tag them.

This guideline should not conflict with any policy previously existing.

That's why I deleted the bit about the lead; that last bit should cover it, and spelling things out too explicitly tends to lead to rules lawyering abuse. Kuronue 23:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Local consensus cannot override core policy. To the extent that this guideline expresses the requirements of core policy (neutral point of view, verifiability, etc) it cannot be overridden by local consensus. --Tony Sidaway 23:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

But the guideline should not be overruling core policy, did you not see that part? So overruling the guideline shouldn't be a problem if the guideline is silent where core policy already covers. Kuronue 23:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus on whether spoiler tags violate NPOV. There is a visible lack of consensus either way, so our guideline shouldn't be too specific on the subject. Philip Reuben 23:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Every element of a Wikipedia article is subject to neutral point of view. There is absolutely no possibility of spoiler tags being magically declared to be immune from the policy. --Tony Sidaway 23:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's saying they are! Instead, we're not coming up with a "all spoilers show POV" or "no spoilers show POV" statement. If a spoiler is POV, it needs to be edited to NPOV. Who is arguing against this? Tony, maybe you should take a break, your arguments are getting more and more absurd and difficult for me to follow. Kuronue 00:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't need to be explicitly mentioned in all guidelines. NPOV applies to everything without it being stated everywhere. Philip Reuben 00:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

All guidelines must give due recognition to core policies. I've cited several that do. --Tony Sidaway 00:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Not all guidelines need to mention the NPOV policy. Browse through Wikipedia:List of guidelines and then tell me I'm wrong. Philip Reuben 00:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

All guidelines should refer to WP:NPOV where relevant. It's definitely relevant to a guideline that applies to tags that are often placed, for the most part, solely based on the personal opinion of the editor. At the very least, this reference explains why such tags are quickly removed unless a justification is given. --Tony Sidaway 01:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it's not relevant.

I've no objection to a stated spoiler tag justification as long as it applies equally to placement or removal. That aside, this guideline does not need to mention NPOV. "Core policy" talk is too frequently an attempt to make the issues being discussed seem more important than they are. The guide probably should not mention NPOV to avoid confusion, because there are normally no significant NPOV issues in placing spoiler tags. There are always enough editors who know how to invoke general policy NPOV in the rare exception cases, if there are any at all.

Disclaimer guides don't apply because spoiler tags are not a disclaimer/warning, because there is no danger, only possible disappointment. Spoiler tags are a content notice, like the disambig notice and the contents box — and, btw, nobody complains about the contents box because it can be optionally hidden.

People want to know these spoiler details eventually, so it's not about 'conniving with ignorance'. Rather, like sex, it's about good timing. (That 'conniving' bon mot somehow reminded me of military stories about running underwear up a flagpole to see who salutes without paying attention.)

There's nothing about a spoiler tag placement in any common fiction that's likely to express a POV that rises above the de minimus level. POVs below the de minimus level are found everywhere in Wikipedia. To invoke them in a consensus debate as rising to core policy issues is usually Wikilawyering, and to be suspected as an attempt at WP:Own. It strikes me that inserting an unneeded reference to NPOV will stir up Wikilawyering over trivia, which unnecessarily makes routine spoiler tags consensus decisions more difficult.

The reason that the de minimus principle exists in law is to prevent legal disputes over all small uncertainties. So one editor thinks a particular plot point is a spoiler, and another doesn't. So what? They may both be reasonable depending on how much experience they have with increasingly familiar fictional plots. That's a routine consensus issue, not an NPOV issue, and therefore it is WP:Consensus that should referenced, not WP:NPOV. Milo 07:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether we think that certain details are or are not spoilers - either way, they still usually don't need tags. If spoiler tags are not a disclaimer or warning, similar to a "not safe for work" warning, what are they? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"what are they" As I stated in the next sentence, spoiler tags are a content notice, like the disambig notice and the contents box. The word "warning" is dramatic hyperbole used to promote fictional drama. "Warning" is literally not true, so the word "warning" should be removed from the guide and replaced with "notice". Milo 05:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur that WP:Consensus is the guiding policy here, not WP:NPOV. NPOV is not affected one way or the other by the presence of a spoiler notice, because a spoiler notice advises the reader of upcoming content; it is not part of the content itself. Therefore it connot affect the NPOV status of the article in any way. --Parzival418 _Hello 07:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This looks very good. I also think it's important to keep the unacceptable alternatives section, and perhaps mention that spoilers should be in the lead if it is important for them to be there. — The Storm Surfer 02:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Essay?

Since this guideline still has a "disputed" tag, I wonder if those who dispute its status as a guideline would be prepared to have it labelled as an essay. --Tony Sidaway 01:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly not an essay. Nearly every comment you make causes me more and more difficulty in believing you are not out to be disruptive. — The Storm Surfer 01:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. It's just that we already have a No disclaimers in articles guideline, which is not disputed. This guideline's status as a guideline (and not just the wording of the guideline) is disputed, so we could call it a day and say "this is an essay". Then the existing guideline applies. Indeed as long as the "disputed" tag remains on the page, it would be appropriate to regard the "no disclaimers" guideline as the operative one. --Tony Sidaway 01:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you can delete the templates then. It should not be controversial. — The Storm Surfer 02:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think those who dispute that this is a guideline would support that. Moreover the templates are useful to keep around, even without a guideline, for a number of reasons that must by now be evident to all. --Tony Sidaway 02:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Doubtful, someone would remove them on sight from articles. We can tag the templates and this guideline as historical, though, because trying to use it will only create an edit war. -- ReyBrujo 03:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's disputing that this is not a guideline. We're disputing whether it's good or not. But there's no "the content of this guideline is under heavy debate and is subject to change", so we stuck a disputed tag on it and called it a day. Kuronue 04:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony, you're really trying to get as much leverage out of the disputed tag as possible, aren't you? A very sensible approach, when a guideline is disputed, is to leave the tag in place until the dispute is largely resolved, and then remove the tag when there's clear consensus supporting the guideline. You, however, flip from day to day between "this isn't disputed, let's take off the tag," to "let's just delete the guideline and make it a redirect," to "let's make it an essay." How about the more reasonable "let's resolve the dispute!?"

*applauds* Kuronue 05:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well put. Philip Reuben 10:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The tag says "This page's designation as a policy or guideline is disputed." If as you claim "Nobody's disputing that this is not a guideline" then we're all agreed that this document is a guideline the tag should be removed and replaced with an "underdiscussion" tag. I have done so. --Tony Sidaway 12:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

And someone else has replaced it. Either that person is illiterate or you're wrong. --Tony Sidaway 12:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

How about a "historical" tag? The guideline and its history will still be available for reference. --Tony Sidaway 12:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You can try as many times as you like to surreptitiously invalidate the guideline by insisting that the disputed tag necessitates a course of action that invalidates the guideline (this is the third one you have suggested now). Unfortunately for you, we're all smarter than that. Philip Reuben 12:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's odd to be accused of attempting surreptitiously to invalidate a guideline when I've been openly discussing, and trying to establish, the validity of the guideline for some days now. The "disputed" tag does not necessitate any course of action, but it certainly does suggest that the several people who keep restoring the tag do not accept the document as a guideline. --Tony Sidaway 13:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't suggest that at all, and it never has. It didn't suggest that when you redirected the guideline, it didn't suggest that when you proposed changing it to an essay, and it didn't suggest that when you proposed adding a historical tag. You seem to have failed to notice the pattern of general disagreement with you over this matter. Philip Reuben 13:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying the tag is incorrect when it says "This page's designation as a policy or guideline is disputed"? --Tony Sidaway 14:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I kinda have to agree with Tony here. Think about it this way. The text states: "This page's designation as a guideline..." -- think about that. The way it currently reads, it's saying that the FACT it's a guideline (and thus should be more or less followed) is under despute. It's really not though -- pretty much everyone is in agreement that there needs to BE a guideline. What's under dispute is the content, which the 'under discussion' tag works a bit better for. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact the guideline as it stands "should more or less be followed" is exactly what is under dispute. Philip Reuben 12:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why this is even an issue. The dispute tag is not causing any harm, and if discussion continues to be minimal, we should hopefully be able to remove it soon anyway. Philip Reuben 12:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

So to get back to the subject, are we now all agreed that this page's designation as a guideline is not under dispute? --Tony Sidaway 13:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Nitpicking over the dispute tag is hardly "the subject". I'd appreciate it if you would get back to the subject. Philip Reuben 13:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly nitpicking. But I'll assume we've resolved the issue and the tag is being used, as someone suggested earlier, in lieu of a "the content of this guideline is under heavy debate and is subject to change" tag. --Tony Sidaway 14:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the new change you did. I think it covered exactly the current issue. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 15:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we done?

This brings us to the final question: is the content of this guideline still under heavy debate?

Since the start of this month, some 33 editors have made comments on this page. However the actionable disputes about the content of the guideline have been very sparse.

There was a flurry of editing a couple of days ago and the wording of the guideline has been very stable since then. Since the start of the month we've removed or refined disputed wording, such as "compelling reason", we've debated and removed some disputed exposition about scholarly works in the opener, the role of the lead section guideline has been clarified, a section about spoilers in trivia section has been removed, some weaseling about the status of "classic" films has been removed, and "When spoiler warnings may be appropriate" has been refined.

Are there any remaining disputes about the content of the guideline? Well, to answer that question I looked at the diff of discussion since midnight on the morning of 5th July, and this is what I got:

A proposal by Zadignose to remove Fairy tales should never have spoiler warnings.. This was supported by Parzival418.
Zadignose remarked that "It's been suggested in some of the discussions above that the guideline needs to give good examples of where the tags are appropriate. I think that's obvious." User:Parzival418 had his comments on this and recommended that we "focus the guideline on helping editors format the spoiler alerts in the most effective way, so there is minimal disruption of the articles and Wikipedia looks good and easy to read."
Discussion over the nutshell, which seems to have been largely resolved.
Discussion of the reference to "scholarly" works, which seems to have been resolved by removal of the disputed section.

Are there any other ongoing disputes over the content?

Speaking for myself, those above don't seem to be particularly major disputes. But that's a matter of perspective. --Tony Sidaway 14:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know where best to comment, so I decided it would do to comment here. It hadn't been my intention to oppose the text "Fairy tales should never have spoiler warnings," though now I think it's good to see it gone, as I think the treatment of fairytales should be clear from the more general priciples of the guideline. However, what I really meant was to point out that we can give strong, clear guidance, even using absolutes when it's the clearest way to communicate. My greatest concern, however, is the second point above. I really would like some clear guidance to be given, with examples, to show how and when tags are to be used... or I'd like to clearly declare that spoiler tags shouldn't be used.zadignose 04:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I used your post as an opportunity to read the guideline yet again (groan), trying to forget what it had said in the past. I concur, I think the guideline is in a pretty neutral and uncontroversial state at the monent. As a practice, a guideline provides a baseline for an editor wondering if an editing change is supported or generally approved of in WP. The current guideline reads just fine to me, it provides some advice on both inclusion and removal of the spoiler notice, while making clear that there can be exceptions, and discussion on the article talk page can result in acceptance. I say we're done. Let's open up the bar.... - David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 14:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the statement "Fairy tales should never have spoiler warnings", mainly because it is unlikely to have any practical effect. Spoiler tags are usually inappropriate in fairy tales for the same reason that they're usually inappropriate in works of classical literature, and this doesn't need to be amplified or strengthened. --Tony Sidaway 14:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Your last few edits are pretty benign, but let's stop editing the guideline for a while and let others review the current state and answer your proposition. If the guideline is churning rapidly while addressing the question "are there any lingering disputes," the answer is likely to be yes. ;) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 15:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

We are very slowly getting closer to a neutral guideline, but the guideline should be looked at not just in terms of what it says, but what the intent is and what it winds up being in practice. The intent of this new revised guideline was to provide a compromise between those people who think spoiler warnings have no place, and those who think they do, with those people being roughly equal in number (except in certain uncontroversial areas), because there was no consensus that they should be removed. Thus, the effect of it should be to allow spoiler warnings in certain areas. But what actually is the effect? Look at 'What Links Here' for the Template:spoiler (Mainspace only). Currently, 7 articles have a spoiler warning. Now, considering the intent, this is either a problem with the guideline, or a problem with the behaviour. My feelings about the improper behaviour of certain parties on the anti-spoiler side, and the technical ease this gives them to override larger numbers, has been stated many times. But since many of them are the very same people who are participating on this guideline and pushing the compromise towards fewer and fewer spoilers, it's worthy of pointing out again. If everyone on the debate who searches for spoiler warnings being added and then immediately deletes them or votes to would agree to no longer do this and leave it to the mass of unbiased editors to handle it page by page, or put wording in the guideline to discourage this type of behaviour, I could probably agree to the guideline. But since they've repeatedly rejected or ignored offers of this kind, I think we need to take a look at the guideline, because the guideline is not promoting the effect we (collectively, although not individually) want.

As it stands, one of the big hidden traps in the guideline is "obtain consensus to add a spoiler". This makes the guideline presumptively "no spoilers", and dangles out a hope that there might be an exception, but with enough dedicated anti-spoiler-warning people, this hope can be effectively eliminated, as it has been now. Different people keep adding spoilers, and the same few people always seem to quash them down. As such, while I think we could still go with 'obtain consensus' on "spoiler warnings in the Plot sections", and perhaps even for the lead. For every other section, we should word it to be presumptively warnings allowed (assume good faith on those adding them), and consensus should be required to REMOVE them, unless of course they're surrounding something that is clearly not a spoiler. If there's a significant amount of disagreement, that means the warning stays. Wandering Ghost 15:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, but it's hard to see what can be done about it if certain people will repeatedly insist that this is a non-issue, that it violates WP:OWN, or that it should be dealt with elsewhere even though it relates directly to the writing and application of this guideline. A neutral guideline will necessarily encourage (or rather, not restrict) somewhat more use of spoiler tags than the miniscule seven articles that we see them on now.

Maybe the entire part about "the use of spoiler alerts is minimized" could be removed? The article makes it fairly clear when spoiler tags are and are not appropriate, except for the parts that we deliberately left vague due to a lack of consensus. Philip Reuben 15:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The way to get more spoiler tags where they belong is to place them in the articles, with consensus. This isn't rocket science. The fact is that very, very few editors across the entire wiki are doing this. --Tony Sidaway 16:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The number of editors across the entire wiki who are placing them in articles with consensus is minimal because of a variety of factors that have made it unjustifiably hard to gain this consensus over the last month and a half. Philip Reuben 16:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wandering Ghost, you propose this "if there is disagreement, keep the tag" solution only for non-plot sections. Here are some data points for you:

I've removed spoiler tags from 12 articles this afternoon.

Of the 12, 8 involved removals from "Plot", "Plot summary", "Plot and characters", "Story" or similar sections.
1 was a removal of a tag that preceded discussions of individual episodes, each one being clearly identified by the episode's name.
1 was from a "Characters" section, which I changed to "Character histories" to clarify that the section contained plot details.
1 was from a section labelled "Themes". While I think it's clear to most people that the "Themes" section of an article on a play will discuss plot detail, I decided to clarify to "Synopsis an themes".
1 was from a section marked "MI6 life", clearly a fictional biography.

So of the four examples above that arguably conformed to your exceptions, it appears to me that all but two were easily handled by clarifying a section heading to indicate that the section contained plot. The remaining two were both in fictional biographies, which necessarily contain little other than plot. --Tony Sidaway 16:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

So you agree that there would be no harm in an "if there is disagreement, keep the tag" solution for non-plot sections, and that in fact it would make little difference? Philip Reuben 16:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

For clarity, I would add "or in fictional biographies or character histories". It would make little difference, because in nearly every case where a section heading gives no indication that it is likely to contain plot, it can be changed to one that does and the tag can then be removed. There may be situations where this does not apply but I don't think I've found one yet. Where it cannot be done, I don't think it would be difficult to obtain consensus for a tag. So the exception is hard to justify, in my view. --Tony Sidaway 16:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What about that perennial example, The Crying Game? I feel a spoiler tag is justified in the lower part of the lead, which is an exception to the situations noted above. Philip Reuben 17:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Discuss it on Talk:The Cryng Game. The article is protected. --Tony Sidaway 17:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a past discussion on why spoiler tags in the lead don't work. The basic reason is that it visually divides the lead section so as to create an above the fold/below the fold section of the lead. The spoiler thus always ends up below the fold, which can be a NPOV problem. (The problem arises from the spoiler template's demarcated box, which physically divides the article layout in a manner similar to the ToC box.) It's not acceptable to demand that spoilers always go after visual markers that tell the eye "You have reached the end of an important section," which is what template boxes do. Phil Sandifer 20:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Spoiler tags never stood out to me in that way. The lead starts under the title and ends above the contents box; I'm aware of that so I deal with Wikipedia in that way. A spoiler tag is exactly that - a tag, a small amount of extra information, which I note if I don't want to be spoiled and ignore if I do. If anything, I'd say it draws more attention to the content within the spoiler tag (which could be seen to counterbalance the "below the fold" problem?). In any case, for the small number of articles this actually affects, surely it's acceptable as a concession? As I noted a couple of days ago, the pro-spoiler tag side has made numerous concessions in what is ultimately a very divisive argument with no overall consensus at all. Philip Reuben 22:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I honestly believe a spoiler tag at the top of the article is preferable to bisecting the lead. (Bisecting the lead also mandates a multi-paragraph lead, which is not always stylistically wise. That leads down the road of spoilers affecting article structure.) This seems sensible to me, if only because if the spoiler is important enough to be in the lead, it's probably important enough to be woven throughout the article such that an article-wide tag is appropriate. (That is what we did when Utopia (Doctor Who) was tagged) Phil Sandifer 22:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. You say that "in nearly every case where a section heading gives no indication that it is likely to contain plot, it can be changed to one that does and the tag can then be removed", and that "Where it cannot be done, I don't think it would be difficult to obtain consensus for a tag." Clearly The Crying Game is an exception: The spoiler is in the lead, so there can't be a heading change, and yet it's proven difficult to reach a consensus to include a spoiler tag, essentially because of a couple of people insisting that the same absolutist view we're taking with Plot and Character sections should apply to article leads as well. This is an example of precisely the situation that Wandering Ghost and I think is unjustified. Philip Reuben 17:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I see, I did miss your point. Yes, this is an instance where there is no consensus at the moment and a heading change would not be possible. If you think I take an absolutist view on anything, you should re-read my edits on this page: I have always advocated the use of discussion on consensus to make decisions on individual instances (how would I do otherwise, this being Wikipedia?)

So you're suggesting, it seems to me, that in the absence of agreement we should leave a spoiler tag in a lead section? This certainly highlights the danger, which I hadn't appreciated until now, of reversing the normal Wikipedia practice of requiring consensus on placement of style tags. --Tony Sidaway 18:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

And again we come back to the point that discussions on talk pages are inevitably biased on this issue, because it is possible for people who are against spoilers to watch all spoiler tags that are added while those for spoilers can't watch all spoiler tags that are removed. I'm not necessarily suggesting such a strong measure as that, but I think it's clear that Wikipedia's usual consensus policy falters a little in this instance. There are strong feelings on each side, but one side is in a better position to realise their strong feelings. Philip Reuben 22:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a solid argument in favor of using plain text spoiler notices rather than the templates, per #"Do not make home-made spoiler warnings using plain text." --Parzival418 _Hello 22:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Some more data points:

Yesterday I removed two hand-made spoiler tags, one of which was in an infobox giving biographical details of a fictional character. The other one followed a "Plotline" section heading.
I removed about a dozen spoiler tags the followed "Plot", "Plot summary", "Character history", "History" headings and the like.
I clarified the biography sections of an article about a fictional character by putting in a new "Biography" heading and removed the tag.
I created a "Plot summary" heading for one article and removed the tag.
I renamed one "Summary" section to "Plot summary"
I removed a solution section from an article about a text adventure computer game, because that was simply an unencyclopedic sequence of actions which if performed will successfully complete the game.
I removed one synopsis because there was an indication that it had been copied directly from the back of the DVD packaging

--Tony Sidaway 17:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to expand upon my suggestion that we remove the statement that "the use of spoiler alerts is minimized". When referred to in an argument, it shows its colours as a meaningless weasel statement: Who defines what is "minimal"? 7 articles out of 1,869,674 is pretty minimal, so wouldn't 8 or 10 or 50 articles out of 1,869,674 also be pretty minimal? Its inclusion merely serves as a pretext for this meaningless argument to take place, with one side insisting that "minimal" spoiler usage means that every single insertion of spoiler tags, even outside of Plot areas and so on, requires careful vetting before it is allowed. If, as Tony insists, almost all his current removal of spoiler tags are uncontroversial changes that are fully covered by the rest of the guideline anyway, removing this statement should have little/no effect, with that little effect likely to be a positive one.

Also, regarding the edit Tony made adding the word "necessarily" to the sentence "This does not imply that spoiler tags necessarily become redundant shortly after the work of fiction reaches market." on the grounds of "weaseling" in the original sentence. Where is the weaseling in the original sentence? Philip Reuben 17:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I felt that the wording "Note that..." amounted to a weasel-worded statement intended to imply that spoiler tags should not be removed in due course. It's not that important, restore the original wording if you prefer. --Tony Sidaway 17:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Philipreuben's 23:46, 8 July 2007 version is acceptable (to me at least) as the new spoiler guideline, with the possible removal of “Do not improvise such warnings in plain text, always use the templates.” or at least the removal of its bold status. — The Storm Surfer 00:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No one has responded about the possibility of removing the statement that "the use of spoiler alerts is minimized" (as per my reasoning above). What are people's feelings on this? Philip Reuben 00:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Under what circumstances should we tolerate redundant or unnecessary style tags? --Tony Sidaway 01:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not under very many, but what does that have to do with spoiler tags? --Kizor 11:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care whether that particular sentence stays or goes. It's not particularly meaningful, so perhaps it should go. — The Storm Surfer 01:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy

There is a disparity between stating spoiler tags are redundant on plot sections and stating spoiler tags may be used on recent works of fiction. Plot sections in recent fiction articles should have spoiler tags, since they don't get released evenly across the world.

Spin-off merchandise (novels, computer games, etc) may reveal the plot of an upcoming film early, allowing the plot section to be completed, but hardly anyone is going to expect this.

The recent works section should be strengthened to make it clear that the 'redundancy' argument does not apply to them. Otherwise users living in certain regions will face a window of uncertainty whether plot sections contain spoilers or not. No doubt it will be argued that such users should check the release dates before reading, in another blow for usability and neutrality.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this: users living in certain regions will face a window of uncertainty whether plot sections contain spoilers or not.

Plot sections of articles are supposed to contain spoilers. That is what they are for, to describe the plot.

The use of spoiler tags for articles about recent releases and future releases is a concession, basically, although in practice our editors seldom seem to bother using it. --Tony Sidaway 19:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If you do not understand it, then you should not be removing spoiler warnings. Are you under the impression that all fiction is released at the same time everywhere in the world?--Nydas^(Talk) 19:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Or that all fiction is uniformly known across the world? Less than half of en.wiki's readers are American. --Kizor 20:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A section entitled "plot" doesn't need spoiler tags regardless of when the work was released - the section title is quite clear about what's going on. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Fiction that has not been released may have a plot summary, but without spoilers. The section title is not clear on this.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the only definition of "spoiler" that will stand up to thought is "plot information". I doubt it is possible to find any other meaning for the term that will apply broadly. In some people's mind, any information about the plot of a work is a spoiler. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That's overly broad. According to the American Heritage dictionary: A published piece of information that divulges a surprise, such as a plot twist in a movie. It's not a sharp line, but there is a line. Not all plot details are spoilers. --Parzival418 _Hello 21:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that nobody will ever agree on which things are spoilers and which aren't. That's one of the reasons we don't use warning tags for obscenity, "not safe for work", sacred images, etc. - because they lead to unending discussion about whether an image is obscene, or safe for work, etc. So if we are going to violate the principle of "no content warnings" for spoilers, the only way for use to define spoiler in the context of Wikipedia is "plot information". Anything else only encourages pointless disputes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we in this discussion can't decide in advance what situations will be appropriate for spoiler notices. My comment was addressing the prior comments regarding the definition. We can't change the definition of the word "spoiler", we can only decide how to structure the guideline on the use of spoiler notices. We can (and should) safely leave to editors the determination (by consensus) of if and where to apply spoiler notices in particular articles. --Parzival418 _Hello 21:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

'No-one will agree, therefore we shouldn't have them' could be used to remove lots of things. The American Heritage Dictionary's definition is workable. The 'all plot is spoilers' view is not intuitive or widespread. There is no way to tell if a plot summary for a recent work of fiction will contain spoilers, and it's reasonable to use spoiler warnings in such cases. The current situation privileges those living in areas which get new fiction early. They get the benefit of a (usually) spoiler-free plot summary up until the fiction is released.

The reason we don't use obscenity notices is that our users censor anything they think is obscene, not because we have any truly hard policy against censorship.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That is an interesting view, but people nevertheless lobby for obscenity tags from time to time, and we point to WP:NOT#CENSORED. And the argument that nobody can agree about warning messages is used to remove warnings. If a plot summary for any piece of work doesn't contain 'spoilers" I would argue it is insufficiently written, or else the plot is so simple that you don't think it has any spoilers. So the readers should be disappointed if the plot section doesn't contain spoilers, because it means our article isn't up to snuff yet. Plot summaries placed before the work are released are usually copyright violations of promotional materials, and usually should be removed as unverifiable per WP:V. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to provide a plot summary for unreleased fiction, based on previews and speculation in reliable published sources, copyright doesn't come into it. A plot summary for unreleased fiction without spoilers is up to snuff, that a part is unknown isn't important. It is likely that our readers will be disappointed to read a plot summary for an unreleased work of fiction, not expecting it contain spoilers, only to find that some fan has written out the whole thing based on the sticker album.

WP:NOT#CENSORED is routinely ignored, both for 'official' reasons (WP:BLP) and on an article by article basis (Muhammed, Bahá'u'lláh). Seems like it's OK to censor stuff if it hurts or offends someone, unless it's spoiler tags, which aren't really censorship anyway. --Nydas^(Talk) 15:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line

If you can find anywhere an article that you believe needs a spoiler tag, add the tag to the article. If somebody removes the tag, use the talk page to argue for its presence. Just as with any other edit on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 23:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion immediately above is ongoing as far as I am concerned; please respond to the points that have been made rather than deciding on your own what is or is not the bottom line.

Also, I'm not going to get into an edit war with you over this last thing. Simplicity doesn't win just because you say it does. We had a specific discussion about that paragraph earlier up the page and, as far as I could tell, we came to a consensus. That discussion hasn't disappeared, so please go and participate in it if you want to try and sway the consensus. Philip Reuben 00:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

On this, I think Tony has a point - this page is not going to move to consensus at this point. The realm where consensus will usefully be found is on individual articles. Phil Sandifer 00:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If I repeated what I said above it could get tiresome. So I won't. And I won't rub it in. Much. --Tony Sidaway 01:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Are there any spoiler tags in existence which you have not personally approved?--Nydas^(Talk) 08:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A spoiler tag was added to Allspark two or three days ago and nobody has removed it, while other tags have been removed in the same time period. It appears that there is agreement that this article can have a spoiler tag, at least for the time being. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

So it was personally approved. The guideline's commandment that spoilers should be minimised suggests that instead of being considered on a case by case basis, they should be considered as part of the wider 'problem'. That leads to unfair 'judgements'.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

(←) I don't quite understand what you mean by "personally approved". Nobody commented on the talk page of the article, last time I checked. On the other hand, anytime any editor feels a tag is unjustified they can remove it, so in that sense every maintenance and style tag on WP is "personally approved". — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not every maintenance and style tag requires the approval of half a dozen editors dedicated to 'minimizing' them.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No, but if they're disputed they do need a consensus. Phil Sandifer 16:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Real world perspective (second thread)

I saw this text in the guideline:

"Remember that Wikipedia is written from a real-world perspective; what is exciting in the context of a fictional universe is almost certainly a standard plot device in literary construction. The importance of plot details should be considered from a real-world rather than in-universe perspective (see WP:WAF)."

I'm afraid I just don't understand it. I know that wikipedia is supposed to take a real-world perspective, rather than an in-universe one, but I don't understand the rest of this. How does this relate to spoilers, and how does it offer us any guidance regarding their use?zadignose 04:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there are two ways it pertains. On one hand, since many plots have some twist near the end, the mere existence of such a twist isn't enough to put the plot detail in the lede, even if the twist is major from an in-universe perspective. On the other hand, the mere existence of a plot twist probably isn't enough to put a spoiler tag inside a "plot" section, again because so many fictional works have somewhat unpredictable plots. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the in-universe or out-of-universe distinction has to do with spoiler notices. The manual of style calls for out-of-universe perspective anyway. That paragraph is confusing and should be removed. Every sentence should be very specific and clearly related to the main topic of the guideline, and evern more so in the intro. --Parzival418 _Hello 04:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I ran into an edit conflict, so my post is similar in content to the above. Anyway: I don't think the text is at all clear on this, and still don't really see the point. It's largely confusing, and doesn't really hint at how I'm supposed to consider the plot details from a "real-world rather than an in-universe perspective." I've never been in the universe of a film or book, but I know what plot twists are supposed to be surprising. I can't really see how the concept of "in-universe" perspective is even relevant to this guideline, and this entire text just confuses things. It seems like an attempt to tenuously link our rules regarding in-universe perspective to some interpretation of spoiler policy. It should probably be removed from the guideline entirely. Is it guidance, or is it a justification of a particular perspective?zadignose 04:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed it earlier today, and someone added it back in. I did not want to remove the same text twice, so I left it. If you want to remove it, I would support that decision. --Parzival418 _Hello 05:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I pointed out above how it is relevant. From the perspective a single work, a plot twist may seem like a major or surprising thing. From the perspective of an encyclopedia with articles on hundreds of similar works, the existence of a plot twist in a plot is nothing to get worked up about, because most important works will have them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, now I understand your point. However, I don't agree with your conclusion that because there are hundreds of similar works, the plot twist is not important to a particular reader. The purpose of spoiler notices is to help a reader not have the story ruined for them. That has nothing to do with the fact that the story they are interested in is one among many or that we are writing "about" the story rather than "telling" the story. Either way, we have the option, according to consensus on an individual article, to alert the reader of the plot twist in advance. So I still feel that paragraph should be omitted from the intro of this guideline. --Parzival418 _Hello 06:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Writing from a real world perspective really doesn't relate to the question of whether "most important works" will have plot twists, which is a claim I don't accept in any case. I'm not much in favor of getting worked up about spoilers or plot twists, but whether or not a plot detail is revealing enough to qualify as a "spoiler" has nothing to do with real world perspective, and as I pointed out, the existing text offers no guidance on how this concept should be applied, and is generally confusing. It reads like "here's another reason we could think of that might argue against the use of spoiler warnings, by some implied link to an unrelated policy, though the logic is fuzzy and you probably won't get it."zadignose 06:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact almost all works have some sort of plot twists is one of the reasons for not using spoiler tags to mark plot twists in "plot" sections. It's why the reader should expect to find descriptions of plot twists in our plot summaries. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

End this now!

Let's stop the silly arguing and sit down and mull over some hard truths. I hold these to be self evident:

that whether or not spoilers should exist is moot at this time as the community is divided;
that spoilers, still existing, have a limited scope, which was already argued over at the RfC (none in fairy tales, etc)
that generally spoiler warnings should be avoided in plot sections;
that technical workarounds, such as preferences and javascript backends, are infeasible for technical reasons as well as violating some Wikipedia policies, et al.;
that the alleged improper removal of spoiler warnings using automated methods has no bearing on the spoiler guideline itself, and should be left out of this forum of discussion, lest it continually muddle debate.

Where should we go from this? I propose:

that in its current form, with the redaction of the weasel words, etc, that were argued over previously, the guideline is fairly stable and should not be regarded as contested (yes, we can clarify, etc, but I think most of the offensive stuff, like how it said you needed a reason to add a spoiler but not to remove one, etc, and "compelling" were removed, so I call that progress).
that the issue of whether spoilers should exist or not be put to bed, for at least a decent period of time (consensus will not change in the next month, I promise you.)
that we go back to our merry lives as before.

Nydas and those who want to grieve about Tony and the "anti-spoiler brigade" can take that elsewhere, since it is more a perceived misuse of some tools rather than directly dealing with the spoiler warning guideline as above. David Fuchs 18:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

About the first point: So your perspective is that we can't determine a wider consensus for spoiler tags (from the present lack of them across Wikipedia, for example), but that we also can't determine a wider consensus against spoiler tags? And that the page should therefore stay roughly as it is at present? (I'd like to clarify this before I respond further.) Philip Reuben 19:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Essentially. Face it, argue against spoiler tags and you get into crap like "are spoiler tags encyclopediac" which leads into "but wikipedia isn't a regular encyclopedia" and has led to a circular argument that doesn't get anywhere. We should just accept some things won't change. Part of this is the whole 45K removal thing, but that is tangental to the main issue, which I believe we solved to the best of our ability. David Fuchs 20:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I agree with most of that. I can much more readily accept that there is no consensus either way than that there is a clear consensus against. I don't think anyone disagrees that fairy tales and non-fiction articles should have no spoiler tags. I can even accept the idea that people should expect Plot and Character History sections to have unmarked spoilers, even though I disagree with it, in the name of compromise and because it's easy for me to deal with in browsing Wikipedia.

Having considered this at length, my biggest problem with the guideline as it stands is as follows: The concession (and consensus) about certain sections being expected to contain spoilers is actually meaningless, because the article says unmarked spoilers are appropriate anywhere in an article. Is there anything resembling consensus on the latter point? It feels like one side is making a major concession and the other side is taking far more than that, i.e. the article isn't nearly as neutral as the lack of consensus would suggest.

I know that several people feel very strongly that concerns about spoilers should play no part in the structuring of an article, so that's presumably out. (I'm not even sure I disagree too strongly anymore, having been shown quite conclusively yesterday that some articles, like The Crying Game, really need to spoil the ending in the lead.) The other option is for spoiler tags to be deemed generally appropriate outside of Plot/Character/etc. sections. This would actually affect very few articles, but this minority might have a spoiler tag in the lead or in a Themes section, as subject to local consensus but encouraged by this guideline. How do you (and others) feel about this suggestion? Philip Reuben 21:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia contains spoilers, as we've known all along, and so its just what kind of spoilers and where they should be marked, yes? How about if we say "Spoilers can generally be found anyway in an article, however if editors agree an explicit spoiler can be placed"? David Fuchs 21:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

(You mean a spoiler tag, right?) I really think the guideline needs to be more specific than that. We seem to have reached a consensus that readers can expect unmarked spoilers in Plot sections, etc. Is this meaningful as a distinction or not? If it is, the guideline should reflect that rather than dancing around the issue. Philip Reuben 21:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm onboard with you on this, David. Particularly, that we go back to our merry lives as before. I've twice waded into this since May, shook my head, and gone back to my very busy and very full life here in RTP,... then come back expecting that the dust had settled, the new norms and practices arrived at, but found the issue was as red-hot and contentious as ever. The reckless action I noted above makes it quite clear -- it's time for all parties to chill out, step back, and admit that this is really not even a very big issue for WP, let alone the world. No one's winning here, everyone (and WP) are losing. I actually revisit a few articles about movies with significant twist endings or plot turns, and believe me, there are far more important article tasks than "whether to tag or not to tag" the spoilers. Being true to the movie, accurately communicating what makes the film(s) notable, these are the tough jobs. Spoilers just arent' worth all the back and forth bickering and nail-biting. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 21:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"admit that this is really not even a very big issue for WP" Time for you to admit that you're wrong to take such a narrow view. The spoiler tagging is just the fallout issue. The real problem is the clique's WP:Own of 45,000 articles, enforced by cavalier process abuses, and lame circular reasoning that's going to get their intellectual's license suspended. :) Milo 09:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The only relevant topic for discussion on this page is the guideline for spoiler tags. If you want to complain about the behavior of a group of editors, you need to pursue dispute resolution of some sort, rather than a guideline talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"The only relevant topic for discussion" You appear to be claiming that the issues I mentioned aren't relevant to the guideline for spoiler tags. If so, I claim you are Wikilawyering, which of course is the taking of too narrow a view. Milo 07:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Carl, if you really really really want to exact a pound of flesh for what was certainly a brash and controversial editing campaign, the talk page for this guideline is not the place. My comment that you pulled ("admit that this is really not even a very big issue for WP") is specific to the discussion at hand. It's not "a narrow view." Look at my other comments, you'll see that a) I'm actively involved in the spoiler tag debate, and b) I allow my opinion to grow and adopt differing perspective. Milo, please avoid personal back-biting in your comments. Attack the ideas, not the person. - David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 14:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

We are both great guys who don't personally attack others. Please AGF that did not happen. We disagree on the issues, so let's agree to disagree, and leave it at that. Milo 21:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

how about this: anything that doesn't have consensus (like the thing about structuring articles around spoilers, spoilers in the leads, etc) we just don't make a definitive ruling on, then we all go away and see how the encyclopedia turns out, and if in a month there's a horrible train wreck of tags like before, we come back and fix it again? Do we have to arbitrate every last detail? Kuronue 21:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Essentially, besides the changes which we fixed, we stay with the previous changes, and leave the rest up to editors. WP:SPOILER isn't a guideline, I think, that can be definitively put in black or white, as much as I would like, without one side losing entirely. David Fuchs 22:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with this, provided it involves rewording the guideline to make clear that certain issues are contentious and therefore left entirely up to local editors. Once again, the current guideline states outright that unmarked spoilers are appropriate anywhere, and that tags for spoilers in the lead are rarely appropriate, which we do not seem to have consensus for. If our aim is to be neutral on this issue, the guideline should be neutral, so let's pointedly not make recommendations either way. Philip Reuben 22:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I am essentially suggesting we remove or (preferably) reword the "Very rarely, a spoiler warning may appear in the article lead" bullet point to make it clear that there is no consensus on this issue. Philip Reuben 22:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

...and the same for the lead section of this article, as relevant. Sorry, I'm having a bit of a fractured conversation with myself here. Bear with me =) Philip Reuben 23:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the prohibition against spoiler tags in factual articles must have been created with something I haven't seen in mind. I don't find it reasonable that if, say, there is an article about an actor, and it is important to the actor's article to say something about how their character died in season N of series X (or some other very spoily fact), there shouldn't be a tag saying there's a spoiler for season N of series X. I think this should be removed or clarified. Otherwise, I agree with most everything in this talk section. — The Storm Surfer 23:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, wow, I hadn't thought of that. I think it was intended against things like putting a spoiler tag on the end of WWII or something stupid like that. Kuronue 23:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Another exception mentioned a few weeks ago was amusement park rides with suprises.

==>(carnival "haunted" ride spoiler below)<==

.........................................................................I still remember the "haunted" carnival

.........................................................................ride where strings dragged over my face.

Spoiler tagging can apply to any kind of surprise-designed packaged entertainment, including city tours and guided outdoor adventures with actual surprises as opposed to features. Milo 09:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This is already mentioned in the guideline, with the recommendation that such spoilers probably don't belong in actor articles anyway. Where they do belong, I think the guideline probably defaults to the general idea that spoilers in unexpected places should have tags. Maybe all this should be clarified. Philip Reuben 23:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Didn't notice that you were the one who added the actors part. I'm clearly not paying attention tonight... Philip Reuben 23:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It didn't say anything about actors, which is why I added "actors" to that section about them not belonging. I had to check what it actually said, and just slipped in "actors" because that sounds like a common use to me. We should, however, add something about them needing tags when in unexpected places. Let me see if I can put something. Kuronue 23:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I had intended with my edits to say nothing about the lead at all, thus letting it default to non-spoiler wikipedia policy, in this case WP:NPOV and WP:LS. Is that not acceptable, Phil? Kuronue 23:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Did Phil Sandifer fail to notice that we're discussing this on the talk page? If he doesn't weigh in with his objections here we're going to assume we have consensus and start making changes. That's common sense. Philip Reuben 23:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the thing - whatever shape this guideline takes, there has been a shift in spoiler policy, and the use of spoiler tags and spoiler concerns to violate NPOV and basic needs of article leads was one of the most significant motivations in the sudden surge of objection to spoiler warnings. And so I tend to think they're a very, very important thing to note here, if only because they're the most recent and most significant change. And because it was recently standard practice (and The Crying Game has still recently been edited to remove the spoiler fromt he lead), I think it requires explicit caution at this stage. Phil Sandifer 23:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Not all spoilers are as notable as The Crying Game. That one probably belongs in the lead because it's what leads the movie to be notable. So to say they always belong in the lead is as much a folly as to say they never belong. It should be up to the individual article's editors to determine what belongs and what doesn't. Kuronue 23:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This talk page has had little impact on actual practise and policy on Wikipedia, as can be seen by checking for extant spoiler tags. Wikipedia's normal process of discussion, consensus and editing are sufficient to regulate the presence of spoiler tags. If they should ever again become a serious problem, a mass edit will again become necessary, but this is unlikely to be a matter for serious concern in the near future. I suggest that we recovene whenever the number of spoiler tags again exceeds 1,000. --Tony Sidaway 23:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

1,000 needed spoiler tags are better than 0 tags at all. Kuronue 23:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No spoiler tags are needed. They're just style tags. They're disposible. --Tony Sidaway 23:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That's your point of view, that's not nessicarily consensus. Which is why we're trying to see what occurs when we leave it alone. Kuronue 23:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony, there is consensus on this page that the current lack of spoiler tags across Wikipedia cannot be seen to represent an overall consensus against (or for) spoiler tags. (Someone is welcome to correct me if I am wrong, just as the last time I mentioned this and no one corrected me.) That's why we're working to construct a suitably neutral guideline that won't unfairly influence any discussions on individual talk pages. To be fair, I think we're nearly done. Philip Reuben 23:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no such consensus. You cannot construct a guideline to subvert the normal editing and consensus process of Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 23:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

subvert what process? What we're trying to do is create as minimal and neutral a guideline as possible, and letting the process of consensus take over on individual pages, with the intent to later adjust the guideline to what is being implemented on actual article pages. Kuronue 23:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus already applies. The result is that there are very few spoiler tags on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 00:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Then why are you so opposed to sprucing up the guideline so it's not so heavy-handed, washing our hands of this, and calling it a day? Kuronue 00:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If the guideline is heavy handed, why are there so few spoiler tags? --Tony Sidaway 00:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What? A heavy handed guideline would obviously result in very few spoiler tags. Philip Reuben 00:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I absolutely concur with David Fuchs. Let' put it to bed. There are no spoiler tags because nobody cares enough to put them even into articles about new films and TV shows, and when they're put in they're often removed and stay removed. It's a dead issue. Only the repugnant personal attacks remain. --Tony Sidaway 00:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Then go away and let us wrap up this guideline. All we're doing is removing bits that are contradictory, don't have any consensus, or seem overly specific. If consensus is really with you, none of that will matter. We're not coming up with anything novel, so if you're done with this, then go away. Kuronue 00:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there is consensus, since you seem to be the only holdout. To frame this in terms of Wikipedia policy, we feel that we are unable to write a descriptive guideline, since it is too soon to determine that the dust has settled after a drastic and evidently controversial change. Rather than accidentally writing a proscriptive guideline, we will stay silent on matters of contention and let nature take its course for a while. Philip Reuben 00:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, who are you calling "the only holdout"? Wishful thinking. Sorry. --Tony Sidaway 00:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the opening post's statement that the improper removal of spoiler tags is a side-issue. As long as we have people claiming 'silent consensus' using the lack of spoiler tags as 'proof', it will continue to be relevant.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree per Nydas. Furthermore, the clique has promised to do it again. To adapt from a popular Peace & Justice political party slogan: If no Justice, then no Consensus Milo 09:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree, the methods of spoiler removal are completely relevant to this discussion, because we have to view everything in light of it. Some people seem to be striving for 'a compromise that isn't'. Sure, it looks nice and even handed on the surface, but when you scratch that surface it's designed to make it easy to subvert. It's like a member of a NATO-like organization saying, "Okay, we agree that we will not invade another country when everybody is against it." Seems all well and good, until that one starts invading countries and using, "Well, _we're_ part of everybody, and we're not against it, even if all of you are, so we'll proceed". Spoiler warnings can be added when there is consensus. Sounds great. But every fictional page will have the same 10 people who join the debate to make sure that, at the very least, consensus is difficult to claim for one side or the other (which, according to their preferred version of the guideline, suggests that it shouldn't be there) and often outright claim consensus for removal because the page isn't watched by many people except one or two local editors and the people who decide they need to personally approve or deny every spoiler warning.

We need either some rule against going on spoiler crusades, a rule about local consensus overriding the people who jump onto every debate (even if it conflicts with OWN, it's in the spirit of IAR, since it's in the interest of improving wikipedia), or we need to make the guideline itself much more open to spoilers, with clear locations where it's okay to add spoilers and where they should not be removed without very good reasons.

Otherwise, 'walking away and seeing what happens in a few months' is a victory for the anti-warning side, because they can simply keep enforcing their spoiler warning embargo with great ease, making perhaps a token exception now and then, but overruling a much higher number of individual editors, and keep the spoilers down to a minimum. Let's face it. There was no consensus for removing spoiler tags completely, so any guideline which does this _in practice_ is probably poorly designed.

If I'm wrong about the effect of this, I once again invite anyone who does search for spoiler warnings and then goes in and delete them to 'enforce' the policy, to tell me how many different people they've reverted when they tried to add a spoiler warning. Wandering Ghost 12:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, another option I've not seen brought up, but would at least help the 'local consensus' issue... I haven't thought it through very much, so it might be unworkable, but it's an idea. Perhaps collapse the spoiler debate to individual projects rather than individual pages. So the Books project would write guidelines and decide about their level of spoilers, the comics project for comics, and so on. The exact location of divisions (since some overlap) would probably be a bit hard to manage, but it's something to consider, anyway. Wandering Ghost 12:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The fundamental nature of WP is the "wiki process", which means that anyone can edit any article. It goes against the whole idea to make rules that encourage local consensus or prevent editors from editing articles. I think the outcome of the RFC was that spoilers should be minimized in practice, so if the guideline does that it's doing the right thing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"...'wiki process'... It goes against the whole idea to make rules that encourage local consensus" I don't have the time to do it, but that would make an interesting statement to quote at the Village Pump. Milo 07:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Funny, aside from certain things like fairy tales and non-fiction articles, I thought the outcome of the RfC was a load of endless bickering. Philip Reuben 11:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Put 'er down

Ok, aside from Nydas and Tony, I see no one currently fussing over more than minor wording and whether NPOV should be mentioned explicitly. Can we just cut the crap and shake hands? I can't see what else can be effectively done. I suggest we leave it like is, accept that "WP:SPOILER is more of a guideline, than an actual rule" and return to our merry wikilives. And before it's brought up: solve the 45K thing elsewhere. It has no bearing on the guideline: if the guideline is being abused, that's arbitration, not the guideline's fault (or if it was, we've fixed it by now.)

And, because someone wanted a timeline of things, here's some of it (feel free to fill in the gaps):

RfC
MfD (quickly shot down)
More bickering at RfC
The tenuous calm
Return to bickering on RfC
WT:SPOILER and Template Talk
RfC becomes IP shout match
MedCab (closed)
ArbCom (denied)
productive (?) bickering
now???

All this in less than 1 and 1/2 months! --David Fuchs 20:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed your signature. You were short a tilde. --Kizor 20:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

thank you chap. I mess that up quite often. David Fuchs 21:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

(1.37 AM, brilliant reply vanishing as brain crashes down, should really learn to be less stubborn, possible improvements on Tuesday with coffee) --Kizor 22:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, David. IMHO, all we have is endless edit warring and quibbling over wording and how much spice needs to be in teh stew. This is disruptive, as it leads other bystanders to wonder which version of the guideline to follow. Monday's? Tuesday's? Last week's? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 13:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's what the disputed tag is for, to show that all of these versions are contentious. That said, aside from the issue of implementing the guideline properly being difficult because of the inherent bias in the system (which I do wish wouldn't be brushed aside, but what can you do), I agree that there isn't too much more to be done to the guideline. Most of the recent edits have been fairly arbitrary. However, I want to remind the anti-spoiler tag side to try and avoid inserting bias into the article, for example through sentences that imply by omission that consensus is needed to add a spoiler tag but none is needed to remove a spoiler tag. (If anything I'd say the topic should be avoided, since consensus applies no more or less to this guideline than to any other. I liked Phil Sandifer's wording about spoiler tags being "controversial"; it's vague, but then it also isn't argument fodder but merely a statement of fact.) Do remember that the wider issue of spoiler tags has no clear consensus either way, and that the pro-tag side has made significant concessions to get to the current guideline. Philip Reuben 21:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Intro rework

Recent edits have really slashed out some of the context of the intro, making the guideline read arbitrarily. In deference to concerns about some of the past justifications, I added a section that justified it in historical terms, attempting to summarize the concerns that led to the rejection of the previous guideline. Phil Sandifer 21:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The guideline was never rejected. Unless you mean the closed-after-a-day MfD or the subjective 'no significant resistance' criteria. In which case, I disagree as to the validity of these measurements.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The guideline was rejected when it became clear that it had no consensus - which has been shown in numerous places. If you want to insist the previous guideline had consensus, you are, of course, free to, but at that point I can no longer see any way to take you seriously. Phil Sandifer 22:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion should have been adequately publicised and allowed to run for at least seven days before people started declaring 'consensus' and rewriting the guideline. That would be normal, straightforward and fair. I have no doubt that it would have reached a conclusion in favour of keeping spoiler tags. If it hadn't, I certainly wouldn't complain. Even then, the fair thing to do would be to gradually phase them out, like trivia sections.--Nydas^(Talk) 23:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Between the RFC and the extensive mailing list discussion it was clear that there was not consensus for the inclusion of most of the spoiler tags that used to be here. Given that the tags violate other policies that there is consensus for, removing them was a natural outcome. We don't write proposed policy, find support, and then implement it – policy is useful only to the extent that it correctly describes recommended practice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Most Wikipedians will never glance at the mailing list, and there was no consensus after one day on the RfC for the mass removals. Even if you do think that the mailing list is appropriate for determining consensus, the discussion there ran for no more than two or three days.--Nydas^(Talk) 06:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have re-removed the section outlining what are essentially Phil's personal views from the intro. It read as if there was a consensus for them, which is incorrect. I have also removed the section suggesting that readers could guess whether there were spoilers from the length of the plot summary. Phil justified this as 'closing a silly loophole', reasoning which is both bureaucratic and arbitary. It does not make any sense to declare that consensus should be reached on talk pages, only to dash back to the guideline to close off 'loopholes'. Nor does it square with his previous rhetoric about 'no bright lines'.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

On examining the removed comments, I find that they seem to be simply a description of the concerns that led us to change the guideline, and the context of this guideline within the no disclaimers in articles guideline. I don't think it's at all right to state that this is simply Phil's personal opinion. It may need reworking for consensus, but simple removal is inappropriate. --Tony Sidaway 16:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A description of the concerns belongs in the discussion page, not on the guideline page itself. The guideline, as I have stated before, has no consensus whatsoever. If you do wish to claim that this represents consensus, based on 'no significant resistance' or the closed-after-a-day MfD, why not mention those directly in the guideline?

I must reiterate my point that saying discussion should be taking place on article talk pages, only to dash back to remove 'loopholes' makes no sense. There is no WP:LOOPHOLE.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be laboring under the misconception that policy formation and rejection is in some way about process, and that an existant guideline is a prerequisite for something being a good idea. Closing off places where the phrasing allows things that make no sense is obvious - nobody has written a guideline to say "Be sure to edit guideline pages to clarify possible misunderstandings" because nobody is silly enough to think such a guideline is needed. And a description of the concerns is needed, not because it's essential to the guideline, but because guidelines ought offer some account of their own justification. In this case, it's important to note why the guideline has changed, because people may well be surprised by the shift. Phil Sandifer 20:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This contradicts your statements about 'no bright lines'. Buttressing inconsistently applied personal policies with meaningless adjectives like 'silly' and 'obvious' does not make them any less arbitrary. I am not concerned about 'process', I am concerned about what is fair, straightforward and ethical.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Woah, hey, ok, stay on topic here. Let's not get into a huge fight about what, in the past, did or did not have consensus, and focus on attaining consensus for the lead of the CURRENT guideline, okay? Kuronue 00:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts on this version. The first para is fine. The last sentence of the second para is too vague. It should say that spoiler tags should be used only in places there is consensus to use them. The first sentence of the third para is OK, the second should be more explicit about spoilers in ledes. The fourth para is OK, but could be phrased better. The final para should move lower and be replaced here with a shorter summary. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)::

I moved the fourth paragraph up from the bottom into the lead because I think that we should make it very clear through even a cursory examination that content forks and technical gimmicks should not be used for spoilers. David Fuchs 01:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Nydas and Phil, please cease your edit warring on the guideline. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 16:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"(Revert Nydas's two edits. First one because it's just flatly wrong, second one because it's an important clarification in practice.)"

"(re-removed Phil's personal views and 'loophole' closure)"

One revert is not edit warring. Please do look at situations before commenting. Phil Sandifer 20:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I had looked very carefully at the thrust-and-parry reversals of Nydas' text by yourself, Nydas, and Tony. I'm not taking sides, but a re-read of WP:EW clearly indicates that a minor edit war was brewing though without a 3RR vio. 'Nuff said. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 13:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Nydas on this. "Even in the absence of subsections, the reader of a long plot summary will generally know to expect plot revelations near the end of the summary, without the need for spoiler tags."? While I agree that the subsection idea isn't to be taken as an absolute, I'd at least like this to be reworded so that it doesn't actively tell the reader what they do or should think. Philip Reuben 21:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll rephrase. Phil Sandifer 21:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The intro seems a bit long winded, and it contains advice that should be left for the sections. It needs some hacking. — Deckill er 21:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you think should be hacked out? Phil Sandifer 21:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to synthesize some of the ideas that have been presented, and offer clear guidance in the lead without the necessity of describing the history of our disagreements, without including contentious language, and without needing to go too far in justifying the guideline. It's true that editors who want to know the history, or justification for a guideline should read the talk page and pursue the matter there. I hope the results of this edit are mostly satisfactory.zadignose 03:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC) (see text below)

"Spoilers on the Internet are sometimes preceded by a spoiler warning.[1] In Wikipedia, however, it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail. For purposes of style and clarity, the use of spoiler alerts is generally avoided unless a plot spoiler appears in a truly unexpected place. Because the overuse of spoiler warnings can have a damaging effect on article organization, they should only be used sparingly, and only in such cases where the local consensus demonstrates the need for their use."

What is and isn't a spoiler?

Phil raises a good point, and one that is somewhat separate from our other discussions: How do we judge what is and is not a spoiler? Certainly the editors inserting the warnings must have been doing this, but if this is not to be entirely a POV thing, we should probably provide guidelines as to what does and does not constitute a spoiler. -Kieran 00:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't judge what are spoilers, we judge whether to include spoiler warning tags. Not everything that is a spoiler needs a spoiler tag, so the real question is where to put the tags. For example, "plot" sections don't need spoiler tags whether or not they contain spoilers. Also, judging "what is a spoiler" is quite close to original research, whereas judging where to put a tag is a style judgement similar to deciding whether to place a {{fact}} tag. As an analogy: we don't decide whether unreferenced statements are "true", we decide whether they need a {{fact}} tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Another issue is that the spoiler notice could be put on a section Monday, and the Plot section rewritten Friday, but the notice remains. The editor who placed the notice can't know via precognition that the synopsis will always have what could be judged as a "spoiler." Hence, we're not judging the quality of the synopsis, only placing a notice on a section is likely to provide a plot detail that diminishes the reader's enjoyment. Make sense? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Which brings up a good question I've somewhat asked before but got no answer -- are there ANY other metatags designed for the body of the article that are made to be permanent? Fact tags, cleanup, etc. are supposed to be temporary. Everything else that I can think of (other wikis, templates, catagories, etc) are navigational. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Such templates are not used per the reasoning of WP:NDA. To my knowledge, the spoiler tag is the only content warning tag on Wikipedia, which is one of its problems. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think so. There are a number of content (maybe we'd call them cleanup) tags that indicate that an article's NPOV is in dispute, etc. Spoiler just isn't a cleanup tag. But ... you raise a good issue.... David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's my point. Cleanup tags are supposed to be there temporarily. They are there to get people to make the article better, and aren't really inherent to the content itself -- an FA will have none of them, AFAIK. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 02:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Whether (or not) to include spoiler warning tags" clearly depends on whether there is a spoiler to warn about. It is essential that we provide guidance in this area. We can't simply write it off, when in fact it's central to the judgements editors need to make, and it's precisely what they will turn to this guideline for advice on.zadignose 08:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It simply won't be possible to make a general decision about what might be spoilers - for any given plot detail, somebody will think it's a spoiler. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think that's an incomplete answer. We can't delineate how to handle every case, but we can at least offer some guidance. Even if "for any given plot detail, somebody will think it's a spoiler," they won't always be right to apply a spoiler tag to every plot detail, or necessarily to omit the tag from every detail. Certainly anyone who would claim "Star Wars is a movie set in outer space" as a spoiler would be way out in left field, whereas "In the end of The Lost Treasure of Axum, the 'treasure' turns out to be a biological weapon that wipes out all life on Earth" is a bit more of a spoiler by most people's estimation. We can try to suggest how to approach such distinctions, as a sort of measuring stick for editors to consider what qualifies as a spoiler and what doesn't.zadignose 16:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Examples are a good idea. Examples that are selected across a range of possibilities are used to fairly judge the grading of school essays. I suggest five real examples. Say that #1 and #5 are the Star Wars (don't-tag) and The Lost Treasure of Axum (do-tag) extremes. #2 would be a less obvious don't-tag and #4 would be a less obvious do-tag. #3 would be an example of a plot twist that about half of editors think is a spoiler and about half don't, which should be decided by local consensus. Phil Sandifer is well aware of the essay grading method I'm describing, and hopefully will support it. Milo 19:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Do not make home-made spoiler warnings using plain text."

What is the justification for including this in the guideline: "Do not make home-made spoiler warnings using plain text?"

Templates are helpful tools, but I'm not used to seeing templates that are required to be used. Does this just make it easier for editors to search for all spoiler warnings across the encyclopedia, and remove them by automated process?zadignose 11:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, to put it bluntly it keeps the articles clear of inappropriate and extremely unprofessional clutter. This has been part of the guideline for some years now. --Tony Sidaway 11:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this a 'bright line' case? What happened to the 'no hard rules' philosophy?--Nydas^(Talk) 11:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a "bright line" case, and an appropriate one. "Spoilers on all articles about recent fiction" is an example of an inappropriate one, for obvious reasons. --Tony Sidaway 11:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

My proposed alternative did not insist on spoiler tags on all recent fiction, it said they may be used. It was not a hard rule. The 'no bright lines' philosophy, with its subjective interpretations, isn't a Wikipedia policy and has no role in forming this guideline.--Nydas^(Talk) 12:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wishful thinking. --Tony Sidaway 12:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean?--Nydas^(Talk) 13:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, from all standpoints home-made spoiler warnings shouldn't be used. I know some people here are worried over the whole AWB thing, but if you have custom warnings several things happen:

global changes to the template would not be feasible on the pages without the template.
the look and feel would change from the accepted template, thereby making it possible the following content would not be considered a spoiler (in other words, makes it more confusing and easy to miss)
if spoilers were banned outright for some reason, or a significant change in the spoiler guidelines changed how they were used (like they were no longer redundant in the plot summary, but shouldn't be used in the lead), it would be very hard to change this. Maybe its not "a pillar of Wikipedia", but its common sense.

David Fuchs 18:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the above discussion, I've continued to wonder about this part of the guideline:

Do not improvise such warnings in plain text, always use the templates.

That sentence is bold in the guideline, and seems overly strong. What is the policy basis of this requirement?

I've reviewed a random selection of other editing guidelines and while many of them are quite specific on certain elements of style, I did not find any others that included a requirement that a template be used if a certain type of content is included by editors. Even with Wikiproject guidelines, the inclusions of Categories and Templates are most often stated as recommendations or suggestions rather than as requirements.

Even with charged issues such as warning users of vandalism, templates are not required but are provided only as a convenience. The vandalism warning template usage page here states the following:

They [the warning templates] are not a formal system that you have to use: they are a shortcut to typing, nothing more. If you cannot find a template that says what you want to say then go ahead and say it normally.

Based on the core policy of WP:Consensus, editors decide if, where, and how to use spoiler notices in the articles - just as Wikipedia allows editors to structure articles with headings and subheadings and info-boxes and all sorts of style components that are not controlled from a centralized guideline that requires certain templates to be used. As a guideline, WP:SPOILER helps editors to make these choices with regard to spoiler notices. It should provide the option, but not require the use of the templates. --Parzival418 _Hello 20:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No other sort of style or maintenance template can be replaced with a handmade warning - think of {{unreferenced}}, {{fact}}, etc. Moreover, having this as a template allows mirrors to ignore it, and should allow individual users to hide it by CSS if its set up correctly. I removed the claim in the guideline that hand made warnings are acceptable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've not seen any policy on Wikipedia that prohibits the use of plain text to indicate issues like "unreferenced" or "citation needed". In warning templates for talk pages (granted, that is not article mainspace), the template instructions specifically indicate they may be replaced by plain text. If you know of a policy that states that the use of templates rather than plain text is required for style elements, I would be interested to see that - would you please provide the Wikilink?

Regarding the reasons you listed that templates may be better - CSS hiding of the notices and mirrors ignoring them - those are valid points. However there are valid arguments for accepting plain text notices as well. For example: making the notices less obvious or less disruptive to the flow of the articles; customizing the notices to the content of a particular article; and other reasons that others have discussed above.

It's not obvious that technical template notices are always better - there is not consensus on that, at this point. --Parzival418 _Hello 18:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

add-on... I noticed that you changed the plain text spoiler notice I added to Memories of Matsuko to one that uses the template; you stated in your comment that you don't think it's needed and you expect that someone will remove it (for context, the editors working on the article have consensus that it's wanted on that article). You are probably correct, that once the template broadcasts its presence, editors who in general do not like spoiler notice templates might show up to remove it. That's another good reason not to require the use of templates rather than plain text, let the article editors form and execute their consensus. --Parzival418 _Hello 18:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the main reason you would like to use home made spoiler warnings is so that you can hide them from others to avoid the effects of this guideline. [7]. The Memories of Matsuko article is a perfect example of a place where spoiler tags are not needed - they're in the middle of a plot section. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, you didn't need to dig up my comment to another user on his user page, since I stated that same point in my comment right here - I did not try to obscure it. That same point is also in the earlier discussion above, in this same section. And, there is a difference between "not broadcasting" the presence of a spoiler notice and "hiding" it. A notice is not hidden when it's in plain view on the page, it's just not advertising its presence to other editors who don't have a particular interest in that article. Regarding your use of the term "hiding" - that could imply someone did something wrong or disingenuous. I'm sure that's not what you meant, but I thought I should point it out in case someone may have misunderstood. In particular, the guideline is still in dispute (and not just by me), so there is no "rule" at this point anyway, that spoiler notices are prohibited from being written in plain text.

Regarding how the notice looks on the page, I found it stylistically less disruptive and cleaner in plain text. The notice as it is now with the template interferes more with the look of the page. Regarding your comment that the warning is in the middle of a plot section, I put it there because the first two paragraphs of the plot present the premise and don't include the spoiler. After reading the premise, one who has not seen the movie might want to know that something unique is approaching. It seems like a perfect place for a spoiler notice to me. I don't understand the idea of allowing spoiler notices, but not in plot sections... plot sections are most often where spoilers will occur.

One more point, a question actually. In my earlier reply to your comment above, I asked you this: "If you know of a policy that states that the use of templates rather than plain text is required for style elements [re: "fact", "unreferenced" etc], I would be interested to see that - would you please provide the Wikilink?" Is there a policy like that? Would you please direct me to the link, I would like to read it. --Parzival418 _Hello 19:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a straightforward reason for this at this point - given that spoiler tags were recently in gross overuse, it remains important to carefully monitor their usage. Templates make this possible. Phil Sandifer 19:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that concern. On the other hand, so far I haven't seen consensus that those uses of spoiler notices were not valid. All I've seen is the circular logic that because they were removed recently and haven't been re-added, there must be consensus. But they were removed quickly, based on a guideline in dispute, and referring to the guideline as the authority for removing them,...so it's not clear whether or not the editors on those articles agree the articles are better without the notices.

I'm not saying you're wrong, only that I have not seen where that idea has been accepted as fact by the people discussing on this page. --Parzival418 _Hello 20:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is left defending the full extent of past spoiler practice - nobody, for instance, has advocated spoiler tags on fairy tales in ages. Phil Sandifer 20:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Although some people might have said "per WP:SPOILER", the removals were justified based on the principles in WP:NOT and WP:NDA. The removals were accompanied by an RFC and a long discussion on the mailing list where this justification was discussed at length. But the warnings have not been reintroduced in any large number, considering that 45000 were removed, which is indeed a sign that there is no large outrage that they were removed. Policy evolves to mirror practice, and that is what is happening here. There is no need to have unanimous support for a guideline before making any changes.

Your request for a policy saying that {{fact}} tags shouldn't be hand written is pure wikilawyering - that practice, related to WP:ASR but not described there, is so uniform across WP that no guideline is necessary. Remember WP:ISNOT#BUREAUCRACY. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It was not Wikilawyering - that accusation is unfair. It was a sincere question. I am not aware of a policy like that and wanted to know if there is one.
I've never seen WP:ASR before, so thanks for posting that here.
According to WP:ISNOT#BUREAUCRACY that you posted here, my opinion is that requiring spoiler notices to use templates rather than plain text is a perfect example of what that section tells us to avoid, "instruction creep."
I was not aware of any mailing list discussions. Seems to me that if there are off-wiki discussions about an active debate like this one, a notice should be posted on this page so everyone interested in the subject can see all of the information.
I am under no impression that unanimity is required for consenusus. I understand the policy.
In light of all of the above, I believe this guideline is "misguided" in requiring the use of the templates rather than plain text. As I see it, that part of the guideline does not have consensus. However, I could be wrong about that. Unless others start posting comments in support of what I've been saying, I am dropping my efforts to change it for now.

Thanks for explaining your point of view and posting those links.--Parzival418 _Hello 20:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I was going to reraise this point, but I got kind of burnt out. Now I'm semi-back, and I wanted to point out that, in the case of Matsuko, a homemade tag was removed with an edit summary indicating that it's not appropriate for fact or unreferenced, so it's not appropriate here. However, the fact and unreferenced tags are "part of the Wikipedia project rather than the encyclopedic content," and yet not even they explicitly require the use of a template or forbid handmade warnings. Clearly, the requirement to use the spoiler tag is inappropriate. As for the Matsuko article, as soon as the handmade warning was replaced by a template it brought about a mini-edit war instigated by editors who removed the tag citing "consensus," before attempting to participate on the talk page discussion which indicated a consensus for inclusion at the time when the tag was (repeatedly) removed. This is not the kind of behavior we want to encourage. It could have been very easily handled by participating in the discussion, rather than contemptuously dismissing it.zadignose 00:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no prohibition about handmade fact tags because nobody does it - it's just common sense not to do so, and if anyone runs across handmade fact tags they can just remove them per WP:ASR and common sense. We don't codify things unless there is a reason to, since Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. Apparently it is necessary to point out for spoiler tags because people do, mistakenly, write handmade spoiler tags. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

But the fact remains that there is no precedent for a template being required to be used in article namespace (unless someone can provide a relevant example). The discussion of avoiding self-reference WP:ASR is somewhat tangential, but I think it provides a further argument against the use of spoiler warnings, not against hand-crafting them. We can guide people on how, when, or even if they should use spoiler warnings. We can even go so far as to recommend the use of a template. But requiring a template's use is inappropriate, and requiring it because it allows us to keep track of which articles include spoiler warnings is so unprecedented as to border on abusive. We're giving guidance, not creating a method of policing Wikipedia.zadignose 06:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

(←) In practice, we do require {{fact}} and {{dubious}} instead of hand-crafted messages to that effect. It isn't written down because people naturally see that they should use the template. — Carl (CBM · talk)

Spoilers and occurrence in "plot" sections

I've been mulling over the reasoning behind this, and thought I should post some of my meanderings:

Fact: 45000 articles contained spoiler warnings in sections in which we have declared "spoilers are to be expected".
Fact: Sections of this nature exist which do not contain significant plot details. eg: the summary section here [8]

Conclusion: Although it may be expected that such sections may contain spoilers, it is not expected that they will always contain spoilers.

In other words: Readers can no more expect that such sections will contain spoilers than that any other part of the article will contain spoilers.

Hypothesis: Editors were using spoiler warnings to distinguish plot sections which contained spoilers from those which did not.

Note: If this is true, then spoiler warnings would seem to serve a useful purpose for these sections, where the sections do contain spoilers.
Proposition: Unless a plot section is always expected to contain spoilers (or "significant plot details"), removing all spoiler warnings from those sections is harmful, as it prevents people from distinguishing those that do from those that don't. Some means to inform people whether or not a section definitely does contain spoilers seems to be what we want, and this can be achieved in one of a few ways:

Placing spoiler tags on plot sections that do contain spoilers.
Placing a "no-spoilers" tag on plot sections that do not contain spoilers.
Using section headings as a definitive means of distinguishing (eg: all "plot summary" sections contain spoilers, while "story background" sections do not)

I do think it's important that we clarify this, one way or the other. -Kieran 00:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This depends on far too many attempts to psychically intuit what a reader will or will not consider a spoiler. At some point, the onus has to go on the reader - if a reader is seriously concerned about spoilers, they should avoid the Wikipedia articles on the subject. Anything past that is an attempt to guess what sorts of spoilers might really surprise someone. In some cases, this is easy, as a spoiler will obviously surprise even a prudent reader. In most cases, however, this is pure speculation. Phil Sandifer 00:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Phil here, writers shouldn't have to intuit (or as Tony has said, condescend to) readers and their interest. Determining what is and isn't a "spoiler" also deviates from NPOV in that you're making some kind of editorial/critique decision.

Re: Hypothesis: Editors were using spoiler warnings to distinguish plot sections which contained spoilers from those which did not ... not so with umpteen zillion (joke) film articles in which {{spoiler}} appeared for every Plot section, and entire sections, regardless of the content. I don't condone the massive, rapid removal of so many, that was reckless and controversial, but in a lot of cases, appropriate in some sense. I'm converted, I believe that a Plot or Storyline section will contain plot details, period, end quote. If a reader doesn't want to know that X dies in the last reel, don't read the Plot section. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Kieran is correct. There is no way to tell for certain if a section contains spoilers, and there are some cases, for example, plot summaries for unreleased films, where one would not expect to find them. The 'they shouldn't read them at all' attitude sacrifices usability in favour of Brittanica-led notions of what is encyclopedic. The idea that we shouldn't try to guess what readers know or want doesn't square with the numerous arguments that 'everyone knows this' or 'only fans will look at this article', used to justify the removal of spoiler tags. Phil said that the Halo novels were available in 'any bookshop', when in fact it would be more accurate to say they're available in 'any large or specialist sci-fi bookshop in the English-speaking developed world'.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If you weren't ignorant, Nydas, you would know the Halo novels are bestsellers and I could easily expect to go to any bookshop, even small ones near me, and find at least one. So pick a better example. David Fuchs 14:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

{ahem} Please remain calm David. And note that the larger point being made by Nydas was that the novels wouldn't be easily found in, say, a Hungarian bookshop. He was asking for precision, which is not a bad goal for an encyclopedia. Postmodern Beatnik 14:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahem yourself. I haven't seen you around here before, which means you have not had to endure the endless bickering, fighting, and crap thrown around. If not for Nydas's and one or two other's refusal to compromise, this would have been over a week ago. So you can see why I'm a little peeved. David Fuchs 15:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Without returning your charge of ignorance, I will simply inform you that I have been a frequent contributor to this debate (both here and at the related RfC) and am in the process of writing an essay on the matter. That you have not seen me does not mean that I was not there. Postmodern Beatnik 15:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's 'cause the RfC lost its usefulness a while ago, with the aforementioned bickering, et al (although to my knowledge that wasn't Nydas, mostly random IPs). I'm not saying Nydas is a "retard", I'm simply saying that he's ignorant about what he's talking about in this case. The Halo novels made the NY Times lists, they are hardly obscure writings. They've also been translated into at least three languages, so they're arent' exactly unknown. David Fuchs 14:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

...to Americans interested in sci-fi and video games. In other words, your typical Wikipedia editor.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

David, read it again: I have been active both here and at the RfC. That you haven't seen me doesn't mean I wasn't here, either. Second, Nydas doesn't seem to be saying that the Halo novels are obscure or unknown (though I must confess I had no idea that there even were Halo novels), but that the scope of their fame is less than what was implied. Postmodern Beatnik 16:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no way to tell for certain whether throwing baseballs at a sleeping tiger's head will cause the tiger to wake up and bite you. But if you do it, you're probably aware of the risk. Similarly, if you read a section titled "Plot," you should be aware that the plot is likely to be revealed.zadignose 10:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Since when were we an obstacle course for non-Americans and non-fans?--Nydas^(Talk) 12:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Circa May 23th, 2007. I have to say that Phil is simply completely wrong in his mentioned statement, since the majority of en.wiki's users are not American or British. --Kizor 12:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to repost a comment I made at Spoiler RfC, which I shamelessly stole from an earlier anonymous comment and seems along the lines of what others here are saying.

I don't buy the argument that "plot" implies spoilers. The plot of Citizen Kane could be described as "a rich newspaperman's life is remembered" or "a rich newspaperman desires Rosebud, his sled." One spoils, the other does not. Conflating "plot" and "spoiler," then, is fallacious. Next argument, please. Postmodern Beatnik 14:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedic explanation of the plot of Citizen Kane is going to include the ending. As is the case for, well, any encyclopedic explanation of a plot - it's going to contain major plot elements. Phil Sandifer 15:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that doesn't change the fact that conflating "plot" and "spoiler" is fallacious. Insofar as an argument relies on such a rhetorical device, that argument is flawed. That's all I'm pointing out. Postmodern Beatnik 16:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

For each statement at least one person will eventually come forward and say it's a spoiler. The same problem is true for images that are possibly obscene - there is no absolute standard. The only reasonable way to predict which facts might be considered spoilers to to accept that all plot details might be considered spoilers. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

False dilemma. There are several ways out of the Sorites paradox, including some not discussed on the Wikipedia entry. Postmodern Beatnik 16:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"I don't buy the argument that "plot" implies spoilers. The plot of Citizen Kane could be described as "a rich newspaperman's life is remembered" or "a rich newspaperman desires Rosebud, his sled." One spoils, the other does not. Conflating "plot" and "spoiler," then, is fallacious. Next argument, please." I disagree. In my training, Story would be "a fictional representation of the life, loves, triumphs, and losses of an ambitious, flamboyant tycoon." The Plot synopsis would be far more detailed, and include narrative events and progression. The "story" of (for example) The Usual Suspects, American Beauty, The Prestige, and The Crying Game can be written without any plot details. The Plot summary of such films can and likely does have details. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Plot/Story distinction is an interesting point, and I would be willing to concede that it is correct from certain technical standpoints. An author or a literary expert, for instance, might find the distinction professionally useful. That said, I do not find it compelling within the context of Wikipedia. After all, even a cursory glance at various entries on fictional subjects reveals that there is little to no uniformity in what term is used to mark out the section we are discussing. Some say "plot," others say "story" or "plot summary" or what have you. But even if this were addressed, I do not think that a profession-specific distinction applies to an encyclopedia that is not targeted at the relevant group. After all, you don't expect to have to use the words "intentional," "phenomenal," "analytic," or "absurd" solely in their specialized philosophical senses for my sake, correct? Postmodern Beatnik 19:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I concede your point of view, but my own perspective is specific to the WP Film Project, in which our style guidelines are pretty specific about Plot sections. Take a look.... YMMV in other areas of WP. :P David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 22:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, I am restarting the indentations. I figure we aren't trying to inscribe the columns of Rome here. Second, I think I need to clarify my point, as the style guide you linked to does not (to my mind) contradict anything I've said. I agree that—regardless of what they are called in any particularly entry—Plot/Summary/Story sections are actually Plot sections in the technical usage. I do not disagree that spoilers should be included in such sections. Nor am I making a specific claim that spoiler tags should or should not be included when spoilers are present. I am neutral on the issue of spoiler tags (which is why I have not done any voting on the issue), but I am suspicious of the logic of some of the arguments here—logic I fear will seep into other policy decisions.

While some might point out—correctly, in my opinion—that the use of the professional sense of the word "plot" by WikiProject Film et al. is not necessarily understood by our readers, and thus is prone to a perfectly understandable sort of misinterpretation qua equivocation, the logical problem I see is a different one. What I see happening is a conflation of "plot" and "spoiler" in a very pure way. A plot section, even if it contains a full summary of the plot (and not just the story) does not necessarily spoil. The ending to Full Metal Alchemist episode 5 (everyone lives!) is not a spoiler; the events of Full Metal Alchemist episode 25 (someone dies!) are. Similarly, the ending to Bridget Jones' Diary (they fall in love!) is not a spoiler; the events of Fight Club post-car crash (Soylent Green is people! oops... wrong film) are. Not all plot summaries spoil. Some do. Thus, "Plot" does not necessarily mean "spoilers." Does this complicate things? You bet. Are we (by which I mean local editors) up to the task? We better be. Otherwise, we're not doing our jobs. Postmodern Beatnik 19:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

My last message was edited to include a "citation needed" tag. Although it was an effective argument, I would like to remind whoever did that that changing another person's posts is considered misrepresentation and strongly forbidden vandalism. Please do not do it again. --Kizor 17:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Conclusive proof that native English speakers do not constitute a majority

A whopper of a title, but whatever works. I've been asked to prove that the English Wikipedia's users are predominantly not native English-speakers. Alexa's traffic statistics are reliable enough to be used as a source in the Wikipedia article, and to be linked to in Wikipedia:Statistics. It states that 52% of all wikipedia.org traffic goes to en, and a grand total of 24.7% of all traffic is from the United States, Canada, United Kingdom and Australia. Assuming that no traffic whatsoever from these countries goes to non-English Wikipedias (a tall statement indeed, given the 'melting pot' nature of the States with Spanish being in particular prominence, and with Canada having circa eight million people with a non-English first language and several million who do not speak English at all [9], etc.) the percentage is still comfortably short of a majority, and I believe this to be an uncontroversial fact. Its implications are not, and I believe they should be covered separately. --Kizor 22:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Implications?

Can't think of any. Sorry.

Does this have something to do with a line of argument that goes something like the following?

Some of our readers do not know what the word "plot" means.
The same readers do know what the word "sled", "father" and "dead" mean.
Therefore we must have a tag that says "Note: plot details follow" between the heading "plot" and the words "sled", "father" "dead" and so on in the articles in which it is conceivable that somebody might learn something about the plot by reading those words in the plot section.

Or is there some reasoning that makes more sense than that? --Tony Sidaway 23:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words in intro

The intro makes extensive use of weasel words. These include 'truly unexpected', 'style and clarity', 'damaging effect', 'local consensus' and 'demonstrates need for their use'. The last one is a rewording of 'compelling reason'. All these should be scrapped and replaced with concrete examples. Either that, or just leave the examples up to the main body and shorten the intro.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

They're not weasel words. We don't use spoiler tags in plot sections. Why? because plot details are expected in such sections. Where do we use tags? In places plot details aren't expected. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

How about telling editors what those places are, rather than forcing them to waste their time trying to accomodate the whims of the anti-spoiler brigade?--Nydas^(Talk) 16:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Good. I'm very glad that the introduction invites subtlety and judgment based on clearly articulated principles. It's the mark of a good guideline. Phil Sandifer 15:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You're defending weasel words with weasel words.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, Nydas. Firstly, are you sure you're using "weasel words" correctly?

Secondly, judgement and reasoning are more important editing tools than precise and all-encompassing policies and guidelines that leave little margin for interpretation. This is not an SSAT test, this is a collaborative writing project. "How about telling editors what those places are,..." For one, because a guideline cannot predict section headings that are not yet used, and you can't realistically charge someone (who is that?) to keep watch over WP to update this guideline. The guideline, in legal terms, can contemplate unspecified uses outside of Plot sections. This shouldn't be a difficult concept to grasp. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 18:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words hide information behind meaningless generalities. For example 'damaging effect'. Who decides what this is supposed to mean? The only 'damaging effect' (blown out of all proportion) was the contradiction with WP:LEAD. This is already mentioned later in the article, so the 'damaging effect' serves no purpose other than to confuse people.

If judgement and reasoning are so important, why is the guideline festooned with increasingly arcane hard rules about when not to use spoiler tags? The simple answer is that this benefits the anti-spoiler brigade. They demand 'flexibility' when it suits them. This can be seen in the section titles; one says 'when spoiler warnings should not be used', the other says 'when spoiler warnings may be used.'

That the guideline is so slanted when there was never any consensus for it is bad. What is worse is that more than a few unfortunate editors have been fooled into thinking that there is any hope of attaching a spoiler tag to an article when the anti-spoiler brigade is opposed.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You are looking for a guideline that can be applied robotically and thoughtlessly. You are not going to get one. Phil Sandifer 20:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the most robotically and thoughtlessly enforced 'guideline' that has probably ever existed on Wikipedia. Instead of misrepresenting my arguments, try to address them.--Nydas^(Talk) 06:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I was not involved in the use of AWB, which is what I'm assuming you refer to. On the other hand, I sympathize with the idea that spoiler warnings had become so virulent on Wikipedia that a clean slate was needed for their use. I see and saw the AWB use less as enforcement of this guideline and more as a necessary precondition for the guideline's enforcability. What you propose is an attempt to make the guideline rigorous and wholly predictable. With two million articles, what an editor encounters on Wikipedia is not wholly predictable. Our guidelines should be set to adapt. Phil Sandifer 12:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This guideline is entirely predictable; a spoiler tag cannot exist without the consent of half a dozen editors. You might as well replace the guideline with a list of names. Your attitude that this guideline needs to be 'enforced' with more draconian measures than anything else in Wikipedia (including WP:BLP) contradicts your own rhetoric about the need for flexibility.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The above replies are enough to refute the abuse of the term "weasel words." I too, would like to see the body of the article include some more specific guidance on how and where tags are to be used, if they are to be used at all, but the general guidance given here is quite reasonable, and is about as specific as anything we've been able to agree to so far. But, to another point Nydas, your constant refrain of "anti-spoiler brigade, anti-spoiler brigade" just might win you this debate, because it's precisely the kind of thing that makes me want to toss my computer out the window and never look at Wikipedia again. I'm not a part of any brigade. If you could avoid labling those who disagree with your opinion, and stop supposing a conspiracy, it might help keep this discussion civil.zadignose 01:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

95% or more of spoiler tags were removed by half a dozen editors, overruling hundreds, if not thousands, of ordinary people. If that is not a group, or faction, or brigade, then what is it? As it stands, it is impossible to add a spoiler tag without their consent. Even if you do attempt to apply the guideline as written, they'll just come out with stuff like 'consensus means you need our agreement', 'a violation of WP:POINT' or 'simply and plainly moronic and disruptive'.--Nydas^(Talk) 06:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Surprising to find such weak writing in this Britannia-modeled encyclopedia that somehow thinks sidebar boxes are ok. (Alice-in-universe muses: '...a bunch of WP editors could become "shocked, shocked", go change the sidebar box guideline, rev up AWB... ah, no one at WP would be obsessed enough to do that.')

I agree with Phil and David about the importance of using principles as implemented by judgment and reasoning to account for unknown future conditions. However, the art and skill of rulecrafting is a balancing act requiring sufficient specificity to avoid a drift of centering, excessive vagueness, or overly broad interpretations. Good rulecrafting should typically use both principles and examples.

I think "local consensus" is reasonably understood as the local consensus of the article's talk page, but it would be possible to insert "local talk page consensus" to be sure. There are four references to consensus without a link to WP:Consensus. Why link to NPOV which is rarely if ever a problem, and not link to WP:Consensus which is a constant spoiler tag issue?

To avoid slant or bias, "when spoiler warnings should not be used" should be changed to "when spoiler warnings should be avoided" to match "when spoiler warnings may be used".

As for the weak writing, "truly unexpected" should just become "unexpected". "style and clarity" - "clarity" is ok, but "style" is too subjective unless it's "manual of style". "damaging effect" strikes me as a bogosity; better would be "can disorganize the article". "demonstrates need for their use" - consensus doesn't demonstrate, consensus "concurs on" or simply "agrees on".

Other bad writing: The continued multiple uses of "warning" are rhetorically incorrect to mean a content notice; there is no danger, so it's not a warning. Since it's not a warning all the disclaimer sentences go away. The word "warn" should be replaced by "notify". Furthermore the tag itself no longer refers to "warning". However, use of the word "spoiler" is correct, not a neologism, has been located in the American Heritage dictionary, and should now be restored in the tag text, as well as retained in the guideline.

As I've detailed at the current end of #What is and isn't a spoiler?, Milo 19:12, there should be five real examples. Milo 02:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sidebars aren't part of the articles any more than talk page are, so it's a very invalid point. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 02:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll quote you to help me win some future sidebar debate :) Milo 03:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with your grammatical and synctactical suggestions. The last week or so, when not wringing my hands over IRL legal and major purchase issues, I've wondered if what this issue needs is for someone (yours truly) to take a few film articles where there is overwhelming consensus that a major plot twist exists ... and start to find a way, IF one exists, to utilize the spoiler notice in a way that is consistent with the few contingencies that most parties agree to. - David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the articles I have seen spoiler notices in have the problem that the notices are in the "plot" section. It's not just the existence of a plot twist that warrants a spoiler tag, but the combination of a plot twist mentioned in a location that wouldn't ordinarily mention plot twists. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the real issue now for valid spoiler notices  this is with the caveat that I'm now a moderate whose view is not shared by those further out on the poles of this issue  ... is for the few articles (I can think of some films) in which a spoiler is necessary to discuss themes and parallel motifs in the story. The Prestige and Blade Runner are likely candidates. Those who want to wrangle with WP:POINT might want to investigate those films in which such an opportunity exists. One such example is Dead of Night, a 1945 film with a twist ending. Tehre's a story I heard back in 1977 that some astrophysicists saw the film together, then subsequently concocted a revolutionary theory of time-space continuity inspired by the twist ending. Discussion of this would not be in the Plot section (maybe after). And ... well, no one's yet broached the contingency in which a spoiler occurs lower down in an article below the Plot section. Is a spoiler notice warranted? >:) (I'd vote YES, as the section layout of film articles offers readers hypertext abilities to read out of sequence.) - David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 21:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say pop it into a section called something like "Real life theory derived from the twist ending." Then everybody's happy, including anybody who might happen to have heard of such a theory and can now find it by scanning the contents list. Much better a big fat section heading than a weedy little notice. --Tony Sidaway 00:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I presume you're being facetious. Better a discreet spoiler notice than a section heading which infers, "Here be a section which doth contain spoilers." I think some film articles already have sections titled Influences or "Derivations" or such, a section to discuss remakes, homages, etc. Dead of Night certainly influenced a number of "omnibus" type films later, and there have been "remakes" of some of the stories. But! In the case of the twist ending, a spoiler notice would be valid in an Influence section if discussing the surprise and how it inspired something else. Anyone who can't see this compromise might be "rule-making" just to support a personal bias against spoiler notices OF ANY KIND. Personally, I prefer Template:spoiler as it is, than a big section heading as proposed above. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 14:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm very serious, but I think you've completely misunderstood what I've said. My proposed section heading says "Real life theory derived from the twist ending." This is informative and useful because it will appear in the contents list and precisely describe the contents of the section. There is no spoiler warning there. I'm not saying we can't have another section called something like "Scenes in other films inspired by the twist ending". In fact I think that would be an excellent thing to have. --Tony Sidaway 15:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but at least as Wikiproject Films is concerned, I think we're trying to have consistent section headings. Proposing an ad hoc section which deals with the spoiler (e.g. "Issues raised by the twist ending," "Public response to the plot surprise") sounds too much like the renegade habit of making hand-crafted spoiler warnings. Or at least, could be seen as encouragement. Frankly, if you want WP to seem "scholarly," like oh so many Britannicas, section headings like that seem out of place. Just my own reaction, I might feel differently if/when I see it in practice. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 19:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's get this straight. Please.

I would like to see summaries of arguments on both sides of this debate. So far, they seem pretty one-sided. Could an anti-spoiler person please inform me of how I am wrong?

Removal of spoiler warnings Pros

Wikipedia emulates Britannica better. After all, when did Britannica ever use the word "spoiler"? Therefore, Wikipedia cannot.

Cons

People become unhappy or angry about having plots ruined. They lose faith in Wikipedia, or they avoid it so that they don't get plots spoiled. Wikipedia becomes less popular. Fewer people have access to the information it offers.

So far, the only arguments against that con that I've seen are ones along the lines of, "people who are stupid enough to read in the plot section deserve to be spoiled," as though being stupid makes misfortune a good thing. And anyway, most people skim through articles for what they want, so they can easily miss the Plot heading.

Now, I know this incomplete, at least for the cons. As I said, could others offer additional pros and cons? Twilight Realm 15:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You should read through the various archives available at the top right side of the talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to which editor ever claimed that Wikipedia should emulate Britannica, or said that we cannot do what Britannica doesn't do. It sounds like the above is a repeat of how those who support the use of browser tags disingenuously tried to frame the argument.zadignose 15:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

From the most recent archive, archive six, from a whole sectoin about it:

I don't think you understand. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 20:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, the anti-spoiler crowd brings bringing up this "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" nonsense without supporting their statements. Tell me, what does a real encyclopedia, such as the encyclopedia Britannica say about, say Star Wars. Or what does Microsoft Encarta say about it? Samboy 21:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Really, you should read the archives. Kuronue 15:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

From archive 4, Phil Sandifer:

Well, the first problem with it is that it's inaccurate - we've found no instances of spoiler warnings in other encyclopedias or serious reference works, which is the problem. This is one of the major problems with spoiler warnings - ostensibly our competition is serious reference works like Britannica, and yet we have editorial practices associated with Internet forums. I've tried to tighten this sentence a bit, but I agree - it still needs something.

--Nydas^(Talk) 15:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Which of the above is supposed to be an example of a person opposed to the use of spoiler tags claiming that Wikipedia should emulate Britannica, or that we can't do what they don't do? Because I don't see it.zadignose 16:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this person is serious, but here's a summary of some arguments against spoiler tags:

Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles
The tags can, and in the past have, lead to problems with neutral point of view, with editors keeping relevant information out of content except between the tags.
The tags were massively abused in the past, with tags in Roger Bacon and the like.
They're usually placed in areas where plot detail is to be expected
They can usually be removed after making section labelling clearer
Like all warning tags they interrupt the flow of text.

--Tony Sidaway 15:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

On the "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" argument, yes that's a very good one too. One argument proposed to defend the placing of spoiler tags is that people might learn something they didn't want to know. Wikipedia doesn't connive with the reader in his quest for ignorance, because Wikipedia isn't that kind of work. It isn't a fan site, it isn't a game guide or a review site or a forum. It's an encyclopedia. If the reader does not want to know something he should not come to an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 16:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

On a lighter note, your notable bon mot "Conniving for ignorance" is an unlikely use of street smarts, though maybe it has something to do with copping solvent intoxicants. But no reader can "quest for ignorance" — those two words are rhetorically antonymical. Unless, of course, you are speaking of what the spoiler reveals to be an Alice-in-universe hookah[10] fantasy :) Milo 01:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The spoiler tag in Roger Bacon was in the 'in fiction' section. Probably unneeded, but hardly 'massive abuse'.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Had it been the only case, I would have written it off as just a bit of silliness. There were many cases like this. --Tony Sidaway 16:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So what? You don't like it, but it's not 'massive abuse' to put spoiler tags over spoilers.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think, Tony, your point in a way summarizes the whole problem. From what I've seen, there's a lot of disjunct on exactly HOW people see WP. Many see it as some ideal libre information repository and cringe at the thought of even perfectly legit fair use images, while others simply see it as 'that neat website where you can look up anything'. I think that's what's causing this disjunct -- a lot of people simply equate "Wikipedia = website", and further more a "my say is as relevant as anyone else's", without thinking of the implications of just what Wikipedia is supposed to be. I'm not saying "WP is an encyclopedia" is necessarily the be all and end all statement, but it's something to think about - for people on both sides. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Scope creep has long been a problem with Wikipedia. It's so well recognised that we have long had a policy dedicated to saying what Wikipedia is not. There is a guideline, which is the complement of that, called Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 16:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Midnight, I'll try to take a stab at the opposing side of Tony's fine summary above:

Arguments for spoiler tags (or alternatives)

Pro

WP is an Internet encyclopedia, striving for the comprehensive nature of traditional tomes, as well as the scholarly format and tone as well. WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:OR, WP:NOT#IINFO + WP:NOT#DIR, etc. We do not censor or hide information, even that which the fictional work keeps the reader in suspense.
WP has a no-disclaimer guideline (read for more explanation), but the spoiler practice is a reasonable exception.
We have no control over what readers (with what interests or intentions) land on this site from web searches, so we can't presume if 'dear reader' wants to have complete plot details divulged or some kept marked as with popular review sites.
Plot sections generally have all details, but some believe that those with significant twists should be identified where they occur. (E.g. THE STING, THE PRESTIGE, SLEUTH, THE CRYING GAME, THE USUAL SUSPECTS, CROUPIER, THE SPANISH PRISONER, DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS).
A fictional work doesn't have to be newly released for readers to be unfamiliar with it. A reader may never have seen THE USUAL SUSPECTS, and is reading the article as a prelude to renting the video.
Some readers may not be fluent in English, and so Plot may not adequately identify that a surprise disclosure is in the section.
So as to protect readers from stumbling upon significant reveals ("he's gay," "the gun wasn't loaded," "it was character x in disguise," "the butler did it"), they should be marked with a discreet (yes, discreet) spoiler notice.
Fictional character articles may also have surprises disclosed, which a reader might not expect as s/he would in a synopsis, so those instances should be marked.

Con

Plot sections are presumed to have all plot details (because, like an encyclopedia, we're comprehensive), not hide anything, so the reader should expect to have spoilers inline with the synopsis. Notices are redundant in synopses.
Character histories for fictional characters will have plot details included, otherwise they wouldn't be comprehensive. Notices are redundant there. (Hotly debated.)
Explicit "Spoiler notices" are a mainstream review-site tactic used to prevent readers from having diminished enjoyment of the work by having significant disclosures beforehand. A comprehensive, serious reference work has no business hiding or disguising such information, and can structure articles so that the explicit disclosure is not described in the lead paragraph, only referred to. (E.g., "This film is well known and highly regarded for its surprising plot twist in the third reel. See Synopsis for details.")
- In keeping with WP:NDT, there are other ways of identifying significant plot disclosures, say in a subsection of the synopsis, e.g. "Twist ending," "Disclosure of real identity," "How the trick was done."
- Fictional character articles can have "plot details" or surprises contained in a "History" or Plot subsection, not in the lead. (E.g. "This female character is actually the transgender male former lover of the main character's mother, and hence could be his dad.")

I'm sure I'm leaving something out, but this is my understanding of the principle complaints at the moment. -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel a need to add the "pro" argument that spoiler tags aren't especially disruptive, and that railing against them even in borderline cases is being kind of petty. Philip Reuben 17:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hence "discreet spoiler notice." ;) As for the "railing," that's a civility issue and wholly separate from the concerns about the notices. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel I need to be a bit plainer to some of you. Please read what I wrote a while ago, to be found here. I really can't see any argument against spoiler warnings except that 1) the pros, like those at Britannica, don't do it, and 2) people should be more careful (which really is a non-sequitur of an argument, because you know they won't be). Again, I will ask: what harm does the warning do? Twilight Realm 17:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What harm would putting a warning on breast that there's pictures that might offend some or some might not want their kids to see? Yet, there is none, and there hasn't ever been one at least as long as I've been reading and editting this place. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The best reason is that right-wing censorship extremists can't be satisfied until Western culture once again has the Christian equivalent of Islamic law. The U.S. already went through all this in previous centuries. (Having said that, I think self-censorship is ok, so I've worked out a technical system of competing hidden tags that would throw them a few crumbs without letting them take over.) Milo 22:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You really think that children won't read something that says it's not suitable for them? In this case, the warning will serve to people who want to prevent other people from seeing it (such as parents to censor from children). But the spoiler warnings only serve to censor people from themselves. That's the actual difference here. Samohyl Jan 19:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

But we have no other tags to help people censor things from themselves. We don't have "not safe for work" tags, which are also for self-censorship. Wikipedia is supposed to be "not censored". — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

We all know Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored, but do we at least agree on the definition of censorship? Spoiler tags do not remove infromation or prevent willing access to it in any way. --Kizor 21:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No arguments against? Anyone? Okay, cool. --Kizor 05:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've thought a lot about this "what harm does the warning do?" issue, which I believe is indirect as Melodia suggested, having to do with a varied vision of what Wikipedia is or is not.

"what harm does the warning do?" In a retail-level impression, spoiler tags 'cry wolf' since they not a warning — they get editors stirred up about disclaimers policy when there aren't any actual disclaimers, just a content notice like the hideable contents box and non-temporary disambig notices (non-contents). Adapting another term like 'unencyclopedic', using "warning" in this guideline is 'undictionaric' (previously said by two other editors at WP). The word "warning" should removed and replaced by "notice", except once at the top where this point is explained. This would be my unsatisfied issue with the current guideline, and apparently I consider it more important than do other editors.

I philosophically believe that misuse of that fiction-promotional hyperbole word has led to a lot of the discord in this debate via speculative NLP pathways, because editors vaguely sense that "warning" is a trivial lie, cheaply excused by a not-quite fictional context. That goes on to stir up classic "philosophical objections to the theater and acting", i.e., that acting is a form of lying and people ought not to lie. Via societal NLP, this concept has been encultured even in people who've never heard the college-level formal lecture on "objections to the theater".

"what harm does the warning do?" For a wholesale-level understanding of the anti-spoiler group, I think spoiler tags make them feel bad when, um, 'their' (say, short of WP:Own) Britannica-modeled encyclopedia is 'dirtied up' with things from 'internet culture'. Really, until this debate, I had no idea that 'internet culture' was considered such a bad thing. I don't understand exactly what it is, but I think 'creeping internet culture' is inevitable since that's where Wikipedia is located. Nonetheless, they feel the way that they do.

I have proposed for a long time in this debate that the tags be optionally hideable so everyone can win-win, but the anti-spoiler group has framed this issue as win-lose. Why?

There are some ways to do hidden tags now that aren't yet technically perfect, but so what, when the entire encyclopedia is a work in progress? There have been weakly argued oppositions to hidden tags (e.g., drop-ins from the web won't know how to use them), but they can be either fixed or lived with. Because the feelings backing the weak arguments are so strong, this suggests to me that the anti-spoiler tag group has bad feelings simply because they know hidden tags are there, and that this device might attract 'the wrong kind of readers' (i.e., 'ignorant people with whom we would have to connive'). As a culture we teach teenagers to delay gratification for greater long-term pleasure, so I don't think such people are genuinely ignorant. However, the real issue is that they probably are people of 'internet culture', whatever that is (l33t-speakers maybe?).

If 'internet culture' people are really so odious that Wikipedia should discriminate against them, perhaps I and other editors who may not understand the concept should be educated as to why the anti-spoiler group thinks they are so bad for Wikipedia. I don't have to agree, but if I understand, maybe there are as yet unknown ways to accommodate and compromise that will allow the hidden tag solution to be implemented with no more than grumbling by the anti-spoiler group. Milo 22:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This whole thread is a beautiful example of the disaster that's bound to occur when you encourage people to frame their opponents arguments for them. It's also a case of reviving old blood feuds. Have fun, folks.zadignose 00:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

-- Who was that directed at? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

nah, that's why liberals are better suited to running the world than conservatives. According to Victor Navasky, Publisher and Editorial Director of The Nation magazine when he appeared on the PBS Newshour (August 18, 2005):

"To have a serious opinion, you've got to have -- first of all, you've got to be able to state your opposition's point of view better than he or she states it him or herself."

Everyone likes being understood exactly, and successful negotiating requires it. Liberals as a group tend to care about what other people think, exactly, even when they don't agree. Conservatives as a group tend to think few opinions are important except those who are above them in their own or some rival hierarchy. That's why they tend to muck up foreign policy when they ideologically exclude liberal advisors. That's also why the U.S. State Department is mostly liberals.

David Spalding did a good job of stating the frequently mentioned positions. Milo 01:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

(bows) Thank you. :) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

Nobody has said that we should emulate Britannica, and that we can't do what they don't do. There has been the statement that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, which refers to the fact that we have editorial standards, and that the fundamental purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform. Disclaimers go against that purpose. We have some things in common with Britannica, as each aspires to be a valuable encyclopedia, informative on a wide variety of topics. So did Cyclopaedia, or Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, and many other encyclopedias. Another thing we have in common is that, generally, we prefer for words to be spelled correctly. That doesn't mean we have to emulate Britannica, or that we can't do what they don't do, which is an absurd way to frame the discussion. But then, maybe Britannica got a few things right with regards to how one writes an encyclopedia.

No one has said that spoiler tags "make them feel bad when 'their' Britannica-modeled encyclopedia is 'dirtied up' with things from 'internet culture,'" and no one has said that internet culture is 'bad.' But that's an interesting way to frame a position that one has not really attempted to understand.

I haven't signed on to a membership list for the "anti-spoiler group," or "anti-spoiler crowd," and I'm pretty sure such a membership list doesn't exist. But if ever one person makes a questionable or disagreeable comment, it is reframed as representative of the entire debate, and often taken out of context and misrepresented without consideration of the actual intent of the comment.

And now, somehow, a Liberal vs. Conservative dichotomy has been introduced, as if one could ever deduce the political views of any party to this debate, and as if it was even marginally relevant to the discussion.

It's interesting, Milo, that you have managed to "exactly" understand the views of Conservatives, and have managed to achieve this by boiling their beliefs down to "Conservatives as a group tend to think few opinions are important except those who are above them in their own or some rival hierarchy." Umm, yeah, highly credible attempt to understand and fairly represent what they think! About as credible as "the terrorists hate us because they are evil and hate everything that's good." (the last is not an actual quote)zadignose 03:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Nobody has said" things refer to my syntheses, which you may directly attribute to me. They are the product of the psychological perception exercise called "I-hear-you-saying" of the group, as opposed to what they literally wrote as individuals. My hear-saying perception isn't the only one; I encourage anyone else to do that exercise if they wish.

The liberal-conservative mention applies not to spoilers or tags, but solely to your comment "...encourage people to frame their opponents arguments for them." Navasky is one of the world's most famous liberals, and I stand on his insight.

My own insight into the core nature of philosophical conservatism as hierarchical is too obvious to be original, but I figured this out partly by observing the beliefs of William F. Buckley, Jr., whom I admire as an honest man, and who is a devout Catholic believer with God at the top level of his hierarchy. He considers himself to be "A Conservative" which he believes is importantly different from being merely "conservative". The latter is a label possibly associated with dozens of complex political positions, to which I was not referring. Milo 06:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's how I see it. This arguing back and forth is getting nowhere. We've got to organize this debate, because what we're doing now--having others pop in, offer their opinion, then completely forget about the whole debate while the rest of us argue the same old arguments about their opinion. Can anyone come up with any way of making this debate less chaotic?

Stepping aside from what I just said, I'd like to mention something that hasn't gotten much attention. Most Wikipedia editors are not admins. Most Wikipedia users are readers, not editors. In general, admins seem to be more anti-spoiler-tag than editors, and I can guarantee that non-editors will be more pro-spoiler-tag than editors (though, unfortunately, I have no proof of that). Since editor opinion seems split down the middle, but leaning towards pro-tag, and since any reasonable guess would put the standard opinion of readers at pro-tag, we really should use the tag. After all, Wikipedia is not about making a free version of Britannica, it's about providing as much information as possible to the world. And to do that, we should do what the readers want.

For those who would disagree that readers would be pro-tag, let me explain myself. Readers have little or no loyalty to Wikipedia. They don't care if it's dignified. They don't care if it imitates dead-tree encyclopedias. They won't be distracted by the tag (though someone above mentioned that it interrupts the flow of the text). They want to know about what they entered into the search box. They do not want to know that Harry is a Horcrux (or otherwise), they do not want to know that Dumbledore dies. A year and a half ago, I used the article on Lord of the Flies a lot before reading the book, but I was careful to use the spoiler warnings to navigate to sections about the critical reaction and so on, so I didn't learn that Jack turns evil and that Piggy dies. Removing spoiler tags completely eliminates that use for Wikipedia. You are actually making the encyclopedia less useful, less accessible, for reasons such as "the word spoiler is a neologism" and "it is not what the other encyclopedias do." I will say this again: Wikipedia lets any random idiot edit it. We've already broken the most important rule, that an encyclopedia is written by authorities on the subjects. And yet we're worried about spoiler warnings, because it's never been done before? Be bold!

And here is a chance to prove what I said in the first paragraph: anti-tag people aren't even going to read what I just wrote, because there's too much here for them to read. Only people who already agree will read it. If this is untrue, and you, the reader, are anti-tag, don't hesitate to say hi. And please counter my argument, while you're at it. Twilight Realm 03:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I read it all, and I'm pretty anti-tag. One counter argument is simple -- as much as "any idiot can edit WP", we ALSO don't want it to become a mess. Otherwise, why would cleanup tags exist? Why care that words are properly interlinked, why care about pictures being used right, why care about breaking up the articles into sections in the first place? Because we want the articles to read well. We want people to be able to find information, and have easy access to more information as it comes up. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 03:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is exactly why spoiler warnings are helpful. They help readers organize information, decide what they want to read and what not to read, more easily than without. I know because I've done it. I've skipped to the 'Note: Significant Plot Details Ahead' part when the information I wanted was the spoiler, and I didn't want to read the rest. I've also read information that _wasn't_ spoilers when I wanted to learn more about a work but not the major twists. This use is hampered by global "spoiler warnings" over the entire plot, but it's made MUCH easier by targetted spoiler warnings in plot sections. This isn't about 'we don't want people to come to WP if they don't want information', this is about giving choice to what parts of an article we're interested in. People come to WP all the time when they don't want to learn everything, and WP conspires WITH them to that goal: I've come to WP to see the cast list of a movie, because it's easier to navigate from search engines than sites like IMDB. I go to the WP movie page and, rather than navigate a whole block of text in which the cast is gradually revealed along with the plot, it's organized in a nice little sidebar. Oh noes! WP is conspiring in my desire to remain ignorant of everything but the cast! Well, no. It's just being helpful. Likewise, if I just want to know the release date, I can just look at that easily, and skip the rest. If I've come to see how a movie was received, I can skip everything up to Critical Reception (or if I specifically don't care how a movie was received, I could skip that section entirely). But when I want to do this with Spoilers, I'm now thwarted, and a few people insist that if I don't want to learn everything, I shouldn't come to WP.

One of the purposes of Organization is not to make it 'look nice' but to help people find the information they want quickly, and to not read the information they don't (whether the reason is "I don't want to know this because it might spoil my enjoyment" or "I don't have time for that"). Spoiler notices aid in this organization. I personally don't think a small notice makes an article 'messy' any more than several subdivisions of a section does. They make it easier to use, which should be one of the goals of the Encyclopedia. Wandering Ghost 12:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia. When that conflicts with "what readers want", we don't do what readers want. There are plenty of other things that readers might want to be warned about that we don't warn them about, and plenty of things that readers might want to see included that we don't include.

There has already been a significant shift in spoiler tag usage; what we are discussing here is when to use the tags in a limited way, not whether to use them at all (we will) or whether to return to the way things were (we won't). — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for treating me like an idiot who can't read, Twilight! Good way to BE BOLD! Oh yeah, 'Hi!' Though I'm not sure I'm a member of the dreaded "anti-tag" group you refer to, so maybe you don't want to hear from me. As for countering your argument, that's been done effectively above.zadignose 03:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you rather have a perfect encyclopedia that nobody wants to read, or a reference work that people actually find interesting and enjoyable but that isn't perfectly scholarly or totally organized? Not that spoiler tags are the be-all end-all to create this ultimatum, I'm just curious as to which goal is more important to wikipedia: being user-friendly or being prestigious? Kuronue 04:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you are in a position to answer one of my questions. Let's see if this 'you'd be better off over there' argument holds any water. The rhetorical argumentum ad baculum aside (i.e., be smart, don't get punished),

what's your answer to the frequently-heard claim that as a spoiler-avoiding reader you logically should go to IMDB, fan sites, etc., for your spoiler-free fiction information, where they actually want you?

To be helpful to understanding the general case, please try to avoid the special case argument that you consider yourself to be an offended Wikipedian editor, and let's momentarily assume that the anti-spoiler group has the power to make life indefinitely unpleasant for spoiler-avoiding readers at WP.

The inverse of the same question is, what has Wikipedia got that the other spoiler-friendly sites don't have, that would cause you to persist in coming here for non-spoiling fiction information, even though you have to pick through the new Wikipedia: Spoiler minefield? Milo 04:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Take virtually any significant movie and compare its page here with its page on IMDB and you will see what we have that IMDB does not: encyclopedic coverage of both the film and its cultural significance. And while our goal is for the articles to become more comprehensive over time, IMDB has no such plans. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Happily, we're not forced to choose between having "a perfect encyclopedia that nobody wants to read," and "a reference work that people actually find interesting and enjoyable but that isn't perfectly scholarly or totally organized." How about "a really good encyclopedia that many people want to read?" That sounds like a good goal! Personally, I came to Wikipedia as a reader long before thinking about editing anything. I largely came because I could find the information I wanted. I found the style appropriate for an encyclopedia, and it helped form a positive impression that caused me to return often. However, perhaps we can compare two more realistic options. Would your rather have everything2 or Wikipedia? Personally I'd prefer Wikipedia, and I've pretty much abandoned everything2 years ago. But happily, even here, we don't have to choose, as both of them continue to exist on the internet. So if you prefer a less restrictive environment, with looser editorial standards, you know where you can find it. But it should also be noted what is implied when we suggest that those who want things done another way should look elsewhere. I have the faith that, even if a few people really do go elsewhere, so long as we can create a quality encyclopedia, a great many people will want to come here.zadignose 06:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have the idea that spoiler warnings will drive people away, and that the real thing that will attract people is emulating a published encylopedia. Someone raised a good point above: sidebars don't appear in other encyclopedias, but there's no talk about them being eliminated. Is this simply because they are over to the right and "interrupt the flow of the text" less? That seems like a weak excuse to me.

And you seem to have the idea that Wikipedia is only out to attract people in a massive web popularity contest. I'm sure if Wikipedians could put whatever they liked on Wikipedia, from How-tos and tutorials to phone directories and shopping lists, not only would Wikipedia's popularity and use increase, but it would even become more useful. But that doesn't mean we're going to do that now or ever. Just because you think Wikipedia should be able to do this or because its not like all the other encyclopedias doesn't change what Wikipedia was founded on, and what its policies are. David Fuchs 14:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Good points, and I'm not claiming that spoiler tags are going to drive away masses of readers, or that they'll attact them. However, my general view is that upholding good editorial policies has had a good overall effect on Wikipedia and it's apparent success.

But the main point that I thought should be addressed is that no one is trying to create "a perfect encyclopedia that no one wants to read," which is in itself an absurd concept. Perfection is a good thing to aspire to, though it's unlikely to be fully achieved. But if anyone somehow did create a perfect encyclopedia, I'm pretty damn sure a lot of people would want to read it. Particularly those people who are looking to read a good encyclopedia.

Another point to consider is, I'm not getting paid for this. So perfection seems a more attractive goal than popularity. You know, volunteers tend to be idealists. What can I possibly get as a reward for pandering?zadignose 00:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

My reasons for going to Wikipedia instead of IMDB for non-spoiler information are these: 1) I read about books too, you know, 2) I want more than the cast and release date; I want information about the book--just not the plot. What about 1984? The importance of that book is not in its plot, but rather its cultural impact. Where can I get that but Wikipedia? 3) Wikipedia is my source of information for everything. I'm sure you know what I mean. I want to know about something, and I go to Wikipedia. Twilight Realm 14:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think spoiler warnings should be included, whether or not spoilers are "implied." I believe this because it is impossible to be sure whether information is like what one would find on the back of the book/movie, or the entire plot. It just makes things simpler.S II 087 01:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

But a treatment of the plot isn't SUPPOSED to be "like what would find on the back of the book". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 02:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I've found that when it is like what we would find on the back of a book, it's usually copyvio because it was just taken from the back of the book. Phil Sandifer 12:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The back of the book is generally for promotional purposes, something WP most decidedly is not. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 19:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The False-Comfort Argument Against Spoiler Warnings

I have had the morbid pleasure of being involved in this discussion, on and of, for quite a while now. One of the major difficulties I see with the debate is that the anti-spoiler camp has pro-spoiler camp has a very easy

I want to encapsulate what I, personally, see as the major argument against spoilers. And I want to name it, arbitrarily, so I can refer back to it later. This, then, is what I call the false-comfort line of reasoning.

The presence of spoiler warnings anywhere in wikipedia provides an assurance to the reader that wikipedia is a “safe place” as far as information is concerned. Any information that might upset them is going to be carefully labeled and put in a little cabinet, like a chemical they may, perhaps, be allergic to. In fact, however, these warning labels are only used in one specific way: to protect people who suffer when they get advance information about plot twists in popular fictional media.

We have, in past versions of this discussion, argued extensively about this boundary: should their be spoiler warnings in articles like Romeo and Juliet, or in The Bible, or in Bowling for Columbine? Generally, we are agreed that their shouldn’t be. Moreover, we are emphatic about the fact that the text and graphic content of certain other kinds of articles should not be compromised in any way to protect the reader’s sensibilities. Wikipedia is not censored, and contains numerous articles that can easily discomfit people who have been victims of abuse, survivors of genocide, recovering addicts, ideologues of any stripe, etc. etc. We have an elaborate intellectual justification for these policies.

The problem we face is that the boundary between these two kinds of articles is very fluid and above all very complicated. We can imagine, for instance, that two readers both go to the Nightmare on Elm Street page, neither one having seen the movie before. Reader A complains that the page has no spoiler warnings. Reader B, a rape survivor, complains that the page has a series of triggering images: Nancy Thompson trapped and in fear, Nancy being fondled in her sleep by Freddy Krueger’s knives, etc. It is prima facie absurd—or worse—for wikipedia to say that A has a legitimate complaint to be “shielded” from the content on the page, while B ought to know better than to go around looking at wikipedia. I believe it is this absurdity that people reduce to the straw-man phrase “real encyclopedias don’t have spoilers.”

We can and should sell the argument that it is not wikipedia’s job to protect people with PTSD or narrow-minded ideological sensitivities. We can (and are) also selling the argument that it is wikipedia’s job to protect Harry Potter fans. But it is inherently confusing and counter-intuitive to make both claims. Moreover, there’s a matter of demographics. The user editing the fictional-media pages that spoiler warnings are designed to “make safe” is often much younger and newer than many other wikipedians. Two years down the road, when they have lost interest editing the minor characters in the Fruits Basket universe and has started editing pages on geopolitics, we somehow need to convey that there is a complex, counter-intuitive, and somewhat arbitrary distinction between the way you edit Yuki Sohma’s page and the way you edit Bill O’Reilly’s page. In fact, what we are trying to convey at that point is the Big News that information is not safe, and never can be entirely safe, and the entire sense of comfort we have provided for them with spoiler warnings was a mirage. So…why provide that illusion of safety in the first place? Ethan Mitchell 15:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Very well said, though I wonder why you mention you've been involved, but don't seem to be a recognizable name. Still, I can't find much fault with the above. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice though it is to imagine Wikipedia as a paradigm-busting brew that's too harsh for simpering sensitives, it is totally wrong. Wikipedia is censored. There's official censorship in the form of WP:BLP. How long before that is extended to cover other things? There's religious censorship on Muhammad and Bahá'u'lláh (facial images shunted downwards to avoid offence). Virtually none of our articles on sex have photos, using drawings, wood carvings, pottery or other 'safe' alternatives. Ethan's comment about addiction tweaked my interest, so it of little surprise to see that our articles on Cocaine, Heroin and Cannabis have no photos of anyone using them.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In the cases of drugs, it's most likely illegal to have such pics, unless they were taken from a movie or something, in which case they likely would be against the rules for other reasons. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 18:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If films can depict it, why can't we?--Nydas^(Talk) 19:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a blind alley because the premise is wrong. We fought this battle in late 2004 (which purely coincidentally is when I showed up) and we won on a grand scale. Clitoris, penis, erection, vagina, anus, and childbirth are all illustrated more graphically than any encyclopedia aimed at the general reader has ever been. DrZen who kept removing a photograph from the Clitoris article was ordered by the arbitration committee not to do so, on pain of banning.

Drugs? I just sampled the articles marijuana, bong, cocaine, and heroin. They seem to be amply illustrated. If you think the heroin article might be more informative if there was a picture of someone boiling up some heroin, then suggest this on the talk page, because we've got a picture you could use for that. --Tony Sidaway 22:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The premise is correct, your double strawman argument does not undermine it. If I had meant sex organs or drug preparation I would have said so. Childbirth is censored, using mother and newborn photos in place of more graphic depictions.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I've contested the "PTSD trigger" clause on Wikipedia:Content disclaimer which was added in 2003. The original author has responded (maybe) on the Talk page. Such as it is, I don't for a second think WP needs to be sensitive or protect PTSD sufferers from content. That would be censorship of a kind. // You maybe explaining in a more effective way Tony's defense against "encroachment of Internet culture." That is, the insidious growth of fan site and online blog habits of tagging content so as to preserve the mystery for readers. Infotainment, versus reference information. I can grok that POV. In that sense, it's not "Internet culture," so much as "new media culture," or "populist writing techniques." One does not expect to find "ain't" and "roll up in your grill" ... colloquialisms ... in a reference work. So, really, are we arguing that spoiler notices are a written colloquialism indigenous to younger, enthusiast publications? Going back 30 years (yes, I can), Cinefantastique's all-issue features on THE EXORCIST and THE WICKER MAN certainly did not sport spoiler notices. ... BUT ... a big but ... WP is an Internet reference, here in 2007, and is free to adopt contemporary conventions of (online) formal writing. So I'm not sure the young/immature vs. older/experienced writer paradigm is relevant. WP can be edited by everyone. A draft card, or driver's license, or high school diploma, is not required to register and contribute. ... Food for thought, I hope. -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 19:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ethan: with all due respect, your entire argument seems to boil down to "Wikipedia is not censored" (though with some flourishes). If that is a fair assessment, I would note that this has been brought up ad nauseum during the course of this discussion. The very crux of the argument, however, commits an obvious error: censorship removes information, spoiler tags do not. Spoiler tags do not even obscure information, rather they highlight where it is. As clever as this argument may seem at first, it is a logical non-starter. Postmodern Beatnik 20:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You're quite correct to state that spoiler warnings do not censor. They don't do that, but on the other hand they do blight the articles by dropping encyclopedic tone (if even for a moment) and reverting to a form more readily associated with the internet, Usenet, and the like. Anybody who casts a critical eye over the Wikipedia articles of the old days would recognise that we've steadily attracted better writers, better copy editors, and better organisers, and the quality of much of our work is now far higher than was attainable formerly. We've changed, we've raised our game.

It is no longer acceptable to warn a reader, who is assumed to be intelligent and interested in learning, that in coming to Wikipedia he is in danger of learning something. If he isn't interested, he will soon find out that this isn't the place for him, and go elsewhere. --Tony Sidaway 22:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"they do blight the articles" So why not accept the optionally hidden spoiler tag compromise? No blight for those so concerned; everyone wins.

"in danger of learning something" There's yet another metaphor using colloquial false-danger.

That unintelligentsia argument is also weakening since fiction fans want to learn the info, just not too soon. Correctly revising your bon mot, WP would actually have to 'connive with temporary ignorance', which just doesn't sound as bad. Everyone is temporarily ignorant per subject.

"the boundary between these two kinds of articles is very fluid and above all very complicated." Ethan, that belief is a side effect of buying into the spoiler-hype illusion, as nearly everyone has done (hint: there's big profit behind it).

The disambiguation between the two is clear and uncomplicated when you write/speak/debate using factual encyclopedic rhetoric with formal word definitions. You can't make that comparison argument without a colloquial usage / formal misuse of the words "warning" and "safe" because, in the case of spoilers, there is no danger. Doubt issues aside, victim-survivers claim they are harmed by triggers. Fiction fans don't claim they are harmed by spoilers, just disappointed at learning them too soon. ("Suffer" seems like a stretch to me.) Of all the reasons offered here for objecting to spoiler tags, this 'no warnings' reason is the most rhetorically amateur compared to the craft of professional writer-editors. Milo 04:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, I always had the following concerns about spoiler tags:

Of all the myriad ways that a reader might be offended by a Wikipedia article (profanity, sexuality, religion,...), why choose plot details as the one and only case that gets a disclaimer?

When is the disclaimer appropriate? Until quite recently, Three little pigs had a spoiler warning. Yet, WikiProject Opera had a project-wide "policy" that spoiler tags were never to be used on opera articles. So, there was something quite arbitrary about it. A common nursery story had a spoiler warning, but Verdi's Aida did not.

I do agree that persons of ordinary intelligence ought to know that when they see a section labeled "plot," "history," "story," or "synopsis," the story is about to be given away. No one who reads the article Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows at any time after 12:01 a.m. on Saturday has any legitimate beef if they find out more about the book than they wanted to know.

In any case, we're not exactly the last firewall between ignorance and knowledge. There are plenty of sources on the Internet for this kind of information, and even if we scrupulously "spoiler-tag" everywhere it might conceivably be helpful, no one else is doing it. People who don't want to find out whether Harry Potter dies are going to figure out that they had best avoid googling Harry Potter till after they've read the book. Marc Shepherd 15:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The need for other kinds of disclaimer template is eliminated by the censorship of objectionable articles to ensure that they don't have unsafe images. We don't go further than a sex education booklet or art gallery. Expecting people to know to the minute the Harry Potter release time is fancentric.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Your claims to the contrary are highly unpersuasive. I am not aware of an example where information has been left out of a Wikipedia sex article for censorship reasons. It may well have been removed for other reasons (e.g., original research, not verifiable, not NPOV, not notable, not relevant, copyright violation, and the like).

My Harry Potter example was merely a timely illustration. It just so happens that Saturday is the release date, and I fully expect the ending to be posted on Wikipedia very shortly thereafter. It's also relevant in another way: Harry Potter fans (not me) are up-in-arms because newspapers have already posted reviews that give away plot details. That's life: if you start poking around on the Internet, you have no right to complain that you found too much information. Marc Shepherd 16:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I read the NY Times review, and anyone who calls that "giving away plot details" is hypersensitive. The reviewer was careful not to give away plot details, only hint at them, as is normal for book reviews. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the review does indeed give away details that many readers would prefer not to know beforehand. For example, it comes right out and says what the title ("Deathly Hallows") means, a topic that had been much speculated about, and which the author herself had refused to explain—saying it was too significant to give away. The reason I disagree with the fans is not because the plot details given away are minor, but because these reviews are easily avoided.

Those who are liable to say, "Damn...I didn't want to know how Three little pigs ends until after I see the movie" shouldn't be searching for that exact subject on the Internet. Marc Shepherd 17:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

But the review doesn't explain what Harry does to these things, or even what they really are. It just hints about what they are. I think it's hypersensitivity to call such hints "spoilers", and it elevates minor plot details to undue importance over any actual artistic merit of the book. For example, if I wrote a review of American Pastoral that says Seymour finds and confronts his daughter, that wouldn't diminish the value of the novel. If the only reason to read the last Harry Potter book were to learn what the title means and who dies, it would hardly be worthy of a NY Times review. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Uhmmm, in no particular order... (1) It is perfectly legal in the United States to display images of illicit drugs, although obviously it raises the question of where the images came from. (2) When I say, and link, Wikipedia is not censored, I am referring to the subpolicy-or-whatever of that name, which explicitly acknowledges the fact that wikipedia is censored (or editorially overseen, or what-you-will) for issues around libel, spurious content, and pointlessly offensive graphics. Arguably, the policy is badly named. It might be more appropriate to call it: "Wikipedia: Read at your own risk!" But that is the name of the policy. I am not arguing that there is no censhorship on wikipedia. (3) I would argue, though, that wikipedia has a fairly unique role and opportunity to play in providing a diverse ("encyclopedic") range of information in a direct way, largely unfettered by the social sensitivities of one group or another. There are many websites that actively pursue a policy of editing content for one or another POV; there are very few that strive to do what we are doing.

(4) Milo, I agree that spoiler tags provide additional information, and that is clearly not censorship. But I think the type of information they provide is inherently POV, and implies a POV choice (in favor of fans of ______). If the information to be conveyed is that plot details are about to be revealed, the section header "Plot Summary" should be absolutely sufficient. Providing a second layer of wrapping-paper (sorry, is that "colloquial speech?"...) implies an ediorial acknowledgment that some group of readers want to read certain plot details, but not yet read other plot details, because of their desire to emotionally interact with the content in a particular way. The mere fact of plot details being involved is already acknowledged, and no one objects to that. But this secondary form of warning--expressly stated as a warning, not a passive label--appeals to the reader's emotional experience, not their intellectual experience. What I am calling the false-comfort argument is the risk that by doing this in one context, we are legitimately confusing readers who will expect us to do it in others.

(5) Milo, again, I'm sure that you are using "factual encyclopedic rhetoric with formal word definitions," but it isn't quite clear to me what you're saying about the semantics here. I think you are saying that by talking about "harm" in the context of spoilers, I'm equating them to PTSD triggers in an unfair way. Is that right? If so, I don't think the comparison is entirely unfair. In these archives and elsewhere, readers who feel "spoiled" by a page routinely express themselves in terms of emotional distress--which is in the same quality if not the same intensity as, say, a PTSD sufferer. Perhaps the term "emotional distress" is itself a "colloquial usage / formal misuse" of words, but even if I believed that words work that way, I don't see what the distinction is. A rape victim who reads Lucrece doesn't actually get physically assaulted by the text, but they may react to it strongly at an emotive level, and feel that they should have been warned of that possibility beforehand. Ethan Mitchell 17:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ethics of spoilers

Here's food for thought, from the San Francisco Chronicle, an editorial on why spoilers are unethical (in the context of Harry Potter):

First, the fans of Harry Potter have invested a lot of time, money and passion in the first six volumes in the series. They have read and re-read hundreds of pages over 10 years, and they are entitled to discover Harry's fate on their own.

Second, Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling has a right to have her intellectual property respected. This right is fundamentally an ethical one, whether or not it is codified by law. That is, even if you aren't breaking the law by spilling the beans, you still shouldn't do so.

Third, society has a compact with artists. They entertain us, and we support and protect their right to do so. If either party reneges, the deal is off....A spoiler intentionally or negligently subverts the compact between artist and audience by throwing up an obstacle to the artist and giving him or her a reason to cease their creative activities. After all, why would a writer want to spend years spinning a tale as elaborate as Harry Potter if some blowhard is going to come along and ruin the surprise of how it all turns out?

hateless 21:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want counterpoint, look here. Both arguments are irrelevant - the encyclopedia is spoiler-blind. Girolamo Savonarola 21:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I don't think we've got, or are likely to have, any problem with Harry Potter fans. We're certainly not in the business of supporting the idiots who enjoy spoiling people's fun. I think Harry Potter fans recognise that they can come to Wikipedia for reliable information, and that they won't find gratuitous "Snape kills Dumbledore" nonsense all over the place. That isn't what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia does, however, have a reputation as an encyclopedia to maintain, so we'll definitely carry full plot details of the seventh Harry Potter novel, in the appropriate place, given due prominence, and with appropriate labelling (which may involve the use of spoiler tags for a short or possibly even a long period). We will carry that information as soon as there are editors able to edit the appropriate articles (some of them have apparently had early release copies for some days now but have respected the embargo). --Tony Sidaway 22:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is really that spoilers are not harmless, that there are ethical considerations involved. Point 1 is most readily applicable to us here. Otherwise, I agree with you completely, Tony. hateless 23:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What is this childish crap?? You're not "spoiling" something to discuss it comprehensively and without POV bias or censorship, as one does in a reference work. Those who do not want to read comprehensive, unbiased, unrestricted content, oughtn't go reading reference works. It's pretty simple, that. - David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 01:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there is valuable, non-plot information in the article. I would personally like to read reviews and publishing information without seeing the plot. Unfortunately, a glance at a paragraph is all that is required so it is impossible to read follow on sections without reading the entire page. If it's on the screen, it's absorbed regardless of intent to absorb it. --Tbeatty 07:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I would also question ethics of a comprehensive, unbiased, reference work would be summarizing the copyrighted, fictional, creative works of others in the same medium in which it was created (i.e. the written word). It seems to me that this raises ethical questions in and of itself. --Tbeatty 08:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I must be misunderstanding you, as it seems that you're asserting that written book reviews are inethical ... critical treatises on novels and fiction (e.g. a written analysis of Raymond Chandler fiction which includes detailed examination of plot points) ... periodical reviews (Harpers, Atlantic Monthly, New York Times Review of Books) coverage of fiction ... are all inethical?? (shakes head) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 18:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

uh, I'm pretty sure its 'unethical', David, but your point is valid. Tbeatty, you seem to be saying that you'd like a separate article for the plot of the book, because you don't want your poor eyes to look over a section labeled synopsis or plot. That would be unnecessarily segregating information to the degradation of the article. Plot summaries are exactly that: plot summaries. The current plot section on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is incredibly bad, because all it does is recant the plot. According to policy, guideline, and what you call "ethical questions", plot summaries are supposed to contextualize and allow the reader to figure out what happens in the book; the rest of the article is supposed to tell you why that's such a big screaming deal. And no one copyrighted plot summaries. My god, then Interpol would swoop down and have carted me off to jail a while back for writing an email to a friend telling him what happened in the latest Transformers movie. You're inventing moral questions where none exist. David Fuchs^(talk) 23:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I would like a navigation feature like a hide box that allows users to navigate around articles to get the information that they want. How do you argue that a reader should avoid the plot using the TOC but at the same time argue that the TOC is not used to skip sections they don't want to read? I think an analysis of a plot is fine. Large, detailed plot summaries that are not analysis or review, however infringe upon the creative work of the author. Rarely, if ever, do major review houses give away the entire plot. It seems somewhat convoluted logic to argue that a plot summary that "hides" a large portion of the book is okay, but a hide box is "censorship." There is no difference between the use of a hide box and the use of a summary where "censorship" is concerned. --Tbeatty 00:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say the pro-spoiler-warning crowd wants to have it both ways. A short scroll up this page, I am taken to task for using the words "warning," "safe" and "suffer" in the context of people's emotional reaction to spoilers. Here we are discussing the question of "ethics" and "harm" in relationship to spoiler content. Clearly, if those who feel that spoilers harm them in an ethically--and borderline legally--significant way are going to press those claims, then we will also have to respect the claims of people who feel "harmed" by information in other ways. This is precisely the false-comfort argument.

On another note--it is my general sense that the people sensitive to a legal recognition of spoilers as a kind of IPR believe that by making such a claim they are defending property rights. I would question whether this is a well-considered position. The Canadian injuction against people who had (accidentally) purchased copies of J.K. Rowlings book prematurely would seem to champion intellectual property rights over and above the common property rights in a free market. This is a weird and scary road to go down with discussing it first. Ethan Mitchell 20:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

On talk pages

So far as I know, spoiler warnings don't go at the top of talk pages, right? If so, should the page state that, or does that fall under the jurisdiction of Wikipedia:Use common sense? 17Drew 00:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's common sense. You can't discuss an article about a fictional work without discussing the content of the work. --Tony Sidaway 00:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Some would argue that it is common sense to avoid reading a section called "Plot summary of X," if there is a portion of X's plot that you will go into conniptions if you read by mistake. But somehow we have ruled this argument to be unkind. Ethan Mitchell 20:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If anything, the rationale for spoiler warnings (already quite weak) is even weaker on talk pages. According to WP:TALK, the purpose of those pages "is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article...." Anyone who's editing would almost certainly know the story. It's bad enough to suggest that we need to protect readers. I can't imagine the justification for protecting editors, too. Marc Shepherd 22:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the word Spoiler Now Banned ?

Came across this edit just now to change the word spoiler in an external link to plot details

As it happens on that website there is a one line summary of the episode which the word spoiler can cover( since to some people a one line summary can be a spoiler ) but which in this case plot details is not correct .Garda40 20:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The term is not band. But in this case, it falls under WP:NDA and not this guideline. --Farix (Talk) 21:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh what are you talking about? The article says Plot summary and that's it .Garda40 22:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I made that edit. I made it because as an Englishman I don't like to read jargon on English Wikipedia when the information can be expressed much better in English. If I were editing French, Spanish, Dutch, Italian or German Wikipedia I'd seek the more natural expression of the concept in the language of the wiki, and would only resort to jargon if I were absolutely sure that the idea could not be expressed in that language. --Tony Sidaway 22:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

::: I made that edit. I made it because as an Englishman I don't like to read jargon on English Wikipedia when the information can be expressed much better in English

Except in this case the term which was used "Plot Details" is wrong because there is no plot details on that linked page beyond a generic "the SG team have an adventure on planet X this week" .Garda40 22:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case there is nothing to say and the text can be removed. I am left wondering what the fuss was about. --Tony Sidaway 23:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC

The fuss was why you felt the need to remove the word spoiler that happened to be on that page , and replace it with a generic term , that wasn't even a content disclaimer for the article and wasn't even much of a content disclaimer for the link rather than delete an out of date link .Garda40 23:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's one thing to describe an off site link, but it's another thing to put what amounts to spoiler warnings on said links. It's not Wikipedia's job to provide warnings about off site content and such warning are contrary to WP:NDA. --Farix (Talk) 23:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a historical link that was placed there soon after the page was created in September 06 and which at this point can be removed rather than purged of the "nasty" word spoiler .Garda40 23:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. If it doesn't contain anything useful such as plot descriptions (which is what I naively assumed "spoilers" meant) then it's pointless and can be removed. --Tony Sidaway 23:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The BBC uses the term. "JK Rowling rails against spoilers."--Nydas^(Talk) 15:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker, so I might be wrong, but doesn't she use the word "spoilers" to mean "the people who spoil the excitement for the kids" instead of "plot details you might not want to know"? Kusma (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's ambiguous, but the term is used later in the article in the correct sense.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

See also Potted Harry for beginners. Good to see the BBC using a spoiler template. --Nydas^(Talk) 16:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

They do indeed, but they are in the minority. Just about everywhere else, people write openly about what happened in the previous 6 books without any disclaimer. Marc Shepherd 17:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

By 'everywhere else', do you mean fansites and blogs that most people never read?--Nydas^(Talk) 09:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I am persuaded that it is appropriate for Wikinews to use the word "spoiler" now. Phil Sandifer 17:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a good chance our Harry Potter articles will have spoiler notices, possibly in the form of {{current fiction}}, for a short time. There is a much lower chance that the spoiler notices will remain there forever. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind a tag like {{current fiction}} at the head of an article. It's far less intrusive than a spoiler warning in the middle of a page, and there's a pretty clear "statute of limitations." You won't see it there a year from now, nor probably even six months from now. Marc Shepherd 17:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, NPR yesterday followed their story on teh tight security surrounding shipping of the new Potter novel, with a reassurance (disclaimer?) that ... they would not be broadcasting "spoilers" (their wording) as "spoilers are not newsworthy." So it may be jargon, but it's reaching the level of common use. // Tony, cleansing the EL of the word spoiler was silly. Replacing it with "plot details" ... did you look at the external page, I wonder. WP doesn't put disclaimers on ELs (e.g. "Warning: you are now leaving WP, we are not responsible for content on external sites"), just an accurate description, e.g. "Naugahyde(TM) official site," "Blade Runner resources (fan site)," "Roger Ebert review of the film." // I also don't see why the fuss, as it's not a "bad word," so knee-jerk reactions to the word, or to its replacement with more specific descriptions, is childish. Let's all take a deep breath and get some perspective. The word is reaching common use (AND it's in my Oxford Concise Dictionary, 11th ed.), get over it. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 13:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

As has been discussed, evidently the page in question contained nothing of much use and the link was removed. This highlights why it's much better to use good English than to use misleading jargon. There are occasions when the word "spoiler" is appropriate in an article about fiction, and occasions when it isn't, and these should be judged on a case-by-case basis. In most cases, I think, the term "spoiler" is used when the writer means "plot detail", and obviously the latter is more easily understood, more neutral, and less ambiguous. --Tony Sidaway 14:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Except it wasn't misleading jargon when that link was created and for the next month as the one line summary on that external link was the most plot detail you would find anywhere.Of course it should have been removed when SKY showed the episode but everyone seems to have forgotten about it by that point .Garda40 15:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not clear on your position on this subject. Is it your position that the word "spoiler" was more appropriate than the phrase "plot detail" ? --Tony Sidaway 15:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

My position is that the link should have been removed rather than changed from what was at one time an appropriate useage of jargon but that the editor who inserted it last September wouldn't have been wrong to use the words "plot detail" as at that time they amounted to the same thing. .Garda40 16:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Which usage would have been inappropriate the other day, when I changed the wording? If "plot detail" would have been appropriate both in September and in July, wouldn't that have been a better overall choice? --Tony Sidaway 16:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Both were inappropriate the other day and therefore one usage should not have been changed to the other whether it was "Spoiler" to "Plot detail" or "Plot detail" to "Spoiler".

If "plot detail" would have been appropriate both in September and July

Since there isn't any plot detail on that external site now compared to the article "Plot detail" isn't appropriate in July .Garda40 17:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm satisfied that "spoiler" is a word in common usage, and it should no longer be considered pop jargon. But that does not mean that every use of it is the clearest and most appropriate way of expressing the idea. Indeed, the {{spoiler}} template, as currently worded, says "Note: Significant plot details follow," without using the exact word "spoiler." Among other things, the phrase "plot details" is more neutral. It implies no view about whether anything is being "spoiled" for anybody. Marc Shepherd 18:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much agree. I would say that it's jargon in the sense that its meaning is likely less apparent to a random English speaker than "plot detail." I would also add that I hadn't encountered the term, as a voracious reader, prior to contact with the internet. and that I tend to find so-called spoilers rather enticers, making me want to read or watch a work (I'm sure you know what I mean--Last Tango in Paris would have been a lot less interesting without the butter, and you're not going to want to watch Fight Club if you think it's just some crap about idiots fighting one another).

I can't think of a single movie that I watched to see what happened in the last reel. That includes Citizen Kane--anybody who thinks the movie is spoiled if you know about Rosebud must have slept through it--and The Phantom Menace (we know before the first reel is over that the cute little kid will end his life fighting an epic battle of good and evil, and will only in death be won over to the side of good--why? because we saw the same guy die in Return of the Jedi!)

So I am left wondering where this weird obsession with the secrecy of the final reel came from. I don't know. I don't care. I do know that it has no place in any encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 23:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony: vague and misleading allusions to my comment about Citizen Kane do not serve to make your case any more logically sound. I made that point in the context of an entirely different conversation about whether or not "Plot" and "Spoiler" are coextensive. David Spalding made an interesting reply, and we went back and forth a bit (during which I changed the content of my example for the sake of clarity), but at the end of the day the point remained: "Plot" and "Spoiler" are not coextensive. I did not say that knowledge of the ending ruins the film. I've watched Fight Club, for example, roughly 50 times. You are also incorrect about the "obsession with [...] secrecy." It isn't necessarily about the third reel. What is it about? Well... spoilers (obvious, eh?). As I said to David Spalding, the ending of Fullmetal Alchemist episode 5 (victory!) does not spoil. The events of Fullmetal Alchemist episode 25 (death!) do spoil. And at 51 episodes, number 25 is not quite the "third reel."

On the issue at hand, though, it seems quite clear that "spoiler" is an appropriate term for Wikipedia. Not only is it being absorbed by the professional media, but it is already in use on Wikipedia outside of the spoiler template and the pages on the guideline. Specifically, it is used on the content disclaimer page (which, I might add, links to a page which explicitly states that spoiler tags will be included on Wikipedia). Postmodern Beatnik 17:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

^ Examples include GameFAQs, Television Without Pity, and TV.com.
^ Examples include GameFAQs, Television Without Pity, and TV.com.

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

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

[1]

[2]