Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 13

Archiving

Please explain why this page needs an automated archiving bot when there are thousands of talk pages on Wikipedia, including high-profile ones like Wikipedia Talk:No original research, which have longer talk pages. Postmodern Beatnik has already complained about his discussion being archived before he could finish it.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, apologies for inadvertently removing your comments in the last revert. I should have watched for comments, and I failed to do so.

Secondly the page is more than 85kb in size, and I'd like to avoid it getting any larger. I've set the archiving period to a generous eight days. That means that a section is archived if there have been no new comments in more than a week and one day.

Thirdly I've tried manually archiving sections but you have reverted several sections over six days old, and even two archived after over seven days without new comments, calling the archiving "heavy-handed and pointless". I know not why, but I hoped that you'd find archiving by bot less heavy and more objective.

The page size does need to be kept under control, and the archives contain all discussions, so there's no reason we shouldn't agree a reasonable archive period. If eight days isn't enough, try ten. --Tony Sidaway 19:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There are thousands of longer talk pages on Wikipedia. Why is this one being singled out?--Nydas^(Talk) 19:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've no idea what you mean. This page isn't being singled out, except in the sense that if I'm going to be regularly loading it I don't want it to be ridiculously large and full of dead discussions. --Tony Sidaway 20:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The talk pages on WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV are much longer than this one. Why have you not applied the same standard to them? Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons (which you are involved in) is the same size and yet has no archiving bot.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it does, but doesn't have a template.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I find very long talk pages an obstacle to comprehension, for the same reason that very long articles are discouraged. The fact that some long talk pages aren't regularly archived doesn't mean that their example ought to be emulated. Marc Shepherd 20:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't edited Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, Wikipedia talk:No original research and Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view regularly. I last edited the first of those two or three times just over year ago, when the page was about 70kb in size. I last edited the NOR talk page, less than half a dozen edits in all, at about the same time. The page was around 100kb in size. As for the latter page, the talk page of NPOV, it has not seen an edit by me in its last 5,000 edits.

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, which I have edited on some occasions since late April, ballooned up from 40kb to about 400kb during the denoument of a related arbitration case, the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration, until it was manually archived by User:Slim Virgin [1]. I installed Miszabot archiving immediately afterwards, on 26 June of this year [2]. Often a very busy page, in its set fourteen day archiving period, it veers between approximately 250kb maximum in busy discussions and its current minimum of about 90kb, during a lull. --Tony Sidaway 21:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I set the archiving period parameter to 8 days during a time when I think the Talk:Spoiler page was much more active and ballooning. But as I previously mentioned, the problem with automatic archiving is that a slowing topic will go to zero posts. That will leave no threads to indicate where the last previous wave of debates came to a lull, when new editors arrive to join the next discussion wave.

To solve this problem, I think Mizabot needs two additional threshold parameters to set:

• The minimum kilobyte page size below which unposted-to-topic archiving does not activate. Takes precedence over minimum number of discussion topics, since a few topics have gotten very fat.
• The minimum number of discussion topics below which unposted-to-topic archiving does not activate. Leaves a minimum number of unposted-to-topics, unless minimum kilobyte page size is exceeded.

Theoretically, an editable consensus could be reached and top-posted on doing this manually, until/if the Mizabot programmer implements those additional threshold parameters. A semi-manual method would be for concerned editors to turn Mizabot on or off using those top-posted parameters. Milo 22:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If the discussion comes to an end and the archiver puts everything into the archive, that is a good thing. The archiver is operating as intended. Discussions that become stale shouldn't be kept around forever. The archives are always there. --Tony Sidaway 23:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

We should agree to disagree. Such extreme tidyness has costs. I think extra clicks to locate and access an archive is unnecessary navigation work and discourages discussion. Most WP talk pages I've seen work by default the way I've described. Some low-interest articles discuss very slowly, and might not communicate if archived the way you suggest. This week I saw several fresh posts to year-old discussions on philosophical issues, in a high interest article that only gets posted in waves. Milo 02:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The question remains as why this intrusive archiving system is needed at all. The reason Tony has offered is 'I post here', which doesn't give him the right to apply idiosyncratic philosophies about talk page cleanliness. We've already had one person complain about their discussion being lost, that should be an end to the matter. It's better to live and let live than applying non-standard archiving bots that mindlessly hurl valid discussion into the dustbin.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(←)I would like to add my voice towards consensus on this. I much prefer that discussions not be archived on an automated schedule (unless a page is growing quickly and becoming unmanageable as this one was a while ago). Digging around in the archives to find prior threads takes extra work. Automated archiving bots are great on fast moving pages like WP:AN, but on a page like this is now, there's no hurry. Let's allow the discussions to remain visibile for editors to follow the debate without extra work. --Parsifal _Hello 08:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps when the page size reduces to a more manageable size, we'll do that. --Tony Sidaway 12:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What's a manageable size? What happened to your self-invented policy of blank talk pages?--Nydas^(Talk) 13:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"What happened to your..." Tony does occasionally moderate his extreme positions, as we all should in process. Applying some carrot here, I think he should be encouraged toward further moderation in the direction of consensus. Milo 16:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the current size is too large, in the sense that someone viewing a discussion for the first time has an awful lot of stuff to wade through, much of which is no longer current. Those of us who've been watching the page daily don't have that problem. But frankly, I'd like to find a way to draw some new blood into this discussion. Right now, we have the same 5 or 6 people repeating themselves ad infinitum. I think that new people find a very long talk page (which this is) somewhat daunting. The automated bot has its drawbacks, but at least it is neutral. If Tony does the archiving manually, the pro-warning camp thinks he's being heavy-handed. Marc Shepherd 15:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The current number of topics, 11, looks and feels too small to me for such a complex set of debates. Prior to automated archiving there were about 100, and I thought that was too many to easily sort out the then-currently posted ones.

Technically, without the need to scroll, [the table of contents for] 25 would fill a classic computer screen, and more would fill a hi-res large screen. Milo 16:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC) re-edited 07:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

While there may 11 top-level headings, there aren't really 11 topics. The content under those headings tends to repeat itself over & over again, usually with the same few people making the same points they've always made.

As I suggested in a topic below, there are really only 3 questions: When (if ever) are spoiler warnings/notices appropriate? If they are appropriate, where on the page should they go? And what form should they take? Marc Shepherd 16:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I cannot fit all of this single topic on my moderately large computer screen, let alone 25, but I've no idea what that has to do with archiving.

To describe the position that a 100kb page should be regularly archived, as in any way extreme, is nonsensical. Until just a year ago or so, pages that exceeded 32kb in size would show a warning message when edited. A 100kb page load is large by all reasonable standards --Tony Sidaway 16:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"To describe the position that a 100kb page should be regularly archived, as in any way extreme, is nonsensical" But I did not so describe.

My quoted phrase was: (Milo 16:19) "What happened to your..." from Nydas' sentence: (Nydas 13:32) "What happened to your self-invented policy of blank talk pages?", in reply to you: (Tony Sidaway 23:29) "If the discussion comes to an end and the archiver puts everything into the archive, that is a good thing" — by which you (Tony) promoted that the archive bot should be allowed to blank the talk page. That is an extreme position since I've never seen that happen anywhere, probably because most editors think archive page blanking is undesireable for the reasons I've previously stated.

"cannot fit all of this single topic on my moderately large computer screen, let alone 25," Pardon, I was referring to the table of contents box for 25 topics.

"no idea what that has to do with archiving" If one can see all the topics displayed at once in the table of contents, and if one can also recall those in which one is posting or desires to post, then archiving is unnecessary even for stale topics. This recall can still be done by scrolling the TOC, but at some point the sheer number of topics challenges one's memory and it takes excessive time for scrolling. Milo 07:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that this page needs regular updating, as Safari can crash on these pages- granted, its an older version (1.3) but I don't think everyone has the fastest browser out there. Secondly, Nydas, why the hell are you arguing about automatic talk page archiving? Have you decided that since arguing the actual guideline is "pointless", you're going to argue about increasingly fickle stuff? David Fuchs ^(talk) 16:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

True or not, it renews suspicion under the previous hot topic of supressing spoiler tag debate. Milo 07:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not what you were doing, you were archiving six-day old discussions as 'stagnant' when the page was only 87K, and you have suggested that blanking is a desirable outcome for the page. The archives are longer than 100K (by a lot), should they be archived themselves?--Nydas^(Talk) 16:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it's desirable that the talk page reflect the actual state of discussion rather than continue to contain stale discussions. If there are no further discussions, there is no need for anything to be on the talk page and eventually any archive scheme is going to result in a blank page. To parody that as being in favor of "talk page blanking", as you have done once or twice, and repeat above, is amusing but not productive.

I was archiving discussions which, you seem to admit, had not had a single new comment in six days. I don't see anything wrong with that, but I've set the bot archive period to eight days, and I don't see why you shouldn't increase it to any reasonable value if you want. --Tony Sidaway 23:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The goal of archiving is not to clean up pages. It's to clean up pages which have become excessively large and unnavigable. There is no reason why old discussion should be archived, in and of itself. The benefit of keeping recent "dead" topics available for perusal is that redundant discussions can be avoided or, if unresolved, re-opened. If rampant archiving becomes the norm, we may all find ourselves rehashing the same arguments every few days (if we aren't already...) Girolamo Savonarola 23:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"eventually any archive scheme is going to result in a blank page" and "To parody that as being in favor of "talk page blanking..." Hmm. You favor using an archive scheme which results in blanking the talk page, yet I-hear-you-saying you aren't in favor of "talk page blanking", {shrug} it's just an archiving side effect that the talk page ends up blank. That strikes me as a Clintonesque parsing of statements that you need to either own outright or moderate your position. Milo 07:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Girolamo Savonarola. There is no reason to move topics off this page because they are not recent. This topic clearly is of interest to many, since new editors continually add comments. What's the hurry to blank this page?

Even Wikipedia developers tell us: Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. We're talking about pages of 100KB plain text. Let's be realistic - that's only a couple seconds of broadband time. How much data is on an average Amazon.com page? I just checked and their main page tonight came in at around 600KB, and their main page is smaller than most of their product pages.

This page should be archived manually, not by bot, unless it becomes much more active.

A blank talk page is not a goal, a talk page rich with conversation is a plus for Wikipedia. --Parsifal _Hello 07:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

I just have to say, Tony's position REALLY makes no sense to me either. I *love* to read talk pages on a topic, and I'm far less inclined to go digging through an archive. The way I look at it, leaving old topic on a page is a GOOD thing, especially when there's not much discussion -- it allows people to see the ebb and flow of the discussion, as it were. It also helps avoid rehashing things -- if something two months ago was talked about, but nothing much since, it'd be silly for someone to bring it up again instead of having it right there to read and possibly respond to with new thoughts (and see who shares their own). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Notwithstanding that, the question is moot at present because the page is increasing in size despite archiving, and the constant discussion is likely too keep it topped up for the forseeable future. If the last person to leave the page is of the persuasion that believes in leaving clutter on talk pages, he can switch off the archiving as his final edit. --Tony Sidaway 13:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

At this point, there is no consensus on archiving by bot. Currently, more editors have complained about that than supported it, so I removed the bot template. Regarding the comments by some that their browsers crash loading large pages or that they don't like waiting around for the pages to load - that's not a strong argument. 100KB or more is very small for web pages. As I mentioned above, even the Amazon main entry page is usually around 600KB and most of Amazon's pages are larger than that. I checked Ebay tonight and their main page is 500KB. Those companies need maximum users to be able to access them so they can make a profit. Doubtless, they've carefully determined that 500KB or 600KB is no problem for the vast majority of users, so we can easily handle a third of those sizes. And we also have our developers telling us Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. Combine that with editors in this discussion complaining about sections being archived when they still have value to the community for reference and comment, and it seems we do not need automated archiving on this page. --Parsifal _Hello 07:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You can change how many days the bot waits to archive. You're thrown the baby out with the bathwater. -- Ned Scott 07:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I see you've re-instated the bot, with a 30 day period. I prefer manual archiving by consensus, per discussion topic. However, I accept your 30 day solution as reasonable compromise. --Parsifal _Hello 07:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

30 days is far, far too long a period. If the archiver had been working consistently on a 30 day archiving period over the current debate, this page would contain every discussion section in which there existed an edit on or since 5 July. This would include at least six sections from archive6 (75 kilobytes) the whole of the contents of archive7 (255 kilobytes) and the whole of archive8 (about 15 kilobytes) plus the whole of its current contents (100 kilobytes). That's a total of 445 kilobytes. A little less rampant stupidity about this would be in order, I think. --Tony Sidaway 09:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is having a normal talk page rampant stupidity? Parsifal, Milo, Melodia and Girolamo have made solid arguments, why don't you address them? --Nydas^(Talk) 17:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I wish Tony hadn't used the phrase "rampant stupidity." That said, how many 455k talk pages do we have, and how "normal" is that? Marc Shepherd 17:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion is 192KB and has no automated archiving bot. It has one archive page that is 463KB.

Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view is 282KB and has no automated archiving bot. It has many archive pages, done manually by topic and date, some of them are short, but a couple of the archives are 176KB and 244KB.

Those are core policy talk pages with discussion by many respected editors, and they don't seem to find the page size a problem. The question of archiving did not even come up at all on those pages (so far as I have been able to find).

I haven't had time to search for more, but those are two quick examples on important policy pages.

Also - with the bot at 30 days, or if it's disabled, manual archiving can be done when there are sections of the discussion that seem to be resolved and there are not wide objections to archiving them. --Parsifal _Hello 17:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(in reply to Marc) 455K talk pages aren't normal, but no-one has advocated them.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted manual archiving, but it's nearly always reverted. Also the only extant complaint about an ongoing discussion being archived was due to manual archiving when Nydas last turned the archiving bot off. We don't want to have these ridiculous arguments every time someone dares to archive a section, so automation is a more sensible choice.

Archive pages themselves can be as big as you like, 250kb is a popular choice What's important is that the discussion page be kept at a reasonable size. The busier the discussion, the more important that is. Actual page size will depend on the volume of debate, but for a busy and highly repetitive discussion page a six or eight day archiving period is reasonable, up to fourteen days is acceptable.

Somebody set the archiving period to 30 days and someone else accepted that "as a compromise". I showed, with accurate calculations based on real data, that this was "rampantly stupid" because it would end up with a ridiculously large discussion page: I could have added that the page would have contained many redundant repetitions of the same arguments. --Tony Sidaway 18:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You were reverted because you were archiving six-day old discussions on an 87K talk page as 'stagnant', not because the page was getting too long. Your views on talk page cleanliness (including page blanking) have no basis in policy or precedent. Try putting them up for comment elsewhere.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What's important is that the discussion page be kept at a reasonable size. Who determines what is reasonable? I made several comments above regarding specific page sizes and load times, and reasons that size of 100KB is arbitrary, but you didn't reply to any of my points. You also did not reply to the valid debate points of Milo, Melodia and Girolamo. Instead, you have stated your personal determination that you believe "six or eight day archiving period is reasonable, up to fourteen days is acceptable", but you've supplied no basis for that.

Why is it so important to you to shorten the talk page or move prior discussions to less visible locations? The page loads twice as fast as an Amazon or Ebay page and multiples faster than a medium resolution image from the Commons. On an average broadband hookup this page takes under one second. On a moderate cell-phone wireless card it takes maybe two seconds. The TOC allows quick jumps to any section for editing and response. It's pretty clear that there are not technical problems with a larger talk page. That means the issue is not technical. Why do you want the older topics to disappear more quickly? --Parsifal _Hello 19:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just reverted another load of archiving by Tony Sidaway, which included hiding this debate on a subpage. There is clearly no consensus for such measures, as this discussion shows.--Nydas^(Talk) 06:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So far, you haven't reverted the archiving, just caused duplication. If you do revert an archiving operation, please make sure to actually remove the threads you claim as "active" from the archive. Kusma (talk) 06:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd still like to know why it's so important to keep this page short... None of the comments or questions above on that topic received replies. Instead, this section was moved to a different page without consensus, after only six days and over the objections of at least five editors. --Parsifal _Hello 07:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I question your apprehension of the word "short". --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 07:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, "short" doesn't exactly apply to this page, you have a point there (and it "short" reads pretty funny in retrospect). The term used in the debate was "reasonable size'', and that's what I had questioned, with examples, and received no replies other than the moving of this discussion . --Parsifal _Hello 07:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, I personally have no interest in seeing the page dwindle down to nought, even though there are few signs that that's possible. However, the simple fact is that, despite some archiving being done, this page has grown from 126,354 bytes on 07:54, 21 July 2007 to 171,909 bytes on 07:54, 10 August 2007. The page is far from short; at the current rate of archiving, it will get a lot longer. Something needs to be done. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 08:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you are concerned about the page getting too long. But you haven't addressed any of the specific points I made about this in the discussion above, and neither has anyone else. I offered examples of other long talk pages, calculations of very quick page-load times, and other related points, and I asked a couple direct questions as well. So far, none of that has received any replies to the substance. Since the questions and examples are still listed right in this section, just above, I don't want to repeat them. But I am interested in replies about the reasoning for the page being kept to any particular length, because I don't see any problem with interesting extended talk pages on important topics. --Parsifal _Hello 08:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In view of the spiteful and petty-minded resistance by Nydas to my attempts to maintain this already groaningly large page at a reasonable size by archiving discussions that are long over, I am forced to withdraw from this discussion. There has in any case been no serious debate in several weeks now. --Tony Sidaway 15:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I am re archiving some of the sections as they are old discussions. If someone whats to revisit one of the topics, then they can start a new one at the bottom. But I do find Nydas reverting of the archives to be borderline disruptive and if he continues, should be taken to WP:ANI. --Farix (Talk) 15:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Address the points raised, rather than claiming my edits are disruptive. They are in line with the consensus. Tony Sidaway has not indicated that he has retreated from his unprecendented belief in talk-page blanking, nor has any substantial reason for the highly unusual archiving procedures been offered.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Archiving old discussions isn't something that needs to be discussed. I don't see any valid reasons why you are objecting to archive those old discussions other then as sense of WP:OWNership. --Farix (Talk) 15:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You can see the objections above, mostly not from me. As for ownership, Tony indicated that his presence here necessitated the use of highly unusual archiving procedures. Do you support his 'blank talk page after ten days' wikiphilosophy?--Nydas^(Talk) 16:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The only objections I see above are from you, and they can be summed up in that you don't want the discussions to be archived. --Farix (Talk) 16:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You might want to read the objections again -- they are in response to Tony's want to blank ALL inactive discussion, not trim down big pages. In fact, this page wasn't being archived at all (it was HUGE) until I first mentioned it. What Tony did overnight was fine, the page is still quite large. You're reverting it for no seeming reason that I can see. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What about the posts made by Parsifal, Girolama, Melodia and Milo?--Nydas^(Talk) 16:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh... my god. You guys are bloody ridiculous. I know! If the page gets too long we should all just stop discussing things! Then it'll be kept short! My god. You're warring over how long a talk page should be. Go outside and do something productive for a change. Kuronue 19:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You guys are bloody ridiculous. Ummm.... what's that mean? If you don't like reading this archive debate, you are welcome to not read it.

This is not an arbitrary discussion. There was non-consensual removal of 45,000 spoiler notices by a small group of editors. The only reason to shorten this talk page is to obscure discussion of what happened and that there is still no consensus on the spoiler notice issue. There are no other reasons the page needs to be kept to any particular length, as is clear since none of my questions about that above have received even one direct reply.

So, you might feel this is silly, and if you do, stop reading it. But the archiving debate is not about archiving, it's about transparency of the consensus process. That's why it's important. --Parsifal _Hello 19:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I recognize this, parsifal, and I see what you're getting at, but it's ridiculous to get this wound up over the number of kilobytes a talk page has grown to. If you want to make claims that someone is trying to hide something, make them, don't go on and on about 100kb this and 8 days that. Kuronue 23:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, and several people have already made that statement, though it's not "something" being hidden, it's the whole process. I'm not going to go into that right here because it's a big topic, and it's all through this page and the archives. As far as getting wound up over the number of kilobytes a talk page has grown to... that's my whole point... I don't care at all about the number of days or KB. That was my reply to someone else, who had written that it should be kept to a certain number or days or a certain size. I showed those numbers as examples that the long talk page is not a real problem, it's a red herring. Let the page be long, so what? By setting the archiving bot to an arbitrary number of days or page size, a topic that could be of interest to a new reader would disappear; and there's no reason that needs to happen. --Parsifal _Hello 01:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This is silly. Unfortunately, me not reading it will not make you realize how silly this is. A word of advice: There is no cabal. Archiving a talk page is not about facilitating a vast conspiracy. And it's also sad that even though every venue you've brought the 45K thing to... they've all declined. End of the line. So give it a rest, please? David Fuchs ^(talk) 19:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You have me confused with someone else. I've never brought this to any other venue, that was not me. I have never said anything about a cabal. I've not mentioned a vast conspiracy. All I said is that a few editors made some big changes without consensus. That's not a cabal or a conspiracy, it's just a few editors, and it appears to be what happened, which seems strange to me. --Parsifal _Hello 21:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever recently set the archiving period to a sane value which I had already suggested two weeks ago. [3] It seems to have taken this time. --Tony Sidaway 13:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A few days ago I felt the need to refer to a few weeks old thread that had already been archived. This suggests to me that archiving here is too aggressive and possibly led to unecessarily repetitive discussion.
As of 8/17 Mizabot has independently programmed a new parameter "minthreadsleft", that I suggested above on 7/31 as "minimum number of discussion topics". I've installed and set that to 20, hoping to approximately fill the screen with the topics table of contents. After 20 topics appear, the bot will archive unedited topics every 10 days (unchanged by me) which allows once-a-week editors to have their say without being pressed. There is still no way to set maximum talk page size size, but based on discussion here, as well as my tests over months at another large talk page, that seems mostly an issue for editors on dialup. At the other large talk page I noticed that slow dialup loading (about 25 kbs) was feeling annoyingly draggy around a 500K page size, but there were no other technical problems. Milo 08:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

comment by Wedineinheck

I see no need in reading all of this rather long-winded debate : it is quite obvious that the spoilers question is extremely annoying to a lot of people. Why can't we reach a consensus and simply decide that a spoiler tag should be added to every page revealing crucial plot details and resolution ? It won't hurt anybody and it will appease the anti-spoilers. Moreover, I see absolutely no reason why an encyclopedia should be "expected" to reveal the endings of works of fiction. Wedineinheck 12:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"I see no need in reading all of this rather long-winded debate" - see, that's your problem right there: not taking the time to distinguish a live issue from a thin film of horse cells on the asphalt - David Gerard 21:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to know why not, you will need to read some of the archives. In any case, it is quite unlikely we will return to a situation where every page that has plot details carries a spoiler tag. The remaining question is to delineate the set of circumstances in which the tag is appropriate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the spoiler tag is unnecessary when ending and crucial plot details aren't given away. Otherwise, not giving any warning to users is just plain rude. I've been using wikipedia for some time and find it quite odd that it shouldn't warn its readers anymore.Wedineinheck 17:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If a section of an article about a fictional work is titled "Plot summary", is it necessary to warn people it contains details of the plot? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 17:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

To Wedineinheck: please read the archives. This argument has been argued ad nauseum. also see the wikipedia content disclaimer... as to digby: though some of course disagree, the general consensus is that spoilers were generally redundant in sections expressly labeled plot summary, etc. In fact, the vast majority of spoiler tags were used in such as sense until the RfC in May. David Fuchs ^(talk) 17:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The mass removals were started two days into the discussion. There was no consensus.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Nydas, drop the mass removals for now. They do not factor into the fact that while people disagreed on whether spoilers should be had at all, or the usefulness, in several cases (fairy tales, plot sections) they were determined to be redundant. I know you and several other editors disagree about this, but I'm going with what was stated. David Fuchs ^(talk) 19:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going by what actually happened. No consensus existed after two days of discussion, nothing was determined. That's why the nonsensical 'there is no significant resistance' line was adopted.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No amount of debate can restore the articles to their condition prior to that discussion. Whether the correct process was followed or not, the mass-deletion of spoiler notices is history. It's over now. Finito. The choice is to move on, or to continue focusing on the rear-view mirror. Marc Shepherd 20:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"No amount of debate can restore the articles to their condition prior to that discussion." And why is that so ?Wedineinheck 06:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You can see for yourself that the backward-focused debate participants, like Milo and Nydas, are making no progress whatsoever. If you think the re-hashing the events of May will result in positive changes to Wikipedia, by all means continue to re-hash them. The "rear-view mirror" crowd has already made multiple attempts at obtaining "Wiki-sanctions," and failed at all of them. If you still think that's a fruitful strategy, there's nothing I can do to stop you. Go ahead. Knock yourself out.

In my view, the only conceivable way forward is to accept that the 45,000 edits are over with, and no one is going to adjudicate that they were improper. Right or wrong, it's a fact of history. We have a new baseline. The only debate that has a chance of progress is the debate about what the articles should look like, not the debate about how they got that way. Marc Shepherd 13:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Any proposal will be rejected out of hand by the anti-spoiler brigade. Even very tame ones, like spoiler tags on recent works not being removed on sight, are shot down.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Wedineinheck has actually hit the nail on the head. Wedineinheck believes that he or she is entitled to be warned (oooh, it's the W word, which is anti-dictionarial or something. I'll say hail Marys, really...) about plot spoilers. He or she is not even interested in considering any arguments to the contrary. Does this demand raise cultural bias issues? Screw 'em. Does it contradict existing wikipedia policies, however badly those policies might be enforced? Hey, them's the breaks. Not only is Wedineinheck unmoved by these concerns, Wedineinheck is not even interested in reading about these concerns. The pro-spoiler position is self-evidently true and righteous, and does not need to be discussed. Ethan Mitchell 22:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Much as the pro-fair-use-on-anything-that-looks-nice position is inarguable ... and for that one, the answer is "No." If that's the only answer in this case as well, oh well, so much for senses of entitlement - David Gerard 07:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What 'cultural bias issues' and 'wikipedia policies'? We've had a senior admin stating that certain pages are fans-only and non-Americans should lump it, so WP:NPOV is being chucked out the window.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood somebody. Kusma (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Do a text search for 'Valen' on this page.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, you misunderstood me all right. At least on the "non-Americans should lump it" statement, which is more accurately "non-Americans who care already have to learn basic spoiler avoidance on the Internet, and are among the least likely people to get inadvertantly spoiled by something in the plot section." As for Valen, I do maintain that very few people who are not already knowledgeable about the subject are going to go look at an article on a character who appears in exactly one scene of the entire television show. Or, at least, if they are, it is because they have decided that they want to spoil themselves. Phil Sandifer 19:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's have a guideline

Nydas, here's a radical thought: do you actually have any ideas about spoiler warnings? You have plenty of ideas about archiving, NPOV, censorship, "cabals," and edits that took place three months ago. But I have yet to see a proposal from you about the actual topic of this page. Do you have one? Marc Shepherd 12:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I advocate a guideline similar to WP:ENGVAR, stating when it's OK, and when it's not OK. That would take care of unrepresentative examples like fairy tales, the Crying Game etc, whilst leaving it up to editor discretion otherwise. If there's a consensus against spoiler tags, then they won't reappear. If (as I believe) most Wikipedians support them, then they'll return in some capacity.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

We already have a guideline on spoiler tags. This is it. Spoiler tags don't seem to be making a comeback. --Tony Sidaway 14:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Nydas, you're amazing. Seriously. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 15:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought that is what this guideline already does. I don't want to leave it entirely to the editor discretion as leads to too many NPOV issues as to what is a spoiler and what is not. I would support adding a set of objective criteria on how to determine when plot information is a spoiler and when a warning can be added, much like how we have the notability criteria. And if there are alternatives to using spoiler warnings, then those alternatives should be used first. But we shouldn't give editors a blank check on applying spoiler warnings.

In other words, no "I think this is a spoiler and there should be a warning" line of reasoning should be allowed to stand. EVER! --Farix (Talk) 15:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I made edits that said spoiler tags *might be* OK on recently released fiction, but those were reverted as being 'bright lines'.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, I don't think we should give the anti-spoiler-warning editors a blank cheque on deciding _every_ spoiler. I'm fine with agreeing on places where spoilers are okay or not okay, but as it stands a few people can still overwhelm the debate, by WP:OWNing the spoiler template itself, following it even to articles they don't read. We can rewrite the guideline to indicate a preference for _local_ consensus, and make it clear that, in this case, due to the controversial nature, it should be decided by editors who are already working on the article, or we can define firm guidelines where it is okay and where it is not okay. Otherwise, we don't have a compromise in effect, we have one side winning without consensus.

As is stands now, the guideline is, "Spoiler warnings are usually inappropriate in areas X, Y, and Z, unless a strong consensus exists, and usually in these areas its better to title section headings more properly. Spoiler warnings MIGHT be okay in other areas like A, B, and C, if there is _consensus that it is needed_, but there won't be because consensus people who track all spoiler additions will follow the addition of it and demand the removal." Not a compromise, so we need to work on it. It might be one if there weren't anyone who felt the need to enforce their POV on a global level, but since there are, it can't be. Wandering Ghost 11:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The idea of fostering local consensus, as you have just described, is problematic. It violates the wiki principle "anyone can edit any article" and conflicts with WP:OWN. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Local consensus doesn't conflict with WP:OWN. Wikipedia already functions this way. I've participated in several WikiProjects. In every case, the active editors reach consensus on a common format for related articles (e.g., common headings, infoboxes, navigation templates, and so forth). It doesn't mean that those editors WP:OWN the articles. It just means that the consensus process is operating at a level that spans multiple articles at a time.

For instance, the active editors in WikiProject Opera decided long ago that spoiler warnings were never appropriate for operas. If a new editor came along and put a spoiler warning in Aida, it was quickly reverted, based on the project standard. If this action were construed as violating WP:OWN, then it would never be possible for related articles to have any modicum of consistency.

Note that the suitability of this approach has nothing to do with the fact that the WikiProject Opera editors happen to have decided against spoiler warnings. Had the consensus turned out the other way, they would have been equally justified in putting such warnings in every opera article, and continuing to monitor that the consensus was adhered to. Marc Shepherd 15:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Most wikiproject style guide have de facto global consensus in the sense that everyone agrees to follow their recommendations. Often enough, a wikiproject does something that actually does violate the broader consensus, and the project has to change their plans. In this situation, if WikiProject Opera were to decide today that every opera article should have a spoiler tag, they would need to reconcile that with this guideline, and most likely they would be forced to change their decision.

But the "local" consensus that Wandering Ghost seemed to intend is not a wikiproject but a smaller group of editors who have already edited a particular article. I think his idea is that if someone removes a spoiler tag without first editing the article for some period of time before that, the removal is unjustified. That sort of local consensus is what I was referring to as a violation of the wiki method and of WP:OWN. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that a WikiProject can't enact a "local" standard that contradicts broader Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Therefore, given the current wording of the spoiler guideline, WikiProject Opera could not adopt a standard that all opera articles require spoiler tags. However, at the time that WikiProject Opera adopted their no-warning stance, the spoiler guideline was silent about when such warnings are appropriate.

I do think that the concept of local consensus exists even at the individual article level. The description at Wikipedia:Consensus seems to contemplate this very idea. Marc Shepherd 21:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. But if several editors remove a spoiler tag from some article, that's evidence that there is no longer "local consensus" for the tag. Established editors don't get a pass to ignore new editors' opinions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would depend how many active editors are watching the page. Established editors don't get a pass to ignore new editors' opinions. But new editors don't get a pass to overrule long-standing consensus, if a large number of existing editors still consider the consensus to be valid. Marc Shepherd 22:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not _quite_ true. I don't _want_ 'only particular editors who have a history of editing the page' to be able to decide spoiler warnings. What I _want_ is that people don't decide to search for the addition of the spoiler template, and then, in every single case, decide on it (in the negative, generally, because the pro-warning people can't search for warnings that have been removed to go around and decide to add all of them). These people are clearly biased, and when we don't have a consensus, are doing a disservice to wiki, even if they may be technically following the rules (and I do think WP:OWN applies here in spirit, because these people are monitoring the useage of the tag, they're overruling a wide variety of individual editors, and essentially deciding that they know how to where the spoiler tag should and shouldn't be. The only difference is that instead of camping out on one article and staking it out as their territory, they're camping out on one template and searching out its use on other pages. If the spoiler guideline had consensus, it would be enforce itself without these dedicated true believers.

Despite the fact that it's the one jumped on by people here, I suggested 'local consensus' of people who have a history with that page only as one of several possible remedies to _that_ problem - yes, it's against some of wiki's principles, but it's better than the alternative, at least IMHO. But it's not the _only_ suggested remedy I've made. I've also suggested a guideline on per-day, per-person numerical limits on the number of spoiler-related edits as a possibility, for example.

There's also potentially the idea of saying, as part of the guideline (in, of course, better language) "You know what... don't make the spoiler the only thing you're editing. If you happen to be correcting spelling, or adding a section of text, fact-correcting, etc, and you think a spoiler warning is needed or not needed, then you can do that in the process, but if your only interest in an article is whether there's a spoiler warning in it or not, don't bother" (though I imagine that would be abused by a couple of the robot-like removers), or specifically making spoiler-crusading (either to add or remove them) against the policy.

Or, again, another way to address it is the idea of specifically making the guideline more spoiler friendly in areas other than the Plot heading, with a default "allowed in these caes", and maybe "should be removed only if there is clear consensus against it". None of these options are perfect. Ideally, the people who go on spoiler patrol would just recognize that they're not helping the debate and just stop, and only edit the spoilers of pages they happen to be reading, rather than going on a crusade against them in total. But even the ones who are directly involved here don't seem to want to give that up, and that's saying nothing about those who don't read the debate at all. So these ideas are all better to me than the current situation, again IMHO. If I had to choose one, "local consensus overrules drive by editors" probably wouldn't be my top choice, even though it's the one keyed on by everybody. But I would choose it over doing nothing constructive. Wandering Ghost 12:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

(←) They can't overrule the consensus, but they can break the consensus so that a new consensus has to be formed. The new consensus might end up being the same as the old one, or it might not. The discussion may be widely advertised and participated, or not. But any editor can break the previous consensus on a page by just editing it. That's the wiki method. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And there it is folks, the whole problem with the theory of consensus right there. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That's one of the big ones. It goes in repeated, counter-productive circles with everyone saying they know what the true consensus is even when often they don't really know because it's just so unscientific (I anticipate someone replying with "Wikipedia doesn't use science" after the "Wikipedia doesn't operate on logic" statement lol). -Nathan J. Yoder 06:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's have a look at Talk:Wicca, shall we? British spelling, preference of terms, and warnings not to edit certain bits of the article. That's a local consensus on an individual article level, asking that people abide by it. But say I have 20 friends, and we show up and say that "Magic" is an incorrect term, we should be using "Magick". Begrudgingly, the other editors concede that this must be a new consensus, and change it. Then my friends all run off to do other things, knowing nothing at all about wicca and never having intended to edit the article in the first place, just show up because they don't like the term "magic" used for wiccan rituals. Is that how you think wikipedia should work? There's something wrong with this model, I think, though it's technically perfectly feasible (oh, sure, I can't advertise for the friends someplace, but if they all just, you know, happen to show up, maybe we were editing a guideline to stage magic or something and someone mentioned "oh, they use 'magic' over at the wicca article, so we shouldn't use it..." or something, then they all just happened to go search for every use of the term "magic" and petition to have it changed...) Kuronue 23:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If some editors want to change it to "magick" and the previous editors agree to the change then I fail to see what the problem is. If the other editors don't agree to the change, they can discuss it on the talk page, perhaps start an RFC, etc. Like the box on Talk:Wicca says, consensus can change.

I think you are concerned about what prevents a small group of editors from making changes against a wider community consensus. That was illustrated by WP:ATT, which was shuttled by a significant community outcry against it replacing WP:V. The lack of any such significant outcry regarding spoiler tags is, despite occasional claims to the contrary, evidence that the changes regarding spoiler tags are accepted by the broader community. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually WP:ATT was shut down by Jimbo, basically. Which is even less likely here. Phil Sandifer 00:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion about WP:ATT is not a fair analogy, because there was an invitation to participate on the discussion posted on the top of the watchlist of every user during that debate. Everyone knew the debate was happening. Most of the community is unaware that there is a spoiler notice debate. I'm not saying this debate is of the same weight as WP:ATT, but it would have been very interesting indeed to post a notice on every user's watchlist and ask them to join this discussion. If we had, I bet we'd still have 45,000 spoiler notices. --Parsifal _Hello 01:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There was not complete agreement that the watchlist message should have been used for that. This spoiler discussion has been very broadly advertised, I believe, including a well attended RFC and a long discussion on the mailing list. Also, 45,000 edits can't fail to draw some attention. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was mentioned next to every spoiler warning, IIRC before the mass deletion at that. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 03:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The link to the RfC was in place for two days, 20-22 May, after the mass removals had begun. It was removed with the edit summary 'get on with your lives'.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If there was a warning next to every spoiler warning, I never saw it. I never knew about this until I heard second hand that all the spoiler warnings were removed. It really wasn't that well publicized and keep in mind having what is more than average for an RFC doesn't mean it's well publicized. Wikipedia should strive to come as close as they realistically can to a scientific measure of consensus, but the problem is that more often than not you get a relatively large (e.g. 100+) people commenting on a given issue that aren't actually a representative cross-section, but rather are simply the "vocal/most energetic minority" on that issue. This is also why so many editors give up in removing blatant POV in various articles (especially pseudo-science), because the energetic/vocal minority simply spends more time on it. They'd never do it, but a formal voting system that advertises all votes on a specific page would be the best way to get a cross-sectional view. It doesn't have to be binding, but it definitely should be seriously considered when the vote weighs heavily one direction over another--it's unlikely except in a close vote that you're dealing with a "swing vote" type of issue. Nathan J. Yoder 06:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is, say the wiccan editors feel strongly it should be magic, but they agree to live by the law of wikipedia, which says that consensus trumps your own personal beliefs, and, seeing the flood of stage magicians who say they should use magick, sigh and let them change it. Then the stage magicians leave. What's left is a whole bunch of editors that feel strongly it should be magic - a consensus - but can't change it because random strangers with nothing to do with the article decided for them that it should be magick. So because the wiccan editors agree not to stir up trouble, they end up being forced to live with a decision they have consensus against, because it's been "established" that the "consensus" is against them and if they were to take a re-vote, the stage magicians would probably just come back the minute they noticed it'd changed back. Kuronue 01:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Presumably the wicca editors would draw broader attention to the matter, maybe with an RFC. If they still can't find broad support across the project for their position, then they don't actually have consensus for it. It's no different than the (not uncommon) situation where a small group of editors decides that WP:OR doesn't apply to their articles, or write articles that violate WP:NPOV. Others learn about the situation, fix the articles, and then leave them alone unless the problem returns. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

In the case of "no consensus," which way would you side though? With no consensus, you couldn't side either with "magic" or "magick" because doing either would ignore the lack of consensus for the one you used. The same applies to spoilers vs. no spoilers. That said, I wouldn't say there was no consensus, just that we don't know the consensus (at least from the RFC alone). To say it's a consensus is to imply that we had an accurate cross-section represented in the RFC, which I seriously doubt because of the whole vocal m minority/bandwagon phenomenon that is so common to Wikipedia and online fora in genral. I wouldn't equate this with violation OR or NPOV, because those really aren't the issue here. Some try arguing a stretch though, that spoilers somehow violate NPOV because it requires some kind of perspective to decide where to put spoilers, but that's calling into question the organization of any article (where to place headers/sections), but people do acknowledge there is a neutral way with the latter because really it's about them not personally liking spoiler warnings not about any other issue. If you want to get started on stuff like that, I could go on a massive rampage to remove all original/Wikipedian made images because they inherently constitute original research. I'll remove all examples and analogies made by Wikipedians too. I'll bet you I could get away with the latter if I do it very carefully. -Nathan J. Yoder 06:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

In the case of "no consensus," the outcome is that the status quo prevails. If there is no consensus that an alternative is superior, one might as well leave the article the way it is. Wikipedian-made images "have enjoyed a broad exception from [WP:NOR], in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." (See WP:NOR). Marc Shepherd 14:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The "status quo" is determined by consensus, so what you just said is "if you don't know the consensus, then determine it using the consensus." As I've repeatedly stated, Wikipedia is highly susceptible to a vocal/energetic minority phenomenon and therefore "the way it is" does not necessarily represent the consensus (or the status quo) except perhaps in the sense that people give up after fighting people with more time/energy than they have. If you really want to labor that point, I could paste a dictionary definition showing you exactly that. I still see nothing exempting analogies, examples, hand-made calculations. Better get rid of technical articles, especially ones involving mathematics, hard sciences and computer science. -Nathan J. Yoder 21:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The "status quo" is "what it is now"—regardless of how it got that way. I totally agree with you that there are many flaws with how purported consensus is arrived at on Wikipedia. I am merely submitting that the problem—to the extent it is a problem—is something we can't fix on this page. Marc Shepherd 00:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

We're off-topic again. Nydas and Melodia Chaconne are still feeling their pain about the 45,000 edits, and most others are lamenting the flaws in Wikipedia's consensus process. Yes, folks, it is a flawed process. But if you're going to edit on Wikipedia, it's the only process we have, until a better one is adopted.

This page is Wikipedia talk:Spoiler, not Wikipedia talk:Consensus. There is a difference between the two. If you would like to propose a new way that the consensus process should work, please comment at Wikipedia talk:Consensus. If you would like to propose changes to Wikipedia's spoiler guideline, please comment here. Marc Shepherd 11:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, you might want to read the sorts of comments I've made before. I've been very much against the warnings for quite a long time before the mass deletions. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, sorry. My mistake. Marc Shepherd 11:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you stop having a go at me for having opinions? What am I supposed to do when the 'official line' is peddled as fact to newcomers? Nathan J. Yoder's points are excellent, why not address them rather than trying to steer the debate?--Nydas^(Talk) 12:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've said several times, "Go ahead. Knock yourself out." I am merely suggesting that reliving your pain over 45,000 edits that were completed months ago isn't going to get you anywhere. If you think it will get you somewhere, by all means keep trying. As far as I can tell, Nathan J. Yoder is also engaged in the futile exercise of trying to persuade people that the process that led to the May edits was somehow faulty. Whether it was faulty or not, it's over with.

Nathan J. Yoder is also suggesting that "Wikipedia should strive to come as close as they realistically can to a scientific measure of consensus." Whether good or bad, this idea goes far beyond the scope of the current page. A bold editor would be justified in removing it as entirely off-topic. Instead, I am merely trying to suggest that any conceivable progress needs to be: A) About spoiler warnings; and B) Forward-focused, rather than backward-looking. The question is what needs to be done now, not whether what was done in the past was correct. Marc Shepherd 14:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And by "forward-focused" you mean agree with you? If we still disagree with you and want spoilers to be added back, how is it not forward focused to discuss it? Yes, you've said that and then you've repeatedly come back and reasserted this--"what, this conversation is still going on? Stop trying to convince people of the opposing POV!" We get it. Sorry, but removing people's talk is strictly forbidden except in extreme circumstances and what might be, at worst, veering slightly offtopic hardly qualifies. The issue here IS what the consensus is and there is a fundamental question raised of what qualifies as consensus and the argument is being made that the lack of people coming back en force (sp?) to fight back the many changes qualifies as consensus. Hence "what is consensus" is a fundamental part of the issue here.

I think we can all agree that you can't really determine whether or not there should be spoilers without also determining whether or not there is consensus. So I don't see how it can be argued that epistemological analysis of consensus isn't a part of this discussion. The proponents of spoiler warnings want to first establish what the consensus is before engaging in a large article-changing frenzy to the contrary. This avoids what would be an inevitable war-of-the-most-energetic from both sides each trying what would be the most extreme (also semi-automated) revert war. I think we can agree that would be counter-productive. -Nathan J. Yoder 21:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

By "forward focused," I am suggesting the debate should be about what the spoiler guideline "ought to be," not "how it got that way." For the record, I do not personally agree with the status quo. I just think that backward-looking debates—those that try to argue that past edits were illegitimate—are going nowhere. Those who think otherwise are, of course, free to keep arguing that way. But they shouldn't be surprised when nothing comes of it.

The fact is that spoiler warnings are, today, practically absent from Wikipedia. Maybe they should be widespread. But they aren't. You can keep banging your head on the idea that the status quo was secured by illegitimate means. This mode of arguing has repeatedly produced no results for its proponents, but if you want to keep trying, be my guest. Or, you can try a new approach. Marc Shepherd 00:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There's some confusion here. The problem I see is that those responsible for the mass-removal and some of their wiki-friends are coming on here and rather aggressively arguing that spoiler warnings shouldn't exist at all. I don't have a problem with revising it, but it's pretty clear that is that Consensus-Against-All-Warnings (CAAW?) camp (which includes reverting all warning insertions on sight with reference back to this page stating or implying there is a consensus).

My arguments on this talk page have been under the assumption that people were arguing that and I am attempting to say there is no consensus for that to stop that in its tracks. Then I see some other people like you coming in and seemingly show support for them (some saying you agree), but you seem to be from a less extreme view that some warnings need to be removed and the old guideline needs revision. Also, many people on the RfC indicate they're somewhere in their too.

So I'm wondering, how many people are actually against all warnings entirely and really believe the consensus reflects that? From those people, I hadn't actually seen any substantive arguments supporting their view beyond "there's a consensus so it sticks," rather than making an argument as to why that's the ideal choice. So my suggestion is for people to make a new section with their new guideline proposal and support of it. -Nathan J. Yoder 07:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If you think we are going to return to the early May version of the guideline, then you are sorely mistaken. While a handful of editors that claim that the current version of the guideline does not have consensus support, the MfD and the subsequent RfC clearly demonstrated that there was no consensus support for the early May version. So there is no reason to go back to that version of the guideline.

There is still room to make some alterations to the current guideline. That is why I suggested a compromise by creating an objective and verifiable criteria to determine when a plot detail is a spoiler and when a warning can be put in place. However, that suggestion has so far fallen on deaf ears. --Farix (Talk) 01:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I largely concur with Farix. I think there are situations where spoiler notices would be appropriate, though it would be far less than the 45,000 articles that formerly had them. The guideline—like most WP guidelines—should provide concrete examples of both appropriate and inappropriate use. Local consensus would govern in specific cases, as long as the spirit of the guideline is adhered to.

I suspect a majority of Wikipedians would find spoiler notices acceptable in some circumstances. That certainly does not mean that everyone agrees precisely what constitutes a spoiler, and when readers ought to be warned about it. A guideline revision that allows spoiler notices in fairly limited circumstances is more likely to gain agreement than one that throws the door wide open.

My objection to most of the foregoing dialogue, is that very little of it actually addresses what the guideline ought to say. Most of the comments on this page are about the process that took place in May, archiving policy, and so forth. Marc Shepherd 12:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Marc. The 45K incident is not going to change; MedCab, et al have declined, it's then end line of that. We should be focusing more on the present and the guideline. David Fuchs ^(talk) 12:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

A Problem with local consensus

I have found the perfect example of why creating a walled garden of local consensus is bad: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Harry Potter-related articles). Some Harry Potter fans evidently took it upon themselves to come up with a "guideline" for Potter articles, which is full of some incorrect information, and is especially grievous when it comes to spoiler warnings. Wether or not you think that they should have spoilers, the guideline authors have decided that content must be strictly divided into spoiler and non-spoiler sections- which has been agreed upon as the wrong thing to do. Sigh... I'm hoping this is not the reason for so much HP cruft, at least. David Fuchs ^(talk) 01:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it to a Style guidelines subsection of Harry Potter WikiProject, which is where this should have remained at all times - a useful guide that simply applies the wiki-wide MOS to the context of the project. (Also added a proposed template before the move; should that be deleted now?) Girolamo Savonarola 02:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Local consensus is not the same thing as a Wikipedia:Walled garden. There's nothing wrong with local consensus in Wikipedia, because if anyone non-local wants to get involved in the discussion, they then become local and can affect the consensus. Further, I see no problem with a Wikiproject-level style guide (not considered a formal Wikipedia guidline) that does not conflict with policy. Policy trumps guideline. WP:CONSENSUS is policy. WP:SPOILER is a guideline, and a disputed one at that. If the Harry Potter Wikiproject chooses to include spoiler notices or any other form of informing readers that spoilers may be present, that will be up to the consensus. Certainly, if they do include spoiler notices, their local consensus will not remain local for long, because the editors who are scanning for spoiler notices will be aware of them in no time and remove them, referring to WP:SPOILER as justification. The ensuing debate will certainly be interesting. One can imagine that there may be some very devoted Harry Potter fans who want to prevent the story from being ruined, or shall we say "spoiled", for others who have not read all the books yet. I'm not a Harry Potter fan (though I enjoyed the movies), but I will be interested in how this proceeds on their project page.Back to the initial topic here though, I see no problem at all with local consensus on style issues, as long as they do not interfere with policies. This may be a good time to point out that Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is "policy", and not only that, it is one of the Wikipedia:Five pillars. WP:SPOILER is a guideline. Quoting from the guideline infobox, we see:

generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

...and in the formal guideline infobox, the words "occasional exception" are wikilinked directly to the policy of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. --Parsifal _Hello 03:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is not a trump card. A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. Girolamo Savonarola 03:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you about that. I was not suggesting anything else. The most important thing is to follow WP:CONSENSUS and all other Wikipedia policies. On the other hand, editors are not required to simply follow every guideline without questioning it, and that is included even in the definition of a guideline. I'm not advocating anarchy, I'm advocating the respect of consensus in every process, not only at the guideline level, but at the project and article level as well. --Parsifal _Hello 04:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, that Harry Potter style guide is a bit dated (it still refers to the 7th book as a future event). In more ways than one, many Harry Potter editors don't seem to be observing it, or indeed, to be even aware of it. Marc Shepherd 12:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Parsifal. I am not saying that just because they disagree with the current guideline, they are evil and whatnot. However as has come up in RfAs many, many times, WP:IAR is one of those policies which are better used sparingly. In any case, I'm worried less about the existence of the page and more that the creators of the page arbitrarily stamped a "this is a guideline" template over it. David Fuchs ^(talk) 13:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand that would be inappropriate of them to make it a guideline without process and unilaterally add it into the MoS. By the time I saw it, it was already moved to a project page and MoS/Guideline template was gone. --Parsifal _Hello 17:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I see you posted a note on the topic I started over at the page in question. What I have issue there with is that rather than just using spoiler templates, they advocate segregating info and then adding spoiler temps. That was argued against strongly, and if anything is one of the few points that was taken constructively in this whole guideline fiasco. David Fuchs ^(talk) 13:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem there, I don't have any issue with that part of the guideline either. My response to this was more about the general idea of local consensus being a walled garden, which it's not, because new editors can always join any topic. I have concern that often article editors are not knowledgeable about guidelines or larger processes in general, so when they see someone quoting a guideline, even it they have a clear local consensus otherwise, they may immediately back off from their prior consensus without even wondering about it. I agree that WP:IAR should be used sparingly, but I also feel that WP:CONSENSUS is one of our most important policies, and that guidelines exist in service to Wikipedia, to make it better, but not to make a barrier to the policies.

In the note I entered over on that other page, I did not advocate for them to follow WP:IAR, I only mentioned that the WP:SPOILER guideline is not set in stone and gave a link to this discussion. Maybe you're right and that page is dead and so it won't make any difference but I figured they should have the option to participate if they have the interest. --Parsifal _Hello 17:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This is just purely MHO and can be taken as what one will, but my POV on local consensus vs. policies and guidelines is something akin to a federalist system. You have "constitutional" policies, which are more or less inviolable and difficult to change, "federal"-level guidelines, which apply to all articles (or all relevant articles) and should be held fairly tightly, but are more open to easy change at the guideline level (but should generally be respected at the article level), and then you have "local" consensus on pages for issues which aren't covered by the policies and guidelines above. So if it's a question of something that's specific to the article, then it can be handled locally. But decisions that fundamentally have already been decided and their application delineated on policy or guideline pages need to be respected. I regard the IAR policy as an escape hatch in the event that policy and guidelines paint one into a corner regarding common sense application - it generally is begging for trouble to use it too broadly, indiscriminately, or controversially. IAR can also be viewed as a stop-gap until the approval and implementation of a guideline or policy to supplant the problem which caused IAR to be raised.

But these are just my thoughts, obviously. Girolamo Savonarola 22:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually there's no problem here. Any "local" consensus can and should be bulldozed, wiped out and nullified if it contradicts policy.

In the example David Fuchs gives above, "the guideline authors have decided that content must be strictly divided into spoiler and non-spoiler sections", isn't a big deal because of course we will boldly bend, fold, spindle, mutilate, trample, bulldoze, smash, crush, comminute and thoroughly ignore it because it's complete rubbish, directly contrary to our Neutral point of view policy which requires that we give all facts pertaining to the subject of an article due weight. It would be unacceptable to write an article about a recently released Harry Potter novel, for instance, that omitted important facts, or directed readers away from those facts through notices implying either that those facts were peripheral or that an encyclopedic assessment of the subject were possible if the writers directed the reader to ignore those facts. --Tony Sidaway 22:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A note on the use of the word 'Warning'

I would like to have a horrible little semantic moment. Since June, Milo has added to our larger debate a very strenuous argument that the term “warning” is misused in reference to spoiler tags, and that those of us who persist in referring to spoiler “warnings” are attempting a kind of double-speak. Those aren’t his exact words, but they’re pretty close.

Milo’s exact words include the use of the phrase “spoiler warning” and “spoiler warning tags,” (May 31), so perhaps he too is attempting this doublespeak. Or—more likely—he simply slipped into the common usage, for the fact is that practically everyone in this discussion uses the phrase “spoiler warning.” Moreover, the common usage is clearly in alignment with the dictionary definition.

Per the OED, “warning” is: (1) a statement or event that indicates a possible or impending danger or problem. (2) cautionary advice. (3) advance notice.

Clearly everyone’s usage of “spoiler warning” fulfills (2) and (3). Presumably Milo’s concern is that, in regards to (1), a spoiler is neither a “danger” nor a “problem.” But this is a subjective claim, and it is at odds with the way people use the terms. There are, for instance, repeated uses of the admonition: “Danger: Spoilers!” or variants on the internet. At House Targaryen, someone writes “Wikipedia articles for Song should be useful...not dangerous.” At One Piece, posting spoilers outside certain parameters is called “crossing a dangerous line.” At Cheeky Angel, someone is forced “to cut the spoilers part because it's just TOO dangerous for first-time viewers of Tenshi na Konamaiki.” And on and on and on. Everyone I am quoting is pro-spoiler-tag. Everyone I am quoting believes that spoilers are dangerous. Ergo, everyone that I am quoting believes that spoiler tags are "warnings." Ethan Mitchell 22:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, basically the following two statements are true:

1. spoiler tags and other notices are intended to put the reader on his guard
2. there is a lot of precautionary wank on fan-sites because fans tend to be very young and naive, and overestimate the importance of the originality of storylines (although just about anybody over 30 will happily set them right on that score by reeling off a whole slew of earlier occurrences of the same plot, often going back thousands of years).

We can and should fart in the general direction of such nonsense. --Tony Sidaway 00:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the word "warning," though "notice" and "tag" are fine too. The main debate is whether that thingy—whatever you call it—ought to be present on some of our articles, and if so, which ones? Compared to that, the label attached to it is comparatively unimportant.

It's true that many plots have been around thousands of years. Nevertheless, when you're reading or viewing something the first time, you don't know which of those plots a particular story is going to turn out to be. I fully accept that there are readers/viewers who would not like to have the surprise spoiled. I just think that, in most cases, we don't need to pander to that small minority of people who cannot figure out that a heading labeled "plot" gives away the plot. Marc Shepherd 14:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Since it is impossible to work out from first principles whether a plot section will contain spoilers, the only minority being pandered to is hardcore fans.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a little trouble parsing your sentence. If you think the world is divided into "hardcore fans" and "everybody else," that's awfully simplistic. Marc Shepherd 21:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

We should assume that most viewers of an article will not be hardcore fans, unless you (wrongly) believe that some articles are fans-only.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that most readers won't be hardcore fans. Indeed, that's a Wikipedia guideline. Articles are for the general reader, not the specialist or fan. But the implication is actually the opposite of what you've suggested. It's actually the hardcore fan that wants spoiler warnings the most, and it's also the hardcore fan that is most sensitive to what constitutes a spoiler.

For instance, when the New York Times reviewed Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows two days early, the headline of the review was: "An Epic Showdown as Harry Potter Is Initiated Into Adulthood." Many HP fans regarded that headline—in and of itself—as a spoiler, since it disclosed the fact that Harry survived (i.e., made it to adulthood). As far as I know, it was only the hardcore fans who objected. (Obviously, those who went on to read the text were even more incensed, even though the review, like any normal book review, did not disclose very much of the plot.)

It is generally the hardcore fan who will argue that any plot point, however, minor, is a spoiler. That's why the only warning that will satisfy the people who care about them most, must go on the entire plot. Marc Shepherd 13:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're dead wrong here. Spoiler tags interfere with hardcore fans' sense of article ownership and their unrealistic assumptions about their fiction's popularity. They support non-hardcore consumption of fiction like waiting for the paperback or the DVD, which hardcore fans may resent.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Luckily, you need not take my word for it. The whole Harry Potter pre-release contretemps is quite recent, and easily google-able. You can research it for yourself, and see that it's precisely as I've said. Marc Shepherd 14:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The spoilers were mainstream news, with the author and various columnists expressing their opinions. It is hard to think of a less hardcore example.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

But the outrage came chiefly from the hardcore fans, which is the point. Marc Shepherd 16:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"the hardcore fan who will argue that any plot point, however, minor, is a spoiler." Hardcore fans would be the extremists at the opposite end from the clique. Pander to neither.

"That's why the only warning that will satisfy the people who care about them most, must go on the entire plot." You are stating an extreme position. Extremists need not be, and indeed cannot be satisfied.

"But the outrage came chiefly from the hardcore fans, which is the point." Ok. Your point is inclusively that they are extremists. It's best to ignore them and move on. Milo 07:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the 'outrage' chiefly came from hardcore fans. News reports of the controversy focused on Rowling, her publishers, and various commentators over the views of HP fansites.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"those of us who persist in referring to spoiler "warnings" are attempting a kind of double-speak" That's not my explanation. Originally we were all unconsciously hyped. Persisting that usage after the definitional logic has been exposed is a more group-conformist and/or habitual phenomenon.

"Those aren't his exact words, but they're pretty close" Wrong - not even in the vicinity of my words. You also seem to be confusing an interpretation with a quote.

"Or—more likely—he simply slipped into the common usage," That's inadequate research. May 31 was about a week before I discovered that I and everyone else had been hyped, and that it mattered due to the constant red herring sidetrack of the disclaimer policy.

"practically everyone in this discussion uses the phrase "spoiler warning." Which is evidence of conformity, not correctness. It's also the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum.

"the common usage is clearly in alignment with the dictionary definition." No. Since two dictionaries disagree (in the 3rd definition and the latter half of the 1st definition), it is not clear. Your overstated position is merely a disputable argument.

"usage of "spoiler warning" fulfills (2) [cautionary advice]" It's a poor fit, relating firstly to "danger" at COED [4] and "warning" M-W.com, but anyway moot, since no one is likely to call it a "spoiler caution".†

"spoiler is neither a "danger" nor a "problem." Half wrong. It is a problem, or fans wouldn't complain.

(many references to colloquial usages of "spoiler warning") ... "everyone that I am quoting believes that spoiler tags are "warnings." So what? All of them have been successfully hyped. See bandwagon effect. Even if they don't know it, all of them are speaking colloquially. And most importantly, all of them are encyclopedically incorrect.

"usage of "spoiler warning" fulfills (3) [advance notice]" This is your only valid debate point. As weak as it is, I'd shrug it off and accept this false-hype colloqial usage - except that other editors persist with the disclaimer false argument against spoiler notices. They use emotionally charged yet incorrect comparisons to porn, obscenity, and emotional triggering disclaimers. Therefore, I insist on formal encyclopedic correctness to which Wikipedia claims to adhere by default, and thereby to purge the populist, hyped notion of a spoiler 'danger' that does not exist. Milo 11:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Re-edited 07:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

†Later I Googled 827 instances of "spoiler caution" (0.05%), possibly a UK-influenced usage. (I recall that the U.S. "Miranda warning" is UK equivalently known as "the caution".)

By comparison there are 765,000 of "spoiler warning" (49%), a suprising 762,000 of "spoiler alert" (49%), and 14,000 of "spoiler notice" (0.9%).

Parsifal found that "alert" has a defined reference to danger [5] [6], and is therefore about as unsuitable as the primary meaning of "warning". I'd like to think that the "spoiler notice" phrases were posted by rhetorically careful writers. Milo 07:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the 'danger does not exist' compared to other warnings. Just yesterday someone's mood was HIGHLY affected by learning of the ending to a new game (outside WP). Basically it seems to me what you're saying is that the spoiler notices should be there because people want them and it's the courteous thing to do...while at the same time, it doesn't matter because they don't affect anything. How does that make sense? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"someone's mood was HIGHLY affected by learning of the ending to a new game" Danger from a mood?? Did they cut themselves or threaten worse? Did they fear they were going to have therapy bills from the emotional trauma of being spoilered? Let's see that link to identify what specific harm this person claimed or at least experienced.

"spoiler notices should be there because people want them..." For me that's a necessary but not sufficient condition.

"it's the courteous thing to do" That's not my position. My position is 'it's a useful thing to do' like the table of contents and permanent disambiguation non-content notices. One could get information without content notices, but they are more useful to have than not have.

"while at the same time, it doesn't matter because they don't affect anything. How does that make sense?" Maybe you are exploring a point I think I mentioned months ago, that the arguments against spoiler tagging are based on exaggerated positions (motivated by external "warning" hype), while spoiler notices are actually a feature of middling importance with a moderate effect. For example — spoiler tags aren't so important as to rise to the level of general disclaimer policy (see my hidden warning tag test), yet they aren't decidedly unimportant, since 40+% of readers/editors want them (#Poll 1). So, in terms of your question, my position is that spoiler content notices are a middle case feature that usefully affects some things, some people, somewhat. Milo 21:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Informal request for comments

I wonder if it would help discussion here if we focused on actual ongoing activity rather than ancient history.

I'll present my own spoiler-related activities over the past week as an example. As I begin write this, the time on the clock is 1440 GMT, 18 August, 2007, so I'll take 1440 on 11th, exactly seven days ago, as my starting point. That doesn't rule out discusion of my other activities related to spoiler tags since the start of the discussion on 15 May, but I thought it best to concentrate on what we're all up to now.

Of course we all know that I and some other editors occasionally take a peek at Whatlinkshere in article space for Template:Spoiler and remove stuff that doesn't seem to be appropriate. I won't go into detail on that here because that kind of editing seems to have been well discussed.

But also as was mentioned in Ken Arromdee's second application for arbitration I run a bot of sorts. I have described how it works here, The results of running this bot over the past week are publicly displayed at this page history. After running the bot I examine each article carefully to see if I think it's appropriate or not, then I may edit the article.

Examples of this are:

• 22:23, 11 August 2007 Dear Frankie, "Remove home-made spoiler warnings. 1) use "{{spoiler}}{" and 2) not in sections like "Plot" that obviously discuss the plot." removing section headings that said "==Spoiler warning==" and "==Spoilers end here==" after a clearly marked "Plot" section heading.
• 23:09, 11 August 2007 Goodbye Charlie Bright, "Remove home-made spoiler warning. 1) use "{{spoiler}}{" and 2) not in sections list "Plot" which are obviously going to discuss the plot.", removing tag that said "*Warning - Contains Spoilers*"

All other examples, which I won't give in detail, are as follows. I tried to use the templates template:col-begin, template:col-3 and template:col-end to make this list more compact on the page, but I'm sorry I can't seem to get it to work. If a kind magician should be reading this, I would welcome some help.

• Here on Romantic friendship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here on The Amazing Maurice and his Educated Rodents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here on The Host (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here on Wild at Heart (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here on Cyril O'Reily (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here on Lucy (Elfen Lied) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here on Ben Skywalker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here on Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here on Pincher Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here on Still Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here on Tia (Galactik Football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here on Ginger Snaps 2: Unleashed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here on List of Guardian of the Sacred Spirit episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here on List of Lincoln Heights episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here on Others (1999 Novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here on Sally Lockhart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here on Sergeant Cortez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here on Spirit Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here on Strained Peas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here on Dawson's Creek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here on Fuchikoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here on Goodbye Charlie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here on Johnny Hollow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here on Stay Tuned for Danger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here on The Others (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here and here on Henderson the Rain King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here on The Brief History of the Dead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here on Darkfall (Carmody novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here on Killua Zaoldyeck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here on Mei (Galactik Football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here on Rockman & Forte Mirai kara no Chōsensha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here on The Bone Collector (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here on The House of the Dead (arcade game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here and here on Crash (2004 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here on Laughing Man (Ghost in the Shell) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Here on Glory (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Comments on this output are welcome. There are thirty-odd edits so this activity amounts to about five edits a day. --Tony Sidaway 15:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I spot-checked about 25% of the examples above, and all of them appeared to be appropriate edits, and consistent with the existing version of the guideline. I realize that there are some editors who don't like the existing version, but that is a different issue. Marc Shepherd 16:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it would also help to see just who is adding the spoiler warning. In most causes I've encountered the person adding the warning is an anonymous editor, many with no other edit history. Registered editors tend to add them far less frequently. --Farix (Talk) 16:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I have edited my list to use the "la" template, which gives links to article history, talk page, etc. --Tony Sidaway 10:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I'd only suggest taking more care not to bite the n00bs in the edit summary, particularly when they're being quite stupid, e.g. "Remove text spoiler, and not in plot section - see WP:SPOIL" or similar - David Gerard 14:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay no more references to "Z0MG SP01L3RZ!!!11!!" even when the warning is quite OTT. --Tony Sidaway 15:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hans Brinker

Interesting that we have both independently obtained some stats on the dimensions of the spoiler tagging and reverting operations.

There is "leak" averaging 5 spoiler tags per day. There is a "head" of mostly IP-generated tags behind the leak in the en.wikipedia.org boundary. The head pressure doesn't seem high, so this would analogize to a large but shallow lake behind the leak.

Outside the boundary, I've found over 1.5 million web references to spoiler warnings, alerts, and notices. Considering these numbers and 2007's ramp-up in external don't-spoil sentiment, I think it's reasonable to suggest that the 6+ members of the Wikipedia hierarchy clique, are now opposed in principle by a million people, for classic reasons of convenience, and now, morals.

You are looking a lot like the nameless fictional character popularly known as Hans Brinker. How long can you hold your finger in the spoiler tag dike?

If you become indisposed or take a two-week vacation, 70 tags may pile up in your absence. Year in, year out, you need to do up to 1,825 tag reversions. As the seasons roll by, the first 1,825 may not be so hard. But by the end of 3,650 reversions two summers hence, the task may become progressively more tedious, thankless, and meaningless.

If my analysis is correct, spoiler tag opposition is an intergenerational conflict like 20th century opposition to dime novels, jazz, comic books, and rock 'n roll. The next generation usually wins in matters of popular culture, especially when big profit supports them. I forecast that in the end, in the time-uncertain arrival and coalescence of pro-tagging factors I've previously described, your thousands of spoiler tag reversion edits will mostly, or all, be for nothing. Milo 23:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Re-edited to install the final draft. 05:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You are assuming that only 6 people are removing spoiler warnings. That isn't true, and as word gets around that they are deprecated when redundant it will become less and less true. Eventually the recent changes patrol will deal with them. I saw numerous editors removing spoiler warnings from the Harry Potter article when the book came out. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I assumed only Tony would be doing the removing, since that currently seems to be his undertaking with the bot. If you are correct then he needs to do fewer tedious reversions than I suggested.

Since judgments and knowledge of the subject are required, I doubt that Recent Changes can handle spoiler tag reversions in the way vandalism is handled.

I came here months ago because an "enforcer" editor removed my spoiler tag, so that behavior might or not already be maximum. Milo 05:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No one is arguing that spoilers do not exist in that context (yes, wow, journals and newspapers use the word "spoiler". can we move on?). However if it's true that we are "fighting the flood", then, why do you care? Let us be obstinate old-timers. However arguing from google searches that we are "morally [...] opposed" by a "million" people seems a tad presumptuous. David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"morally [...] opposed" by a "million" I've replaced my earlier draft with a refinement of the "morals" point. (An escaped draft has happened to me twice without losing the edit window — I wonder if there's a software problem?)

I think currently most of the million would be opposed for classic convenience reasons. However, the San Francisco Chronicle has raised the stakes to a moral level, so it's not my presumption. (SF Chronicle internal link name is "Editorial: Spoiling is immoral") In the U.S. anyway, claiming a moral issue could mean political trouble for the anti-taggers, if that claim gains traction.

"why do you care?" I ask myself that periodically. I can't help but notice that both Nydas and I have been greatly influenced by Orwell. See my post #Wikipedia Farm.

Also if you haven't read much about the history of law, it's difficult to adequately convey how important due process is to the orderly and fair functioning of civilization, as well as the individual pursuit of happiness. See Code of Hammurabi. I've previously mentioned that had the clique gotten what they wanted without the process abuses (and I think they could have), I wouldn't be posting here.

Beyond that, there's the news spectacle of 'Internet Clique Bets Against Hollywood Profits'. This little story of an internal cultural dispute has mushroomed with elements of education, current events, big business, philosophy, and Greek tragedy with a theme of hubris. But ok, the final Harry Potter book is launched. What more big news could possibly happen that has anything to do with spoilers? Milo 05:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Milo, your straw man arguments are becoming more fatuous the further you continue to spin them. First it was that we should avoid spoilers because that might possibly cause non-profitability which could cause Wikipedia to be sued. Now it's that the number of reverts would be so high that we'd all collapse under the strain. Or that future generations will hate us. Or something. Instead of providing vague hair-brained threats of "or else" and making up statistics in a flagrant misuse of a Google test, maybe you could try discussing the issues at hand today? I'm not convinced by your numbers, but were they even correct, would it matter? Do we give up on reverting vandalism because there is so much? Our job is to create an encyclopedia filled with articles that meet a standard for that purpose. That's not an easy task period. But betraying the project mission for certain "exceptional" articles for the sake of fanboys is unacceptable on all terms. For reasons that have to do with being an encyclopedia, no more or less. Girolamo Savonarola 00:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You have again assumed I wrote things that I didn't write, and pejoratively misunderstood even more; so, I find your posts unacceptable for debate. Furthermore, when you get your facts wrong and you are pushing WP:CIV to the limit, you are coming across in a way that I respectfully suggest is not good for your reputation. Milo 05:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

But betraying the project mission

So spoiler warnings are akin to treason .If you are going to have a go at someone for "going over the top" with their arguments it's best not to do it yourself .Garda40 00:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Poorly worded, I admit, but I think my point is clear - favoring certain actions for extra-wiki reasons which go expressly against our purpose and policies - is completely counter to our entire purpose. Girolamo Savonarola 00:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If they're true - and I don't mean to imply that they're not, don't misunderstand me, I simply didn't follow the sources on a quick skim - then it would be highly relevant, since 6 vs a million is hardly wiki-wide consensus. IP editors are still editors. Kuronue | Talk 00:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

In the final draft I wrote "opposed in principle by a million people". Surely the vast majority of the million don't actually edit here as IPs. My point is that even if the clique does have Wikipedia consensus (which I claim will take at least a year to determine), they probably lack external consensus and it may be getting worse. I think external society will exact some cost for the clique's anti-spoiler-tag position. If, and only if, that cost is high enough, I expect the Wikipedia honchos will quietly revert the clique. Milo 05:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy; policy and guidelines are not ratified through a vote. Although some editors have historically argued that policies and guidelines should be adopted by vote or majority opinion, Wikipedia policy clearly contradicts this opinion. It should also be noted that while seniority and high edit counts don't confer more weight to particular users, anonymous IPs and new or light users generally are considered to have less weight on decisions unless they are part of the discussion and discuss with regard to policy and guidelines. (AfD, for example, states that Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted.) Clearly the question is what are reasonably informed editors doing. Which is also the reason why we do not give up the war on vandalism despite the preponderance of occurrence. Our concern is not what ill-informed editors are doing - it's what the average editor does. Girolamo Savonarola 01:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There is "leak" averaging 5 spoiler tags per day.

A good way to assess this information is to compare spoiler tags to other kinds of "leaks." For instance, yesterday there were 129 articles proposed for deletion. A bit of research will show that, overwhelmingly, most of those articles are going to be deleted. So, in rough numbers, articles requiring deletion overwhelm "spoiler tag leakage" by about 20 to 1. I don't have a good way of counting vandalism edits, but I'll bet there are a helluva lot more than 5 of them per day.

So, if there are only 5 spoiler tag additions per day, that strikes me as a very low number, compared to all of the other kinds of guideline/policy-violating edits that are routinely reverted. Marc Shepherd 12:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You got it, Marc. Whilst it's true that only I am engaged in systematic searches for home-made spoiler warnings, the reason for that is more about the availability of the technology. Using my bot search-script, I've also engaged in similar regular cleanups for misnomers for The Times and inappropriate references to "Harry Potter" (such as this one). There are all very minor stylistic edits but I think they improve the overall quality of Wikipedia.

The investment of time at first is quite considerable: there are about 1,200 articles that legitimately contain the word "spoiler", mostly in connection with automotive aerodynamics or air flight, and these articles had to be identified and added to an exception list. There are some 2,500 articles that legitimately (or at least, not in a context that is grossly inappropriate) refer to Harry Potter, and these also had to be checked individually. Once this large task has been performed, however, it doesn't ever have to be done again.

I am currently engaged in software development work that should make the bot, and its technology, available to all Wikipedia editors. --Tony Sidaway 12:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not five tags a day, it's five homemade ones. It'd be pretty hard to really find how many of the templates are added, as they are constantly being reverted. I imagine it's more than five, but considering how few in number there tend to be at any given time, it's probably still not that much. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is a matter we can do something about. I've written a script that checks the list of article transcluding template:spoiler every fifteen minutes, and updates the page User:Tony Sidaway/transclusions/spoiler if it has changed in any way in the intervening time. This wouldn't detect tags that are added and then immediately removed, but it will probably enable us, by watching the history of that page, to keep a fairly close watch on the rate at which spoiler tags are added and removed. --Tony Sidaway 13:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I can only wonder how much energy are you willing to spend on fighting, rather than on ways to find the consensus with people who want and use spoiler warnings (they are significant minority). I even proposed compromise that spoiler warnings would be hidden by default, but most anti-spoiler fanatics here seem to oppose even that (obviously such solution would harm no one). Lately, there has been proliferation of people for which the formal policies are more important than common sense (see for example [7]). I wish that Wikipedia would truly be democracy, so that all those elitists and "deletionists because of such and such policy" would left. The Wikipedia was built on assumption that people (as a community, not individuals) know better, and don't need to have complex formal rules imposed by high authorities. Samohyl Jan 18:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Your appeal to "common sense" presumes that the current practice is non-sensical. Perhaps it is...but this hasn't been demonstrated. You appear to be equating "deletionism" and "elitism." But deletionism is a legitimate position, just like its polar opposite, inclusionism. Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and hasn't been for at least as long as I've been around. Wikipedia has always had rules. You cannot hope to create an encyclopedia of any value without rules. Marc Shepherd 19:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

To ignore what people actually want just for the sake of some formal rules is non-sensical. People here opposed spoiler warnings for various formal reasons like "it's redundant with the plot heading", "it should be expected" or "it contradicts no disclaimers". But if people in general want such exception, why not? In law, people are able to cope with reasonable exceptions, the rules don't have to be completely orthogonal. Although it's irelevant for this debate, I don't equate deletionism and elitism, I just equally despise both. And I actually mean a special case of deletionism, the one that leads people to AFD obviously notable articles that just lack sources, the one that Transhumanist mentions on that link, or the one that leads people to remove all spoiler warnings just because some of them are misused. What happened to the original "it's bad, maybe someone will come along and improve it"? Now we have "it's bad, let's delete it so no one can see it". And you seem to equate democracy with anarchy. Democracy has rules too, in fact, democracy is so good because it has a simple easy-to-check rule - voting. You don't need to have higher authority that decides who is right in democracy. And I wouldn't mind if only people who care enough (are registered and have enough edits, perhaps) are allowed to vote, that wouldn't be undemocratic at all. The point of democracy is that the rule is simple and obvious - no way for admins or other people to manipulate the outcome by saying - well, you may have the majority, but Wikipedia is not a democracy, so you are screwed. I don't think pro-spoilerists have majority, but this fixed rule would make such admins think twice about the minorities too, and they would be more willing to find compromise in general (because they may happen to be the minority next time). Samohyl Jan 20:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Reasonable exceptions exist on Wikipedia. It's pretty much how Wikipedia works. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place for a metaphysical discussion about Wikipedia's flaws—and it certainly has plenty. If you have a concrete proposal for improving the spoiler guideline, by all means make it (starting a new section heading would be a good start). Your proposal—whatever it may be—will still have to run the gauntlet of Wikipedia's "consensus" process. Flawed though it is, that process is the only one we have. Marc Shepherd 21:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Major themes of this debate for months before you arrived are:

• Process has been abused beyond mere flaws to unavailability.
• Through illogical fig leaves like circular reasoning, consensus is what the clique says it is.
• Compromises and proposals have been repeatedly blocked or sidetracked by artifices and agendas stretching beyond operational reason.
• Perceived attempts to suppress debate are inclusively an issue.

The problems here span a wide spectrum, meaning that spoiler-tag issues traceable to user conduct, WP's metaphysical flaws, or external big business pressures are on the table for discussion. I don't think you are actually attempting to suppress debate per se, but by declaring things to not discuss you are making yourself sound like a tool of whoever is suspected of doing that.

I'm in favor of concrete proposals, please proceed. But believe it or not, I can walk on concrete and simultaneously chew metaphysical gum. I think a number of other editors here are equally capable. Milo 04:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

My first concrete proposal is to actually go back to consensus. Saying "It is consensus when nobody manually reverts all of the thousands of changes we make using automation tools" is not consensus (especially when people who try anyway get told that they can't make the changes because consensus is already settled, which is circular reasoning.) Ken Arromdee 21:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I proposed two compromise solutions a while back, they can be found in the archives. They were completely ignored by the anti-spoilerists, so I take it they don't want to negotiate. The proposals were:

1. No guideline where to place spoiler warnings, just the local consensus on per article level. And no bots patrolling articles to remove spoiler warnings if someone adds them. Basically, revert the guideline to as it was before May 2007, and leave the 45000 removed SWs removed. If there really is consensus that SWs are inapropriate, they won't appear on the articles pages, or will be outed by the other editors. [ Samohyl Jan 22:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC) continues below ]

There are many bots that search for potential violations of various guidelines and policies. There is still human judgment as to whether an edit is called for. It would be better if you pointed out a number of specific edits that you believe shouldn't have been made, rather than to state categorically that there shouldn't be bot patrols. Marc Shepherd 00:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

2. Technical compromise. Spoiler warnings are hidden by default, but can be enabled by method similar to the method that was used to hide them, as was described on this page before May 2007. Anyone can add them to article as they see fit (within reasonable bounds). [ Samohyl Jan 22:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC) continues below ]

There's lots of content on Wikipedia that some editors wish wasn't there. It's a little hard to believe that this is the first time Wikipedia needs to hide content because some editors would rather not see it. Marc Shepherd 00:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

These are 2 different compromises, and none of them is acceptable (I guess) to hardcore anti-spoilerists. Because this is not about consensus or not seeing spoiler warnings, this is about "it will be our way and you shut up". Samohyl Jan 22:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"hard to believe that this is the first time Wikipedia needs to hide content because some editors would rather not see it." It isn't the first time, but what matters is that it is the workable compromise this time.

Please avoid intraposting. It's a little more work to interpost with thoughtfully indented quote-and-response, but it keeps the threads together for easier reading — otherwise a new intraposted thread splits a post further and further apart. Interposting also doesn't obscure the coherence of ordered-point proposals like Jan's. Milo 04:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What I mean by "no patrolling bots" - this is to prevent situation like, if some editor adds a spoiler warning to the article, and it gets removed in 15 minutes without any discussion by another editor, because article appears on some personal watchlist. Or even cases when he discusses addition/removal of the SW on the talk page, and a bunch of people who have never made any edit to that article just come in saying "we don't want it", and it gets removed. Just because it triggered a scanner for the word "spoiler". This is not what I consider to be a local consensus. The order should be: Someone is bold and makes the edit (ie. adds the SW), then if other people (who are perhaps regular maintainers of the article) disagree, they say so on the talk page. The issue waits a week or so, and after a week it's probably obvious what the local consensus is. Samohyl Jan 06:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of any fighting. --Tony Sidaway 18:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Misza13 has also drawn my attention to the following record: [8]. --Tony Sidaway 19:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. There is a spoiler guideline, but whenever it's followed, editors like Tony Sidaway and David Gerard instantly go into attack mode as if they're the Spoiler Police. It's condescending editors like that who turn people off to this site. --YellowTapedR 22:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, for all practical purposes they are acting as if the guideline reads 'no spoiler tags under any circumstance' when in fact there is demonstrably no consensus for such a position. (see recent edits for Match Point for an example) Tomgreeny 23:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

We're following the guideline. If there is an objection to our edits we seek consensus on the talk page. No condescension, no "attack mode", no "Spoiler Police", no "'no spoiler tags under any circumstance'", but simple, patient discussion. This is how Wikipedia works. --Tony Sidaway 23:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If Talk: Halo: Combat Evolved is any example, then we will see: (a) threats (b) shifting the definition of consensus to mean 80% agreement (c) insults (d) changing the guideline to win the debate (e) "everyone knows" (f) "If we don't agree then it isn't consensus" veto-mode.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

When people seek consensus on the talk page, it's impossible to get any headway because you, Gerard, Carl and one or two others monitor everything and always have some smartass comment to make yourself feel superior. I read an interview with one of the founders of Wikipedia saying the "cliques," consisting of longtime and houlier-than-thou editors, are turning this site to crap. That's you. You're gonna tell me this isn't condescending?: "(((current fiction)) (duh!))" Maybe that's not the best example, but I didn't feel like spending more than a minute going through your history. --YellowTapedR 23:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you please cite a specific interview in which you claim that a Wikipedia founder says that I, or other editors performing maintenance edits, are acting in a "holier than thou" manner and/or "turning this site into crap"? Could you please explain why my self-correction from "template:recent fiction" (which doesn't exist) to "template:current fiction" (which does) accompanied by the self-deprecating comment "duh!" is in any way condescending? It was, I assure you, intended to be self-deprecatory. I made a mistake and then corrected it. --Tony Sidaway 00:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There you go again. He didn't say that you specifically or editors performing maintenance edits are ruining the site, but that longtime editors who form cliques make it unwelcome. I'd consider the anti-spoiler gang an example of that. I'll track down the link for you when I get a chance. It's the guy who is forming the new site for only experts to contribute to who said it.

I'm sorry, I was being quick and I took your quote out of context. --YellowTapedR 04:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of terms like "gang", "clique", etc, to describe people who share similar opinions (especially when those opinions enjoy wiki-wide consensus) is unhelpful. Please clean up your act. --Tony Sidaway 19:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I need your advice, but thanks. Claiming to have "wiki-wide consensus" when you have no such evidence is also unhelpful.

The use of the terms "gang" and "clique" is accurate in this case. Look at ANY talk page where a spoiler tag is being discussed, and you'll see the usual suspects. So, it is impossible to get anywhere with the same -- I'm saying it -- gang on talk pages because of the circular reasoning and bully-like behavior. In most cases, consensus would clearly be for adding spoilers if it weren't for the gang, who monitors any spoiler-related activity closely, showing up everywhere. --YellowTapedR 22:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's all tone it down a notch and discuss our issues with guidelines, not editors. Girolamo Savonarola 22:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The "Other" compromise

Hiding the spoiler tag is not a real solution because all it does is hide the problem. Editors will still add "home made" warnings because the spoiler tag will not be visible. The real solution would be to establish objective criteria to determine when a plot detail is a spoiler and when it can receive a warning, much like how the notability guidelines work.

Also it is absurd to say that spoiler tags can be added without discussion but it needs to be discussed before it can be removed. We don't discuss if unverifiable information is unverifiable before removing it, do we? But if editors disagree with the removal of a spoiler tag, then they should discuss it on the articles talkpage to obtain a consensus.

Also, why go back to a version of the guideline that was clearly rejected by consensus (see previous MfD and subsequent RfC). It's much better to amend the current version with its vague consensus and find ways to improve that consensus then to go back to a rejected version. --Farix (Talk) 12:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I appreciate constructive argument. Hiding the spoiler tags maybe won't help problem you describe, but we don't actually know, if it's a problem at all - what will be the behavior of people if we do that. At least, it will be possible to see SWs for those who want them, and it won't make problem with making homemade warnings worse. And I would certainly revert homemade warning if there already would be a (hidden) warning, but I would probably save that effort in the current situation. So maybe editors will behave differently in a good way too, and this won't be a problem. The point is, we won't see until we try.

Regarding the second point, I actually prefer perfect symmetry with respect to additions/removals, it's just the situation we are in that results in asymetry you describe. There is a problem: if someone stumbles upon a page without spoiler warning, it is not obvious that it isn't there because nobody cares, or because nobody wants it (unless there was a discussion on talk page). So it is sane to assume that no-one cares, and add it (if he wants it) spoiler without discussion. In reverse, if the page already has spoiler warning, and there is no discussion of it already, it is obvious that the author or other people wanted it, so its removal should be discussed. So there is a natural asymetry from the fact that you cannot always detect rejection of SW, but can always detect acceptance of SW. This asymetry is further emphasized by the fact that almost no articles have SWs now.

As for the third point, I don't think the consensus was clear, but this was already debated to death. The reason why to return to the previous guideline is because it takes completely neutral stance - SWs may happen, and are subject to local consensus, and that's it (there were few non-contestable points such as no removal of content etc.). It was so neutral that it survived for several years without much controversy. So maybe there was consensus that better policy is needed, but I don't see much consensus for what such policy should be (except maybe no SWs in fairy tales, which is really a side issue). In fact, even editors such as Tony now talk more about return to local consensus. And also, it contained description how to switch SWs off if someone really found them offensive. Samohyl Jan 17:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Who determine when a plot detail is a spoiler? The problem with your system is that it reduces the definition of spoiler to its lowest common denominator—that of any plot detail. As show in the RfC, such a position is unacceptable. So we do need some sort of standard to determine what is and what isn't a spoiler.

Your statements also indicate that you prefer a system where there are no hurtles to add spoiler tags, but put up hurtles for those who want to remove them. The author adding the spoiler tag to identify and argue that a warning is necessary, but it is up to those removing the tag to argue that the plot detail is not a spoiler or does not need a warning (see negative proof). I'm completely opposed to such a position and think the burden of proof should be on editor(s) adding the tag instead of the one(s) removing the tag.

Of course, anyone adding or removing the tag should check the article's talk page. But 99% of the time, the inclusion of the spoiler tag is never discussed. --Farix (Talk) 20:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

For every Wikipedia style issue I'm aware of, local consensus occurs within a "ring fence" established by site-wide guidelines. The only exception would be style issues that, by their nature, apply to only a small subset of articles in a specialist area, a situation clearly not applicable to spoiler warnings. I support the "local consensus" idea, but first there needs to be a site-wide guideline that covers the mine run of typical cases.

It's not really true that the previous guideline "survived for several years without much controversy." Spoiler warnings have been a continuously controversial subject, at least for the few years that I've been around. Marc Shepherd 18:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If the controversy would be measured by amount of discussion, then the current guideline is several times more controversial than the previous one. And it's not surprising - the previous guideline was rather neutral, while current one more or less bans most of SWs. As for the argument that site-wide guideline is needed first, it obviously wasn't there for several years. If you want to create guideline ex post in such situation, you cannot ignore (then) current practice, which is precisely what happened. Anti-spoilerists ignored the actual practice (that many people want, use and add SWs), removed SWs from many articles, and the resulting guideline is thus even more controversial. Samohyl Jan 19:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Because less then a half-dozen editors are keeping the issue alive by complaining about the May-June removals of the spoiler template, that certain editors are somehow "bad" for systematically removing the template from articles, and that certain MediaWiki tools also give them the advantage. In fact, very little of the discussion has been about the guideline itself. If that effort has been put into improving the guideline, then we would have had a much clearer consensus by now and most of the "discussion" wouldn't have taken place. --Farix (Talk) 20:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, as you can see, that's what I am doing. Obviously, there are people who find SWs useful and not unencyclopedic. So what parts of this guideline would you be willing to give up in order to have a compromise with them? It's nice words about improving the guideline, but if your points are non-negotiable, then it's just a fluff talk. Samohyl Jan 05:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

For example, if there were clear guideline what is a spoiler, would you give up "no SWs in plot section"? Samohyl Jan 05:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

current AN/I report - spoiler issue

If anyone wants to check it out, here is a current AN/I report regarding a spoiler issue. Its heading is "Users pushing personal agenda", but the topic is spoilers. It's not about notices, it's about content removal, based on "popular opinion" as a justification. --Parsifal _Hello 09:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And hopefully no one here is suggesting the user was correct in removing content of a spoiler nature just because it was a spoiler... David Fuchs ^(talk) 12:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Or the citation of "by popular demand" as a legitimate reason to remove any kind of content. --Farix (Talk) 13:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand either of those replies. And I don't know what, if anything, anyone else might be suggesting.

To be completely clear: I was not suggesting anything at all about that report.

All I did was post the link here because it points out that the issue of spoilers, and this guideline, is important and contentious enough in the wider community that it has made its way onto the admin noticeboard. --Parsifal _Hello 02:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Were these edits valid?

It's perfectly relevant to discuss the editors who have appointed themselves as the Spoiler Police. They're the ones who are making it impossible to actually abide by the guidelines unless it's how they see fit. --YellowTapedR 22:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's even more relevant if you can produce a list of edits that you believe, based on the current guideline, should not have been made. We can then discuss the edits, rather than the editors. Marc Shepherd 22:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

All right, here's only a few that I can think of. I don't have the time to sift through edit histories looking for more examples:

The Crying Game, where the major twist is given away in the introduction. The anti-spoiler crowd says the tag in the lead is ugly and the film is old enough that everyone going to the page already knows what happens. The guideline, however, says tags in intros are permissible in out-of-the-ordinary circumstances.

Match Point, where the twist is given away in the “thematic antecedents” section. Anti-spoiler editors say people viewing the article should know the twist will be given away in the section, and one editor says since it’s a Woody Allen film, the twist isn’t what’s important.

Sleepaway Camp, where the intro recently gave away the ending, but included a spoiler tag. I included the twist because I thought it was important, given that it’s the only thing most people remember about the film, but I included a warning because it’s gaining a cult following and a sequel is in the works. That means not everyone who wants to see it has. The plot twist has since been deleted by another editor.

If you look at all of the talk pages, it's the same old editors making the case against spoiler tags. --YellowTapedR 22:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The Crying Game's plot twist is not what I would call a spoiler because knowledge of that plot twist is so wide spread. As for Match Point, I think someone already mentioned that the section was original research, so in that case the spoiler tag is a mute issue. And looking at the section before it was removed by Axem Titanium, I'll have to agree with the OR assessment until a secondary source is provided. As for Sleepaway Camp, it's a forgettable slasher film from the 1980s and I don't think there is much spoiler potential there to begin with. But the "spoiler" sentences about it was "considered by many viewers to have one of the most disturbing endings of all horror films" had issues with verifiability and original research as well as being weaselly worded. So again, the spoiler tag was a mute issue. --Farix (Talk) 23:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop using derogatory terms such as "the anti-spoiler crowd" to refer to people with whose opinions you disagree. Clean up your act. --Tony Sidaway 01:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not derogatory in North American English m-w.com (click on crowd{2,noun}). That's a British connotation (COED "crowd") "often derogatory" but not always. Tourists can easily step into this spot of trouble, since I can't find mention of it in a British-North American dictionary. Milo 06:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop using mother-esque phrases such as "clean up your act" when you talk down to people. There is nothing "derogatory" in saying "anti-spoiler crowd." It's just a lot more concise than saying "people who are against placing spoiler tags in articles."

To address The Farix's points:

• You've given no evidence that the twist in The Crying Game is widespread enough that people reading the page already know what happens. I often go to wikipedia articles about movies I haven't yet seen to get an idea of whether I should waste my time/money on them. I'd never expect being spoiled just from reading the introduction.

• I didn't realize that the section in Match Point had been deleted. So, yes, the point is moot. But, theoretically, if the section were to remain I would stand by my opinion on the need for a warning. I do not believe tags should be placed under "plot" sections, but in that case, it wasn't clear.

• As for Sleepaway Camp, it's not up to you to decide whether the film is insignificant enough that it doesn't matter whether people are spoiled. I'm not the one who wrote the part about it being considered one of the most disturbing endings; I just elaborated. What would be your stance if it were like this?:

‎Sleepaway Camp was a 1983 horror movie written and directed by Robert Hiltzik—who also served as executive producer—about murders at a summer camp. The film came at a time when slasher films were in their heyday.

Template:Spoiler It is notable for its twist ending, during which it's revealed the killer is what seems to be a little girl. In the last shot, it's revealed the killer has a penis. Template:Endspoiler

But, looking at the Match Point article, I've learned something interested from Marc Shepherd:

"As of this moment, no movie article on Wikipedia has a spoiler tag. None. Nada. Marc Shepherd 21:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by YellowTapedR (talk • contribs).

--YellowTapedR 01:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

How exactly does this improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia? Girolamo Savonarola 01:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Because you're supposed to serve the reader, not just cater to snobbery. What do spoiler tags do to harm Wikipedia as an encyclopedia?--YellowTapedR 02:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that's a huge assumption on your part regarding the readers. The encyclopedia exists to serve verifiable knowledge on an article topic. It has no POV as to what the reader wants to read. Girolamo Savonarola 02:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Alas, WP must now get rid of those POV disambiguation notices. Oh, wait, they can stay because Britannica has them, right? Milo 06:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, more offtopic conversation, great! The real world has forced encyclopedias to have disambiguation issues for hundreds of years. Paper encyclopedias have to choose what to list first (how do you order the meanings of Mercury?), online encyclopedias have to create links and decide whether to show the reader a topic page or a disambiguation page. If you think a no-spoiler warning policy necessitates that {{dablink}} and {{redirect}} may not be used, you should go and move Washington to Washington (U.S. state) (where it belongs) and Paris to Paris, France (where it doesn't belong). Happy editing, Kusma (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get your reasoning. Wikipedia should strive to be useful to readers. Using spoiler tags allows for complete analysis of any given work while also giving readers who don't want to be spoiled a heads up. Most encyclopedias don't offer blow-by-blow plot descriptions, detailed articles on characters or video games, etc. --YellowTapedR 02:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that Britannica online doesn't have spoiler warnings bc they don't provide deep enough coverage? I'm not saying that we have to parrot EB, but let's be honest here: encyclopedias generally are spoiler-neutral. Why should we be the exception? (Note that this has nothing to do with "Wikipedia is not paper", which is a capacity statement. I'm tired of hearing that defense for the wrong situation.) The main objections to the spoiler warning are 1) that it has nothing to do with what would normally be considered encyclopedic standards as applied by all other mainstream encyclopedias, 2) it violates a neutral treatment of all information in the article, and 3) it has no containable measure of what qualifies for being spoiled (and potentially could be used for non-fictional elements too). Personally, I don't think that the hypothetical reader can even be addressed as an issue until these outstanding problems are resolved first, since they involve concepts and policies. There will always be users objecting to one thing or another - the first question is do the policies and guidelines allow for it? If not, how much needs to be radically re-structured to accommodate, and is there a broad consensus for it? But without evaluating the non-human element first, you're appealing to the logic of a hypothetical group which has no definitive size. Girolamo Savonarola 02:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as useful, I quote a comment from the original RfC: Useful things are only part of our objective in so far as they directly contribute to the objective of being an encyclopedia. As said many times, useful things are not inherently placed in an encyclopedia. This includes phone books, [as well as] any number of things that might be based on POV. Plenty of useful things out there. Not all of them conform to the principles of an encyclopedia, though, which is our only basis for what goes here.' Ryu Kaze 20:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Girolamo Savonarola (talk • contribs).

That's all nice, but you shouldn't forget the practical perspective. If there is significant minority that finds the SWs useful and not unencyclopedic, then, if you ban them, you will always have a lot of contention. I don't think it's worth that. Samohyl Jan 05:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

From the looks of the archive, there's going to be contention either way, so that doesn't really argue for either side. Girolamo Savonarola 06:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)