Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 8

November 8

Template:Birth date and age

Template:Birth date and age (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The age displayed on the template makes it confusing, as the template is used for showing birth dates. (Did Sean Connery get born at the age of 77?).. _→AzaToth 22:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, the nom has a point, but delete for the reason that mirrored and printed information will soon be out of date (see WP:DATED). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, (and do not rename) this template is a great use of the electronic nature of wikipedia to calculate information. It will not become dated if printed, because the template already includes a "noprint" tag around the age. The confusion issue has also already been discussed and all alternatives were rejected as being convoluted and unnecessary (why would anyone think this was ever claiming people were born at an age of say 32, as opposed to saying they are currently 32?). Lastly the template is currently used in over 75,000 pages, so it would appear that a great number of editors like the template. —MJBurrage • TALK • 23:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I think the template is quite useful. The template uses {{age}} and dynamically generates the age of a person based on today's date so readers don't have to subtract in their heads. I think using a template to display age is preferable to manually writing it, since the template updates automatically. I don't think the age is confusing, the template displays (age 77). I suppose it could be altered to display (77 years old as of November 9, 2007), but I think it's fine how it is now. --Pixelface 00:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Rename The template defaults to month-day-year output, which is inappropriate for most of the world. Sure, you can put in the "df=y" parameter, but very few editors go to this trouble, with the result that this useful template is changing articles using International Dating to a mix of ID and American Dating. The George Best article is one of thousands of examples. I propose renaming the template to American birth date and age and adding another with similar operation but defaulting to International Dating format. --Pete 01:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't Rename I'm undecided on the WP:DATE issue however if this template is being kept don't rename it. This is not a rename suggestion but rather a suggestion to branch the template into two versions, one with "day first" as default and the other with "month first" as default. That would be a mistake because the correct template and options to use are more discoverable with one template rather than two. See this previous discussion. -- PatLeahy (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and do not rename This has been gone over in the past and the template has been kept. I don't know what possible new arguments there could be. As far as making two templates, that just complicates the matter. Then editors would have to remember both template names instead of just remembering one and a simple parameter. And really, the parameter is only necessary for non-logged in users since those with accounts would most likely have their preferences set to show them the date how they like. Dismas|^(talk) 13:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Most of our readers don't have accounts, so they see a mish-mash of date formats. Nor does any editor remember the template names. They just cut and paste them, which is how we get wrong formats occurring. I prefer quality over laxity. --Pete 17:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: I honestly cannot understand the issues with this at all. When I first realized that it was a template calculating age, what went through my mind wasn't "that might be confusing", but "hey, that's really useful". Anyone who ACTUALLY can't understand what it's saying probably isn't going to get much out of the rest of WP either. As for the date order issue, this is something that, as has been said, is easily fixed with preferences (and part of the reason there are a lot more accounts than actual accounts that make edits). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Anyone who knows template programming can change the output to satisfy the desire for internationalization, if that's all you want. (You needn't be so dramatic as to call for the destruction of something that isn't perfect: just ask for an update. :-) --Uncle Ed 21:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • • Comment. Anyone who knows template programming. Yeah, that's what percentage of our editors, exactly? I can't see how you can satisfactorily internationalise a single template. At least not using our current wikilink system of date formatting. The template should have a default output, and the WP editor population being US-centred that default is always going to be month-day-year. Requiring a casual editor to look up and insert an arcane flag of "df=y" is a big ask. As we can see it's not happening as it would in a perfect world of nerds and programmers. One big factor is that most editors have date prefs set, so when they insert the template, the output looks just fine to them. But to our readers, who are the vast majority of WP users, they see dates in the wrong format - look at William Roache, who is probably unknown outside the UK, but a household name within - and could be excused for considering Wikipedia to be a Yankee thing, rather than the world's child. --Pete 01:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- I find it very useful and it is used in many infoboxes and many articles too. I use it too. —Coastergeekperson04^{'s talk} 07:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:International Mister Gay

Template:International Mister Gay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - there's only a single article linked to it so it serves no navigational purpose. — Otto4711 20:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Only one article, appears to have been a unfinished attempt at creating a series of articles related. No need @ this point. SkierRMH 20:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Personality rights

Template:Personality rights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is intended as disclaimer template to be used on images of living and recently deceased individuals. It is currently transcluded on 26 images, although its scope extends to all images that include a living person, regardless of whether the person is the primary subject of the image. There are at least three issues with this template. First, the WP:BLP policy extends to all material involving living persons, including images, thus making the disclaimer redundant. Second, particular laws related to personality rights vary across jurisdictions (although I would think we would need to worry primarily about the jurisdiction in which Wikimedia's servers are located) and a general notice is not especially informative. Third, the template is transcluded only on 26 images, and the "lack of the disclaimer on certain pages as opposed to others might open Wikipedia to lawsuits" (per WP:NDA). — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: Commons has a similar template at commons:Template:Personality rights. --Iamunknown 20:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• delete per Black Falcon. Commons should deal with its own issues. JoshuaZ 22:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Simpsons Mini Stories

Template:Simpsons Mini Stories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It's an unnecessary template with an ill-defined criteria for inclusion. It says "mini stories", but what does that mean? The "trilogy episodes" of the later seasons? The Treehouse of Horror episodes? Or special episodes that involve several mini plots like 22 Short Films About Springfield? I think generally we should avoid making too many templates for episodes or else eventually you'll have one for every character and every type of episode. — Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, this amounts to original research because it collects a series of vaguely related articles under a never-used moniker. Now, if there were a Simpsons DVD box set or something to collect them, that would be a different story (although a template probably wouldn't be the best way to connect them anyway). Axem Titanium 17:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, the term "mini stories" does not seem to be used consistently in the referenced article; or 'officially' in the main articles. Agree that it's probably OR. SkierRMH 20:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. mini stories? Roxi2 21:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Spoiler

Template:Spoiler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is totally unencyclopaedic (how many other encyclopaedias actually have "Spoiler Warning" notices?), and is superseded by Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, which explicitly states "Wikipedia contains spoilers." This template is no longer in frequent mainspace usage, appearing only on 10 mainspace pages. I don't see how it could be considered "useful" if that many actual articles are going to use it. I'll try to avoid POV-pushing this TfD, it was horrific looking at how the last nominator had to respond to every keep vote.

I am aware that the last TfD resulted in a keep, however that was a year and a half ago. As I said before, it's summed up in Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, only 10 1 mainspace pages have the template now, and you don't expect a spoiler warning in an encyclopaedia.

Note: if the result here is Delete, then Template:Endspoiler should be deleted as well, as it would then be useless. L337 kybldmstr 07:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(Check current spoiler template use here)

• Delete and revert the spoiler guideline to this version (which describes the actual practice of no spoiler warnings). For a huge amount of related discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Spoiler and Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive index. {{current fiction}} is enough to satisfy the needs of the spoiler-averse on recent releases, and there was never a consensus even among generally pro-spoiler tag editors when exactly {{spoiler}} should be used. Kusma (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• See here for the current mainspace links: [1]. Kusma (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the last TfD was actually six months ago, but it was irregularly and arbitarily closed by Tony Sidaway, probably because it was going the wrong way.
  • See my research into the History of May 2007 MfD, TfD, RFC, and template notices posted below in the #Long comments section. Milo 11:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• 'Unencyclopedic' is a just a coded way of saying 'I don't like it'. The claim, offered by the anti-spoiler people, that encyclopedias don't have spoiler warnings, is unsupported by any known definition of encyclopedia, and seems to just have been made up by them. It's rather like a medieval shipwright insisting that all ships must be made of wood, and a metal ship is fundamentally 'unshiplike'. The reason (most) other encyclopedias don't have them is technical limitations or niche audiences.
• Spoiler warnings help people find information they want, or avoid information they don't want. They're no different from punctuation, tables or headings. People use Wikipedia to research fiction they haven't seen yet, but the anti-spoiler faction views this as illegitimate and undesireable behaviour, even in the context of differing release dates around the world. Phil Sandifer has expressed the patronising view that non-Americans on the Internet should be used to avoiding spoilers, and CBM thinks that if you want to avoid spoilers, you should never read Wikipedia fiction articles.
• Spoiler warnings are a useful tool for ensuring neutrality, accessibility and a worldwide view. The fact that they have been removed is down to a lack of respect for these on the part of a tiny number of admins. This is down to their fan-centric worldview; Phil Sandifer thinks some articles are 'fans-only', though it remains a mystery how this is determined. Hilariously, Memory Alpha and Wookiepedia were cited in the early stages of the debate as 'examples' to follow. The number of people that have added at least one spoiler warning dwarfs the number of those who have removed more than one, probably by a factor of a thousand to one. Their usage will recover in the event of normal editing patterns taking over from centralised spoiler patrol.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The world's two largest encyclopedias, the English and German Wikipedia, do not have spoiler warnings. Most large online fiction encyclopedias have a single warning on the main page and no specific content warnings further on. I don't think anyone who hasn't been listening to you for months even understands what you mean by the strawman arguments where you take single quotes by Phil Sandifer and CBM out of context. That spoiler warnings interfere with neutrality was amply demonstrated by Phil Sandifer at the RFC. Kusma (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Amply demonstrated? You mean taking the Crying Game and Valen and generalising wildly? The latter is arguably fancruft, and the former still doesn't have any references for its alleged importance within the LGBT community. What about all the featured articles that had them? Should be trivial to point to problems there.--Nydas^(Talk) 13:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm puzzled by something - on the one hand, you think Valen is fancruft. On the other, you reject the idea that the article is "fan only" (which remains a misrepresentation of my view - it would be more accurate to say that Valen is an advanced topic in Babylon 5, much like Hydrohalogenation is an advanced topic in chemistry - it's not an article that is designed to give basic information on the larger topic.) As for Crying Game, which of the 100+ academic articles about the queer politics of the film would you like me to cite? Because 100 footnotes for one line seems excessive, but one doesn't really capture the breadth of it. Phil Sandifer 15:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Speaking of The Crying Game, you only have to cite one reliable source that reveals the plot of the film to include the plot in the article. I only need to cite one reliable source that uses a spoiler warning when describing the plot to include the {{spoiler}} template in the article. --Pixelface 21:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Articles should not be written about fancruft or from a fan-only perspective. The two often overlap, but it is not necessary that they do. That fictional characters are 'advanced' topics strains credibility; how is design or actors or the other out-of-universe stuff we're supposed to include 'advanced'? As for the Crying Game, any one will do.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep First of all the argument that the template is unencycloaedic is completely fallacious: there has never been a general encyclopaedia with Wikipedia's breadth and depth; other encyclopedias simply don't have the space to go into the details of a work of fiction's plot so have never had to deal with the spoiler issue. Second, the only reason that there are currently under 10 tags is that a tiny group of 4 or 5 editors are consistently reverting then everywhere, holding back the floodgates; if these 4 or 5 editors were to stop then we would soon be back to the genuine consensus on the issue and have some hundereds/thousands of tags. Tomgreeny 10:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Most spoiler tags are added in a violation of the guideline and in places where there is a consensus against having them (for example, right under a ==Plot== header). Of course these are removed immediately. There is also no way for a handful of editors to force this issue if there truly is general consensus that these tags are useful. Kusma (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Umm, the guideline says "a spoiler tag may be appropriate even within a properly labeled "Synopsis" section. These should be sourced when possible..." yet that keeps getting conveniently ignored. --Pixelface 14:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Poll #1 shows a 40+% minority strongly in favor (wants spoiler tags on historical and classical) and ~60% current fiction only, opposed, or don't care, leading to my present conclusion that there is no consensus. A handful of top-level clique editors can and have forced their personal POVs under these circumstances. I checked at WTalk:Spoiler pre-mass-removal archive today, and noticed a Melodia comment suggesting to me that this lack of consensus is longstanding. Milo 11:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Detailed plot details considered 'spoilers' are unencyclopedic. Martin B 11:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • According to WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, "... is so vague, it gives no information on why the article should be deleted." (WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions) Therefore, I recommend that your vote be appropriately discounted by the closer. Milo 11:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a useful template and aids in organizing information, and the attempt to delete the template seems to be yet another attempt at the completely anti-spoiler-warning side to try to get their way when the discussion of the policy itself seems to be going in the other diretion. As other mentioned, there is a determined spoiler patrol who delete pretty well all spoiler warnings without real regard to the policy, and there's a technical imbalance where it's impossible for people who want spoilers to keep up to the same degree. In any event, the number of people who remove spoilers is outweighed by the number of people who add them, which indicates that consensus is in favour of using them. Wandering Ghost 12:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "number of people who remove spoilers is outweighed by the number of people who add them," Now there's a good point. The inside editors who do this should be countable, and the last spoiler police report said about five IPs were adding text tags per day - mostly or all different IPs daily? With perhaps a million narrative suspense fans on the internet (over 1,500,000 hits on four kinds of spoiler notices), the IPs could well be mostly different every day. Milo 11:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Do we REALLY need to rehash the thousands of K of arguments back and forth than have been going on for months (and hell, years)? I can already see it turning into that. I don't know what else can be said, really, but anything said here will undoubtetdley have been said at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler. Though, this should be about the TEMPLATE'S existence, which, oddly enough, consensus seems to be favored toward keeping even by the "anti crowd", at the very least as some sort of compramise measure. No idea what else to write that I haven't already said... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • They seem well summarized so far, plus I've already seen one new idea. This TfD is something of a stand-in for a referendum on six months of campaigning at WTalk:Spoiler. Milo 11:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Template:Current fiction is superior in every regard to this template. Phil Sandifer 12:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The {{current fiction}} template is prone to arguments over when exactly a piece of fiction stops being "current" or "recently released" — although I do like that it usually appears at the top of articles. Spoiler warnings are unrelated to release dates. If a secondary source uses a spoiler warning, some arbitrary time period does not make that warning invalid. It means the author has created a narrative climax in their story. The {{current fiction}} template is a spoiler tag with an expiration date. I object to the idea that people must consume a fictional work within a certain period of days/weeks/months/years after a release date. And speaking of worldwide releases, which release date do you measure from to tell if it's "current" or "recent"? The film Rescue Dawn premiered September 9, 2006 at the Toronto Film Festival.[2] Its first wide release was July 27, 2007 in the United States. It won't be released in Russia until February 21, 2008. So which release date does the {{current fiction}} template measure from? We should be presenting a worldwide view of a subject, so release dates in any given country should not factor into the use of the spoiler template. Rather, sources that use spoiler warnings is what should factor into the use of the spoiler template. --Pixelface 20:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Systemic bias seems to me to deeply be the wrong issue to bring up here. And the idea of using sources to decide the use of spoiler warnings seems to me to violate NPOV, in that the views of particular people suddenly get adopted as Wikipedia's views. Phil Sandifer 20:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Well which country's release date do you favor when using the {{current fiction}} template? Neutral point of view is about "representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." If a source reveals the plot of a fictional work, removing the spoiler from the article would not be neutral. If a source has used a spoiler warning when describing a fictional work, presenting the plot without a warning would not be neutral. The {{spoiler}} template allows articles to present plot information in a neutral way: cited plot information and cited spoiler warnings. --Pixelface 21:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm not a fan of hard and fast rules, so am disinclined to propose a specific sunset date on current fiction. As for plot synopses, we currently use primary sources for most of our plot synopses - that is to say, the films, books, etc. themselves. Such sources never contain spoiler warnings. To add spoiler warnings from other sources would violate NPOV. Phil Sandifer 21:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
          • I suspect you don't want to set a "sunset date" on the {{current fiction}} tag because all you care about is that the spoiler warning will eventually not be present in the article, thinking every outside source that uses a spoiler warning is invalid. Previously published secondary sources are not disallowed from plot synopses and I think they're actually preferable. Unsourced text in a plot section may indicate that an editor has read a book, it may also indicate they're making stuff up. To disallow secondary sources because they use spoiler warnings is biased. The trend of writing plot summaries based on primary sources does not invalidate secondary sources. --Pixelface 00:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
          • "To add spoiler warnings from other sources would violate NPOV" That was always a weak argument. As of 2007, and Potter/Rowling/BBC/SFChronicle-BusinessWeek.com, it's obsolete. Spoilers are not only notable, they have emerged as a fashionable, if not major, publishing concept. It fails NPOV to not to identify them. And the simple way to give them proper weight is with Hide'nShow spoiler tags under a | tags | menu tab or header button. I take note that you don't like the conceptual or technical solution, but my point is that they overcome whatever was left of your NPOV objection. Your WP:IDon'tLikeIt objections aside, Hide'nShow remains the workable compromise. Milo 11:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
            • You have thus far been unwilling to engage in the larger policy discussions necessary for your hide and show proposal, which is the reason that has not gone through. As for the NPOV issue, it is worth noting that the NPOV issue only enters because of the deeply weak argument that we should add a spoiler warning when a source has one and cite the spoiler warning. This violates NPOV because it treats the source's perspective on spoilers as fact. In the case of the Rowling spoilers, I agree - there should be a section in the article that begins "Rowling aggressively opposed leaks regarding the plot of the final book, and the few newspapers that did publish details like Harry being a Horcrux and the deaths of Dobby, Mad-Eye Moody, Lupin, Tonks, and Fred clearly marked these details as spoilers." Phil Sandifer 12:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
              • Do you think editors can be trusted to read a book and write the plot description on their own, but editors can't be trusted to place spoiler tags? And if the spoiler tag has a citation it's suddenly an NPOV violation? If a plot summary cites a secondary source is that an NPOV violation? If you want to get down to it, all spoilers should cite secondary sources to prevent original research issues. A statement with a source does not make that statement a fact, it means that statement is verifiable. Citing other sources does not violate WP:NPOV, citing other sources is pretty much what NPOV is all about. You think it's fine that editors write plot summaries directly from primary sources, but spoiler warnings cannot come from editors or outside sources? --Pixelface 23:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Might as well delete; the edit warriors won't let it be used. —Cryptic 13:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Is that a delete vote or a comment? If it remains ambiguous, I recommend that no vote be counted here by the closer. Milo 11:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete – In the first place, it's an awful template, which doesn't even clearly express its purported meaning (that spoilers are ahead). In the second place, despite months of feverish debate, there has been no consensus clearly articulating when it should be used. As a result, it is practically never used. Whenever it appears on a page, another editor promptly deletes it. Whether or not Wikipedia should have spoiler warnings, this template has proved useless. Marc Shepherd 13:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The esthetics of the template are a different problem from usage, and esthetics are easily fixed once there is compromise on the larger issues. Usage suppression of spoiler notices is an artifact of a mini spoiler-police state, where the police both make and enforce the laws. If/when the spoiler police are disempowered, the spoiler notices will spring back into use. I don't think anyone disagrees that would happen, since otherwise the spoiler police would have no function. Milo 11:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If the template " doesn't even clearly express its purported meaning " then we can just change the wording of the template (it would help if the template was unprotected).Tomgreeny 16:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If a secondary source uses a spoiler warning, the use of the template is justified. The template clarifies for the reader the level of detail that follows. I really don't know how many other encyclopedias have spoiler warnings, but I also don't know how many other encyclopedias describe the entire plotlines of films/books/videogames/etc. There is plenty of evidence in the edit summaries of articles of fictional works that many readers do not expect spoilers in articles. I doubt that most readers find out that Wikipedia contains spoilers by reading the content disclaimer. I would bet that most readers read an article about a fictional work, they find out the ending, the narrative climax the author created is ruined. I don't think it's necessary to burn every reader once so they'll learn their lesson. The template presents readers with a choice: they can choose to keep reading or choose to avoid reading a narrative climax. The template has been removed from all articles by a small group of editors who love to cite WP:SPOILER yet keep ignoring this portion of that guideline: "In a work that is uncommonly reliant on the impact of a plot twist or surprise ending — a murder mystery, for instance — a spoiler tag may be appropriate even within a properly labeled "Synopsis" section. These should be sourced when possible (e.g., by citing a professional reviewer who describes the impact of the surprise)." You can be sure that the spoiler template will be in a few articles one day and zero articles a day or so later. I really don't know why they didn't nominate the template for deletion themselves. Personally, I think it would be easier to delete a template I dislike instead of constantly removing it from every article whenever it gets used. --Pixelface 13:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • As to why it wasn't just nominated for deletion - why have a discussion where you have to show consensus for your proposal, when you can just orphan it directly with bot tools? —Cryptic 14:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, there was a discussion, at least on the spoiler guidelines, that was running overwhelmingly against the guidelines. It then got shut down because "MfD wasn't an appropriate place to discuss that," so the discussion moved to the larger wiki, and went, once again, overwhelmingly against spoilers. Phil Sandifer 14:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      • "overwhelmingly against spoilers." Due to several process abuses, no one can be sure if that claim is true or not at the margins. Even with the failure to notify those most interested, RFC Poll #1 resulted in 40+% stating "yes" to "Should spoiler warnings be placed on articles about historical and classical works of fiction?" And in Poll #5, 68% voted "yes" to "Do you, as Wikipedia reader, not editor, sometimes use a spoiler warning?" Therefore, use of "overwhelmingly" is a connotative exaggeration. (See COED overwhelm and M-W.com overwhelm. At best, M-W.com "b" might be valid.) See my research into the History of May 2007 MfD, TfD, RFC, and template notices posted below in the #Long comments section. Milo 11:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as obselete. Regardless of how you feel about spoiler policy, {{current fiction}} is the better template. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The {{current fiction}} template suggests that spoiler warnings published by secondary sources have an expiration date — but they don't. Fiction is experienced in the present, it is described in the present. Fiction is always current. --Pixelface 20:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • You do realize that this point of view advocates spoiler warnings on some of the books of the Bible and on the classical works of Homer (where no secondary source ever uses a spoiler warning)? One thing that there was consensus about at the RFC was that fiction spoilers do have an expiration date, just people were not sure whether it should be 2000, 200, 20, 2, 0.2 or 0.02 years. Kusma (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
      • No, I advocate sourced {{spoiler}} tags. If someone can find a reliable secondary source that uses a spoiler warning when describing the works attributed to Homer, great. Cite it. I don't think the {{current fiction}} template is a good substitute for the {{spoiler}} template. With the {{spoiler}} template, you just need a reliable source that uses a spoiler warning when describing the plot. A secondary source that uses a spoiler warning doesn't expire after a certain period of time. Wikipedia makes no distinction between "old" and "new" sources. The {{current fiction}} template contains a spoiler notice, but the template is supposed to be removed when a piece of fiction is no longer "recently released" — as if everyone on the planet should have seen it already. Why should a book have a spoiler notice a day after it was released but not 200 years after? People are born every day. People learn to read English every day. A spoiler notice tied to a release date ignores future generations. And when a fictional work is released on different dates in different countries, which date do you measure from to determine if it's "recent"? What if a book is reprinted years after it was first published? I reject the notion that people must have read something because it was released 2 weeks ago or 200 years ago. People alive today haven't had 200 years to read it, they've had as many years as they've been able to read. Some people read a book soon after its released, some people don't. You've either read it or you haven't. A release date is no indication that a reader of Wikipedia has read the book. The {{spoiler}} template is for people who haven't read the book. People who have read the book can simply ignore the template, and may even know the best place to put it. If an editor is really bothered by the template, they can make it invisible by putting .spoiler { display: none; } in their monobook.css or common.css file. I like the {{current fiction}} template when I've seen it in articles because it contains a notice that an article may contain spoilers and it's typically put at the top of articles, but I think there are issues with it. I think it compliments the {{spoiler}} template, it shouldn't replace the {{spoiler}} template. --Pixelface 02:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unnecessary, because we shouldn't be giving plot summaries anyway. It's not just these two templates that are unencyclopedic, everything that comes between them is unencyclopedic as well and ought to be deleted. —Angr 15:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • So the template should be removed while removing every plot summary from Wikipedia? --Pixelface 21:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, the content disclaimer and current fiction template both cover this magnificently. Obsolete, indeed. Axem Titanium 17:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • How would a new reader to Wikipedia find the content disclaimer? They look at the Main Page (or any article), they scroll to the very bottom. They click on Disclaimers. Then they click on Content disclaimer. How many readers do this? They could also look at the Main Page (or any article), scroll to the very bottom. Click on About Wikipedia. Then go to the Trademarks and copyrights section. Then click on content disclaimer. How many readers do this? Tagging articles with the {{current fiction}} template and removing it later suggests that if someone hasn't read a book within an arbitrary time period after a release date, they'll never read it, which is false. Why give a spoiler notice a week after and not 100 years after? --Pixelface 06:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Spoilers appear on far more than pages about current fiction. This is an important warning to readers. AaronSw 19:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, but this template is not being used for that purpose. Marc Shepherd 20:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. First they are arbitrarily mass-removed from articles by people who do not know the books in question, and now we have arrived at the stage where that mass removal is quoted as justification for the deletion of the template itself. The next step (see Angr, above) will be to delete plot summaries as well as "we shouldn't be giving plot summaries anyway. It's not just these two templates that are unencyclopedic, everything that comes between them is unencyclopedic as well and ought to be deleted". In a dictionary of scientific terms maybe, but in an encyclopaedia? As Nydas^(Talk) suggests, "unencyclopedic" is a just a coded way of saying "I don't like it". <KF> 20:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Unencyclopedic may well be a code for "I don't like it," but if so, "I don't like it" is a valid deletion reason. Phil Sandifer 21:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • OK. Then let me rephrase my argument: Keep the spoiler warning template. I like it. <KF> 22:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      • OK - but why do you like it? "Unencyclopedic" at least gives a reason for its dislike, and ties that reason to Wikipedia's mission. Phil Sandifer 23:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
        • WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC says otherwise: "... is so vague, it gives no information on why the article should be deleted." (WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions) The Template:Unencyclopedic page used to state that term is an unsupported personal opinion. Milo 11:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Because it is the respectful thing to do to warn a user that what follows may (or rather, will), if they read on, diminish their chances of enjoying the book. This is why I have always argued against people removing spoiler warnings from articles on books they have not read themselves. On the other hand, I believe spoiler warnings should be used sparingly. Years ago, when I wrote plot outlines, spoiler warnings were added by ignorant people who were just fond of the new template. Last spring they were all removed by others who had not read the books either but who believed that, as self-proclaimed consensus managers, they were entitled to do so. Tomorrow (novel) is a case in point. <KF> 00:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Current fiction has absolutely nothing to do with spoilers, and vice versa. A current fiction article can be written in such a way to avoid needing a spoiler warning. Think about the back covers of books. And a summary of a book would require a spoiler warning, because it summarizes the book. 132.205.99.122 20:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, but an article such as you describe would suck. Phil Sandifer 21:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and use. One of the big advantages of Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. Our articles on fictional subjects both cover the plot of works, and issues external to the plot, such as details of production. It's useful to have spoiler tags to help the reader distinguish sections that contain spoilers from those that do not. (Ideally, spoiler tags would be added at a sub-section granularity.) It's important that the current lack of spoiler tags not be construed as consensus for their removal, not when single users are still removing a dozen spoiler tags each day. It's far easier to remove tags than add them. — PyTom (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I am not sure how "Wikipedia is not paper" relates to your long-rejected arguments. Phil Sandifer 21:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It should be noted that there is considerable use of this template on talk pages and suchlike. Is the anti-spoiler warning mentality going to be strong-arming its way onto talk pages and other areas of open discussion?--Nydas^(Talk) 21:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I made a comment before, but this is my 'official' !vote. I'm inclined to agree it should be kept for ONE simple reason -- as Nydas points out above, it's used in other non-article space in WP. As those are much more of a forum, as it were, I can see the use of the warnings THERE for the reason the are used in most places throughout the net. In fact, I would go so far as to say that perhaps it should be turned into a template for such use. Hmm... (and, as I noted above, people just keep rehashing the same old arguments. Ah well...) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree; if kept the template should be reserved for talk pages as needed. However, that still leaves Wikipedia:Content disclaimer's "Wikipedia contains spoilers", which applies to all of Wikipedia - that means article names, redirects, talk pages etc. could all contain spoilers . . . but yes, I guess it would be reasonable enough to reserve spoiler templates for talk pages if it comes to that. L337 kybldmstr 23:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep: The guideline is still hotly debated and in a state of flux. Deleting the template eliminates the possibility that it will ever be used anywhere. Wait a few months or years for the fury and passion to die down, then re-evaluate it's usefulness - if in a year it's not being used and we're ok with that, then delete it. We're only just now starting to find an equilibrium and address everyone's concerns (not just the anti-SW concerns) - give the process more time to gravitate towards a happy medium. Kuronue | Talk 23:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: How many published encyclopedias have very detailed plot outlines of movies? There is no paper encyclopedia precedent for this - movies come out far too often for their inclusion. I understand an argument for not including them in "Plot" sections, which clearly will include a spoiler, but they are still useful. --Vince | Talk 05:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  Six months of debate have not shown a consensus on how to use them or where. Kusma (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  All an editor has to do is find a reliable published source that contains a spoiler warning before a certain plot element and that is where the template should be placed in the article. I find it discouraging if people debated for 6 months and did not consider citations — which the policies on verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view rely on. --Pixelface 07:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  If most sources spoil the plot without warning, there should not be a warning on Wikipedia. That is the case for all fiction that is not a recent release, for example Star Wars, the bible and Romeo and Juliet. For example, reviews for the final Harry Potter book will typically contain elements of the previous books without warning. If we follow citable mainstream news media use, we must not warn about spoilers in anything old. Kusma (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  I believe most plot summaries on Wikipedia currently cite no secondary sources, only the fictional work itself (and only implicitly, not explicitly with chapter/page number/timestamp citations). I suppose we could count the number of reliable secondary sources we can find that spoil a film vs the number of reliable secondary sources we can find that give spoiler warnings. If we find more secondary sources that spoil a film, we could say no spoiler template is needed. But I think that one spoiler warning from a reliable, published source is sufficient justification for the template's inclusion in any article. Most tags/templates on Wikipedia do not require citations, so editors should really be free to put them wherever they want. However, the spoiler template can point to a reliable, published, outside source that says a certain plot detail is a spoiler. I think if a spoiler template has a citation, it should not be removed. I think the release date is unrelated to whether people have read a book or not. Surely there are people who rush to read a book/see a film/play a videogame as soon as its released, but what matters is if the reader of the Wikipedia article has read the book or not. If they've read the book, they don't need a spoiler warning, but they probably know the best place to put the tag in the article. There may be arguments over the best place to put the template, but this can be solved by citing secondary sources that use spoiler warnings. The spoiler template is a courtesy to readers. The guideline WP:NDA says spoiler warnings are exceptions to the "no disclaimers in articles" recommendation. The spoiler template is polite. It presents readers with a choice. I can easily imagine a reader becoming upset after reading the ending of a film unexpectedly. However, I find it hard to imagine that some editors are upset by the five words the template displays. --Pixelface 22:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  It made me ashamed to see these five words on all of Wikipedia's articles about fairytales and (worse) on literature more than a thousand years old. On The Very Hungry Caterpillar, I think it was almost insulting. But that's a discussion for the usage guideline. Kusma (talk) 07:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Tomgreeny's, Pixelface's, and Wandering Ghost's explanations. — Enter Movie 21:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Long comments

History of May 2007 MfD, TfD, RFC, and template notices

• Comment The process abuse complaints of May 2007 include the fact of only 2-1/2 hours of TfD template notice to the entire 45,000 fiction articles community (10:50-13:22, 16 May 2007), before the MfD-concurrent TfD was terminated.

• Later, after hundreds of spoiler tags had already been removed, a belated RFC template notice appeared to what was left of the less than 45,000 fiction articles community, but even that was abusively removed after only two days (11:22, 20 May - 12:54, 22 May 2007), even though RFC Poll #1 was open for five more days (until May 27), and the final RFC comment was posted as late as July 20.

• The Spoiler Guideline MfD of May 2007 was opened (at a currently unnoted location), and ran ~21:31, 15 May to ~11:59, 17 May, and is archived at Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/MfD.

• The Spoiler Template TfD (previous) of May 2007, opened (based on post times) during the MfD run. The TfD was located at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_16#Template:Spoiler, and ran ~10:53, 16 May to 12:30 (announced end) / ~13:57 (next to last comment) 16 May 2007. The TfD votes discussion was moved and is archived at Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/Tfd.

• The Template:Spoiler TfD was closed because the Spoiler Guide MfD was deemed a higher priority than the template it controls ("This is now closed. We're not discussing deletion of the template until we settle policy. --Tony Sidaway 14:37, 16 May 2007"). Tony's decision proved to be controversial because of a side effect — lack of notice to the 45,000 affected articles, that an indirect wiki-wide community action to delete spoiler notices was in progress.

• A notice of TfD was added to the Template:Spoiler on 10:50 16 May 2007 by Cryptic "this is on tfd". The notice of TfD was removed from Template:Spoiler on 13:22, 16 May 2007 by Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh "tfd was speedy closed". The duration of Template-for-Deletion process notice to 45,000 spoiler-tagged fiction articles was 2 hours, 32 minutes.

• The Spoiler Guideline RFC was opened at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning, and ran ~21:34, 18 May 2007 to 14:08, 27 May (Poll #1 was closed) / 11:52, 20 July (final comment was posted).

• A notice of RFC was added to the Template:Spoiler on 11:22 20 May 2007 by Ais523 "per request by User:Kizor". The notice of RFC was removed from Template:Spoiler on 12:54, 22 May 2007 by Dan100 "Get on with your lives". The duration of Request-For-Comment process notice to hundreds less than 45,000 spoiler-tagged fiction articles was 2 days, 1 hour, 32 minutes.

• By the time the RFC notice was added to the template on the 22nd, it was already days too late for due process notice as the result of another controversial decision by Tony Sidaway and others:

"... By now, hundreds of spoiler tags have been removed from prominent articles. There has been very little opposition and those who have opposed are overwhelmed by those who support. It's done, there is consensus for the current guideline: spoiler tags are to be used only where a strong case can be made that the quality of the article is improved by their presence. That is, hardly ever. --Tony Sidaway 15:44, 19 May 2007"[3]

• Currently there is only one spoiler template in use (Check current spoiler template use here), so almost no one casually interested knows to come here and vote by that usual method of notice. Milo 11:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• The use of this template should not be decided by a TfD. Instead, a larger discussion. Thing is, that already happened. There was a large discussion, and somehow, someone determined consensus was that the {{spoiler}} should not be used by default and a case-by-case discussion on a talk page to determine whether or not there should be an exception for a specific artlce. Therefore, keep the template, as it could be used legitmately, and this TfD should not be used to override that discussion. I (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- I don't know why it isn't used at all. It used to be used alot and I think it's a good thing to keep a spoiler warning. —Coastergeekperson04^{'s talk} 07:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Sleepy keep, this is something that should be decided on Wikipedia:Spoiler, not here. -- Ned Scott 09:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Template:WarcraftBCharacter

Template:WarcraftBCharacter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template now loaded with lots of redlinks because of a recent AFD discussion, the few that are blue links are currently in AFD Delete This is a Secret ^account 02:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral for now, I'll wait and see how those AfDs go before making a decision. L337 kybldmstr 04:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Wait and see If all the articles get deleted, then sure, it has no further use. But if a few remain, then it simply needs to have the red links pruned. --Falcorian ^(talk) 07:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)