Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 8: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Template:Spoiler: close, delete
→‎Template:Spoiler: slightly more
Line 70: Line 70:
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''


The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''Delete'''. It is some months since I visited the spoiler debate. In that time, consensus (as evidenced by what happens ''in the encyclopaedia'' rather than any measurement of bytes of comment) has become pretty clear: the template is virtually unused, the general disclaimer has been refined slightly and with a few vocal exceptions the community of editors has accepted that a section called "plot" or "synopsis" is sufficient to the purpose of helping our readers. A template, {{tl|current fiction}}, exists; this is more specific and better suited to the purpose for which ''spoiler'' was generally used. The balance of argument below reflects this. The idea of keeping for a finite period - a few months - is not compelling; this will simply prolong the agony. Good faith arguments have been advanced, but none that are not better served by other, more specific tags such as {{tl|current fiction}}. In summary, the Great Spoiler War is over and the encyclopaedia won. The good faith of the various parties is not in doubt, but a better idea has come along and there is no longer any need for this in-fighting. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 22:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''Delete'''. It is some months since I visited the spoiler debate. In that time, consensus (as evidenced by what happens ''in the encyclopaedia'' rather than any measurement of bytes of comment) has become pretty clear: the template is virtually unused, the general disclaimer has been refined slightly and with a few vocal exceptions the community of editors has accepted that a section called "plot" or "synopsis" is sufficient to the purpose of helping our readers. A template, {{tl|current fiction}}, exists; this is more specific and better suited to the purpose for which ''spoiler'' was generally used. The balance of argument below reflects this. The idea of keeping for a finite period - a few months - is not compelling; this will simply prolong the agony. Good faith arguments have been advanced, but none that are not better served by other, more specific tags such as {{tl|current fiction}}. In summary, the Great Spoiler War is over and the encyclopaedia won. The good faith of the various parties is not in doubt, but a better idea has come along and there is no longer any need for this in-fighting. "This documents a current work of fiction" is in line with core policy in a way that "we believe this might spoil your pleasure" simply is not. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 22:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


:{{lt|Spoiler}}
:{{lt|Spoiler}}

Revision as of 23:07, 14 November 2007

< November 7 November 9 >

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • Uncle Ed is not saying that anyone can easily upgrade the template, rather that anyone who believes the template should be upgraded can find someone to do it, as has been done at the templates talk page many times already. —MJBurrage • TALK • 18:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Template:Spoiler

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. It is some months since I visited the spoiler debate. In that time, consensus (as evidenced by what happens in the encyclopaedia rather than any measurement of bytes of comment) has become pretty clear: the template is virtually unused, the general disclaimer has been refined slightly and with a few vocal exceptions the community of editors has accepted that a section called "plot" or "synopsis" is sufficient to the purpose of helping our readers. A template, {{current fiction}}, exists; this is more specific and better suited to the purpose for which spoiler was generally used. The balance of argument below reflects this. The idea of keeping for a finite period - a few months - is not compelling; this will simply prolong the agony. Good faith arguments have been advanced, but none that are not better served by other, more specific tags such as {{current fiction}}. In summary, the Great Spoiler War is over and the encyclopaedia won. The good faith of the various parties is not in doubt, but a better idea has come along and there is no longer any need for this in-fighting. "This documents a current work of fiction" is in line with core policy in a way that "we believe this might spoil your pleasure" simply is not. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - This template is totally unencyclopaedic (how many other encyclopaedias actually have "Spoiler Warning" notices, for instance?), 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 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)[reply]

Spoiler templates changing use log


(Check current spoiler template use here)
Short comments
  • And what about fictional works that aren't recent releases? Have you ever watched a film or read a book that was released before you were born? Have you seen The Wizard of Oz? What year did you watch it? I think the decision of where to place the tag should be left up to editors familiar with the fictional work. If they disagree on where to place the tag, the issue should be discussed on an article's talk page, preferably in a section titled ==Spoilers==. Because spoilers may be revealed, the main discussion should perhaps take place on a subpage of the talk page called /Spoilers, with a link to it on the talk page. If certain editors feel strongly that foreknowledge of a certain plot detail does not affect the experience of first reading/viewing/playing the fictional work, citations from reliable sources that use spoiler warnings could be used to help settle any disputes. I also think that secondary sources that omit certain plot details can be used to determine where the tag should be placed. --Pixelface 19:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See here for the current mainspace links: [1]. Kusma (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
  • '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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • I'm puzzled Did you just argue that enWP should not have spoiler warnings because enWP does not have spoiler warnings?DGG (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
section edit break 1
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • Delete Detailed plot details considered 'spoilers' are unencyclopedic. Martin B 11:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • "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)[reply]
section edit break 2
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete - Template:Current fiction is superior in every regard to this template. Phil Sandifer 12:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
            • "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)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
"larger policy discussions necessary for your hide and show proposal" They aren't necessary. That's like saying no more articles mentioning China can be written until there are top-level discussions settling the issue of ROC censorship of Wikipedia. Of course such China articles can be written now, and of course Hide'nShow spoiler notices can be developed and implemented as a standalone subsystem, ahead of some far-off master content-tagging plan. Because all the independent components have existed for years (including visible spoiler tags), the community is ready to accept Hide'nShow as a demonstration project now. You aren't, and that's a good part of the reason it has not gone through.
And, btw, the proposal isn't really mine. I checked the archives from last year (2006) to discover that many editors have worked on this proposal, more recently including Samohyl Jan. I did change "hidable" to "showable" .css tags, suggested a tag-revealing | tags | menu interface, added the local consensus art jury process aided by a five-example spoiler-identification rubric, and created the Hide'nShow marketing name, which labels a package of compromises including the prototype .css technical solution, the local concensus art jury, and consensus of a good writing structure which is your contribution. I've articulated well and tweaked up what many editors have independently proposed, so I'm reasonably confident that if implemented, it will work well-enough as a prototype for further development at the code level. Milo 09:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • Might as well delete; the edit warriors won't let it be used. —Cryptic 13:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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) Oh, it's probably a delete vote. I found and moved up an equally obscure keep vote from the long comments section. Milo 11:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • The text of the template can be changed (and yes, unprotecting it would make it easier to do that). I think it's obvious that the template should be used when an editor thinks something is a spoiler. Any disagreements on where to place it can be solved by citing reliable sources or by consensus on an article's talk page. "Whenever it appears on a page, another editor promptly deletes it." And by "another editor" do you mean yourself Marc? You sure appear to find What pages link to the template useful, particularly during October. You may think the template is useless but perhaps you should just ignore it. You can also make it invisible by putting the code .spoiler { display: none; } in your monobook.css or common.css file. And I must say that if this template is kept, certain editors should not be allowed to remove it from articles it is placed in. If the mass removal of the template in May was meant to show how many articles contained it 6 months later, that experiment failed — because a tiny group of admins and editors (which includes you) will not let it be used in the namespace. And I have no idea why the template belongs on talk pages and not in articles. If the template is deleted, it will appear on no talk pages. If the template is kept, I think a new version of WP:SPOILER should be drafted. --Pixelface 02:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I have always thought that, if the template was kept, the wording should be changed. No suggestion that I made gained consensus, so we are stuck with the current ineffective version. I do find that most uses of it do not adhere to the principles that Pixelface has stated, and so yes, I have myself sometimes deleted it from articles, though I am a fairly minor player in that effort. Marc Shepherd 02:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
section edit break 3
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • "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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • There are sources (movie reviews) that use a spoiler warning for "Darth Vader is Luke's father". There are sources that don't. Most recent sources don't, just like most recent sources about Homer don't use spoiler warnings. Using the presence of a spoiler warning in one single source does not mean that we should violate NPOV and give undue prominence to that minority opinion. And warning about spoilers in works that are hundreds or thousands of years old is definitely an extreme opinion not reflected in 99% of scholarly sources. Kusma (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
section edit break 4
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete, the content disclaimer and current fiction template both cover this magnificently. Obsolete, indeed. Axem Titanium 17:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    Yes, but this template is not being used for that purpose. Marc Shepherd 20:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • OK. Then let me rephrase my argument: Keep the spoiler warning template. I like it. <KF> 22:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC says otherwise: "... is so vague, it gives no information on why the article should be deleted." (Wikipedia: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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • An interesting sidebar to possible spoiler template deletion is that text spoiler tags will return, and the current prohibition against them will have to be lifted. Milo 09:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    Six months of debate have not shown a consensus on how to use them or where. Kusma (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're being impatient after only 6 months into an estimated 12 - 24 month debate. Consider the virtual inertia of collective editorial state of mind for 45,000 articles. After six months I'm still annoyed that my spoiler tag was removed without a local consensus discussion. Multiply my annoyance on a metaphysical scale, by some number of editors up to 45,000, and hopefully you'll grasp why this is taking so long to reconsense. Milo 09:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be one or the other, it can easily be both. Citable spoilers and local concensus art jury judgments of spoilers in anything old can coexist. The cited ones could have the status of full-time visibility, and the uncited ones could be Hide'nShow only. Milo 09:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
"hard to imagine that some editors are upset by the five words the template" It's what control of those words symbolically represent. This whole spoiler issue is just a convenient trial balloon representing the future direction and control of Wikipedia. The clique understand that they are gradually being marginalized by a huge influx of younger newcomers, so they are experimenting with seizing central control of the guides, manufacturing consensus to be what they say it is. It's analogous to the revolutionary coup technique of seizing first the government TV station. Milo 09:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Support the Hide'nShow compromise and only the readers who want to see them will do so. Milo 09:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
section edit break 5
  • Keep per Tomgreeny's, Pixelface's, and Wandering Ghost's explanations. — Enter Movie 21:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Consider it a current status poll on the very large discussion that has taken place over the last six months at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler. Is 1,850,000 bytes large enough for you? Milo 09:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Anyone coming to Wikipedia for information about a subject opens himself to learning things he does not know. If someone wants to avoid "spoilers" they should avoid the subject in the first place. Is it possible to "accidentally" view a Wiki page? If so, a warning is useful. But I can't imagine any scenario where such accidents could occur. Captain Infinity 17:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. My feeling is that this template has probably outlived its usefulness. It is seldom placed anywhere except in a plot summary section, and there is considerable consensus that such placements are almost always superfluous. On the other hand, it isn't actually doing any harm sittng around in template space, and there are occasions when I have been persuaded that the template is of use in a particular article at a particular time. Whether that justifies the cost of removing the many times when it is misplaced is a matter of opinion. It is also the case that a considerable number of home-made spoiler warnings are placed on articles, and removing the template might not change this. I could be wrong on this, however, so I tentatively suggest that it's time to consider deleting the template to see what happens. --Tony Sidaway 19:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, this is something that should be decided on Wikipedia:Spoiler, not here. -- Ned Scott 09:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the application of this template is too subjective. Spoilers can cover a wide array of details from minor to major. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia -- its purpose is to inform and educate the readers. The template, with its subjective nature, is inapplicable for such a purpose. There's no reason to tip-toe around with the readership just so they can be surprised and enthralled by a topic's intricacies later. It's unnecessary catering. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what if the template has a citation? Yes, Wikipedia should inform and educate readers. However, we should not make readers regret reading an article. A spoiler tag is not tip-toeing around with the readership. A spoiler tag is like a road sign telling you that a city is X kilometres/miles away. It provides additional information to the reader about what's ahead. If you already know how far away a city is, you don't have to read the sign. Just keep on driving. There's no need to pull over and tear the sign down. There are other drivers on the road. --Pixelface 09:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And notice, the person put the warning around the whole plot. How in the world would it have helped them if it had been like that before? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • They would know that the plot description contains spoilers and would know to stop reading if they didn't want to read spoilers. If someone reads a plot description, thinking a film will be released later on in their area and it was already released somewhere else in the world, you shouldn't punish them for not knowing. You can't blame readers for not knowing the release date of every fictional work. --Pixelface 08:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pixelface, a better analogy would be a road sign telling you that there's more road ahead. The spoiler notice does not convey the type of detailed information conveyed by a distance sign. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think your analogy is appropriate. The {{spoiler}} template currently reads "Note: Significant plot details follow", so it clarifies for the reader what is coming up ahead. You think plot descriptions always contain spoilers, but they don't. --Pixelface 08:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Any information about the plot of a work of fiction is a spoiler to those who've not read/seen the book/film, because it affects the experience of discovering that information through the course of reading/seeing the film, in the manner that the writer had intended. That the main character of The Lord of the Rings is a hobbit is an important element of a plot description for the LOTR, and it's a spoiler for anyone who's not read the book or seen the film. It's perhaps not the biggest spoiler, but it still may take away from the experience of discovering that Frodo is a hobbit through the natural course of events and/or descriptions provided by the author. So, yes, plot descriptions always contain spoilers ... not necessarily the biggest spoilers and not necessarily the twist ending, but they do contain spoilers. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your "subjective" opinion is obsolete. As of the summer 2007 Harry Potter book release, big publishing/Hollywood now considers spoilers not only to be non-subjective, but statistically countable in big dollars. Milo 09:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Spoiler notices are essential for warning readers who arrive at Wikipedia, especially via Web searches, in an attempt to learn about fiction that they have yet to read/view/listen to. If Wikipedia were not ranked so highly by search engines I would not feel nearly so strongly (clearly people reading an encyclopedia expect it to be complete, so spoilers are not shocking). -Harmil 21:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. There are certain things that really can't be considered spoilers anymore, granted, such as the fact that Romeo and Juliet die at the end of the Shakespeare play named after them. But many works of fiction have significant plot "twists" or other such shifts in perspectives or expectations that are, frankly, best appreciated without knowing about them beforehand. If a non-knowledgeable person goes to Wikipedia to find out basic information about the plot of a book, movie, or videogame, it is most useful if they can choose whether to see information that could spoil their enjoyment of the plot. On the other hand, having spoilers themselves are useful for people who either don't care about this or for people who need a quick synopsis of important details. Besides, book encyclopedias can't provide spoiler tags that hide unwanted information, but computer encyclopedias can (and we're not even taking advantage of the fact that we can show/hide spoilers via computer code). Keeping the spoiler tag (and improving it) is definitely in line with the function of Wikipedia as a resource for information that is elegant, efficient, and functional for readers' needs. ~GMH talk to me 22:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and use where appropriate. It is used, and often appropriate, regardless of sources using it, in the Talk and other areas. As suggested above this enough is reason to keep it. As for using, well the feeling some may have that a spooiler for a certain article section is/not approprioate, should not lead to an edit war. While the template can be usefull, edit wars never are. --Gwyndon 00:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
section edit break 6
  • Delete I'm not sure it should have been purged in the first place, but the decision has been made, and there's no looking back. If you don't want to be spoiled on a particular subject, don't read the Wikipedia article about that subject. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "no looking back" Not at all. There is no genuine consensus, only a manufactured one. IPs and registered editors add spoiler tags almost every day. Only a handful of anti-spoiler-notice editors are stopping many more pro-spoiler notice editors. These "spoiler police" will be overwhelmed eventually - in 18 months or less by my estimate. Milo 09:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete - This template has not been used since May. The compromise allowing it to be used in certain sections was never put into effect except in rare (whenever I checked throughout the next few months, never more than half a dozen) and often contested circumstances. I don't care about the spoiler warning debate, but its clear that they are no longer used and this template is therefore useless. Atropos 00:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has been used since May. But about 12 or so editors (4 of whom are admins) keep removing it from every article. I suppose I could name them so you could view their edit histories, but you can see for yourself. All you have to do is view which articles in the namespace currently use the template. That's how most of the editors find it. If you watch the articles' edit histories, someone from the group usually shows up at the article in a day or so to remove the template. If all it takes to get a template deleted is to remove it from every article and claim it's not being used, I'll have to keep that in mind the next time I want a template deleted. It's probably easier to suppress the template by keeping it alive instead of nominating it for deletion. Or maybe they just like increasing their edit counts, I don't know. --Pixelface 09:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it offends people's intelligence. What else than spoilers can you find in, for example, the story section of a film?--Svetovid 12:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per GMH. Wikipedia should maintain the option for readers to take in information about the production of a creative work, while still having the choice whether to read about the content of the work itself. It's called a "spoiler" because it is possible to spoil a person's experience of the work. Wikipedia should maintain this template as a courtesy to readers, and to increase the amount of information an interested person can get without being spoiled. It doesn't inconvenience anyone. Photouploaded 14:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's called a story or plot section, because story or plot are described, etc.--Svetovid 14:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some story/plot/plot summary sections have spoilers, some don't, so it's a gamble that many readers take. Readers have posted that they want to read the plot without spoilers, because they are use to spoilerless movie reviews and publisher's blurbs found on every book jacket. Milo 20:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried numerous times to point out that all this is not about an either/or option, about having spoiler warnings either at the top of all plot outlines or no warnings at all. This point is still being ignored, so I'll try one last time. Whereas Othello or the Bible certainly shouldn't have a spoiler warning (and it would seem "unencyclopaedic" even to me to have a template there), it is absolutely pointless to keep on reading or watching when you already know who the murderer in I, the Jury is or how Witness for the Prosecution ends. (At the end of the movie Wilder asks the audience not to tell anyone.) This is why I firmly believe that the authors of individual articles should decide whether a spoiler warning is appropriate or not on an individual basis. Consequently, a blanket decision need not be reached. Consequently, the template should be kept, as has been pointed out above, "as a courtesy to readers, and to increase the amount of information an interested person can get without being spoiled". <KF> 15:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Q.E.D. (see below). <KF> 01:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is stupid to assume you can look at, for example, Lord Voldemort without finding inofrmation that could potentially ruin the plot for you. We shouldn't need to spell it out for people. Plus, they are a bit pointless since the entire article, whatever that may be, has the potential to be a spoiler for someone, not just the bit we customarily put the spoiler warnings around. asyndeton 16:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Experienced consumers of narrative suspense fiction believe that the spoilers can be tagged even in character articles, if there is editorial and technique consensus to do so. The notion that every detail is a spoiler is a red herring, because not all potential spoilers are notable. The local consensus art jury here, reviewers externally, and publishers' spoiler analyses can determine what constitutes a notable or unprofitable spoiler. Milo 20:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NDT. Will (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unnecessary. Garion96 (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - However, it should be used sparingly. Sections that say "Plot" or "Summary" or "Story" should not have spoiler warnings, as it is assumed that talking about the plot or story will include spoilers. Where the template should be used is in places that you would not ordinarily expect spoilers; for example, the cast list for Batman Begins should have a spoiler warning, as taking a look at the cast and who plays who would reveal a plot twist late in the movie. Anakinjmt 02:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Some Plot" or "Summary" or "Story" sections have spoilers, others don't, so many fiction consuming readers arriving from a Google search read them anyway. The anti-spoiler-notice group's burn'em theory suggests that such readers should be punished by spoilering and thus driven away from Wikipedia, since Wikipedia's articles should be written only for scholars, not fiction consumers. However, any such plan to punish and drive away a certain class of readers requires Wiki-wide consensus that has not been, and probably cannot be obtained. Milo 11:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per extensive past discussions. Doczilla 08:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The template has been nominated for three incorrect reasons and one side-topic reason to be decided elsewhere:
(1) The nominator claims that the template is superseded by Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, but Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles #Exceptions says, "Exceptions; Spoiler notices; .... In certain circumstances, it may be considered appropriate to use spoiler notices." Accordingly, I recommend that this nominator's reason be appropriately discounted by the closer.
(2) "totally unencyclopaedic" WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC says, "... is so vague, it gives no information on why the article should be deleted." (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions) Accordingly, I recommend that this second nominator's reason also be discounted by the closer.
(3) "This template is no longer in frequent mainspace usage, appearing only on 10 [ 1 5 1 2 4 5 2] mainspace pages." The nominator's claim is something of an illusion. On the contrary, the template is in quite frequent use, being added to articles, then being removed, added to other articles, being removed, in a daily flux. Numerically more editors are adding the template, than the smaller number removing them. Since this nominating reason is also wrong, I recommend that it likewise be discounted by the closer.
(4) "how many other encyclopaedias actually have "Spoiler Warning" notices" Hopefully none, since it is not a bone fide warning, because disappointment is not dangerous (and unlike porn and "triggering", no one even claims harm from it). Being used colloquially, "warning" also fits poorly among Wikipedia disclaimers related to objectionable content. However, to the nominator's point, Wikipedia in 2006, had 45,000 spoiler notices. In May 2007, they were removed by means so controversial (see #Long comments) that in six months of contentious debate, over 1,850,000 bytes have been posted at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler. The lack of consensus is so profound that the majority would not allow the 40+% minority to place a disputed tag on the spoiler guide page, illogically claiming there was no dispute about whether there was a dispute. A new consensus may not be reached for up to 6 to 18 more months at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler. In any case, the nominator's fourth reason is a spoiler guide issue, not a template issue, so I recommend that it be discounted by the closer. Milo 11:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't the closer just discount anything Milo says, since he time and time again makes personal attacks and says a whole lot of nothing, most of which is false anyway? Porn dangerous indeed. (Though, at this point, it looks like no consensus it is, very unsurprisingly.) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't share fundamentalists' view that porn is harmful, but that is their claim.
Over the last six months I've done investigative reporting and analysis at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler, exposing things that should not have been done (see History of May 2007 MfD, TfD, RFC, and template notices posted below in the #Long comments section) , but none of them involved Melodia Chaconne. Without exception I've been nice to her, even when she has been rudely uncivil to me. [3] [4]
All of Melodia's pointless charges were ignored Oct 2 at AN/I. Repetition of her mud-throwing here lacks credibility. Milo 22:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
section edit break 7
  • Delete I would in fact expect a good article on a book/film etc. to contain plot details, so clearly the spoilers tag is not needed. If I read an article on a subject where I do not want to know the plot I approach it with caution. A combination of sections called Plot or Synopsis or something similar, the currentfiction tag, and the disclaimer should be enough to warn any user unaware of this. I realise that the currentfiction tag should be removed after a certain time, but by that time the majority of people this could affect have been warned, or don't need to be warned anymore. As is mentioned above there is a chance that someone reading a 200 year old book for the first time wouldn't be caught by the currentfiction tag, but surely only a small minority of that already small group would slip past the section heading and/or disclaimer. John Hayestalk 11:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the time has come. Rocket000 19:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You might have gone to a page to find out a release date or information about the author before having read it. I like the template and think it makes pages that use them look more professional. Jake the Editor Man (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Which pages would those be? Right now, there aren't any..and haven't been for quite a while. Marc Shepherd 21:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Odd you should say that, as I always found pages without the warning to look much better -- especially when at the time they often had three or four 'sets' of the start and end template.
  • Keep' I personally think we should not have spoiler notices, but i am not the least sure it is the consensus of the community. DGG (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The "spoiler" template is one of the most usefull templates on Wikipedia. Its frequent use highlights its need. -- Voldemore 01:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -

    "The "spoiler" template is one of the most usefull templates on Wikipedia. Its frequent use highlights its need."

    So an effectively useless template being placed on many pages would then qualify as being useful and needed? L337 kybldmstr 03:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because the template is useful when the spoiler police allow it to be used. Editors certainly want to use it — see statistics in the next comment. Milo 05:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - you missed my point. What I meant was, just because a template appears on numerous pages does not make it useful or necessary. Templates being used as spam links, for example, might be placed on many articles. Does that make it useful? Does that make it necessary? No. It's still spam, it's still useless. L337 kybldmstr 06:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said to Erik, a spoiler tag is like a road sign telling you that a city is X kilometres/miles away. It provides additional information to the reader about what's ahead. If you already know how far away a city is, you don't have to read the sign. Just keep on driving. There's no need to pull over and tear the sign down because you personally think it's useless. There are other drivers on the road. --Pixelface 19:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"numerous pages does not make it useful or necessary" Ok, as a generalization that might be true, but in this specific application, the polls don't agree with your POV. In Poll #1, the 40+% editors that want want permanent spoiler notices on historical and classical works of fiction (meaning all fiction excluding those notable quibbles), are a large minority. Overlap that with 68% in Poll #5, readers who actually use spoiler notices (i.e., literally "use"ful), and you are in a 32% minority trying to push your POV onto a lot of other people who strongly object.
Now, you can and have made different deletion arguments, but this "useless" one simply has no logical basis.
The policy on redirects is a useful analogy. IIRC it says, if (a few) other people tell you that they find a redirect useful, take their word for it. Therefore, if a whopping 68% tell you that, you'll look good by gracefully conceding the spoiler notice usefulness point as consensus. Milo 10:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All I've done is say what I believe - the template is not used in many mainspace pages (as far as I can see), it isn't in an appropriate tone for an encyclopaedia, and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer already issues a spoiler warning. You disagree, and I respect that. But you've stereotyped your opposition in a way that you've accused them and myself of POV-pushing, and I find that offensive. Please choose your words more carefully in the future. L337 kybldmstr 04:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
←"All I've done is say what I believe" Consciously yes, I AGF, but using transactional analysis, I have recognized the pattern of a transactional game.
Here are the facts: (1) You are in a minority (the 32% who don't find spoiler notices useful). (2) You believe a POV of that minority (i.e., you are a stereotype of it). (3) You inclusively pushed that POV by being Template:Spoiler delete nominator (despite your attempt to proactively deny it). (4) A lot of other people strongly object (1,850,000 bytes of contentious debate and counting). (5) You took a weak debate position above and lost on the logic of numbers (probably weren't aware the polls existed).
By deductive inferences I perceive the following subconscious transactions then occurred:
(A) You had reactive negative emotions. (B) You reflexively took offense from facts 2 and 3 without logical cause. (C) You displaced your feelings of offense toward me (shooting the messenger). (D) You attempted to get me to buy into the displacement by guilt-tripping, but I have declined to play.
The way out of repeatedly playing this game is to own your feelings through self-analysis.
I note the extreme process concern ("horrific") expressed in your nominating post, so as a friendly suggestion, you may want to reconsider whether you are inherently too thin-skinned to take the debate heat that typically comes with being a nominator. I sympathize that being either nominator or debater in a spoiler topic deletion is an especially rough ride. Best personal regards, Milo 12:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Milo two things, comment on content, not contributors, your analysis of L337 kybldmstr is not relevant to whether the spoiler template should be deleted or not. Secondly just because a majority want something doesn't make it right, remember a vote is not consensus, it is the quality of arguments which matter, so even if only 1% want it deleted, if those 1% provide the better argument then it should be deleted. John Hayestalk 12:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What frequent use? [5] ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫
Counts of the spoiler templates use log at the top of the TFD.:
10 on 2007-11-08; 07:32 10 (baseline)
1 on 2007-11-09; 11:47 -9
5 on 2007-11-11; 06:xx +4
1 on 2007-11-11; 19:55 -4
2 on 2007-11-12; 10:52 +1
4 on 2007-11-13; 03:49 +2
If including the 10 at baseline, 17 spoiler templates were added in 5 days, an average of 3.4 added per day. Not including baseline, an average of 1.4 were added per day.
"Frequent" is a relative term, but surely there are some to many templates that are added to articles less often than once per day. Milo 05:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the tag is misplaced nearly every time it is used, the frequency of its use is to its detriment. --Tony Sidaway 05:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does the template have a proper area where it should be placed? If so, why should the template be deleted? If the template has a proper area, the template documentation or any guidelines referring to it should make it clear where that area is. --Pixelface 18:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually believe that this methodology undercounts the number of times {{spoiler}} is added to pages, since if a tag is added and removed between samples, it is not counted at all. Higher resolution statistics would be nicer, as would be someone keeping a list of pages that have had spoiler tags added or removed. — PyTom (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Count the removal contribs of the known spoiler police. Milo 10:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erroneous uses of the template, which are subsequently reverted, should not be counted in its favour as an indication of popularity. Moreover, any inferences drawn during this TFD overestimate the template's actual use, since it is currently a 'hot topic'. – Black Falcon (Talk) 06:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Erroneous uses...should not be counted...as an indication of popularity" Hehe, there are plenty of articles where I'd like to use that argument. Alas, it's a non-starter.
"hot topic" Without significant eyeball numbers viewing the banner on the current template (<10 compared to 45,000 in May 2007), I assume relatively few spoiler-adding editors know what's going on here. Below, I've done calculations which suggest the current activity is typical. Milo 10:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that there are many additions of {{spoiler}} that are erroneous, at least in the sense of being used to tag information that does not contain spoilers. Certainly there are some tags that are being added that do not conform to [[WP:SPOILER], at least according to some people's interpretation of that policy. But I think it's still interesting to figure out how many times a day it's being added or removed, at least when attempting to evaluate if the current lack of spoiler tags reflects a consensus for their absence. (As best as I can tell, it's around ten times a day, and that's been consistent since I started caring in September, upon having a spoiler I added removed.) — PyTom (talk) 07:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the most general sense (i.e. tagging information that contains spoilers), there probably aren't many that are erroneous. But then, the application of "spoiler" tags to sections titled "Plot summary" and the like is utterly unnecessary. More generally, adding {{spoiler}} tags is not necessarily an indication of supporting them ... I added spoiler tags on a few occasions back when they were in mass use (months ago), but I only did so because I thought that's what should be done. I don't want to suggest that the frequency of use has no relevance, but only to highlight that the number of 'correct' applications of the template is lower than the total number of applications. Thus, in my view, the methodology actually overcounts the number of times {{spoiler}} is correctly used in articles. – Black Falcon (Talk) 08:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think the template can be correctly used on talk pages? --Pixelface 23:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, though: (1) I really don't see the necessity of it; and (2) if kept, I highly doubt that editors will restrict their use of the template. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
""Plot summary" and the like is utterly unnecessary" Spoiler-averse readers have posted otherwise, because some plot summaries contain spoilers, while others don't. So they try to read plot sections anyway, hoping not to see a spoiler. On hearing this, advocates of the burn'em theory say such readers should be punished and driven away from Wikipedia by spoilering. But driving away an entire class of readers requires a probably unobtainable wiki-wide consensus. Milo 10:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A plot summary provides information about the plot. Therefore, by definition, it contains spoilers. A "Plot summary" section needn't reveal the twist ending that the author's deliberately kept secret in order to qualify as a spoiler. – Black Falcon (Talk) 16:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You assume that plot summaries contain spoilers, but every reader of Wikipedia does not. What if a plot summary reveals the twist ending? --Pixelface 23:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A good article should present a comprehensive treatment of the subject; for works of fiction, that includes a brief summary of the plot. A good plot summary should summarise all significant elements of the plot ... if that includes the twist ending, then that should be mentioned as well. However, twist endings are not the the only details that qualify as spoilers, as virtually any plot detail of which a reader is not (prior to reading the article) aware is effectively a spoiler. For instance, any description of Frodo Baggins is a spoiler for anyone who's not read the books or seen the movies; yet a good synopsis of the Lord of the Rings could not be written without mentioning the character. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what should we do until an article is a good article? I suppose the {{spoiler}} tag would be unnecessary if every article about a fictional work contained a Brief overview of the story heading and a Detailed re-telling of the entire plot heading, but most articles on fictional works have a vague ==Plot== heading, which tend to go into high detail. --Pixelface 02:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We do nothing, since the spoiler warning template is not a maintenance tag. The point I was trying to convey is that articles about works of fiction – whether they are stubs or FAs – should include information about the plot (which necessarily includes spoilers, irrespective of the level of detail), as a comprehensive treatment of the subject is not possible without it. We do not need a special disclaimer to restate that fact. By the way, a section that provides a "Detailed re-telling of the entire plot" would likely violate fair use guidelines and almost certainly WP:PLOT. – Black Falcon (Talk) 02:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can say that articles on works of fiction should include spoilers, but you cannot say that every reader of this site expects spoilers in our articles. They probably should, but they don't. That is why the tag is useful. Spoiler warnings have been commonplace on the Internet for years. And critics routinely describe the plots of fictional works without giving every twist away. This issue is about what readers expect. Who are we writing this encyclopedia for anyway? People who have already read a book really don't need a plot summary, they already know what happens. We don't need to ruin 1 piece of fiction for every English-speaking person on the planet so they can learn their lesson. The number of potential readers greatly outnumbers the number of articles we have. WP:NOT#PLOT says articles cannot be just plot summaries. For plot summaries to qualify as fair use, they have to be presented along with other information to qualify as "educational" and fair use. Many articles on Wikipedia contain a detailed re-telling of the entire plot, but a small group of editors keeps removing the spoiler tags from these articles. Perhaps you should tell the group at WT:SPOILER that they should be trimming plot sections. If articles contained no spoilers, we wouldn't need the spoiler template. But as long as anyone can edit any article and reveal as much of a plot as they want, spoiler warnings are useful, helpful, and appreciated by many, many readers. If someone doesn't like the spoiler template, they can hide it. --Pixelface 05:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: you cannot say that every reader of this site expects spoilers in our articles. Perhaps not every reader, but is it really too much to assume that a reader will realise that an article about a work of fiction will include information about that work's plot (especially in sections titled "Plot" or "Plot summary")? You write about spoilers and plot summaries as if those are completely distinct ... they are not! Every plot summary necessarily contains spoilers.
You wrote: If articles contained no spoilers, we wouldn't need the spoiler template. The only time that an article about a work of fiction will contain no spoilers is when it contains no plot details whatsoever. Any article that includes even a brief plot summary will necessarily contain spoilers for those who've not read the book, seen the film, etc. – Black Falcon (Talk) 06:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (indenting out) In response to Black Falcon's 06:56, 14 November 2007 comment: The words "plot", "summary", and "synopsis" do not indicate that the entire plot of a piece of fiction will be present in a section. You assume too much about readers. The proof is in the edit summaries of articles[6] or whenever someone adds a spoiler tag. What if someone doesn't know when a fictional work is set to be released and reads the article thinking it's not out yet so it surely must not have spoilers? Film critics and videogame critics and book critics regularly describe the plots of films, videogames, and books without revealing spoilers. So every plot summary does not necessarily contain spoilers. And besides, section headings like ==Plot== and ==Plot summary== that contain no citations are unreliable sources. A plot description may contain spoilers, it may not. It depends on who's been editing the article. And since anyone can edit any article at any time, the content is constantly in flux. The {{spoiler}} tag is used to identify plot descriptions that go into a high level of detail. Your claim that "Any article that includes even a brief plot summary will necessarily contain spoilers for those who've not read the book, seen the film, etc" is false. People can describe the plots of fictional works without ruining those fictional works for readers. If you assume that every plot description necessarily contains spoilers, then perhaps all ==Plot== headings should be renamed to ==Plot with spoilers== for those who do not make that assumption.
  • Roger Ebert's film reviews have been published for 40 years in the Chicago Sun-Times and he was the first person to ever win a Pulitzer Prize for Criticism. He reviewed films on television for 30 years, from 1976 to 2006. He has an honorary degree from the American Film Institute. He has written over 15 books. Ebert wrote an article entitled "Critics have no right to play spoiler"[7] and said, "The characters in movies do not always do what we would do. Sometimes they make choices that offend us. That is their right. It is our right to disagree with them. It is not our right, however, to destroy for others the experience of being as surprised by those choices as we were." Roger Ebert is a reliable source and when he uses spoiler warnings (which he does frequently) they can be cited in an article. When any reliable source uses spoilers warnings, they can be cited in articles. If the template is deleted, you will end up with homemade spoiler warnings. Deleting the template will not remove spoiler warnings from Wikipedia. The template allows for standardization across multiple articles. --Pixelface 07:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your definitino of "spoiler" is too narrow ... it's not necessarily something that completely ruins the work of fiction for the reader or viewer. Take the example of The Lord of the Rings I gave above: stating that the main character is a hobbit is a spoiler of sorts, yet is an important of an encyclopedic summary of the work's plot. Film, game, and book critics may make frequent use of spoiler warnings, but Wikipedia is not a film or videogame review site. It is an encyclopedia and articles on works of fiction should include an encyclopedic treatment of the plot.
    • Our disagreement, it seems, stems largely from the fact that we use different definitions of what constitutes a spoiler. Under a slightly broader definition than the one you use, it is a given that every plot summary contains spoilers. You again raise a point about the "level of detail", but you've not yet addressed my prior comments about the irrelevance of that. A general statement that "the main character survives" is a spoiler, just as is a detailed description of how s/he survives. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calculating the approximate number of spoiler templates that have been added since May 2007 (six months of 30 days = 180 days), based on 1, 3, or 10 adds per day, yields 180, 540, or 1,800 added templates.
For comparison, note that Wikipedia accumulated 45,000 spoiler notices in 7 years = 2520 days, which is about 18 adds per day. Subtract the five plain text tags per day currently added by IPs (from last spoiler police report at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler), and that leaves 12 templates added per day – which is a pretty good approximation to Pytom's observation of 10 template tags added per day. Milo 10:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I once counted a _single_ spoiler-patroller reverting something like 20 _different_ people in a 12 hour period. Scale that upwards, and you've got 10 people able to revert 200. Were each of them placed by somebody who believes spoiler tags should be there? Perhaps not. Let's say half are just people who think that's what you're supposed to do. 10 people reverting 100. Not that much better. Were the tags placed 'erroneously'? Well, that depends on the definition of erroneously. We're supposed to be going for consensus, and if consensus says they're placed that way, then maybe that's how they should be placed. Perhaps they should not cover the entire plot section, but then perhaps a better act than removing them would be to better place them. But then, the spoiler-patrollers don't care about making articles better using spoiler tags, they just want to remove spoiler warnings completely.
And that's the real issue here. The spoiler patrollers are OBSESSIVE, in a way that people adding spoiler warnings can't be. I haven't seen many people mass adding spoiler warnings, and even if they desired to, a single spoiler patroller can undo their work. They're not enforcing the guideline, they're enforcing their point of view, in a way that's against consensus. Because the guideline allows exceptions, but their behaviour generally doesn't. They instantly vote _against_ any and every spoiler tag, essentially declaring they WP: own the template. If you control the exceptions, you control the guideline. They also attempt to control the guideline (perfectly within the spirit of Wiki, I should say) itself by showing up in the debate to set what it should be in significant enough numbers to ensure that it never gets changed to be more spoiler friendly (although not always intellectually honestly... some of them recently claiming, in response to a pro-warning edit, that the guideline should be _descriptive_, not _prescriptive_, which is hilarious when you consider that the controversy started when people against the warning made it prescriptive against most of them. Why not outright say they think the spoiler guideline should made what the spoiler patrol are able to enforce?). By this point very existence of a spoiler patrol and their continued work proves that there's no consensus to remove spoiler warnings. If there was consensus, it would be enforced locally instead of a small number of people enforcing it on pages they're unfamiliar with. So I urge anyone who voted Keep to come to the WP:Spoiler page and help edit it so it's fairer and more spoiler-warning friendly. Don't let the obsessive few win. And if you voted Delete, by all means, show up too, if you're willing to be fair-minded. Wandering Ghost 12:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
section edit break 8
  • Delete. There's no reason this template should be an exception to Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Of the various disclaimers I've encountered (and generally seen deleted), this is by far the least useful: Warning! The article you are about to read contains information about the article's subject! I paraphrase, but come on ... Plot details (not necessarily KBs of plot, but some description of a work's plot) are an indivisible part of articles about books, stories, films, and the like. – Black Falcon (Talk) 06:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think spoiler notices should not be an exception to the guideline no disclaimers in articles, go discuss it on that guideline's talk page. And you're making a gross generalization of the template by saying "Warning! The article you are about to read contains information about the article's subject!" That is not what the template says at all. The template specifies the level of detail that a plot description goes into. I suppose that could be indicated by more descriptive headings but as long as editors use vague headings such as ==Plot==, the spoiler tag is useful. The text below a ==Plot== heading is not the actual plot, that would be a copyright violation for all but public domain works. The text below a ==Plot== heading is a description of the plot, and descriptions can vary in length. You can describe the plot of a fictional work by revealing every detail of the story. You can also describe the plot of a fictional work without revealing twists, climaxes, or endings. The use guideline on writing about fiction says "Information about copyrighted fictional worlds and plots of works of fiction can be provided only under a claim of fair use, and Wikipedia's fair-use policy holds that "the amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible"." The issue of spoiler notices is not just about courtesy, it's about copyright. When people talk about "spoilers", they are often referring to copyrighted material. If Wikipedia articles did not contain detailed plot descriptions, spoiler notices would be unnecessary. But the length of plot descriptions vary, and the template is useful for informing readers of the level of detail plot descriptions go into. I suppose the template would not be necessary below Plot headings if the heading was titled ==Entire plot with spoilers==, but that is not a common practice among editors. Some readers assume that ==Plot== headings indicate spoilers are ahead. Some readers make no such assumption. Saying readers should make that assumption does not mean that they will. We should not be punishing readers for their lack of knowledge. Rather, we should be educating them. --Pixelface 18:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A deletion discussion is as good a place to discuss as WP:NDA ... Anyway, the level of detail is largely irrelevant: a single sentence that reveals the twist ending of a book is as much a spoiler as a ten-paragraph timeline of fictional events. You're correct that, per Wikipedia:Copyrights, we can provide only a description of the plot (i.e. a summary) and not the entire plot (or even substantial portions of it). However, again, a brief plot summary can give away spoilers just as well as a detailed plot description.
  • As for your other point, spoiler warnings are not in any way related to fair use. Fair use requires that we use a minimum of copyrighted content, but a plot summary that violates fair use guidelines will be in violation irrespective of whether it is tagged with {{spoiler}}. The presence or absence of the tag has no bearing on the copyright-compliance of a section. If the goal is to have a template that highlights the need to bring a particular plot summary in line with fair use guidelines, then what you're looking for is Template:Plot. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The level of detail is relevant to readers. And it's also probably relevant to authors, publishers, and copyright holders. If a brief plot summary can give away spoilers just as well as a long one, the {{spoiler}} tag is necessary. Spoilers refer to plot details so the issue of spoilers and spoiler warnings is related to fair use. The {{plot}} template makes no mention of fair use, it just says a section is "too long", whatever that means. If a reader reads spoilers and is no longer going to spend money on a book or film or videogame, that is a serious issue. If editors are going to include spoilers in articles, they better provide a good fair use rationale how their re-telling of the story would not make readers avoid spending money on the fictional work. --Pixelface 07:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no reason this template should be an exception to Wikipedia:No disclaimers" Long story, shorter version: The profit-driven dramatic hyperbole "spoiler warning", isn't a bone fide warning, because there is no danger. If it isn't a bone fide warning, then there is no legal responsibility to disclaim. If there's nothing legal to disclaim, then it's an exception to the normal reasons for disclaiming, which is to stop people from sueing WF. No one is going to sue because they were disappointed by a spoiler. Therefore, it's not a bone fide disclaimer when placed in an article — it's just a content notice like the disambig notice and the Table of Contents. Milo 10:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issues of legal responsibility or liability are not the only reasons behind WP:NDA. There are other reasons, such as the general subjectivity and/or cultural bias of disclaimers, their arbitrariness, and so on. While you're correct that the presence or absence of {{spoiler}} is not a legal issue, that has no bearing on its usefulness. The disambig notice serves to explain the nature of those types of pages and the TOC helps editors to navigate through an article more easily. All this does is to alert readers that the article they've visited contains relevant information about the article's subject. – Black Falcon (Talk) 16:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When people talk about "spoilers", they are often referring to copyrighted material. The use guideline on writing about fiction says "Information about copyrighted fictional worlds and plots of works of fiction can be provided only under a claim of fair use, and Wikipedia's fair-use policy holds that "the amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible"." The guideline on non-free content says one criteria is "Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." Are readers less likely to buy a book if they've read every plot twist on Wikipedia? For some reason, plot summaries don't require a fair use rationale like images, but perhaps they should. Editors would have to show that a plot summary does not replace "the original market role of the original copyrighted media." If Wikipedia articles did not contain detailed plot descriptions, spoiler notices would be unnecessary. But the length of plot descriptions vary, and the template is useful for informing readers of the level of detail that plot descriptions contain (although highly detailed plot summaries appear to go against WP:WAF). The {{spoiler}} template clarifies the level of detail a plot description contains. And it's polite. If editors working on an article disagree that the {{spoiler}} template should be used, secondary sources that contain spoiler warnings could help settle the issue. --Pixelface 00:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my reply further up the page ... while plot summaries and fair use guidelines are related, spoiler notices are unrelated to copyright issues. If certain content violates fair use guidelines, we should fix or remove it, not tag it with {{spoiler}}. I have also replied at the same place regarding the relationship between spoiler notices and length ... namely, that I don't think there is any. A single sentence about a film's ending can be as much a spoiler as a ten-paragraph detailed description of the film's beginning. – Black Falcon (Talk) 02:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also the issue of precedent. A spoiler warning is essentially a disclaimer to the reader that they may encounter content which they do not want to see. That is no different than a profanity disclaimer, an "adult content" disclaimer, a disclaimer for articles with images of a woman's hair (that's offensive in some settings/cultures/belief systems), and so on. Though the immediate effects of these different disclaimers are not the same, the premise that underlies them all is. – Black Falcon (Talk) 16:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the spoiler warning informs readers that they may read information they don't want to know yet. The tag's purpose is to preserve a story's climax like the author intended. Wikipedia should not be the person who comes out of the first showing of a film and tells everyone in line how the film ends. "But the people are in line to see the film! They obviously want to see the film! They want to know what happens!" Yes, but probably not yet and likely not from you. Some stories have information that is best discovered on your own. You have no way of knowing someone's motivation for going to see a film or beginning to read an article. The spoiler tag gives readers a choice. Instead of articles blurting out what happens, the template is like asking people "Would you like me to tell you how the story ends?" Comparing fictional works to photographs is a bad comparison. All photographs are of past, real-life events. When people start reading a fiction book, the events in the book are considered future events. When someone reads text on Wikipedia and now has foreknowledge of what happens in the story, whatever emotional impact the fictional work contained is now muted. Not giving fair notice to Wikipedia readers denies that fiction is written to be experienced and denies that fiction can be enjoyed. Fiction is not merely for analysis and deconstruction and criticism. Comparing articles on fictional works to photographs that some people may find offensive ignores that fictional works contain stories that are not real. They are the work of an author. A photograph is a form of document that is different from a intentionally written fictional story. Fictional works do not aspire to be fact, they can contain anything an author imagines. It is not Wikipedia's job to surprise readers, that should be left to the original author. --Pixelface 00:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is an adult content disclaimer if not a notice to the reader that the may read or see something that they don't want to know yet (i.e. if the reader is a minor ... although there's a good chance the disclaimer will only arouse a reader's curiousity)? Also, while I agree that it's not Wikipedia's role to surprise people or to provide length plot descriptions, I think we're not giving enough credit to people if we suggest that they will be surprised to find information about a work's plot in an article about the work. The existence and use of Template:Spoiler doesn't bother me as much as the precedent that it sets for the creation and use of other content disclaimers. The distinction between real and fictional that you highlight above is not especially critical, since people can take offense from both. A fake photo of a real or fictional person can be just as objectionable to some as a real photo of a real person (e.g. the Muhammad cartoons controversy). Likewise, a text description of certain objects, acts, or ideas in the context of a work of fiction can be just as objectionable as a description of similar objects, acts, or ideas in a real-world context. – Black Falcon (Talk) 02:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're saying that people who object to certain images on Wikipedia want to see those images eventually? If someone finds an image objectionable, I doubt their reason is that they wanted to wait and be surprised by it later. When a reader reads an article on Wikipedia and unexpectedly finds out how a book ends, it alters the experience of first reading the book. It's like knowing people are going to throw you a surprise party later tonight. Fiction can go in any direction and knowing that direction beforehand makes it tedious. Some people prefer to be surprised by the author, not Wikipedia. Maybe people who prefer to be surprised by a story shouldn't be reading Wikipedia, but they do. This site is for everyone who speaks English. So we should give readers fair notice. You don't know what a sentence says until you've read it, and you can't simply unread it after you'd read it. Leave the placement of the tag up to people who are familiar with the fictional work or secondary sources that discuss the fictional work. People who are against the spoiler tag want readers to find out on their own that Wikipedia contains spoilers, but why not give readers a choice so they can find out the story on their own? Some readers want to know a basic overview of a plot, they don't want to know the entire plot. When people see a spoiler warning and avoid the text below it, it's because they want to wait and discover the story on their own. When people object to an image of Muhammad, it's not because they wanted to read the newspaper on their own. --Pixelface 05:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm saying that the purpose of an adult content disclaimer is to warn off anyone who is not an adult (that is, anyone who - in theory - isn't supposed to, shouldn't, or may not want to view adult content). It's a notice that a certain class of readers (non-adult readers) may not yet (until they become adults) wish to view certain content. Template:Spoiler is similar in this respect: it is a notice that a certain class of readers (those who haven't read a book/seen the film and don't want to 'be spoiled') may not yet (until they read the book/view the film) wish to view certain content. Since a disclaimer for the Muhammad cartoons is not an adult content disclaimer, your analogy is not exactly fitting; I gave that example to show that the fact that information presented in the context of a work of fiction does not automatically mean that it is universally unobjectionable. . – Black Falcon (Talk) 07:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see spoiler warnings as serving a different purpose. An article on a work of fiction contains information about several things. There's information about the production of the work, basic information about settings and story that won't ruin the enjoyment of a reader or viewer, and detailed information that will. {{spoiler}} serves as a way of distinguishing this last kind of information from the first two. I think {{spoiler}} has some problems (notably, it's too big and garish for its purpose). But as long as we have a significant number of readers who would like to have the ability to read about the production of works of fiction without reading about the end, {{spoiler}} has a place. — PyTom (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem still remains that many times they are inserted around the entire plot -- normally by those who claim that "it spoiled the ending for me!" and other similar comments. What help does this give? Either there needs to be a warning on the whole page (which is there, in the content disclaimer, as well as the current fiction tag for such) or it needs to be much more directed...but the later normally breaks things up and simply makes things look horrid. It also creates the issue with people making the prose a lot worse for the sake of shoveling the "spoilers" into between the tags. There ARE ways to avoid all this, for starters, simply say "plot will reveal details" and only use the tag for other sections where it might not normally have such details. Then again, the existence of a spoiler tag itself might be a spoiler at times... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content disclaimer is buried 2 links down. And why is a {{current fiction}} tag (which tags the whole article and has an expiration date) more helpful than {{spoiler}} tags put around the entire plot? I suppose the {{spoiler}} tag may be a clue that a book or film has a major twist, but with no tag it's likely readers would stumble into the twist anyway. A {{spoiler}} tag around the entire plot lets readers know the plot description is highly detailed and they can avoid it if they want, or take a risk reading some of it to get an overview. --Pixelface 01:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
section edit break 9
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"[10]

• 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)[reply]
  • Just a note to state that I strongly deprecate Milomedes extremely slanted description of the affair, in particular his false and baseless accusations of abuse of process. Many attempts were made to manipulate the dispute resolution process in order to further such false accusations. They were all rejected. --Tony Sidaway 19:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"his false and baseless accusations of abuse of process" I don't see any here. Perhaps you can point them out. I'll take your failure to do so as a retraction.
"extremely slanted description" So you are saying that my compilation of dates, times, quotes, and links is factual, but only one side of the story. If so, it's all that I know about. If you have a compilation of dates, times, quotes, and links showing another side, please post them. Remember, that's dates, times, quotes, and links of the original MfD, TfD, RFC, and template notice period. If you can't supply them, mine will become dispositive of your unsupported personal opinions.
"Many attempts were made to manipulate the dispute resolution process in order to further such false accusations." By my posting links to the original MfD, TfD, RFC, and template notice edits, the facts are now evident. The TFD quote shows that you were the notable front man for the "we", who did what was done. The early removal of the RFC template notice is a direct abuse of process, and a simple fact that cannot be glossed over with artful claims of "false", "baseless", "slant", and "manipulate". You allowed the RFC template notice removal to happen. Therefore, you share responsibility for abuse of process with Dan100 who made that removal edit, with the smoking edit summary "Get on with your lives". Milo 09:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Milo, do stop piling false accusations one on top of another. Your personal attacks, which have been tolerated for several months now, are becoming quite disgraceful. Stop or be stopped. --Tony Sidaway 23:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the facts linked above give a false appearance, how would I know? You claimed slant, which in fairness to you I'm willing to consider possible, but you posted no dates, times, quotes, or links showing your side. Not even an alibi, such as, you were asleep at the time. Your undocumented protest is noted, but with no verifiable response from you, a reasonable person can draw the conclusion that the linked facts are just as true as they appear to be.
I play by the rules, and don't make personal attacks on character, which you are confusing with my criticisms of your verified questionable behavior. WP:NPA reads: "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks,..."
Tsk, tsk, you have a short memory. Far from attacking your character, I complimented it. I defended you and said I admired your efforts to improve how you personally interact with other editors, here.
Btw, it's not nice to attempt intimidation of your negotiating partners. Makes you look bad, and tends to harden attitudes when compromise is what's needed. Milo 11:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let us assume, for argument's sake, that Milo's accusations are true. What happens then? Arbcom was not willing to take the case. At this late date, it's like re-hashing the 2000 U.S. presidential election: valid or otherwise, it's over with. Milo keeps bringing it up (and bringing it up...and bringing it up...), apparently hoping that the Red Sea will part, and someone from On High will declare that the apparent consensus — i.e., the almost complete lack of spoiler warnings on English Wikipedia — was fraudulently or invalidly obtained. But while we wait for that miraculous event to occur, what is to be done in the meantime? We are where we are. Marc Shepherd 21:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hi voters, this is the Long Comments section. Short comments and votes go in the section just above the #Long comments header. Thanks for votes stating good reasons — see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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)[reply]

Neutral for now, I'll wait and see how those AfDs go before making a decision. L337 kybldmstr 04:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Keep and remake - the AfD ended in a keep. The template is a bit messy, but it shouldn't be that hard to clean it up. L337 kybldmstr 10:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Anything revelant should be put in the {{Warcraft universe}} template. Thundermaster367 10:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vandrep

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:JzG per CSD G7 (author request). – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as per precedent. Discussed extensively, and consequences of using the template followed by no admin action to incite further bad behavior outweigh value of notice. — Bsherr 00:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine by me if this has been discussed and will be deleted on that basis. Nonetheless, I wouldn't mind reading the discussion to which you refer. The link you provided, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Non-admin_fwarn, appears only to link to the top of this page. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 15:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no indication on the history page of the template that it was previously nominated - cant' find any evidence... better link? SkierRMH 16:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the link is now fixed. Just to clarity, this discussion not for this particular template, but for a similar one, to establish precedent. Bsherr 16:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, reading that discussion was enlightening and I'm going to db-author the thing, if that's all right. What motivated me to write it was that I found it somewhat strange to see a whole succession of vand4s on a page. I suppose I and, from what I can see, a whole bunch of other editors, feel some compunction about letting a revert go unwarned, as it were, while waiting for admin action. I can see now that I need to chill a bit and just let the universe unfold as it should. :-) — Dave (Talk | contribs) 16:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My first instinct was just like yours. See Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#"User reported" templates. If you're not already a member, please consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings. You'd be welcome! — Bsherr 17:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_November_8&oldid=171540577"