Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 13

There is a discussion on the archiving of this page at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archiving debate

Compromise package including showable spoiler tags

"Hideable tags" is not a compromise, it is the point we started out from five months ago. Kusma (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I deleted that fact in the interest of shortening my post, but thanks for making my point. Hidable tags remain a valid compromise since they were never rejected for technical cause. Quite the opposite, hidable tags were dismissed because they would work, citing ad hominems based on unprovably vague fears against attracting supposed "internet culture". Had it not been for the previously hidden agenda of driving an entire class of readers away, which was eventually smoked out in debate, the elegantly workable hidable tag compromise could have and would have been consensed within a few weeks. Milo 21:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hidable tags are a valid compromise only if a consensus can be built for them, and so far that has never happened. Whether you agree with the reasoning, the fact is that the idea has been consistently rejected. Marc Shepherd 21:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, tags are still hideable and have been for years (this has not changed, so I don't quite see what it has to do with "compromise"). See for example here for the instructions. What we were discussing was not that people didn't want to see spoiler warnings (it was already possible to turn them off); people didn't want others to see spoiler warnings on articles that do not need them (yes, the tired Bible and Shakespeare examples). Kusma (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I proposed tags hidden by default as a compromise, which is significantly different than what was previously, ie. shown by default but hidable. But I have to wonder - why are some opponents of such compromise so interested in controlling what *other* people can see? What happened to good old (internet) libertarianism? Samohyl Jan 17:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't vouch for other people's reasoning, but here's mine. My feeling is that if something belongs in the article, then everyone should see it. That's how the rest of Wikipedia's content is presented, and I see no reason to make an exception. On the other hand, if something doesn't belong, it doesn't acquire legitimacy by making it invisible to the objectors.

Since no one needs permission to edit Wikipedia, constant oversight is the one and only way that our content maintains whatever good qualities it may have. A hidden spoiler tag isn't necessarily a good spoiler tag. These tags, just like everything else in Wikipedia, can be misused — either due to misunderstanding, lack of perspective, stupidity, or just plain vandalism. Hiding them simply means that the mistakes will not as readily be seen and corrected.

So that's why I am not a proponent of hidden tags. Marc Shepherd 20:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

why are some opponents of such compromise so interested in controlling what *other* people can see? -- wouldn't hiding the tags be doing /exactly that/? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It may be that this terminology isn't clear; "hidden tags" does not quite express the idea. These would be optionally visible or hidden, according to a preference setting for each user, similar to the way each user can choose the way dates are displayed or how many items appear on their watchlist.

So in reply to your question, no, preference-based optionally hidden/visible tags would not control what others would see, they would increase the control of each reader to determine what they see, without affecting what others see.

To me this seems like an excellent solution. It's very easy to implement technically, so that's not an issue. It would increase the attractiveness of Wikipedia, and its readership, by making it more friendly for people who want to avoid spoilers, while at the same time, allowing people who don't like the notices to turn them off so they don't have to look at them.

Eventually, whatever is decided in this discussion for the short term, it seems to me that something like the optional hide/show tags will probably happen. It may take a few years, but as web content becomes more and more personalized, Wikipedia will need to participate in that evolution. There are many other applications for optional hide/show content notices as well, so some may consider this idea a slippery slope. And maybe it is. But it might not be possible to avoid it forever. --Parsifal _Hello 21:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no data, but I'll hazard a guess anyway. My guess is that the overwhelming majority of visitors to this website do not customize the display. If spoiler tags were hidden by default, 95% of readers would never see them. If they were visible by default, then it would be the opposite. Marc Shepherd 02:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Red herring — If 95% don't customize the display, then 95% wouldn't need to. 40+% of spoiler averse readers do need to. Milo 05:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If that were true, then the warnings should be always visible, as otherwise 95% of your 40% won't get what you say they need. Marc Shepherd 12:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly remove tags that were intended to remove information from the article on the basis of certain stylistic choices by individual users, simply because the user already has an option to read the article or not to read it. I seem to recall that we went into the metadata discussion in my early days on Wikipedia, and we decided against. The basic principle is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it shouldn't be permissible for editors to turn it into something else by tweaking variables. --Tony Sidaway 01:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you what young turk editors frequently tell me: "Consensus can change". You'll probably have to compromise for non-tweakable content per language — not format, boilerplate, or notices.

Anyway, by the time the customizable next encyclopedia is fully implemented here, I hope you'll be too busy tweaking Wikipedia articles into pretzels, while making a half vast fortune in the advertising department at Wikia. :) Milo 05:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, appeal to tradition. We are encyclopedia, behold! Tell me this: Is Wikipedia a general encyclopedia or a set of interlinked specialized encyclopedias? Because, at the beginning, it was certainly intended to be the first. So we should delete all of those very specialized articles, then? If not, it can certainly evolve further from "encyclopedia that looks the same for everybody" to "encyclopedia which allows customization". Samohyl Jan 05:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to make your point for the deletion of articles that should be deleted (if you think this is not allowed, you may yet need to re-read the guideline known as WP:POINT, Which is more properly known as "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point", and most emphatically does not outlaw making a point). Please don't fall into the trap of arguing that rubbish cannot be removed because Other shit exists. --Tony Sidaway 06:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, Wikipedia is a web-based encyclopedia. It's obviously different than a paper encyclopedia, and as such it's acceptable to do things differently. Hyperlinks, resizable images, and cleanup templates are all things an paper encyclopedia doesn't have... why shouldn't spoiler warnings be another? After all, because [[WP:NOTPAPER], "we can give more thorough treatments, include many more relevant links, be more timely, et cetera." The first and third of these means that spoilers will occur more frequently. Since there are at least two reasons people may read articles about works of fiction (to find out about the production and to find out about the story), it makes sense to (at least optionally) indicate spoilers.

To put things in perspective, most of the articles with spoilers in them are things that aren't even covered by Brittanica. We have encyclopedic content on works of fiction that finished airing Sunday. That's not a bug... it's a feature. — PyTom (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"It's not in Britannica; therefore, Wikipedia shouldn't do it" is a naive argument, and I don't see anyone here putting it that way—at least, not lately. But that doesn't mean that external evidence is completely irrelevant. I think we should look at a broader range of source materials (not just encyclopedias) and a broader range of media (not just print) for guidance on key questions, like: What is a spoiler? What types of works, and what types of plot events, call for a warning? What form should the warning take?

Now, I know there are some people who say, "Who cares what anybody else does? Wikipedia is a new medium, and it doesn't matter what anyone else has done?" That argument has some appeal, since if Jimbo Wales had guided himself by what otehrs have done, we wouldn't have Wikipedia in the first place. But arguments that aren't somehow tethered to evidence are the weakest kinds. After all, many things on the web have been tried that no one had ever done before, and most quickly failed. Marc Shepherd 22:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Parsifal (21:39) wrote: " "hidden tags" does not quite express the idea .... preference-based optionally hidden/visible tags ... would increase the control of each reader to determine what they see"

Good observation; there does seem to be a public relations (PR) problem with the name of the "hidable/hidden spoiler tag compromise". Kusma didn't distinguish this default ambiguous name for the tag-hiding technique [1] from the systemic-solution compromise package named after the hidable/hidden tag feature. Kusma was also unaware that there are other features in the compromise such as the local consensus art jury, where "local" means "at the article's talk page" (and "local" is not slang for "active", "maintaining", or "regular" editors).

"Hidable" is Phil's term — as he correctly spelled it with no middle "e" — but he was talking about the old tags that are visible by default.

Ok, since they are now to be hidden by default, it's become the

" Showable spoiler tags compromise"

However, this name still doesn't communicate the other features of the systemic-solution compromise package. This bundled compromises package name is an unsolved problem.

This name does pass Melodia's question which is also about the PR of suggestion, not just logic. Logically, the name is ok either way, but in PR language unrelated to logic, if one is hiding something, that sounds bad; if one is showing something, that sounds good. Substitute "showable" into her question thus:

Samohyl (17:30) wrote: "why are some opponents of such compromise so interested in controlling what *other* people can see?" (I substitute:) "-- wouldn't showing the tags be doing /exactly that/?

I answer "no" to the logic, and "sounds good" to the PR suggestion.

I suggest thinking way ahead to a short phrase that might someday be allowed at the top of tagged articles or in a tag menu, and be nicely instructive for Google arrivees. Also consider the generic solution to turn on a tag menu for all kinds of tags using a top menu tab, like the | + | tab that only appears on talk pages menus. The latter may be obvious, | tags | , but what phrase might be used in a menu of tags which the clicked tab turns on (or appears on a button without the menu)?

• For menu pairs, "watch/unwatch" suggests "tag spoilers/untag spoilers", which renders:

| Tag spoilers | alternating with | Untag spoilers |

but that doesn't suggest a catchy public interest marketing name, say, like the USA grade school concept "Show and Tell". Parsifal mentions "hide/show", that suggests

Wikipedia's Hide'nShow spoiler tags

• Which then renders a menu pair of:

| Show spoiler tags | alternating with | Hide spoiler tags |

Feel free to join in brainstorming. Milo 07:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why this proposal is called a "compromise", but whatever. I have nothing against hiding spoiler tags by default (if I understand this correctly, I only have to edit MediaWiki:Common.css to make them invisible). However, we should not further clutter our already-too-complicated interface with even more buttons. If spoiler tags are hidden by default, users should enable them through Special:Mypage/Monobook.css. That is how all other user customizations work: through user-defined stylesheets and javascript. It even allows users to choose their own design for spoiler tags. Show tag/hide tag tabs can be implemented in user javascript if there is demand for them. Kusma (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If tags are hidden by default, that will just encourage editors to write spoiler warnings by hand, since they will think the template is broken. So that won't work. This has been discussed in depth already... — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but it seems to me that there's no lack of people who are willing to dedicate themselves to spoiler patrolling. Of course, I don't see any reason why spoiler tags shouldn't be shown by default... it's less intrusive then, say, Template:cleanup. — PyTom (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

True, except that the cleanup template is temporary. Most people arguing for spoiler tags want them on articles/places they'd be permanent. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Even temporary spoiler tags are more or less forbidden.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Carl, do you have some indicias for this, or is it just a theory? And if so, is there any indicias that it would be any worse than situation without any SWs? I doubt it, since it has not been tried. So this is a very weak argument. (As a side note, we can comment on the fact that SWs need to be switched on in the listing of the templates, so every newcomer who will try to use the template will be immediately informed. The other people won't see it's there, so there is no problem.) Oh, and btw, we could also say that users just need to be educated; the same argument was repeatedly raised by Tony in response that people will not expect spoilers without warnings in Wikipedia. Samohyl Jan 20:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I did a search for handmade spoiler tags a while back, and Tony Sidaway did a separate, independent search. We found quite a few. But I have also seen several instances where editors changed a handmade warning to use the tag. We don't want to make changes that encourage editors to use handmade tags (which are typically much less professional than the template). In any case, the question of hidable spoiler tags has been discussed enough already, and I don't feel like rehashing that, so I'm not planning to respond much further in this thread. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Although not proven, Carl's inferences are pretty reasonable. I'm sure it could be verified that the vast majority of Wikipedia users do not customize the interface. They accept it as-is. I suggested (above) that the percentage was 95%. It might be 90% or 99.99%, but I'm sure it is a high figure. If this is so, and if the tags are hidden by default, then most visitors to the site will never see the tags, and will therefore assume that they don't exist. Marc Shepherd 21:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Carl, you missed my point. Those you have seen were with the current version of the guideline, which discourages SWs, right? But if this happens now, then hidable SWs are *no worse*. I would like to hear an argument why hidable SWs make this problem worse than no SWs at all. If you already presented such argument before, I am sorry, I may have missed that, but from our previous debate I don't remember you did (and I presented this argument only once before, iirc). Samohyl Jan 22:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't going to happen because it would just needlessly clutter the articles with furniture that, while invisible to most readers, would be visible to editors. As such it would carry all the disadvantages of the old laissez-faire spoiler guideline without offering much in return. --Tony Sidaway 03:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you consider SWs not to be useful, you can say that it is "without offering much in return". This is your subjective opinion, other people may feel it is different. That's why it's called a compromise, but you're probably unwilling to have, even the slightest, compromise. And it's actually as little clutter as possible - one template is significantly less than comments that have to be maintaned on many pages to prevent some common wrong edits. Samohyl Jan 05:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Instead of making ridiculously false claims about my reasons for objecting, why not just listen to, and perhaps respond to, what I am saying?

This would bring back all the disadvantages we had before. At least when we had visible spoiler tags before it was arguable that most of those users who could derive some utility, however small, from the tags, could do so. This would provide no such thing. It would simply bring us back to the status quo ante but without visual effect on the articles for the vast majority of users. --Tony Sidaway 07:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Tony backed the recently revised guideline, which is considerably more accommodating of spoiler tags than the previous version. No one could say that he is unwilling to compromise.

But hidden spoiler tags are a dumb compromise, which even the most ardent supporters of the tags would be wise to oppose. What's the value of the tags if they are hidden by default, and therefore, most people don't see them? As I noted above the vast majority of users don't customize their interface. "Hidden by default" means "hidden to almost everybody." Marc Shepherd 13:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There is compromise and there is faux compromise. Tony, and others, have been relatively flexible on his willingness to engage in "Compromises that aren't". Because look, we're down to 3 spoiler tag usages on all of WP. The recently revised guideline is considerably more accommodating of spoiler tags, and yet, somehow, we've got even less spoiler tags.

I've used the example before, but I'll use it again. It's like if a country, accused of going to war too often, got together and said, "Okay, okay, we'll compromise. We won't invade another country when everybody agrees we shouldn't." And people think that's a fair compromise because they'll have some check on things. But then, the next time they want to invade, they simply have to say, "Ah, yes, but _We_ are _part_ of everybody, and we do not agree we shouldn't, so the invasion proceeds." That's not really a compromise at all.

Similarly, some of the anti-spoiler group _know_ they can keep spoilers down by means of the spoiler patrol, even if the wording of the guideline is, on the face, slightly more generous to spoilers. They win even if they _look_ like they're compromising, if it doesn't alter things in fact. So why _not_ compromise there? They are, after all, compromises that aren't. Whenever there are compromises proposed that would lead to a non-trivial number of spoiler warnings out there, heels are dug in.

I took a peek at some editing history. Not a long look, a peek. No more than the first page, and I stumbled across Talk:Bionicle, where they're discussing spoilers, because somebody had went through the bionicle pages and removed spoiler warnings using the discussion there as a justification. The discussion there, from the last few days, has 2 people who seem to be regulars on that page arguing that spoiler warnings should be used (and arguing that their use falls _within_ the guideline), and against? Why, who should it be by Tony, CBM, and, I'm sad to see, Marc Shepherd. That's it. Maybe, coincidentally, one or more of you are all particularly interested in Bionicle, but I doubt it. It looks like the ol' Spoiler Patrol again, hopping on when somebody dared use the spoiler tag without permission (or at all, since permission doesn't come). So it seems it's fine to allow a few boundary cases in theory so long as you control when they "count". A compromise includes not only the theory, but when the boundary cases count. Wandering Ghost 12:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

and, I'm sad to see, Marc Shepherd....

Ghost, did you read the substance of what I wrote on Talk:Bionicle? It's not that I objected to spoiler tags per se. It's that I felt they had been placed from a "fans-only" perspective. It's possible to be accommodating of spoiler tags, and yet, to point out when they've been misused.

I think the "Spoiler Patrol" argument is misplaced. There are people who patrol Wikipedia for tons of things, and there is nothing wrong with that. Those folks play a valuable role, because they have a broad perspective. Someone who comes here only to edit Bionicle articles may be an Bionicle expert, but won't necessarily be a great Wikipedia editor.

Those in favor of spoiler tags ought to spend some time looking at the quality of the tags that are placed, rather than merely lamenting the very small number of them. Marc Shepherd 12:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I am responding to your arguments, Tony. The problem is, arguments of you and other anti-spoilerists are sometimes contradictory. If the SWs are visible, you argue that they are condescending. If they are hidden, you argue the other way. These arguments are not themselves contradictory, but if you are willing to compromise, that means accepting having SWs where you do not want them, and then they will be either hidden or shown. If you maintain both positions, it really looks like you don't want to compromise. I will explain this later and more in the next section. Samohyl Jan 05:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Marc has correctly pointed out that I happily engaged in compromise over the recent rewrite of the guideline, as indeed I compromised over the earlier rewrite in late May--I would have been happy to see all spoiler tags removed.

Secondly there is nothing contradictory about arguing that tags that are only visible to editors will have all the bad effects on the editing of Wikipedia that led to the May rewrite, but will have none of the good effects that pro-spoiler editors argue for, except for that tiny minority of readers who are both willing and able to edit their CSS settings.

So we've been through two de facto compromises so far, both of which I supported. Must I support any and every compromise that comes along, no matter what my misgivings, simply to avoid being accused of refusing to compromise? --Tony Sidaway 05:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting footnote....

Since The Crying Game has come up a lot about 'ingrained into pop culture' and all that, what I find VERY interesting, is how The Simpsons thought it was OK to spoil that plot point a mere half a year after the movie came out -- in the episode Marge in Chains (here has the quote). Just a bit of a curveball...♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons is a show that built a reputation on pushing the envelope and being edgy (even if it has been overtaken in that regard by other programs). So what's analogous here? Postmodern Beatnik 02:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's been done it's been done. You can hardly accuse a wiki of not "pushing the envelope and being edgy". --Tony Sidaway 09:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the luddite 'this is an encyclopedia' argument seems to have such a sway over many powerful admins, it would seem that wikis can avoid pushing the envelope. See also WP:FLR for a similar retreat from innovation.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Flagged revisions are still under development and will almost certainly be rolled out in the German wikipedia, by all accounts, once they are ready. It will be only a matter of time after that before they are implemented here in some form. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and this is a problem. Perhaps Wikipedia can overcome its tendancy towards bureaucratic irrationality, perhaps not.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought that flagged revisions were an innovation, not the avoidance of such. Whether they're a good innovation may be debated (just like spoiler tagging), but that's a whole other matter. Not all innovations are good, and even good innovations must continue to evolve. Marc Shepherd 16:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The innovation in Wikipedia is being the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Flagged revisions are a retreat from this. The 'case' against spoiler warnings rests on appeals to tradition, outgroup stereotypes or unrepresentative examples. The case remains to be made. However, the innovation of the spoiler police has to rank amongst the very worst.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Your opposition to WP:FLR is certainly consistent with your "wild-west" approach to spoiler tagging. It's not a surprise that you're in the minority on both. "Anyone can edit" has proved to have significant drawbacks—just like "anyone can add a spoiler tag." Marc Shepherd 14:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm in a majority on the spoiler tags, as you well know. You have not explained why the wild west approach is a problem, except with appeals to tradition, outgroup stereotyping and unrepresentative examples. The problems with the spoiler police include people wasting their time making unproductive nuisance edits, petty exercise of power over normal editors and ignoring the guideline as written.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought the outcome of the RfC was that 40% wanted the tags. That sounds like a minority to me. That assumes the RfC was representative, which people on both sides dispute.

The problem with the Wild West approach has nothing to do with the points you named. It's simply that you have editing without rules. So Psycho gets a spoiler tag (because some editor happens to really want it there), but Citizen Kane doesn't get one (because another editor says the opposite). Maybe the first one is a Hitchcock fan (so he never looks at Welles articles), and the latter is a Welles fan (so he never looks at Hitchcock articles). The point of a guideline is to establish rules that help to decide which one is right. The Wild West means that everyone is equally right, and editors just do whatever they please. No one—regardless of whether they are pro-SW or anti-SW—should want that. Marc Shepherd 20:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no WP:CONSISTENCY, and it is quite common for featured articles on similar subjects to use slightly different styles. The effect of your argument is to legitimise mindless spoiler tag removal as it's always 'inconsistent'.--Nydas^(Talk) 06:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Every guideline, including the entire manual of style, is part of WP:CONSISTENCY. What we have now is highly consistent, but not what's desired. Those in favor of SW's need to define what the future state would look like, instead of just complaining that the current state is not what they want. To make progress, you need to be arguing for something, instead of just arguing against the status quo. Marc Shepherd 13:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The manual of style allows considerable flexibility, for example, featured articles use a wide variety of reference styles. I've said several times I would like to see a section stating that it is OK to use spoiler warnings on articles about recently released films.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The MOS does indeed allow considerable flexibility. But it limits choices too, as a good guideline should. I favor spoiler warnings on recently released films, but if they exist, they should be there consistently and reliably. Marc Shepherd 20:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That's just another way of saying it won't be allowed to happen. Even if the guideline is rewritten to explicitly allow spoiler warnings on recent films, the spoiler police will make sure none of them stick around.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is, we have a guideline that allows things, but doesn't require anything. The guideline should indicate where spoiler warnings are required, rather than merely saying that they are hypothetically permitted (if you can get consensus for them, which rarely happens). Marc Shepherd 18:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

My point was not about innovation, but rather that The Simpsons and Wikipedia are hardly analogous mediums. We're not trying to annoy anyone, cause controversy, or be edgy here. All of these things may be consequences of some of our choices, but it does not drive us. The reputation we are trying to maintain (and among many populations, still trying to create) is that of an encyclopedia: accurate, informative, reliable. That's why we must inlcude spoilers in our articles: it's the only way to create accurate and informative entries. But including spoiler warnings do not necessarily contravene those principles. Indeed, we have already gone many rounds demonstrating that they are, in their own way, both informative and (when well-placed) accurate. And as an internet encyclopedia, they may increase how certain populations view our reliability (that is, they can rely on us to conform to what has become a common internet ethic). Most encyclopedias don't even contain plot summaries, so this is new territory for our editors. Both the warnings and the summaries themselves areinnovations. Still, it seems that the extreme options have been ruled out; we're not going to get rid of the warnings altogether, and we're not going to place them everywhere any plot point—major or minor—is discussed. That seems reasonable to me, and reason is all I am here to defend. Postmodern Beatnik 15:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

At least you're arguing for consistency, which Nydas (post above yours) doesn't care about. But he is a troll; you're not. The next logical step is to propose a guideline that defines what an "informative...and accurate" spoiler warning would be. Most of the ones we're getting now are neither. Marc Shepherd 18:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

First, Marc, remember to assume good faith regarding Nydas. Second, I would like to clarify that I am not pro-spoiler warning. Nor am I anti-spoiler warning. I mention this because I want to make sure you don't take my comments into account when judging whether or not the pro-SW side has been clear about what they want. What I want is for decisions about Wikipedia to be made on the basis of sound arguments and not the kind of fallacious reasoning that has characterized this conversation. Third, spoiler warnings do not necessarily need to be themselves informative, accurate, and reliable. They need only not to contravene those values. But I would say any spoiler warning is informative (it informs that there is a spoiler ahead), that so long as it well-placed (e.g. not at the top of an article that doesn't contain spoilers until section 11, etc.) it is accurate, and that so long as the policy is adhered to closely, it is reliable. Of course, we are discussing ideals. Wikipedia will never be perfect. No encyclopedia will be. But still, ideals are useful as models to work towards. Postmodern Beatnik 19:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tag placement quality

I think it's worth looking at the "placement quality" of the spoiler tags that editors have been adding to articles lately.

By "placement quality," I mean:

• Are both {{spoiler}} and {{endspoiler}} used to bracket the sensitive material?
• Is the material bracketed by {{spoiler}} and {{endspoiler}} actually a spoiler?
• Do the tags successfully segregate spoiler-sensitive material from general information?

I continue to find that, overwhelmingly, the most common placement is on the entire plot section or the entire article. A majority of the time, {{endspoiler}} is not present.

When spoiler tags are used in this way, they aren't very helpful. It is often suggested that people who read Wikipedia articles may be looking for general information, but don't want major plot surprises to be "spoiled". If the whole article or the whole plot section is tagged, what good is it? The reader is given no clues to distinguish true "spoilers".

It therefore seems to me that if spoiler tags are going to make a big resurgence, we have to figure out how to better guide people on how to use them, because current usage isn't very helpful. Marc Shepherd 13:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

We do have guidance not to put them into plot sections. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's clear that many people who place {{spoiler}} tags have not read the guideline. Marc Shepherd 15:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be worth posting a note at the Village Pump; I don't know that the last major update was ever really announced. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think one problem is that people may not realize that plot sections contain spoilers... or at least, not until too late. (After all, it's at least possible to discuss the plot of a movie without giving away spoilers... movie reviewers do it all the time.) One possible compromise would be a fairly subtle way of indicating that a particular section may contain arbitrary spoilers. I made an example at: User:Pytom/Plot... I haven't tried to make it compatible with browsers other than firefox, but I'm wondering what people think. — PyTom (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are several parallel examples (the first one originally due to David Gerard, I think) that illustrate why that's not a good solution. Our goal is not to give movie reviews or to give spoiler-free accounts - our goal is to include all significant plot details regardless of whether they are spoilers. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Technical specification

Note: this section contains technical details.

Chemical synthesis

Note: this section contains details about chemical reactions.

Proof

Note: this section contains logical reasoning.

Plot

Note: this section contains significant plot details.

In all fairness, the above counter-examples aren't really relevant. No one is ever dismayed about being told how a chemical reaction works, but some readers might be dismayed about learning (before they see the film) that Darth Vader is Luke's father. Whether Wikipedia has any obligation to "protect" those readers—and if so, how—can be reasonably debated. But the analogy to a chemical reaction or a math proof isn't really helpful.

Part of the problem is that the pro-warning faction doesn't have unity about what problem they're trying to solve. There seem to be a few factions out there:

• Some people think that a section called "Plot" isn't sufficiently obvious as to its content, and that it requires further disclaimers — i.e. "When we say 'Plot', we really do mean the whole plot."
• Some people think that only very significant plot twists (Luke's father) need to be warned
• Some people think that the warnings are needed only where the work is fairly recent; others think that a spoiler is a spoiler, whether it's in Hamlet or Bionicle.
• Some people think that warnings are needed no matter where they occur; others think they are needed when they are in a truly unexpected place (i.e., not in a plot section).

Most of the pro-spoiler tag faction haven't articulated what they're in favor of. They just know they're against the status quo. Marc Shepherd 16:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The point of the examples is to demonstrate out the redundancy of putting a warning just below a section header that the section contains information that it must contain to warrant that section header. Whether that information is logical reasoning or plot details, we have to assume readers will trust that our section headers mean what they say. That's what people expect from a quality encyclopedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Your example analogy is wrong understanding of the problem. First, people don't care if they accidentally read a proof, but they may care if they accidentally read the ending. Second, people still want them as a reminder of this fact, even if they cover whole section, because they may forget, not realize what they are doing, etc. I understand that you try to look at the problem from logical perspective (consistency), but human perspective is more important there and humans excel in ability to deal with inconsistencies in reasoning (often by being inconsistent in what they want). Samohyl Jan 18:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to cater to people who read without paying attention. The purpose of section titles is to describe the content of the section; readers who fail to pay attention to large, bold text interspersed throughout the article don't need to be provided with additional bold text. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not just an attention problem. They need to actually realize that plot section contains SWs. To detect that header says 'Plot' is a pattern-detection problem, it works just automatically. To realize that maybe I don't want to know the plot for this particular piece requires much higher cognitive function. I personally skim over many articles when reading Wikipedia, and I believe it's *very* common usage pattern. And don't forget that amount of people who actually used SWs was quite large; you really want to be so hostile to all of them? Samohyl Jan 19:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I also believe that the number of people who actually realize that the Plot section contains spoilers is small... at least until a person reads a spoiler, and by then it's too late. That's why I like the idea of an unobtrusive tag in the Plot (and similar) sections reminding people about this policy. The page I linked above was one such take. We could obviously change the wording. "This section contains information that may spoil dramatic suspense." — PyTom (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What do these people expect to find in a plot section - coffee cake recipes? Just like a "proof" section will contain logical reasoning, a "plot" section will contain plot details. The situation before May included a proliferation of spoiler notices; these were removed after much discussion, and it is unlikely they will be reinserted. There is agreement that plot spoilers that appear in unexpected places may warrant tags, but not spoilers that appear in sections that are explicitly intended to contain spoilers. Readers will learn very quickly to take our section titles seriously. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"a "plot" section will contain plot details" Everyone knows that – it's a red herring to distract from the plot=spoilers fallacy. Plot details are not the same as spoilers. Some plot details are spoilers, others aren't. Some Plots with plot details contain spoilers; others don't.

"spoilers that appear in sections that are explicitly intended to contain spoilers." "Intended to contain spoilers" is not the same as 'does contain spoilers'.

"Readers will learn very quickly to take our section titles seriously." Logically they can't learn because spoiler content is inconsistently present under the same section titles. Sometimes they will get away with reading the "Plot" section and sometimes they won't.

"Readers will learn very quickly" As to why you even think like this, my guess is that since you are notably opposed to spoiler notices, you don't experience spoilering emotions the way that spoiler-averse readers do. I'm guessing that you think it's closer to the effect on a child of sticking pins in a electric outlet, to which one will go to great lengths to avoid in future. No – it's closer to being like Homer Simpson's feeling, that we empathize from cartoon context, when he gets disappointed by his goofups and says "Doh!".

In my case, having been spoilered a few times by reading this talk page, and once by a spoilering vandal elsewhere (Harry Potter twist, probably), my disappointment is flagged by a slight so-called sinking feeling.

Another editor here described reading Wikipedia Plot sections, hoping to stop before encountering a spoiler, in a way that I would liken to a game with chance elements of loss and gain. Obviously, gamers lose a lot of games, but they don't stop playing. Likewise readers aren't going to stop trying to read sections titled "Plot", "Plot summary", or "Synopis" (which contrary to the implied claim of the Spoiler guide, has the same definition as a "Plot summary"). Milo 06:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

(EC)I think a lot of people placing the tag have never heard of this guideline. Have a look at this: [2]. Before I got to it it merely said "sections, near top" - I changed it to "sections, just before spoiler details" due to a lack of space, but perhaps that should be changed to "see WP:SPOIL"? Kuronue | Talk 18:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a note at the top of the section pointing here, as a sort of compromise. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in arguments against spoiler warnings

I personally wish for a compromise that would allow people that hate SWs (as editors) and want SWs (as users) to coexist peacefully. But any such compromise would inevitably entail that SWs would be there, in some form. However, it seems to me that people who oppose SWs collectively argue in such a way that disallows any SWs to exists, and hence disallows any compromise. For example, there are two different arguments from SW opponents that, when put together, make it impossible for SWs to exist:

1. If the SWs are shown (by default), they are condescending and could make readers hate Wikipedia when they see them (this argument was very common in the original RfC).
2. If the SWs are hidden (by default), then there is a problem <insert your flavor> because they are invisible (I actually don't understand this problem much, there are many other comments for editors in articles which are invisible, but it doesn't matter to my point).

I proposed the SWs to be hidden to address the first problem (which is what bugged most people on RfC), but then the opponents started to argue the second way. Here is another similiar set of arguments:

1. If the SWs are inside the paragraph titled 'plot' or similar, it's obvious from the title it will contain spoilers, therefore they are redundant.
2. If the SWs are in the lead, it's not nice (I personally agree, but can imagine circumstances when it's useful).
3. If the SWs are in some other section, they probably won't belong there anyway (note that this is an implicit argument - usually, why would spoilers be in 'production', 'cultural impact' or 'references' section?).

So, if SWs can be there, where they should go? These counter-arguments cover every possibility where the SW can be placed in the article. And finally, third set of arguments:

1. If the SWs are at the beginning of the section, they serve no purpose, because there is the section heading.
2. If the SWs are inside the section, they make it harder/impossible to read/write about the plot.

Since I disagree with both of the arguments, I have no idea what kind of compromise can be made there, but still, since they cover all possible cases, they are incompatible with any SWs.

I would like that people who oppose SWs and are actually willing to compromise would choose from the three above lists of options what is more dear to them (for example, whether they would opt to see the SWs for their editing or not to see them for their reading, if they find them condescending). Then it would be possible to negotiate a compromise on that basis.

But, looking on the above list, it seems to me that it's like looking for reasons to oppose SWs, while the real reasons for opposing SWs are either traditionalism (Wikipedia is encyclopedia, whatever that means) or consistency (there are no warnings on nudes). These are bad reasons to oppose them, because they are subjective (ie. there is no rational basis for such feelings) and go against what a large minority of users wants (and I believe that readers matter much more here than tradition or rule consistency). Samohyl Jan 19:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is actively advocating deleting the spoiler template. Several people including me think the {{current fiction}} template is a reasonable way to alert readers to possible spoilers in new fiction. But the long discussion in the archives has shown many people agree spoiler warnings are generally redundant when placed in plot sections, whether they are hidden by default or visible by default. The proposal to allow them in hidden form seems to put us back where we were before the mass removal, except that far fewer readers would be able to see the tags, removing any possible benefit to the "large majority of users". — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I said nothing about deleting spoiler template; it's existence is not relevant if it's not used. If the SWs are not allowed in plot sections, they are not allowed in 99% of use cases. And in many cases, there is no other place to put them in the article than there. That's what I consider a problem with this. I don't understand why going back before mass removals would be so bad. Main arguments against SWs at that time were that they are condescending and too proliferate (in many sections in article and in fairy tales), which is not related to the plot sections argument. I personally would prefer if they would be usually only in one section - plot, and perhaps in trivia section, if the article is really long. This should be more than enough to alert the reader. Samohyl Jan 20:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, do you agree with the main argument of this section? If you do, then I take it you don't consider SWs to be condescending (if you argue that hidden are bad). Samohyl Jan 20:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if 99% of the places spoiler tags might be used are in plot sections then they can't be used in 99% of the places they might be used. That leaves 1% of cases where the use can be discussed. I generally agree with JzG's assessment: "spoiler tags are redundant in plot / synopsis sections, absurd in articles on older and especially classic works, a substitute for {{original research}} in articles on future or forthcoming films, and possibly defensible in a small number of cases for new releases where knowing the plot twist is identified by external sources as a spoiler for the subject." However, I think that {{current fiction}} is appropriate for many of the new releases in which there is a concern about spoilers. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

First, I think that suggesting "current fiction" as a replacement for SWs is wrong understanding of what SW proponents want and need. You probably think that SW supporters are mostly fans who will come to recent object of their admiration and start shouting about spoilers. While in reality, most supporters probably use the Wikipedia to decide whether some piece of fiction is worth looking into, no matter what age it has (it may be the film from 70s that's just on TV, it may be an older book from Isaac Asimov, whatever). So such solution is looking at the wrong problem, therefore it's wrong. The SWs are primarily about usability. That's why I find the redundancy argument so odd. As an analogy, say you have a computer application with GUI. You could argue that the menu is redundant, because all commands in the menu have keyboard shortcuts, which are faster anyway, and furthermore, getting rid of the menu will make your application faster and smaller, and power-users don't use the menu at all. But if you remove the menu, you will lose almost all the users. In theory, you may be right and your application is now more logical. But in practice, and from the human perspective, this is just wrong thing to do. Samohyl Jan 03:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen much compromise from the pro-SW camp either. Their main idea is to make the warnings either hidden by default (but optionally viewable), or visible by default (but optionally hidable). Either version of that idea is utterly looney. Both fail because they start with the premise that as long as the anti-SW editors don't have to see the warnings, they'll stop caring about the issue. The reality is that most serious editors (regardless of their viewpoint on spoilers) aren't so easily duped. Editors who don't think SW's belong in WP aren't going to suddenly forget about them because they're hidden. And editors who do think they belong shouldn't be happy to see them cloaked behind a css script. Marc Shepherd 21:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"And editors who do think they belong shouldn't be happy to see them cloaked behind a css script." They aren't happy about it, but they are willing to compromise.

"Editors who don't think SW's belong in WP aren't going to suddenly forget about them because they're hidden." By implication they are bothered by what they can't see, an example of control-freakery. It's generally considered to be a character flaw. IIRC, you are the only one who has ever previously made this claim. Are you a control freak, or are you just defending the indefensible? Milo 03:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, Milo, the idea of optionally viewable spoiler tags has been opposed by many people, not just me. If I were the only one saying this, the proposal would have been adopted by now.

As you are apparently the expert at character flaws, perhaps you can put a label on the person who continues to propose the identical compromise, over and over again, but never gets anywhere. Would "stubborn" be the word? Marc Shepherd 11:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The entire policy is a compromise by the pro-spoiler side, and a very poor one, one that's been heavily weighted against spoilers. Many of the pro-warning people are trying to shift it back the other way, but there's the lack of compromise from the other direction.

The compromise policy said that spoilers are _generally_, _usually_ not appropriate for within plot sections. Note those two words. It's not a universal. It allows for judgement. And that might well be a fair compromise. Except of course, the spoiler patrol goes on and almost constantly judges 'no', sometimes even arguing right from the start that "no, plot obviously means spoilers so we don't need it at all". These in articles that they're unfamiliar with and thus have no real way of telling whether the work actually is uncommonly reliant on a plot twist. Even that might have been okay and given a good idea of what consensus actually is, if we were in a situation where people who are pro-spoilers had just as much power due to the technical landscape. But they don't. People who are against spoilers can search for any new addition of a spoiler tag and remove it, citing whatever their reasons (and if they desired they can even remove spoilers from sections where the guideline explicitly allows them, and only if someone on that page is up on what's going on and decides to fight it will it go on uncorrected because it can't be easily seen). People who are _for_ spoilers, if the spoiler is gone, have no idea anyone even attempted to put it in and no way of knowing that. The activity of the spoiler patrols thus obfuscate consensus, even attempt to override it. All compromises of the pro-spoiler camp have served to make this sort of imbalance greater, and a de facto no spoilers policy easier to enforce. They landscape is skewed so anti-spoiler people can win almost every single battle on an individual page, even if they are up against much greater numbers of pro-spoiler people _overall_. So it's not a good compromise for the pro-spoiler side. It's a great compromise for the anti-spoiler group, but it's not really a compromise if one side gets all they want and the other gets almost none of what they want.

As you've pointed out, the pro-warning side is more varied than the anti-spoiler side. As such, different people have their thresholds at different levels. I myself would prefer to see spoiler warnings much more freely, even within plot sections. I compromised. More than some, and less than others, probably, but I did, as did a lot of the pro-warning side. As to the anti-warning side, well, we've can easily see how much they compromised, since their ideal is to have no spoiler warnings at all... and they compromised enough to allow 3 spoiler tags in all of wikipedia (as of yesterday, I didn't check today). That must have been really hard on you, to give up that much. Poor anti-spoiler side.

So, since I'm not getting a corresponding level of compromise from the other side, I can't in good conscience support my previous compromise state anymore. Until something is done about the spoiler patrol, this current policy is a failure. Either the policy needs to have clear "You should not have spoiler warnings here, and you SHOULD have spoiler warnings here (not optionally you might choose to)" for well defined categories, or it needs to be much looser overall in terms of restrictions - that editors should be allowed to place spoiler tags at their own discretion (which would at least prevent the spoiler patrol from appealing to authority). I strongly recommend pro-spoiler groups attempt to edit the policy in one of these directions, and ignore the false compromises that are making our goals moot in fact even when it looks fair on the surface. Wandering Ghost 16:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Mark, if some people want SWs and some do not, then there is no other way for compromise to have them either hidden or shown (by default). This is just logic. If you say that both is "utterly looney", you are basically saying "having SWs at all is utterly looney", which is "no compromises" position. Also, the premise you assign my compromise is wrong. The actual premise is that most people (in the original RfC discussion) opposed SWs on the basis that they are condescending to readers, and that they hurt Wikipedia. That's what I try to remedy, while retaining SWs for those people who find them useful. The compromise on the part of those against is that SWs would still exist, and the compromise on part of those for SWs is that they have to enable them. Both of these things can be a royal pain in the ass, but that's because it's compromise, and it avoids the main point of contention (which, at least in the RfC, seems to be "what will general public think of SWs"). So I have never argued along the line that the opponents wouldn't see them and they shouldn't care - they could have them switched on, of course, just like anyone else. Oh, and btw, the support for this compromise is about fifty-fifty - opponents of SWs are mostly against, defendants of SWs are mostly for. Samohyl Jan 17:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Samohyl & Wandering, for the record I am in favor of considerably more use of SW's on Wikipedia than we have today. Unfortunately, the template {{spoiler}} is awful. It takes up too much space in the article, and it doesn't use the very word ("spoiler") that the average person would expect.

In addition, the guideline we have is too vague, so most editors who place spoiler warnings are extremely sloppy about it, and the warnings they add are often useless. I therefore consider the guideline a complete failure. However, we're stuck with it until we come up with a better one.

In the past, I suggested that Nydas and Milo (two of the most militant pro-SW contributors) choose five articles apiece that they believe warrant SW's, and indicate how they think the SW should be placed. Both of them refused. If they can't be bothered to choose five examples, then it must not be very important to them.

But I'd like to make the same suggestion to Samohyl Jan and Wandering Ghost. Choose five articles that you believe ought to have spoiler tags. Indicate you believe how the tags would be placed, and what they would look like. Then we'd have something concrete to look at. Perhaps it would be wise to do it in your user space, so we can play around with alternatives without disrupting the articles. Marc Shepherd 17:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a novel argument. So you are basically saying that you oppose the SWs existence on the basis that SW template doesn't contain word "spoiler" and that it doesn't look good? It's a bit strange, but as you wish - here is my view: I don't care how do they do look like, as long as it isn't really really bad (flashing, yellow 36pt font and stuff like that). I am primarily interested in the usability they bring. As for the wording, I actually find it nice that SW template avoids the word "spoiler"; it sounds much more professional to me. I pretty much agree with the current wording, and as a non-native English speaker I cannot think of any better one. Samohyl Jan 20:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that I oppose SWs because the template is poorly designed. I am saying that, while we are in the process of improving the guideline, the template needs to be improved too. It sucks. Marc Shepherd 21:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at this from the perspective of making the warnings there, but by default hidden, ok?

• Firstly, you make them visible, you must create an account.
• Secondly, you need to know about the ability to make the visible.
• Thirdly, there need to actually BE spoiler warnings, or it doesn't matter in the first place.
• Adding all of that together, you get less and less people who that would be a positive solution for. Remember, if there's no warning, you can't unhide them, so you can't be 'safe' if there's still no warning, can you? So we end up back at square one, if not even to there, as at THIS point we have a large number of articles that would need tagging in order for this methos to be effective.
• I just don't see enough people caring about adding them if they won't be visible to the majority of users. I think that's why it's a bad idea. NOT that it won't work in theory, but that in practice it simply will be pretty much the same situation we have now, but worse as you add the assumed 'safety net' that isn't there all. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 18:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ad 1. It's technically possible to do even for anonymous users, actually (Firefox, which can do this, is for free download and works on all platforms, no big problem here). Ad 2. True, but you still have that option. If you would expect SWs and have something spoiled, then you can decide to enable them if you want. Currently, you are screwed. Ad 3. It's funny that so many articles having SWs before May were no practical obstacle in removing them. Ad 4. And I don't see how "encyclopedia editable by anyone is ever going to work" - the point being, you cannot tell how it would come out unless you try. To sum up, why you argue that the optionally showable SWs are not good, when to everybody from pro-spoiler camp is obvious it's better than no SWs at all? Are you trying to convince us that water is dry? Samohyl Jan 20:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Samohyl, most people believe that if a particular type of material belongs in Wikipedia, then everyone should see it. If a particular type of material doesn't belong, then no one should see it. Heretofore, there has been no middle category — "belongs, yet seen by almost no one." The problem is that, in an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, sunlight is the only quality control. The quality of material that is generally invisible will tend inevitably to degrade.

My everyday observation is that {{spoiler}} is usually misused. Editors tend overwhelmingly to put it on the entire plot, making no distinction between actual spoilers and high-level non-spoiler storyline information. We need to focus on a workable definition for where {{spoiler}} is appropriate. And having done so, it needs to be always visible, so that conscientious editors can repair the inevitable mistakes. Marc Shepherd 14:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, even if they were hidden, everybody could see them if they used edit button, or configured it to see them. You are actually perfect example of the point I made above - you say "I don't mind SWs, but they must be visible by default", while other opponents (like Tony or David Gerard) say "they cannot be seen by general public, because what they will think of us". You see, it's impossible to compromise with *both* groups of SW opponents (for example, you and Tony). So for compromise to work, which view among the opponents of SW is in the majority? If the public perception is the main problem, then we make consensus with hidden SWs. If lack of oversight for SWs hidden by default is bigger problem, then let's make consensus with shown tags. I am open to anything, but it must be logically possible. But what I gather from original RfC, you're in the minority with your views (because before, it was possible to hide SWs, so your proposal was already tried in a sense). Samohyl Jan 07:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, "hidden by default, optionally viewable" has never been tried.

I agree that my position on SW's may very well be in the minority. But as I noted here, the pro-SW camp isn't unified either. In many cases, you can't even tell what a pro-SW editor is in favor of. Marc Shepherd 11:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

SF Chronicle and spoilers

Marc (11:06, 5 October 2007) wrote: "person who continues to propose the identical compromise, over and over again, but never gets anywhere" Hehe, I persist, you're stubborn. Actually, the correct word is "campaigner". Presenting one's party/candidate or public question position persistently is how a public campaign works.
"identical" You aren't paying attention. One can't sell a concept using the wrong language. Just this last week I figured out from the debate that "hidable" was the wrong terminology (refers to default visible tags), and that "showable" is the correct marketing term for default hidden tags.
"never gets anywhere" If you were so sure of that, you'd be long gone from here. I guess that the pro-tag campaign movements toward goal seem like too small increments of progress to you, but you are just too young to know that chipping away millimeter by millimeter is the normal pace of a minority rights campaign. (The best wry humor of the 1960's USA Civil Rights campaign was the slogan "A 100 years is a long time to wait to get into the bathroom".)
"proposal would have been adopted by now" With the wrong terminology previously in use? Maybe other things need to be tweaked too. Also, you're getting impatient because you don't have a good sense of how big Wikipedia is in terms of opinion change inertia, especially given the usual oppression of minorities in access to tools like AWB. I've stated many times my estimate that this debate is five months into a 12 to 24 month public issue campaign. Only seven more months to go before the minimum campaign ends; maybe another 12 after that. Tighten your seat belt.
Speaking of worrisome news to the anti-taggers, Wikimedia announced that they are moving to SanFranciso.[3] Let's see now, wasn't it the SanFrancisco Chronicle that announced that spoilers are immoral? [4] Kinda looks like Wikimedia is moving closer to the possibility of a "spoiler site" confrontation with big publishing/Hollywood - in the pages of their soon to be local paper that's already taken a position. That's unexpected bad luck, eh? But don't worry, just stick your head back in the sand. Milo 09:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Could we just straighten this out, Milomedes?

When you state that the San Francisco Chronicle has "announced that spoilers are immoral" and "taken a position", are you referring to the commentary by Bruce Weinstein, in an op ed column known as "Open Forum" on page B11 of the Chronicle, dated Friday, July 20, 2007, alongside a note that a longer version of the same column had already appeared on BusinessWeek's website, businessweek.com? [5] [6] --Tony Sidaway 09:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you are surely correct rather than the SanFranciso Chronicle. I did try to fact-check this point, but I hadn't previously noticed that sentence near the bottom (not alongside), where it also refers to Weinstein's piece as a "commentary" and "column". SFC, perhaps inadvertently, called it an "editorial" in the alongside box ("Editorial: Spoiling is immoral"). M-w.com's definition of "editorial" (2,noun) is: "a newspaper or magazine article that gives the opinions of the editors or publishers; also : an expression of opinion that resembles such an article <a television editorial>". The newspapers I read reserve that term for themselves.

So, who is Bruce Weinstein? Here are the author credits from the longer version of his immoral-people-who-deliberately-spoiler column [7] at BusinessWeek.com:

"Bruce Weinstein, Ph.D. is the corporate consultant and public speaker known as The Ethics Guy. He has appeared as an ethics analyst on The Today Show, Good Morning America, Anderson Cooper 360, Lou Dobbs Tonight, The O'Reilly Factor, MSNBC Live, Bloomberg Television's Personal Finance, and many other national television programs. For more information, visit The Ethics Guy.com"

I wonder what he's going to say about Wikipedia? He's not going to praise. If he gives WP a pass, no credit accrues to anyone. I'm not impressed with your position that has only a potential downside — because if it's blame, fair or not, you Tony, are going to take the biggest share of looking bad.

Ok, it's better locally for Wikimedia than I thought, but worse nationally than I thought. Never mind that the SanFrancisco Chronicle was the first paper publisher. Who of any importance outside SanFrancisco reads BusinessWeek.com? No problem, just stick your head back in the sand. Milo 11:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You're running ahead of me here. I just wanted to establish that the Chronicle comment was the one I had read. I'm sure Mr Weinstein wouldn't be the first person to make comments critical of Wikipedia. I suspect we'll survive. --Tony Sidaway 11:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What some guy for a newspaper says is really irrelevant to anything we have to worry about when making WP guidelines. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Everything Wikipedia does has been criticized by somebody. Marc Shepherd 14:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Current fiction tag

What on earth is the point of adding this tag to the top of a film when in 99% of cases, the first sentence states "released in 2007" - do we expect that most of our readers are unable to work out that a film released in 2007 is recent and that by reading the article they may spoil their enjoyment of the film? I have seen it added to a couple of articles and it adds nothing - so I have removed it as redundant. --Fredrick day 08:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I would think such would be better discussed at its talk page. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the Current fiction tag vigilanties have arrived wanting their police badges from the clique. Y'know, in the real world, when police get out of control a police commission can be formed. Milo 06:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Three Spoiler Warnings

According to [8], there are currently three articles that use {{spoiler}} in all of Wikipedia. I've been checking for a couple days, and the number's bounced around for a bit, but I don't think it's been more than twenty or so articles.

What this means is that, despite the existence of a policy allowing spoiler warnings, Wikipedia is a de-facto spoiler warning-free zone. Articles containing major spoilers (The Sixth Sense, for example) have those spoilers unflagged.

Is it time for some sort of poll or other discussion (another RfC, maybe), the subject of which should be to decide if Wikipedia should include any spoiler tags at all? — PyTom (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

There is already consensus that spoiler warnings may sometimes be appropriate. --Tony Sidaway 05:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would mention that many spoiler warnings were removed awhile back, and the pro-spoiler warning camp has been waiting for the dust to settle on this conversation before adding any of them back in. This will artificially decrease the number of spoilers for some time. Postmodern Beatnik 19:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

De facto spoiler notice

I've removed this bullet point from the guideline because it is incorrect:

• A section header such as "Plot Summary," "Detailed Summary," or "Synopsis" can be considered a de facto spoiler notice — a synopsis will necessarily describe the entire plot, so there is usually no need to repeat the warning.

The words "summary" and "synopsis" (which means 'a brief summary') do not indicate that the entire plot of a piece of fiction will be present in a section. Rather, a heading such as Entire plot *does* indicate the entire plot is present. The bullet point "consider changing the header to something clearer" covers this. To the 9 editors on all of Wikipedia that object to the {{spoiler}} template (or I should say, to the 9 editors on all of Wikipedia that object so much to the {{spoiler}} template that they put a userbox on their user page), perhaps you should start renaming headings named Plot or Plot summary to titles such as Entire plot or Every plot detail in order to present a more accurate description of the content of certain sections.

A heading titled Plot carries no guarantee of the content that comes below it. Every detail of a plot may be included, it may not. It depends on who has been editing the article and what edits they have made. Film critics and videogame critics and book critics routinely describe the plots of films/games/books without telling readers every detail of the respective plots. Wikipedia is not CliffsNotes. And Wikipedia articles should not be substitutes for viewing/playing/reading a piece of fiction. If the entire plot of a piece of fiction is present in a article and you object to the presence of a {{spoiler}} template, I suggest you rename the section heading accordingly.

Also, it may be useful to review the discussion on the talk page of the {{plot}} template (and other pages) that discusses whether long plot descriptions may constitute copyright violations and may not qualify as fair use. Thanks. --Pixelface 05:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If a plot summary in an encyclopedia does not include the ending, it means it is incomplete. A plot summary not including spoilers probably needs to be edited for completeness. That non-encyclopedias have incomplete plot summaries does not mean we have to add redundancy to all our articles about fictional things again. I have reverted your edit, as it made the guideline even less descriptive of the current practice regarding spoiler templates. Kusma (talk) 05:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Wikipedia is not a fan site, it's an encyclopedia. Our articles must tell you everything significant about a subject, or else they're incomplete. --Tony Sidaway 05:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)