Wikipedia talk:Spoiler

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. This is, on occasion, a very busy discussion page. Newcomers are encouraged to read the copious archives. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Other archives: Archive 0 Archive debate Guidelines Guideline status Guideline status 2 RfC • RfC talk • RfC 2 • RfC 2 talk old template talk Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Spoilers in the lead paragraph?

I'm well aware that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that to be encyclopedic, articles need to be covered with full, complete information, including "spoilers" of plot details in works of media. However, I feel that it's reasonable to assume that there shouldn't be any spoiler (major or minor) in the lead paragraph of an article, unless it's generally applicable to the whole of the medium.

For instance, one wouldn't expect to see "Harry encounters Lord Voldemort who is possessing Professor Quirell and ends up defeating him in battle." in the opening paragraph of an article about Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Or, "Goku is really an alien from an endangered species called Saya-Jins and dies several times throughout his life." in the lead paragraph of a Dragon Ball Z article.

More acceptable entries like, "Harry has many strange experiences while learning about magic, some of them dangerous in nature." And, "Goku is inadvertently tasked with saving the world many times from bad guys seeking power." These are just examples of giving a clear, concise picture about the fiction without revealing major plot points should one, at this point, now be interested in the work and want to experience it first-hand.

I think it's reasonable that plot details that are not general should not be placed in the lead paragraph. The "Plot" section is the most natural and obvious area for information like this. Being in other places "just to be there" (especially in the lead paragraph) doesn't add anything to the article at all and could disrupt the flow of the content. RufioUniverse (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"Harry has many strange experiences while learning about magic, some of them dangerous in nature" has one serious problem. It's waffle, fit only for a book jacket. --TS 23:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not what this is about at all. This is about improper placement of critical plot details and spoilers. Don't focus on the example, and don't forget the core of the subject. RufioUniverse (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Think of it this way -- leads are supposed to summerize the entire article. Extra detail shouldn't go in just to go in, but at the same time a detail that really belongs in the lead shouldn't be left out 'because it's a spoiler'. Darth Vader is a good example (though perhaps not the most well written one). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

For a work of fiction (book, film, comic, etc.), if it is a plot detail that the work is best known for, then it should be mentioned in the lead regardless of whether some consider it a "spoiler" or not. The simple fact is that we should not be making distinctions between spoilers and non-spoilers when dealing with plot details. However, we should not summarize the entire plot in the lead because that is the job of the "Plot" section. —Farix (t | c) 13:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

To me it is clear that spoilers should never be in the lead. No exceptions. I learned quickly not to read the plot section of films I hadn't yet seen. In the unlikely event people conclude they have to avoid the lead paragraph as well then WP will lose a lot of readers, and deservedly so. Even if a spoiler is well known, like the ending of Psycho, you can find a way to not put it in the lead. Gothicfilm (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. A lead section, per WP:LEAD, "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." This includes spoilers. If a spoiler is integral to outside reaction to the work—such as Darth Vader, Soylent Green or Psycho—and reaction to the said spoiler is already documented extensively in the article, it would be foolish to not include this in the lead. It is an issue which is ultimately decided on a case-by-case basis, based on the particular spoiler's relation to the impact of the work as a whole. Setting any sort of policy on this is silly, as it would directly lead to a decrease in quality of leads of said articles such as the ones above because they wouldn't be allowed to mention one of the most important aspects of that subject. Not to mention that, at least in this case, deciding where spoilers are and are not allowed in an article feels a lot like instruction creep, and is unnecessary. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

If a spoiler is "integral to outside reaction to the work" - such as Psycho or Soylent Green, the most you might do in the lead is mention that the ending has become well known. That would be enough to spark the reader's curiosity about the ending, and then they can decide for themselves whether or not they now want to read on before seeing the work at hand. If it's in the lead it's spoiled with no warning, and that's completely unnecessary. Gothicfilm (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

One could also make the argument that if a spoiler has already been widely reported on, then it is also probably already well-known, and thus would probably not "ruin" much of anything for most people if it was mentioned in the lead. (See Darth Vader for a perfect example of this.) elektrikSHOOS (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The basic point is, when handling plot details in articles, whether it is a "spoiler" or not should not be a consideration. Prohibiting certain plot details from being mentioned in the lead because someone considers them a "spoiler" would violate WP:NOTCENSORED. Also, the very label of "spoiler" is usually based on one's personal opinion and can rarely be verified by reliable sources, thus violating WP:NOR in the process. —Farix (t | c) 02:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I am obviously not calling for censorship, but self-restraint and common sense. But you'd rather demand sources to identify spoilers which are self-evident. Gothicfilm (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

A "spoiler" is not self-evident. Two people can look at the same plot detail. One may consider the plot detail a "spoiler", the other may not. But saying that something is "self-evident" is the very reason why we have a policies about verifiability and original research. Also, saying that such spoilers should not be mentioned in the lead is calling for censorship. —Farix (t | c) 03:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

As stated above, the fallacy in your thought is that self-restraint and common sense are really subjective. What may be considered a spoiler for you may not be for someone else. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It is self-evident that giving away the ending of Psycho or Soylent Green is a spoiler. The majority of people on here would agree with that in a landslide, and I suspect you know it. And if asking for self-restraint is censorship, than any policy, rule or guideline is censorship. Gothicfilm (talk) 03:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, revealing the ending might be commonly considered a spoiler, but there exist people who believe that giving away any information about a work's plot constitutes a spoiler. What would you say to them? elektrikSHOOS (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say that debating such a non-issue is a waste of time. I've now discovered by my first click on this page's archive - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler/Archive_16 - that some of you guys have been on here for at least two years making the same arguments against other people who earlier brought up the same issues I did, some in far greater detail, sometimes in well thought-out debate - which you then try to rebut with circular logic, strawmen like the above, and cries of censorship. I don't know why you're so in favor of putting spoilers in the lead, (or where you get the time), but I've made my point. I'm done. Gothicfilm (talk) 06:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

We're obsessed with keeping encyclopedia articles as encyclopedia articles. If that means a 'spoiler' needs to go in the lead -- which is pretty rare - then so be it. Usually there's no reason for it to. Have you found any where it's not a very well known example? You have to understand, back when there were actual warning on pages, people were putting spoiler warnings on Romeo and Juliet (despite the fact the very first page describes their fate), on Biblical stuff, on /Fairy Tales/. You see how silly it can get? When you stop letting "we need to protect the readers ZOMG!" get it in the way, articles automatically start becoming so much better. This is not, of course, to say people who go putting 'spoilers' in everything because it's allowed, because they shouldn't do that either. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

No one on this page (at least, no one to my knowledge) is "in favor" of putting spoilers in lead paragraphs. We're in favor of exercising common sense and seeing if an encyclopedic purpose is being served. At least in this case, it's not something that can be decided universally. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

One of the arguments used in the past was that Sight and Sound, the magazine of the BFI, didn't use spoiler tags so why should Wikipedia and while that may have been true at the time it definitely isn't true now.

Of course they don't use the word spoiler on their pages but when you enclose the plot entirely within it's own box and don't mention the spoilers in the review of the movie then you may fool yourself that you don't use spoiler tags when your actions have the same effect .Garda40 (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Spoilers in the edit summary

Spotted in recent changes [1] an edit summary making sure you don't even have to read any of the article , in this case The Dark Knight , to get a spoiler .

It's one thing accepting the fact that if you read the article you may get a spoiler but you shouldn't have to stay away from recent changes as well Garda40 (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with it. Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 03:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

A question for pro-Spoiler Warning editors

You see, I don't get why such a minor disclaimer such a spoiler warning should be placed on Wikipedia articles, when more important and useful disclaimers such as NSFW disclaimers or disclaimers that say that there are pictures of Muhammad aren't be used. People go to an encyclopedia to learn things, and in the case of Wikipedia, as much as possible, we try to give the most complete and verifiable information on a given subject. If a person read an article on, let's say Star Wars and was spoiled, it's his fault, because he looked it up on Wikipedia, and she should have known that Wikipedia strives to give complete and uncensored information. If he didn't want to be spoiled, he shouldn't have looked it up at all. I know that most of our readers are completely unfamiliar with our policies, but that shouldn't be an excuse for spoiler warnings to be used.

I have seen the archives a number of times, and the question why spoiler warnings should be used when there are no disclaimers in Muhammad, but the question was never answered. If someone was spoiled because he looked up a Wikipedia article, he might get sad, he might get mad, but if a Muslim saw our pictures of Muhammad, he would probably kill us, and if parents saw images of penises and vaginas, they could sue us. Those are genuine concerns, unlike people who are spoiled, the most they will do is probably rant about it somewhere. So why should spoiler warnings be used on Wikipedia if can't we use other, more important and useful disclaimers that would actually make sense? And no, I'm not promoting the use of disclaimers in articles, I'm also against them because there are already disclaimers at the bottom of each page, and the use of more disclaimers would be quite redundant when we already have them. 112.208.114.247 (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)