Wikipedia talk:Spoiler

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

Other archives: Archive 0 Archive debate Guidelines Guideline status Guideline status 2 RfC • RfC talk • RfC 2 • RfC 2 talk

Plot information vs Production information

I've been thinking about this for a bit, and I've come to realize that more important than tagging spoilers is distinguishing between plot and production information. The way I see it, articles on fiction contain two types of information: information about the story, and information about the production.

Take this (very likely untrue) information about The Empire Strikes Back.

• ... where Vader announces he is Luke's father.

This would likely go into a plot section. Plot sections contain spoilers, that's fine.

• ... the Cloud City sets were built in a soundstage in England.

When placed in a section about the movie's production, this is fine.

• ... the scene where Vader announces he's Luke's father used the largest green screen ever made.

This is a mix of production and plot information (a p/pmix), and that's where all the problems seem to lie. It's out of place in the plot section, but it contains information about the plot that is inappropriate in the production section.

Users may view an article about a work of fiction when looking for information about the plot, the production, or both. The encyclopedia is more useful if a user can find information about the production without being exposed to information about the plot.

I'll define plot information as information that is revealed over the course of a work. So the existence of Cloud City isn't really a p/pmix ... it existed at the start of the work, and there isn't any sense of revelation to its introduction. Vader telling Luke he is his father, on the other hand, is a p/pmix.

There are several ways to deal with this. The most important one, I think, is that we should state somewhere that it is generally a good idea to keep production information and plot information separate, as much as is reasonably possible. Trying for this separation, as a matter of style, makes articles more encyclopedic, not less. Even without spoiler tags, it makes sense to keep plot information is clearly-marked sections.

That being said, there are cases where a p/pmix is unavoidable. I think the (made up) green screen example is one. So the question is what do we do?

Nothing. This is the current, post {{spoiler}} deletion approach to things. While this is a workable approach, it doesn't allow us to indicate a p/pmix, making the encyclopedia less useful, at least in my opinion. Perhaps you don't believe production/plot mixes to be a problem... why not? (As opposed to a problem for which there is no good solution.)

Tag. This is basically the immediate, pre-deletion spoiler policy, but improved. I think that the definitions of "plot information" and "mix of production and plot information" give the basis for an objective tagging policy. We also replace the word "spoiler" with something else, which hopefully would help editors put aside their preconceived notions of spoilerishness in favor of policy-based tagging.

I'd suggest that if p/pmix tagging will be used, it should be made subtle. I think one of the major objections to the spoiler tag was that it was a huge three-line monstrosity, made to stand out. I have a suggestion on how to do this, but I'll save that for later.

Something else. Is there another solution to the p/pmix problem? I can't think of one, but I'm just one guy.

Anyway, thanks for reading this. Hopefully, by changing how we all frame the problem, we can have a more productive discussion. Oh, and if you would, please don't even talk about the spoiler tag deletion debate... that won't help us move forward much. — PyTom (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the best solution is to drop the assumption that some information in an article on a fictional subject is toxic and must be flagged, tagged, or marked in some manner that will enable readers to not read it. If they don't want to know about a fictional subject, they can avoid reading encyclopedia articles on the subject. This gives complete control over to the reader. How about that? --Tony Sidaway 10:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

True, and outside of the plot summary section, it's possible to use wording that doesn't reveal as much of the plot. For instance, instead of "the scene where Vader announces he's Luke's father...", how about "the scene where Luke battles Vader...". Readers will still know what scene is being referred to, but the major plot twist isn't revealed. I'm sure there are situations where re-wording isn't practical, but it's still a useful strategy, IMO. Chaz ^Beckett 13:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In any case, I think that the proposed distinction is so subtle that there is very little hope of seeing it widely understood and adopted in a website edited by thousands of people. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• And there are times when plot & production are intrinsically interwoven, as when production demands drive rewrites and script changes, or edits affect the apparent backstory or plot, etc. --Lquilter (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Tony, it's not that the information is toxic. It's just that a failing to include a distinction between plot and production information makes wikipedia less useful to readers, who may be interested in one or the other. Sure one thing we can do is to tell the user to not read our article on the subject... but wouldn't it be better if we didn't have to?

Chaz, I think rewording can often be a good strategy, especially when the added specificity does nothing to clarify the point being made.

Marc, I'm not sure the distinction is that hard to understand. There are other concepts that are more hard to understand (like distinguishing a reliable source from an unreliable one), that we ask editors to abide by in every article.

Lquilter, I think you're right... and the open question is what is the best way of dealing with that case. — PyTom (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Having now re-read the discussion, I think we're dealing with a non-existent problem. Most Wikipedia articles already discuss the plot in a clearly marked section. If plot details are mentioned in any other section, there are two cases to consider:

1. It is relevant and well organized
2. It is irrelevant and/or poorly organized

In the first case, the article is doing its job. In the second case, the offending material should be re-written or re-organized, not specifically because plot and production information are mixed, but because that's what we would do about any poorly structured article. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing: I'm anti-spoilers on wikipedia in any way, shape or form as an official guideline. I feel like the responsibility of WP is to be a source of information, and anyone searching on WP should have access to all available information at their own risk. I don't think there's any way to draft an official policy regarding the differences between plot and production summaries and have it work, with as many editors as we have. That being said, I'd support the tweaking of certain phrases (as with the example above) in some parts of articles, as long as it's not an official spoiler. Snowfire51 (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Inside the info box?

Just a suggestion, but what if a spoiler note could be put inside the info box for films. Would that be less intrusive? I'm talking tiny. --YellowTapedR (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not about intrusiveness but about avoiding violating core policies WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. There is also issues with redundancy that the pro-spoiler side completely ignores and why this in-article disclaimer should be given an exception when we don't permit other in-article disclaimers. --Farix (Talk) 02:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but there are disclaimers all over this site. The current events and recently deceased tags are just two examples. The policies you just cited have nothing to do it. --YellowTapedR (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But perhaps those templates should be taken to TfD if they are truely disclaimers. --Farix (Talk) 02:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The current events tag is a notice to readers that information on the subject is changing so rapidly that the article may be inaccurate or outdated. For example, during a natural disaster or election the corresponding article may experience multiple edits per minute. The recently deceased tag is a little less useful (IMO), but it's essentially a subset of current events, where information regarding a person's death is changing rapidly. It's not widely used, which is probably appropriate, since few people's deaths are notable enough at any given time to require such a tag.

In contrast to current events, information on fictional works changes at a slow rate, with details emerging over days, months or even years. Occasionally there will be fictional works that will rise to the level of a current event (Harry Potter 7 release, blockbuster movie), in which case the current event tag may apply. As opposed to the dynamic nature of a current event, fictional works are quite static, especially once released. This makes a current fiction tag more a disclaimer and less of a helpful notice to readers. Chaz ^Beckett 13:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If Current Fiction is deleted

If CF is deleted it will leave us with no templates to mark spoilers. At that point, is it worth it to maintain this page separate from WP:NDT considering that the effective text of this page will be "Wikipedia does not warn about spoilers beyond the general site disclaimer?" Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think WP:SPOIL is useful even if technically redundant, and serves better than a redirect to one line in a long page would - David Gerard (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this page findable?

Is it worth noting that this page is pretty much hidden from anyone looking for it? Try doing a search for it; there's no link anywhere. --YellowTapedR (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the first hit in a search for the word "spoiler" or "spoilers", so it's really not hidden at all. --Farix (Talk) 02:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Actually try doing a search instead of trying to make me look stupid. There is no link on the page that comes up and there is no link on spoiler (media). --YellowTapedR (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Enter "spoiler" and then hit "search". But it isn't my fault that you can't properly search for something. --Farix (Talk) 02:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to be a dick. That's exactly what I did and there is no link to it. Try it yourself. I looked back on the disambiguation page and it appears that Tony Sidaway removed the link. Interesting. --YellowTapedR (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Do remember to remain civil, and I did do a search just before posting. Or do I need to take a screen shoot before you will believe me? --Farix (Talk) 02:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I was reminding you to be civil, actually. You're either mistaken or your screwing with me. Ten seconds ago, I searched for "spoiler" and here's what comes up:

Spoiler could refer to

Spoiler (aeronautics), a device to reduce lift in aeronautics Spoiler (automotive), a device to modify air flow in order to increase fuel efficiency or improve handling in automobiles Spoiler (sports), a team that has been eliminated from the playoffs, and beats a team that required that win to advance Spoiler (media), a comment which discloses plot details of a book, play, video game, or film or is intended to distract attention from a rival Spoiler (comics), a secondary character in the DC comic book Robin SPOILER (film), a comedy film project in New York City Spoiler effect, an individual unable to win an election or game for him- or herself, but with the power to determine which player among two or more others will win Spoiler (politician), a candidate for election, who, while having little chance of winning, draws votes from another candidate with similar positions on major issues, thus allowing the election of someone with contrary positions Mighty Spoiler, a popular calypso singer Don Jardine, a professional wrestler also known as the Spoiler.

--YellowTapedR (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are one who is being uncivil by first accusing me of making you look bad, then calling me a dick when I restated that you weren't using the search function properly, and now claiming that I must be screwing with you. But here is the screen shot: Image:Spoiler screenshot.png --Farix (Talk) 03:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's probably a difference in which namespaces are selected in user preferences (Search tab). I'm guessing that TheFarix has the Wikipedia namespace selected and YellowTapedR doesn't. I think the default setting is that only mainspace is searched, but editors often add other namespaces. Chaz ^Beckett 03:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. So, I'll revise my statement: The guideline is hidden from anyone who has their search preferences set to the default. Should that be the case? What's the point of having a guideline if most editors can't find it? --YellowTapedR (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No, what happened was YellowTapedR made the mistake of using /go/ instead of /search/. The later is what brings up this page first. I do believe you can change those preferences, true, but hidden? Not in the least. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

All right, I'm the moron here. Moving on. But for morons, like myself, who hit enter instead of clicking on //search//, all that comes up is the disambiguation page. Why isn't it there?--YellowTapedR (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Because unless you specifically try to by entering the "Wikipedia:" prefix, all attempts to go to a page assume that you are looking for an article, not a policy page. There are a handful of exceptions - some of our three-letter-acronyms do work without the WP prefix, and a handful of things like No Personal Attacks will take you to the policy page, but even Neutral Point of View when searched for straight-on takes you to an article on journalistic objectivity. This is not a bug - unless you are clearly looking for a policy page, Wikipedia does not take you to one. This is true for all policy pages, not just this one. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I just typed in a few examples --Civil, Personal attack, Original research, Neutral point of view -- and all of them had a link to the policies at the top of the articles. The article for spoiler (media) used to, too, as did the disambiguation page, but one of the editors here removed it. I'm just wondering if there have been attempts to make this page harder to find. I don't know. You would think that you'd want the page found easily, so people don't add makeshift warnings and so they can chime in, right? --YellowTapedR (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right. There's no reason for it not to be there. Tony Sideway removed it, probably because it was in lumped together with the rest. I put it on top like most of the others. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed it specifically because links to policies and the like do not belong on Wikipedia. If somebody wants to know about our policies they should look in the correct namespace. --Tony Sidaway 20:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, not everyone knows how to do that. Beginners have the same rights as long-time users, you know, including the right to learn how to become better Wikipedia editors. I think Melodia's solution is best. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that new editors have the right to learn. That isn't an argument for placing what amounts to unencyclopedic data into the encyclopedia body. An introduction to Wikipedia, including its policies, is linked from the Main Page. I will accept what Melodia has done but I don't think it's at all necessary. --Tony Sidaway 15:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a link on a disambiguation page. Surely it is understandable that new users (and even some veteran users) will find there to be some ambiguity between Spoiler and WP:SPOILER, yes? A single link on the Main Page isn't necessarily enough (just as a discrete disclaimer on a page no one would normally visit is not necessarily enough). Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's probably already been mentioned, but...

A Wikipedia article is usually one of the first Google hits for a movie title. A lot of people Google for more information about the overall plot of a movie, but don't want to read critical plot details. The "Disclaimers" link is at the bottom of the page; there's no way a typical user is going to see that before reading the unwanted information. I submit that out of courtesy to readers, it would be good to have spoiler warnings in Wikipedia articles about movies, TV shows, and books.

Proposal for when/where to use a spoiler warning

• when unexpected plot elements (not disclosed in any trailers or other promotional material) are revealed
• have one template to use if the entire section contains spoilers, and another to use if only the latter part of a section contains them ("The remaining part of this section contains spoilers...")

It's not possible to remove all subjectiveness out of the decision to include a spoiler warning, but that is the case with most Wikipedia guidelines, many of which deal with much more important or divisive content disputes. Thanks for your consideration. Eseymour (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this has been mentioned and rejected. Kusma (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Kusma doesn't tell the whole story. People are divided on the issue. Historically, there have been probably more spoiler warning proponents than opponents, but the proponents have less political power and came in several generations, so the opponents win. Samohyl Jan (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether there are "more spoiler warning proponents than opponents" is questionable. There is anecdotal evidence both supporting and refuting that statement. It depends whose anecdotes you believe. In either case, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Marc Shepherd (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia is _unfortunately_ not a democracy, thus a minority can enforce power over a majority, even in the case of subjective issues, such as spoiler warnings. Samohyl Jan (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I honestly don't understand what the big drawback is to having some kind of minimally-intrusive spoiler warning, but as with so many topics on Wikipedia, it appears that a very motivated minority is able to enforce its will over a majority which has other things they'd rather do. Sigh. Eseymour (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me respond to the substance of the proposal, just for the heck of it. "Unexpected plot elements" is subjective. "Not disclosed in any trailers or other promotional material" appears arbitrary. Moreover, specifying "trailers [and] promotional material" is about as artificial as anything I've seen, subjecting any critical inquiry to the whims of what a promotional media department has decided to try to generate buzz about. ... Finally, as has been pointed out before, if people do not want to learn about a subject they shouldn't go to an encyclopedia on that subject. If all they want is what they could see in promotional materials then they should go to the promotional material itself. And while Google links are too arbitrary and bizarre for us to use as a criteria for anything here in Wikipedia, the statement that WP is the first link is not always true: for popular films with a large "promotional" budget, at least, a film website is more often than not the first google link. And they will include all the promotional buzz and plot mystification that any anti-spoiler person could wish. --Lquilter (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's subjective, but so is just about every other Wikipedia guideline. FWIW, I didn't mean that everything not in promotional materials would be a spoiler, only things that significantly affect the plot and aren't revealed by the studio. Oh well. Eseymour (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There are several problems with this. First determining what "significantly affects the plot" is highly analytical and subjective and would be a blatant violation of WP:NOR without clear secondary sourcing. There is also the problem with how do you determine what information is not reveled by the studio or publisher. If I really want to get cranky, I could state that once the work has been released or published, then its plot details has been "reviled" by the studio or publisher and are no longer spoilers. And you can't make a distinction between what is released through promotional materials and the release of the work itself as is completely arbitrary and a possible violation of WP:NPOV. Not an ideal position if you are a supporter of spoiler warnings. --Farix (Talk) 17:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So you say, but I've never seen a good argument that this is actually the case. To me a spoiler warning violates NPOV or NOR in the same way almost any organizational element does... what counts as "Early Life", in a biography article, to use the classic example.

For that matter, determining whether information is important enough to be included in an article or is meaningless trivia is often in the same category. Once you have a working definition of what you're going to count as a warning-merited spoiler, you'd probably have 90% agreement on where the spoilers are in any given article, any more than, once you have a working definition of a baker, you probably have 90% agreement about whether any particular character in a tv series or movie is a baker, or is involved in a love triangle, regardless as to whether the words were actually used in the fiction. It doesn't count as something requiring a secondary source, The primary source itself is sufficient. Or you'd have 90% agreement on whether a particular event counts as being in somebody's early history. Wandering Ghost (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be broad to consider spoilers everything not in promotional materials. I think warnings should only be used if they are in unexpected places, especially the lead. For example, the intro for I Know Who Killed Me:

'I Know Who Killed Me' is a 2007 erotic thriller film starring Lindsay Lohan, Julia Ormond, and Neal McDonough. The film was directed by Chris Sivertson. Based on the Screenplay by Jeff Hammon. Filming began on December 16, 2006 and finished in late February 2007. It was released on July 27, 2007. This is Lohan's second film starring as both twins, the first being The Parent Trap.

Granted, it's a sucky movie, but the bit about the twins is revealed at the end and is the whole mystery. Readers probably expect to see that kind of thing in the plot summary, but not in the intro. --YellowTapedR (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

True, that detail is just trivia and doesn't belong in the intro. Chaz ^Beckett 16:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think cases like that could be handled editorially. The triva about Lohan playing twins should follow the mention of that information in the plot summary section. Eseymour (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

future template

I noticed today that some articles were using the {{future}} template as a standing for the {{spoiler}} template. That strikes me as very strange - {{future}} is for real-world future events, not things in a fictional storyline. It only has an appearance of acceptability in these articles because of their in-universe prose. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That is strange, but is it possible that whoever did it meant to use the Template:Futurefiction template?--YellowTapedR (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be the action of one Bionicle editor who still thinks that article information should be made "safe" for those who don't want to be "spoiled". He is calling it a compromise of some sort. But my impression of the Bionicle articles is that they almost all violate WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT. --Farix (Talk) 16:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that is strange then. I think we could probably do without all those LEGO and Bionical (Is there a difference? I don't know) character articles, but that's another debate. I think it's hard to spoil fans of that sort of thing, since most of them are probably too young to read anyway. --YellowTapedR (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tag wording

I can't believe the spoiler tags were deleted. I wish I'd been here for that discussion and I think they should be brought back.

If I ask my friend to tell me the plot of a movie, I'm not necessarily asking for a rundown of the entire story from beginning to end. Take this example a step further towards online uses of the word -- movie reviews that claim to describe the plot will of course not reveal spoilers, and people searching for information about a movie will similarly usually not be looking for spoilers.

When people used to complain about the use of spoiler tags, they were often complaining about something that's the result of the tag's wording. The tag used the words "the following reveals significant plot details" (not an exact quote), which when placed in a section entitled "Plot", seemed redundant -- so the tags were usually deleted, and eventually became unused. The problem is, the tag was named SPOILER and not PLOT DETAILS for a freakin' reason! "Plot" does not necessarily mean "Synopsis", and certainly not necessarily "ending" or "surprises". The wording of the tag should never have been "...plot details...". It should have been "...spoliers...". OBVIOUSLY the Plot section will contain Plot details -- but it is anything but obvious that a Plot section of an article will contain spoilers -- unless of course you're familiar with this debate on Wikipedia, which many readers of course are not.

So, change the wording of the tag to what it was meant to say, and problem solved.

Equazcion •✗/C • 02:14, 12/24/2007

Actually, the template was called redundant long before the text was changed. The text was changed in early June as part of an attempted compromise because many editors felt that the term "spoiler" wasn't academic. However, that compromise didn't work. You can see the discussion here. --Farix (Talk) 15:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I see the discussion regarding the change but I see nothing saying that the wording was redundant. I see that some people thought the tags were being overused, but no one said redundant.

Equazcion •✗/C • 20:45, 12/24/2007

Very suprised

I just same to be aware of how wikipedia has been robbed of the spoiler template by a silly maneuver by some senior admins. The story of how it was done is such a sad indictment of the way wikipeida has lost its way. Anally retentive misanthropy is now the order of the day. Shame and humbug to all of you who were involved! Lobojo (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

My comment here was deleted. I cant really undersatnd why. If you dont like you can ignore it. Wikipedia is not censored, certainly not talk paegs. I have no wish to fruitlessly oppose this action, I simply would like to express by disapointment. This is a reasonable thing to do by all acounts. Lobojo (talk) 05:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Was this comment in danger of overloading the server?! Lobojo (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

They like to silence people who express unpopular opinions. In all fairness though, you give them an excuse when you word your protest in an angry and inflammatory way. Tone it down a little so they have less reason to call it an "attack".

Equazcion •✗/C • 05:29, 12/24/2007

I am especially hurt that Tony Sideway deleted my comment, as he is a user I have admired for years and still do, for what it is worth. Lobojo (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

And what a bizzare comment from User:Melodia. [1] "Remove unhelpful comment"? Blimey! Unhelpful? Can I do that in general pn tall pages, when someone annoys me by pointing out things i dont like? Lobojo (talk) 05:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that you repeat a hotly disputed accusation as if it were fact. The fact of the matter is that the spoiler template was deleted after long discussion, followed by a normal listing for deletion, which was confirmed at deletion review. Throughout the long discussions, however, numerous damaging allegations were made, and repeated. Frankly, we decided we'd had enough because you can't hold a policy discussion when some parties feel free to accuse those whom they disagree with of doing all kinds of nasty things. On Wikipedia, we have a Dispute resolution process, and this should be followed because simply repeating the same accusations will not resolve the dispute, whilst dispute resolution will. --Tony Sidaway 05:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the fact of the matter is that the {{spoiler}} template was deleted before it had been listed for deletion for more than seven days. The nominator's timestamp was 07:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC) and the closing admin's timestamp was 22:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC). And templates that are part of the functioning of a policy or guideline cannot be listed on TFD separately. --Pixelface (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please say that to begin with then, rather than removing someone's comment. I really don't think that's too much to ask. We're not in the midst of one of those "long discussions" anymore. This was just one disgruntled person and it wouldn't have been disruptive at all to just leave it here and respond appropriately.

Equazcion •✗/C • 05:44, 12/24/2007

Thank you for your responce Tony Sideway. I merely point out that whatever it might have been the process was in no way squeaky clean. People say mean things and admins need a thick skin methinks. Lobojo (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It truly is inappropriate to remove comments unless there's a really good reason. The user above wasn't making any personal attacks, wasn't threatening legal action, wasn't revealing personal information, wasn't being nonsensical or anything else that would justify deletion. What makes it worse is that Tony Sidaway has been heavily involved in the spoiler debate. For someone with such a clear bias to attempt to police the conversation is wrong.

You can say that the above comments have been stated before, but not by that particular user. The anti-spoiler editors have rehashed their arguments over and over, but their comments never get deleted. You have not been appointed moderator of this talk page. --YellowTapedR (talk) 07:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

See here, a comment written by a third party whom I asked to look at the ongoing abuse. Just because damaging accusations have been repeated enough times that newcomers at first take them for fact, does not make their repetition without recourse to Dispute resolution a legitimate use of this policy discussion page. --Tony Sidaway 08:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a long, nasty topic, and editors are encouraged at the top of the page to both remain civil and to check out the archives. The comment that was deleted seemed to indicate its author did neither. It wasn't even a call for review, it was simply an accusatory statement to bring "shame" down on editors who had gone though proper channels to achieve consensus. Perhaps next time a polite comment would work better. Snowfire51 (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Tony, but if I deleted one of your comments where you call some editors who contribute to this page "trolls," I bet you wouldn't appreciate it. I agree that bringing up the past stuff isn't useful, but it's not up to you or me to dictate what editors should say. --YellowTapedR (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's up to all editors to try and make things run smoothly. Talk pages are for discussion, and what was deleted was more accusatory chit-chat than legitimate discussion. The comments on this topic since then have been informative, and have remained on the page. Snowfire51 (talk) 08:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually we're all bound by the No personal attacks policy. I must admit I did get a little weary of the endless bickering, and refer to some particularly unhelpful contributions as trolling. I certainly wouldn't object to someone removing such a comment. --Tony Sidaway 08:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This wasn't a personal attack. This was a show of discontentment with the way a certain case was handled. No one was specifically named. I agree that the wording was somewhat uncivil but not to the degree that removal of the comment was justified -- especially by someone with a possible conflict of interest.

Equazcion •✗/C • 08:34, 12/24/2007

We all have an interest in keeping this discussion on topic and free of personal accusations. In that, there can be no conflict. --Tony Sidaway 15:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh please.... That doesn't even mean anything. Again, there was no personal accusation. Stop with the righteous outrage. You know what a conflict of interest is? It's when you can't expect people to assume you're being objective. You should have damn well known that this was one of those cases and left the decision for appropriate action up to someone else who wasn't so closely involved with the situation.

Equazcion •✗/C • 20:21, 12/24/2007

And now we're back to uncivil dialog again. This is a talk page to discuss Spoilers, not to take shots at other editors. An uncivil remark was deleted and returned. It's not the end of the world. Snowfire51 (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This is also a page to discuss what happens on this page. I'm sorry if we're bothering you but this is important. Removing someone else's comment from a talk page is serious.

Equazcion •✗/C • 20:39, 12/24/2007

I'm sorry if I appear at all outraged to you, Equazcion. That's far from an accurare portrayal of my mood. There was a personal accusation: "robbed...by a silly maneuver by some senior admins." I regard this issue as dead (see discussion on the admin noticeboard here) and I apologise for feeding the flames by my failure simply to ignore tha unwarranted fuss.

Merry Christmas everybody. --Tony Sidaway 20:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but removing an uncivil comment is not that important, especially if it was returned. What is there to be gained from continuing this discussion? If you're upset about the role of spoilers in Wikipedia, don't complain about the consensus. That's how things work around here. Snowfire51 (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

So what are you complaining about now? The incivility or my disagreement about spoiler tags? 'Cause I certainly won't stop talking about the spoiler tags here. Thank you for your response, Tony, I consider this matter quite dead as well.

Equazcion •✗/C • 20:51, 12/24/2007

Spoiler Tags to all, and to all a good night. Merry Christmas, everybody. Snowfire51 (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The main issue, Equazcion, is that the accusations keep flying over and over about 'abuse of process', 'abusive admins', 'a cabal', etc etc. Many editors who had never appeared in the active debates voted to kill the template, and took it down when it still existed. I still don't know if there really was true consensus, but the fact of the matter is, SO many avenues have been tried, and all of them have failed. ALL of them have been public too, no matter what anyone likes to believe otherwise. Accusing people who acted in good faith throughout the whole thing of "Anal retentive misanthropy" (whatever that means), and saying that ALL involved should be ashamed IS an uncivil comment, directed at certain people, even if it's not directed any specific name. A was pointed out, Radiant! made the statement that such comments should be removed, so I removed it. It was reverted, but I did my duty in trying to keep the same old crap from flying again. Debating can be fine, but when you start of flinging mud before the other side has a chance to load the catapult, it's pointless to even try. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe he said the incivility has to stop, not that further uncivil comments are to be removed. And even if he did, Radiant's instructions are not gospel. I wasn't here for the whole debate so I'm looking at this as an outsider. What I saw was someone remove someone else's comment because he didn't like it. Again there's a conflict of interest here. If you disagree with a person's viewpoint especially in a prominent debate, you are not equipped to judge whether or not the comment should be deleted. Next time leave it up to someone else.

Equazcion •✗/C • 21:26, 12/24/2007

It's not a viewpoint. A viewpoint is what you wrote in the section before this one. What Lobojo wrote wasn't helpful, boiling down to "this sucks, shame on you!". People are actually 'supposed' to remove a lot more than they do from talk pages -- whenever it's used to not help the topic in question. That was what I was doing. It's not about disagreeing, it's about allowing pointless drivel to be pushed over and over ad nausum. No conflict on interest here. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The only part of this statement that defends your objectivity is "No conflict on interest here." That tells me nothing. It has everything to do with disagreeing, because when you disagree, you can not judge what is and isn't "pointless drivel". Your emotional involvement blocks your objectivity. Again: Next time, let someone else handle it. There are no emergencies on Wikipedia. If a potentially unhelpful comment is allowed to stay for a little while in the interest of making sure an objective decision is made, then that is not a bad thing.

Equazcion •✗/C • 22:20, 12/24/2007

I'm really trying to understand here, but I'm very confused about where the "conflict of interest" comes in. Are you saying that Tony Sidaway had a CoI with this post because it attacked him, and thus he shouldn't have been the one to remove it? If that's the case, then would it have been better if someone else had removed it? For the record, if I had seen it first I probably would have removed it also, because it a) didn't discuss any relevant issues, and b) seemed to be a big overdramatic FU to everyone who took their time to reach consensus on the matter in the time-honored wiki-way. Snowfire51 (talk) 22:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying both of you have a coi. Your posts show your level of emotional involvement. Oh, the poor editors who put their time to reach consensus in the time-honored wiki-way... how very righteous of you, yet equally as dramatic. You're involved, you've been involved heavily, and you disagree with the viewpoint being expressed. You therefore should not be the one to remove the comment. Neither should Tom and neither should Mel. I've yet to see anyone comment here who sounded the least bit objective.

Equazcion •✗/C • 22:54, 12/24/2007

I think all parties will agree this is cluttering up the page, and no longer relevant to the actual discussion of spoilers. I'll reply to your talk page to clean things up, and I invite everyone else to do the same. Again, Merry Christmas to all. Snowfire51 (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition

I would propose that we add something along the lines of:

Note that Wikipedia requires that all content is verifiable from reliable independent sources. While content may not be removed because it may constitute a spoiler, material that is not discussed in independent sources may be removed as failing the verifiability policy.

Seems to me that a decent amount fo the content tagged as spoilers in the past was sourced direct from the work of fiction, adhering to content policies and using only that which is discussed in reliable independent secondary sources might actually remove the supposed problem. If, after all, it's in the independent sources, then having it here could hardly be considered much of a spoiler. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I support this proposal, and I have mentioned this many times before. However, films apparently don't need independent secondary sources for plot details. Apparently the film is the only source that's needed for verifiability, even though the policy on verifiability refers to reliable sources and the guideline on reliable sources refers to third-party sources. --Pixelface (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's actually a really interesting idea. The only problem is that the works themselves are primary sources, which are usually considered valid. In order to make this work, the rules for use of primary sources would have to be changed to include an exception for plot synopsis.

Equazcion •✗/C • 23:31, 12/24/2007

I think that content sourced directly from the works, other than the most minor factual matters such as copyright and publishing dates, is almost always a terrible idea. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of book and movei reviews, it's supposed to be an encyclopaedia, a distillation of what expert sources say about a subject. By conducting original research form primary sources, as we undoubtedly do in many articles (the Bionicle series spring to mind) we are, I think, stepping over that dangerous line of placing ourselves in the role of the experts, sifting the primary data and deciding what is significant and relevant. There is no way we allow edits to Christianity based on individuals' readings of the Bible, or the Book of Mormon to cite one recent example, and we should be no more willing to include lengthy discourse on any other subject drawn directly from primary sources by editors who have no evident authority in the subjects. I recently found xkcd; this is sourced almost entirely to the comic itself. I think that is very bad, because it means we're the ones judging what is significant and what's not, and clearly the only people who'll feel qualified to judge are the fans - who are probably the most likely to overestimate the significance of any event in that comic's history. If I read an article about a movie that is sourced to Roger Ebert and Halliwell and Barry Norman or even bloody Jonathan Ross, I know that it's the work of someone who has some recognised authority on the subject, who has analysed it in the context of other films of the genre and has at least some kind of fact checking process behind them. Readers coming along to add factoids directly form books or movies, that is simply not a good idea, in my view, especially when they cause friction. So a return to policy - WP:V, WP:RS, WP:ATT - that has the potential to remove a goodly chunk of the problem. Or so it seems to me, anyway. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I think content directly sourced from the works is usually a bad idea too. But several people at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines endorse it. There's a thread about it here. Apparently if a reader can go rent a DVD through Netflix, it means the Plot section is verifiable. --Pixelface (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That is an issue that really should be held at WP:WAF, WP:RS, and WP:V instead of here. It has very little to do with spoilers and the application of any spoiler warnings. --Farix (Talk) 21:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to say that. --Tony Sidaway 21:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I think the real issue is whether spoilers are encyclopedic. Encarta does not reveal the ending of The Sixth Sense. Britannica does not reveal the ending of The Sixth Sense. Spoilers are not encyclopedic. If editors don't have to cite secondary sources to include spoilers in an article and are free to implicitly cite a film, I see no problem with putting notices in articles to inform readers they are about to read material they would not expect to read in an encyclopedia. --Pixelface (talk) 06:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I think you have a really good point, and I think I agree with it. Still, I don't think this an issue that can be solved here, if it can be solved at all. This would call for a change to other policies regarding the use of primary sources, and those are policies that, I think, have been around for quite some time, and that editors would not be readily open to changing. If you take this effort further please let me know though as I'll definitely be interested in supporting it, wherever you decide to brig it up next. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:31, 12/25/2007

It has relevance to spoilers in as much as, properly applied, the existing sourcing guidelines and policies would seem to em to rule out the kind of content which leads to the most zealous advocacy for spoiler warnings. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It's still not a topic directly about spoilers. It's about plot summaries in general, which should be discussed at one of the links I gave above. --Farix (Talk) 13:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No, if the existing policies support ruling out spoiler material, that is definitely something to be discussed here. We need to figure out how to apply the policies here so that this guideline agrees with them. Other guidelines and policies may require the same attention, which can be taken care of separately at their talk pages; but the way policy should affect this guideline does need to be discussed here and the relevant changes made. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

section break 1

The proposed addition is:

Note that Wikipedia requires that all content is verifiable from reliable independent sources. While content may not be removed because it may constitute a spoiler, material that is not discussed in independent sources may be removed as failing the verifiability policy.

The first sentence and the independent clause of the second sentence don't appear to have anything to do with spoilers. They just duplicate requirements of other policies, but say them less well. The statement that "content may not be removed because it may constitute a spoiler" is already in the guideline.

The reason given is:

Seems to me that a decent amount of the content tagged as spoilers in the past was sourced direct from the work of fiction, adhering to content policies and using only that which is discussed in reliable independent secondary sources might actually remove the supposed problem. If, after all, it's in the independent sources, then having it here could hardly be considered much of a spoiler.

Although this would indeed remove the supposed problem, it would also throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is normal for the article about a fictional work to contain a plot summary sourced from the work itself. There are probably thousands of articles, and not just about films, that have been written this way. We should be cautious about advancing new guidelines that would invalidate large amounts of existing material, especially in articles that have long endured without significant objection. I don't think this is a "problem" that WP:V and WP:RS were ever intended to solve. (It would be most odd for such a widespread practice to have for so long been tolerated without loud choruses of complaint, if it violated the intent of core policies.)

This interpretation would force us to write some highly peculiar articles. For instance, months after the seventh Harry Potter book came out, the article still would not have been permitted to state that Lord Voldemort was dead. For though there were millions of people who knew this, and it was trivially verifiable, there was probably no reliable source for this fact other than the book itself. (Reviewers typically didn't give away the ending, fansites are normally considered unreliable, and the work was too new for other reliable sources to have been written yet.)

So, I don't think this addition to the guideline is a good idea. Marc Shepherd (talk) 08:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The goal with this addition is to only include plot points that other secondary sources reveal, which is all that an encyclopedia should be doing, and all they ever do. The articles would only be forced to be as withholding as any other encyclopedia's articles on the same topics. If you consider that peculiar, then you consider encyclopedias peculiar. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:51, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

But Wikipedia has never interpreted its own mission to preclude editors from referring to a work when writing an encyclopedia article about that work. Do you think that the writer of the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Hamlet is forbidden to consult the text of Hamlet?

The analogy to print encyclopedias is often used to support whatever pet point someone wants to make. If the next issue of Britannica includes an article on Harry Potter, I'm sure the writer of that article will be permitted to consult the actual novels she is writing an article about. Of course, citations generally are required only for facts likely to be challenged, and the statement that Lord Voldemort dies is not such a fact. Marc Shepherd (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but how do you think the Britannica article on Harry Potter gets handled? When it comes to deciding which plot points to reveal, the writers of these articles don't just look through the fictional work themselves and summarize everything. They use secondary sources to determine what should be revealed due to their being common knowledge. If the ending of Hamlet weren't so well-known and revealed in such a wide range of public material, it wouldn't be in any encyclopedia article, except ours. We don't currently make any determination of public knowledge and write articles on works of fiction by using secondary sources, we just read the original work and write an original summary. This is a rather non-encyclopedic way of writing articles. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:23, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a pretty sizable difference between a static encyclopdia and Wikipedia, both in terms of access and frequency of updates. The standard WP way is to include a summary of movies (and novels, etc.) without requiring secondary sources. If we're going to change that it should be an official WP policy. Snowfire51 (talk) 09:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well of course. That's the proposal: to change policy. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:48, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. I was reading the wrong summary on the page, sorry. Anyway, I oppose changing the way WP handles spoilers. I think having WP as an unfettered source of information is not only best for the readers, but also the easiest way to coordinate thousands of editors all working on the same projects. At this point, the responsibility is on the reader to not look up articles they don't want to be informed about, I think that's the safest way to go. Snowfire51 (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well no one ever looks up information on things they don't want to be informed about. Why would they? Just because people want to be informed, though, doesn't mean they want a story spoiled for them. Millions of people look up movie reviews and databases to find things out about them -- but do you think they all want to hear the endings to those movies? What percentage of people who look up a movie do you think are actually looking for the complete synopsis, spoilers included? IMDb is smart enough to know that the percentage is low enough to warrant complete synopses being kept in their own section along with a warning, and reviews that reveal spoilers hidden from view unless the reader decides to unhide them. Under what presumption are we basing the policy to reveal all spoilers? 'Cause it sure isn't based on the question of what people generally expect or want, and we've established that it isn't based on what encyclopedias do in general. So what is it, then? Equazcion •✗/C • 10:07, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

Why would you want to be informed about something, but only a little bit? If you want to know a cast list, you'll go to imdb, that's what they're there for. If you'd like more information, including a synopsis, major cast list, box office performance, and so on, you'd come to WP.

As for "presumptions," that's WP policy reached through consensus. I would assume it's based on compiling as much information as possible about a certain subject, and making it the personal responsibility of people to not search for what they don't want to know. It seems to be working smashingly so far, without a ton of complaints. The previous time this came up for vote, it didn't have much opposition. Snowfire51 (talk) 10:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Why you would want to be informed about something only a little bit is not a question we need to answer, but... Call it human nature, but we know it to be true -- people look up information about movies, even plot descriptions, without expecting or wanting to hear the entire thing, because major outcomes are the essence of why fiction is interesting.

Yes I realize the decision was reached via consensus, but consensus can change, and I'm suggesting that the original reasoning may not have been entirely sound. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:30, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

The two core arguments are a self-invented definition of encyclopedia and exhortations to blame and punish the outgroup. They're both nonsense, but the structure of Wikipedia is unfortunately lenient on semantics and user-blaming.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You don;t mention which side's arguments you're referring to, but the definition in the counter-argument is also self-invented, and the latter claim was never an argument by either side and is an unfounded assumption. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:16, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

It's the anti-spoiler side's views. You are incorrect about the need for a 'counter definition'. If someone insists 'real men don't eat salad!', you need only point to the lack of authoritative backing for this statement, you don't need to find someone saying 'real men do eat salad!' Punishing the outgroup (that is, our users) has been a key component of the anti-spoiler group's aims since day one, when Phil Sandifer said that some people would get 'burned' by the change. Above, we have Snowfire51 demanding 'personal responsibility' from our users.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If you mean anti-spoiler as in anti-spoiler tags, which is what I think you mean, then I suppose I can agree with that; At least the outgroup part. But your language isn't all that straightforward. To clarify, yes, there is a certain contempt for the user apparent in the argument to include spoiler material without warning. It assumes the right to say what users should expect, as opposed to catering to what they do expect, because "we know better" -- and if they disagree then "who cares", and "they deserve what they get (having the plot spoiled when they look something up) because they should've know better". Let me know if I'm getting this right. As for the definition of encyclopedia, though, I think that no matter which side of the argument you're on, you're working off of a presumed idea of what an encyclopedia should be. Everyone has their own take on that. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:02, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

section break 2

If the proposal is that spoilers ought to be tagged—so that those who don't want the ending "spoiled" can easily avoid the material that offends them—then I would suggest starting a new section, because that's not what this section is about.

This section is about Guy's proposal that a fictional work should not be used as a source of information about the work itself, which, if it belongs anywhere, would be a change to WP:V and/or WP:RS. The proposal was offered here on the theory that it would "solve" the spoiler problem. Unfortunately, it doesn't. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It certainly would solve the spoiler problem, and it's not just a "theory". This is as good a place as any to discuss a possible policy change that would solve the spoiler issue. We also don't need to start a new section. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:17, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the ad hominem part of the above.... I used the word "theory" in the sense that it hasn't been put into practice. Would the word "postulated" or "hypothesis" suit you better?

Anyhow, the usual definition of spoiler is a narrative surprise that, if known in advance, would "spoil" a work of fiction for some readers or viewers. Guy's rationale was: "If, after all, it's in the independent sources, then having it here could hardly be considered much of a spoiler." That would be true, only if the typical reader or viewer researches independent sources before reading the novel, seeing the play, or viewing the film in question.

But this is surely not the case. The fact that Rosebud is Kane's old sled, is a spoiler, whether secondary sources have said so or not. It is sophistry to suggest that everyone is aware of the ending of Citizen Kane because secondary sources have written about it. To give a more recent example, I am sure the next generation of children will want to read the Harry Potter novels with the same sense of discovery and suspense that the current generation did. The many narrative surprises in that series are spoilers, regardless of how much they have been written about. Marc Shepherd (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You're making a very nitpicky and strawman argument. To say that we can't possibly know if everyone is aware of the spoilers we are proposing to allow, and therefore, we should just reveal all of them, is just not sound reasoning. You're saying that since the solution isn't absolute, then an attempt shouldn't even be made.

We're not claiming to know which points people know about, and we're certainly not claiming that all people read secondary sources before enjoying a work of fiction. That's just ludicrous, and purely a strawman argument. We're saying that sticking to secondary sources for plot information gives a reasonable enough chance that we won't be spoiling things for people. If a plot point is common enough knowledge, chances are it'll be in a secondary source. If it isn't common knowledge, chances are it won't be.

Just because the solution isn't total doesn't mean it isn't better than the current practice. You've basically given absolutely no reason why this change shouldn't be made, or why it wouldn't be better. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:49, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. It looks to me as if we are being asked to fix two problems here: first, material that is a "spoiler" because it's not widely known (i.e. usually fails RS); and material that is a "spoiler" despite being widely known (in which case the problem is probably not us anyway). Somewhere in the margins there may be a tiny number of cases that are not well known but supported by reliable sources and identified by independent authorities as a spoiler. None on my watchlist, though. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, but I did give a reason. In fact, I gave several. The first is that a very large number of existing articles would be invalidated. The number is probably in the tens of thousands, since there are a ton of articles on fictional subjects, most of those articles contain a plot summary, and that plot summary is usually sourced from the work itself.

The second is that it would make encyclopedic articles about most fictional works difficult to write until a very long time after the work is published. As I noted, it would be very peculiar if the article about the seventh Harry Potter book were not permitted to state that the book ends with Harry's survival and Lord Voldemort's death. That information was added to the article literally within moments of the book's release. Though now known by millions of people, I am not sure that, even today, there is yet a reliable third-party published source with this information. Clearly there will be eventually, given the popularity of that series, but it seems odd to impose an artificial barrier to the inclusion of clearly relevant, obviously factual information that is disputed by no one.

Lastly, we ought to be awfully hesitant to change policy in a way that invalidates a large amount of content, unless there is pretty good evidence that that content is problematic. But no such evidence has been offered. The purported reason is that it "solves" the spoiler problem. Even if it did, is that the purpose of Wikipedia—to avoid disclosing certain types of information? Is that why we're here?

Now, if your real agenda is that plot summaries sourced from the works themselves do not belong in an encyclopedia, then feel free to propose a policy change at WP:PSTS. But that proposal doesn't belong here, because if it were adopted it would apply to all factual statements derived from primary sources, not just spoilers.

But if your agenda is to get as many spoilers as possible out of Wikipedia, then you should say so directly, not via the "back door" of an unrelated policy change. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as the Harry Potter example and how "obviously relevant" it is, and how "peculiar" the article would look without it, that's just a matter of opinion. Again, if it looks peculiar to you to leave that out, and no reliable third-party source included it, then you must therefore find all third-party sources peculiar. You may not be used to that way of writing a sourced article, but there's a reason all those reliable sources do it that way. I frankly trust them more than you -- and that's not meant to be uncivil. I trust them more than I trust anyone here, if they were to tell me, "Well, that would make our articles look peculiar to me."

Regarding evidence of a problem, I'm not sure what kind of evidence you want. I'm presenting an argument. That's what people do on Wikipedia. Aside from bringing everyone who's ever removed a spoiler from an article or agreed during a conversation about spoilers, there's not much I can offer you in the way of evidence. As far as the "purpose" of Wikipedia, you're offering yet another strawman argument. The purpose of Wikipedia can't be to avoid disclosing information. I'm not even going to answer that. Except to say, those "reliable third-party sources" saw fit to refrain from such disclosure regarding Harry Potter, and yet, I don't think they consider their purpose to be the evasion of disclosure either.

My agenda is: I agree with the proposal that plot synopses should be limited to secondary sources. You may reword that however you like. I realize that it would be a major change and that many articles would need revision. It would be a slow change, but in the end a beneficial one, I think. I don't even think the change need apply to old articles; perhaps only new plot synopses should be required to conform. I don't claim to have the details worked out.

Finally, if applied, it would not apply to all facts obtained from primary sources. The proposal is, currently, only for plot synopses of fictional works. No one has proposed the banning of primary sources altogether. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:09, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "relevance" in the Harry Potter context, I am not asking you to trust me, and indeed you shouldn't. The evidence is simply that this is an extremely frequently edited article, maintained by a large number of editors. The information was added practically the instant it was published, and no editor ever challenged its relevance. You can check all of that for yourself. Either that large slew of editors has very poor judgment as to relevance, or you do.

Yes, I know you are presenting an argument, and that's what people on Wikipedia do. But when you propose a fairly substantial policy change, the burden is on you to show that: A) We have a problem here; and that B) Your solution solves it; that C) It's a good solution; and that D) It doesn't introduce other problems that are as bad or worse. I don't have to prove anything.

If your solution does not apply to all facts obtained from primary sources, but only to plot synopses, I would have to ask: Why should there be a different rule for one kind of fact, as opposed to all other kinds? Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of things people add to articles that are removed because they go against policy. People adding something to an article doesn't necessarily mean that the article is best served with that addition, or that the editor is aware of policy. Also, at the time the Harry Potter event occurred, policy agreed with the revelation being there, so there would've been no reason for anyone to have refrained from doing so.

The burden is on me to show that the change would be an improvement, which is what I'm doing. It's not my job to prove it, though, because such a thing can't be proved. It's fine if you disagree that the outcome would be as I suggest. I know many people will disagree with me as this is a controversial subject.

As for your last question: Because doing it that way would solve one problem without creating other problems. If disallowing primary sources helps us in one particular identifiable area, but not in others, then why not just apply the rule in the area where it's helpful? Equazcion •✗/C • 17:55, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

section break 3

←There are lots of things people add to articles that are removed because they go against policy. True, but if your change were implemented, it would have the effect of disallowing a considerable amount of content that editors and readers have historically found useful, and that current policy permits. That is the problem that your proposed change introduces.

So what you need to demonstrate—I agree that prove is too strong a word—is that, notwithstanding the widespread presence of this content, which current policy permits, which is present in large quantities, and which most people seem to find beneficial, Wikipedia is actually worse off for it being here.

About the only reason you've given is that Wikipedia would contain fewer spoilers. That is certainly true. But spoilers are information, and Wikipedia's mission is to provide information, not to supress it. So you need to demonstrate that this site would be improved by including less information. Good luck. Marc Shepherd (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"...disallowing...content that...policy currently permits..." Yes, we've been through that already, I just answered you, just because people add it and policy permits it doesn't mean it best suits the article. Again it's fine if you disagree but just say so and don't circle back around to your original question.

How it would be better can't exactly be demonstrated either. The only difference would be that there there would be no more spoilers. There would hoever be another fringe benefit of tighter standards for reliability and for professionalism. If plot synopses were limited to only secondary-sourced material, they couldn't be written any longer by fans who happen to have DVDs and decide to write an original summary. These synopses would then have to actually be researched and be less original. With the problems Wikipedia has in public image with reliability and quality, I think this would be a step in the right direction.

Not including spoilers would mean that works of fiction wouldn't be spoiled for those who look them up. People don't like having stories spoiled for them, even when they look up information about that work. Again you've asked this before and I've already answered it. You aren't going to get any more of a "demonstration" than that because such a thing isn't possible. This is a suggestion for what readers would like better, more readily expect from an encyclopedia, and in the end, find more useful, reliable, and professional. There's nothing more I can tell you. You either agree of you don't. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:39, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

people would leave

<outdent> If this were to actually happen, that all plot sections were to be stripped of anything that wasn't actually talked about in secondary sources, so many editors would likely leave it'd ruin the encyclopedia. If you think there's a lot of backlash now, you ain't see nothing...just my opinion at least. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't see that happening. I think this will be an argument used by people who don't want the change to occur, but I don't believe it to be true, and I don't think they do either. Anyway this is very much crystal balling. I don't think we should be making decisions based on some unfounded prediction of the future. All we can and should be doing is discussing how this will affect the quality of the encyclopedia -- not making future predictions about how the community will react. Besides, even if you're right and the reaction is that bad, it can always be changed back. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:31, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

Melodia's concern is very valid. We're having a hard enough time dealing with the actions of editors like TTN and the backlash to "anti-fiction deletionists" on WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE, potentially challenging WP:NOTE and WP:PLOT. (This is not the place to challenge those issues). Adding the requirement that plot details must come from secondary sources effectively makes (my estimate) 95% of all fictional articles that otherwise satisfy notability or other policy/guidelines a problem because the plot is not described in secondary sources, at least in significant detail, leaving the context to describe the real-world aspects at a loss. Adopting this solution to allow for "sourced" spoiler warnings will remove the need to even provide spoiler warnings for the bulk of the material. It's a "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" solution.

I'll also note that even if we go by secondary sources to state what is a spoiler is, there will always be people that have a higher standard, and if spoiler warnings were implemented in this way, they will still complain when they spoiled by material outside of such tags. What a spoiler is very much a personal view, a secondary source stating that something is a spoiler is simply one authoritian's view on what a spoiler constitutes, and may be less or more broad than the next person. --MASEM 17:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not exactly one person's view on what constitutes a spoiler, which is why I think this solution has more merit than any other that came before it. This solution would remove that decision from the hands of editors. What constitutes a spoiler would be left up to what secondary sources consider to be a spoiler. Furthermore the proposal isn't exactly for sourced spoiler warnings but rather for the complete omission of spoilers, for the simple reason that other sources omit the very same things. There wouldn't be any question of standards for what constitutes a spoiler -- that's the whole point of this solution and the reason it makes so much sense.

I don't challenge notability and I'm not proposing we do so. Notability always needed to be established via secondary sources anyway, so nothing would change there. The only change would be where primary sources are valid, and yes that probably does challenge WP:PLOT and FICT. However being that this is an idea to solve a problem regarding spoilers, this seems to be a good place to develop that idea. If it's determined in the end that the idea is a good one and that the final formulated proposal would need to challenge a policy, then the discussion will need to be taken elsewhere, I agree. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:40, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

But again, even if multitude of secondary sources omit spoilerish details and thus we write the plot to that, a reader can still find what is left to be a spoiler; some may find even any details of the plot to be too much. Why they come to Wikipedia to learn about that work and not expect to be spoiled, well, I don't know, but that points back to basically that the current approach of "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" approach that at most a person will be spoiled once about a work on Wikipedia and should realize that Wikipedia's pages do contain spoilers. Basically, what constitutes a spoiler is a part of the reader's expectations - not of the editors or the sources they use, even if well sourced by numerous secondary authorities. Handling spoilers should be done at the reader's level - whether this is a tag or template, CSS tricks, or a general disclaimer statement. --MASEM 18:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Melodia, we have policies, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, which mean that writing about anything that is not covered in reliable secondary sources is simply not allowed. It is probably true that a few people would leave if, for example, we removed everything from the various Bionicle articles that is not discussed in secondary sources; whether that would be good or bad for the project is open to debate. This is, after all, supposed to be an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source, not a venue for people to write reviews of fiction based on their own view of what is significant. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources are necessary to establish the notability of a topic - however, they do not limit the use of information gained from primary sources as part of the topic's coverage; a summarized plot summary cited only from primary sources is acceptable as part of a topic dealing with a fictional work, as long as the article also discusses the real-world aspects from secondary sources along with it. (That's the whole gist of WP:PLOT and subsequently WP:FICT --MASEM 19:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Writing about anything that is not covered in reliable secondary sources is simply not allowed. That is simply not true. According to WP:PSTS (a sub-section of WP:NOR), primary sources can be used, as long as certain conditions are met. To date, it has been widely accepted that a plot summary does meet those conditions, as long as the plot is being described, not interpreted or analyzed. It would be pretty surprising if our articles on fictional works were violating WP:NOR all along, and it was only now that we've discovered it, as veteran editors are pretty vigilant about removing original research. Marc Shepherd (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources are valid sources per WP:NOR, however, Guy, you've misread the part on WP:V. We can't have articles based entirely, or have large portions, based on primary sources. However WP:V does not exclude primary sources when they are used descriptively. --Farix (Talk) 21:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought, thank you. And while theoretically that rule could be changed, my thoughts above are why I think it'd be a bad idea. Many people NOW bitch about people removing 'good info that people worked hard on', I can just imagine what would happen if such a rule were enforced. True that's crystal balling, I agree, but it seems silly to think otherwise. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It may be what you thought, but it's wrong. Things that can only be documented from primary sources should not e on Wikipedia because we can't ensure WP:NPOV. I commend to all concerned User:Uncle G/On sources and content, which I think says it better than I can. Guy (Help!) 10:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

From WP:NOTE These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles. A topic cannot be presented using only primary sources in its own article, that we all agree to (as I read it); however, if I'm talking about a movie or book or the like that has development and critical reception info from secondary sources (thus satisfying notability), a plot section that is written strictly from the primary source that meets V/NOR/NPOV within the context of the rest of the article is perfectly acceptable, even by that essay listed above. There's a difference between a topic which receives its own article and a section of an article. --MASEM 11:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sigh* This clearly isn't a discussion for WP:SPOILER as it really isn't about spoilers but about plot summaries; and there does appear to be a conflict between WP:V and WP:NOR. Guy and others state that WP:V only permits the use of secondary sources on Wikipedia, however WP:NOR does allow primary sources to be used when making descriptive statements. Because of this apparent conflict, I have started the topic at WT:V since this really needs to taken to a larger venue, (WT:V#Primary sources) --Farix (Talk) 13:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

people would leave, break 1

←To Masem: You're presenting a reason that readers should eventually expect what they get and be responsible. This is the so-called "outgroup" argument from further up. That still is no reason that we can't cater to what they expect right from the start. You're also saying what's "better", but you're not presenting any reason. I'm proposing not to take it upon ourselves to decide what's better for our readers, but rather to take our cues from what all the other sources already do, and not do any more or less than them. Can you give me a good reason why you're so sure that the way they're doing it is actually worse than the way we're doing it? If no one reliable does what we're currently doing, how can you say that we're reliable? How do you justify this? If the revelation of spoilers really isn't a big deal, how do you explain why everyone else isn't also doing it? Equazcion •✗/C • 02:42, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

We can say we're "reliable" because we have millions of editors working 24/7 on our articles doing quality control. I don't think the point of WP is to compare us to other sites. WP has one policy, other places have another. Readers are well aware of what they'll get when they view each site. I haven't seen any outcry from people demanding WP institute spoilers, or angry because they learned something they didn't want to know. Snowfire51 (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that we have millions of editors working constantly says nothing about our reliability. Lots of people working can still be working to uphold policies that don't produce the most reliable material, not to mention more doesn't equal better. You haven't heard an outcry because people aren't infants who would complain about things like that. Even if everything on Wikipedia sucked horribly you wouldn't hear an "outcry". All you'd hear would be arguments coming from the people who care about Wikipedia and about making it better, which is what you're hearing now. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:07, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I had forgotten what little fun it is to discuss wikipedia policy with you. Okay, I'm done here. I'll sum up, I oppose changing wikipedia's policy on spoilers. I don't think changing it adds anything to WP, other than making it far more difficult to contribute and properly edit. I see no problems from the current setup, and WP has grown considerably under current policy. Snowfire51 (talk) 03:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia has grown enough. I think attracting new users shouldn't be our focus anymore. We've already got an overabundance of manpower. I think we should now shift over to focus on our readers, rather than what's the most fun and easy thing for us to do, as contributors. Nevertheless I understand and respect your opinion. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:44, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

You go shift focus. Knock yourself out. The majority of editors will continue to do what's 'fun'. After all, noone's getting paid, noone has ANY obligation. People will only work on what they find rewarding, even if it goes against what you personally see as important. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If fun and lack of payment were the only motivations here then we wouldn't need policy. But the output of a useful and quality source of information are priorities, which is why we have policies. Proposing that those priorities would be better served with a change shouldn't garner the kind of response you just gave. If you have respect for policy then you're here for the same reason I am. We're all working towards the same goal, and if we occasionally disagree on the best way to get there, that's okay. Let's discuss it civilly. If you disagree to the point that the discussion actually bothers you, then you're welcome to leave it up to others. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:10, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

A few points:

If you're concerned that reliance on primary sources is making Wikipedia less reliable, I hardly think the spoiler guideline is the place to be "fixing" that problem. If you have that concern, then why limit the "fix" only to plot summaries? Why not ban all use of primary sources entirely? And why not make that proposal on the talk page of the policy that currently permits it in the first place?

In any case, can you give a specific example where the reliance on primary sources has compromised reliability? For instance, as I noted above, the article on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows stated the fact that Voldemort died in the book within moments after the book was published. The only source was the book itself. In what sense was that information unreliable?

Lastly: I'm proposing not to take it upon ourselves to decide what's better for our readers, but rather to take our cues from what all the other sources already do. What other sources are you seeking to emulate? Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is a tertiary source, drawn form reliable independent secondary sources. This is the only way we can work, since we have no way of vetting the credentials of our editors, and we have no desire to restrict editing to subject experts. As Uncle G correctly states in his essay, Wikipedia should never be the first place to publish anything. The existence of articles drawn in their entirety from the primary source itself is a problem. Who is the source deciding what is significant and what is not? In virtually every such case, we are deciding the significance ourselves rather than referencing the significance as identified by authorities; this is a bad thing. Always. I can't think of a single instance where use of primary sources is an appropriate fallback for something not being covered at all in secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 14:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Souveniring

Just as an aside, do we have an article on souveniring? That was a major issue back in the days when I was a projectionist, one film came out nearly seven minutes short due to the number of souvenir frames that had been taken from it (and maybe the occasional bad repair, not everyone was as scrupulous as us about repairing tears when they happened, we always suspected the local Odious of just cutting dozens of frames out rather than repairing them). Guy (Help!) 21:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand why you're asking here, but it's not the correct place. I don't think there is an article on that topic, though it might be interesting. --YellowTapedR (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• I know it's not, I just wondered. Guy (Help!) 16:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)