Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
signing opinion again; anyway MfD works better than most other places for policy discussion
Line 158: Line 158:
:*This allows us to make leeway on the discussion of spoilers, moreso than other methods. [[WP:IAR]]. --[[User:Teggles|Teggles]] 09:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
:*This allows us to make leeway on the discussion of spoilers, moreso than other methods. [[WP:IAR]]. --[[User:Teggles|Teggles]] 09:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' or '''Completely redesign'''. Either delete this, or make it a small unobtrusive icon at the top right of a section with spoilers, like the 'locked page' or 'featured article'. - [[User:f-m-t|Francis Tyers]] [[User_talk:f-m-t|·]] 09:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' or '''Completely redesign'''. Either delete this, or make it a small unobtrusive icon at the top right of a section with spoilers, like the 'locked page' or 'featured article'. - [[User:f-m-t|Francis Tyers]] [[User_talk:f-m-t|·]] 09:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' this misguided template. Spoiler warnings belong on fansites and book review sites, not in encyclopaedias. If you don't want to read an encyclopaedic article about a book or work of fiction, that is, an in-depth article which explains it in full, including the plot twists and denouement, then please go somewhere where incmplete information is the norm. Wikipedia is not such a place. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 09:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


==== Arbitrary (or not so arbitrary) section header ====
==== Arbitrary (or not so arbitrary) section header ====

Revision as of 09:57, 16 May 2007

Wikipedia:Spoiler warning

See also the previous debate on the matter at Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC

This policy is a flat contradiction of the much more important Wikipedia:Lead section, and, worse, is used to justify actively bad article writing where key aspects of a topic are buried outside of the lead. The entire policy encourages writing articles in a way that is organized around spoiler warnings instead of sensible portrayal of information, and has gone egregiously wrong (highlights including spoiler warnings on Night (book), The Book of Ruth, and Romeo and Juliet). The policy is overwhelmingly being used to make articles worse, not better, and for that needs to go.

The worst instance I've found yet is The Crying Game, where the twist ending makes the film a major film for anyone interested in LGBT cinema. Spoiler warning says that can't go in the lead. Wikipedia: Lead section says the lead has to function as a short article unto itself. WP:NPOV says all major perspectives must be mentioned in an article. You can pick any two of the policies and successfully apply them to The Crying Game. Since we can't get rid of NPOV, either spoilers or lead sections need to go. Phil Sandifer 21:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Revert. I would love to know when the template got changed to a layout wrecking monstrosity. It changes my fonts, font sizes, creates a bizarre box around the entire article, sub-boxes when nested, and generally looks like HTML diarrhea. It used to be a basic text banner. Quiet, unobtrusive, but clearly warning others off. I hit my watchist today, and half my watchlist is suddenly the victim of bad design. (Comment left by User:ThuranX)
  • Delete or severely restrict to very recent or unreleased fiction. As per the above examples, it not only encourages ludicrously unencyclopedic labeling and article writing - on The Crying Game, it blatantly causes violation of NPOV, a fundamental content policy - David Gerard 21:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, I really like Kusma's suggestion of using the de:wp one translated (the below is my pitiful knowledge assisted by babelfish):
    When discussing creative works, e.g. books, music, computer games, TV series or films, then an encyclopedia's task is to give a summary of the work and its place in the overall field. Thus, it is natural that the action of a book or a film will be described and discussed in full.
    Many books or films lose their attraction, however, if too many details or the ending are revealed before they are read or seen. So it became common on the Internet to put before such descriptions a spoiler warning.
    In encyclopedias, however, this is rare. In the German language Wikipedia, after long discussions, consensus developed not to include spoiler warnings, and to remove existing ones. The section which contains a description of the action should, however, always be clearly characterized, for example by the heading ==Plot summary== .
  • Delete per above. I'd list elaborate reasons, but we've done that before. — Deckiller 21:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Encourages summary-cruft, and Wikipedia is not censored. Sean William 21:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I doubt I can say anything that hasn't already been said before, but they go against policy in various ways, are ugly, lead to bad articles (like The Crying Game example), and yes, dare I say it, are unencyclopedic. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've never been a fan, I've argued on many occasions to downgrade it from guideline status, it's too contentious and there's no real consensus either way on whether to use spoilers or not. For me, Wikipedia ain't censored and I trust our readers that they can work out what an article on any given subject might likely contain. As a UK resident I'm well aware of how to modify my surfing to not stumble across spoilage for US TV series I might enjoy. It beats me we'll stick a picture of an erect penis in articles but we get scared that someone might find out Romeo and Juliet die. Steve block Talk 21:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this please. Whilst there may arguably be some legitimate uses there are two problems. 1) It insults the readers' intelligence - if you look under 'plot summary' don't be surprised when you find (guess what) .... the plot. Wikipedia provides information - we don't censor it for taste, national security, religious sensitivities, or adult content - so we certainly should not censor it because someone doesn't want to know who was Darth Vader's father. We don't put sensitivity tags on images of the prophet telling Muslims to avert their eyes, and we shouldn't mollycoddle our readers like this: 'plot summary' is warning enough! 2) The second reason for deletion is that this is drastically being misused - Phil cites good examples - whilst buffyfandom may like such things - when applied to English literature (Shakesphere, Jane Austen, and Snow While (??), never mind classical latin texts (yes, Petronius's Satyricon - I kid you not!) it just makes us look ridiculous. Encyclopedias should do what encyclopaedias do - and that is not take their lead from trekkie episode guides. Yes, Snape kills Dumbledore - get over it!--Docg 21:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or translate the German version, which states that encyclopedias do not use spoiler warnings, and therefore Wikipedia does not use spoiler warnings. Kusma (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The butler did it delete. This warning is so overused it is becoming harmful. Dil is a man, Jack Dawson drowns, Gollum falls into Mount Doom with the ring, Sergeant Trotter killed Mrs Boyle, Leland Palmer killed his daughter Laura, Apollo 13 got home safe. Sam Blacketer 21:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Based on WP:NPOV and the Crying game example. Silas Snider (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just before the MFD tag was added, Kusma added a short paragraph clarifying that article quality takes precedence over worrying about spoilers. Before that paragraph was added, I'd agree that the policy was a poor one, but in its current state is looks fine to me. It could probably do with some improvement, but certainly not outright deletion. --Tango 21:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You shouldn't take anything I did today seriously; I also added a spoiler warning to the spoiler warning to show how ridiculous it is. Anyway, I don't believe that restricting spoilers will work. Either they all go or we're back at this point in a couple of months. Kusma (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You shouldn't take anything I did today seriously… WP:POINT? — The Storm Surfer 23:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See, this is why jargon obstructs actual communication. If you have a look at the title of WP:POINT, your comment doesn't actually make sense. There's no guideline telling people not to help Wikipedia in order to illustrate a point - David Gerard 00:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While some of the edits Kusma made today may have been debatable, and some are certainly good, I fail to see how this edit could be seen as help[ing] Wikipedia. — The Storm Surfer 00:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, adding a "o btw don't do this" doesn't change the thrust of it - it encourages NPOV violations as a habit and the way things are done here. That's really bad. - David Gerard 22:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Such things just encourage the industry's marketting plans. Eclecticology 22:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, if this goes through, I will believe that Wikipedia will have reached a new level of maturity, one where it transcends the everyforum.com mentality and becomes a real encyclopedia. I think User:Doc glasgow said it best of the people here, but I know that many eloquent speakers have taken to this cause before. A couple more things: Soylent Green is people, Darth Vader is Luke's father and Jesus dies (and comes back, too!). Axem Titanium 22:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the comments on the mailing list. 86.143.233.233 22:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. In most cases you can write a comprehensive article without needing to blurt out plot details in the intro. Have respect for the readers of the encyclopedia who want to know the context and history of something they are reading or viewing and not have the ending spoiled for them. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that this page only demands ignoring NPOV on some articles instead of all of them does not seem to me to be a compelling reason to keep it. Also, given that we do not remove images of genitalia, feces, or other things, what is the reason to have a differing policy on spoilers? Phil Sandifer 22:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Apples and oranges. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. In censorship cases, such as Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy we include images that people have strong religious reasons to not want to see. In this case, we exclude information that causes no genuine harm. Phil Sandifer 22:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    When we have to for the sake of writing a good article, yes, but when we don't have to, there is no genuine harm in preserving spoilers. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your "strong keep" is invalid insofar as it advocates violation of NPOV. The lead summary is meant to be a complete standalone short article; this is actually important as many plans for a Wikipedia print edition involve pulling good lead summaries. So the twist actually has to be in the intro or the article, and hence the encyclopedia, is being deliberately hobbled. The Crying Game is the canonical example, but that's a reason for that to be the rule, not the exception. Oh, and Tyler Durden is Jack's other personality - David Gerard 22:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Such "canonical examples" can be dealt with on a case by case basis. Not every cultural product relies on a major twist like this. In most cases, the goals of providing reliable information and not spoiling the reader or viewer's experience need not conflict. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I can think, without serious effort, of dozens of things where the ending belongs in the lead, ranging from The Crying Game to Romeo and Juliet. In every one of these cases, this policy mandates writing a bad article. Phil Sandifer 22:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And in those cases the goal of writing a complete article should supercede the desire to preserve spoilers. But we should not throw them out in every single article because of these cases. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without prejudice, and perhaps modify to prevent NPOV issues? I always found the spolier warning tags useful. (Ok , so I typically read the spoiler warning sections first, but there are indeed people who hate getting spoilered ^^;;) --Kim Bruning 22:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think if the page is kept, we should modify the {{spoiler}} template to say "Warning! Information that you might not know yet follows below!" and put it on every single page. Kusma (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Steve block Talk 22:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per David Gerard. Philippe 22:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or restrict to media released within the last (say) month or so. Putting spoiler warnings on films and books that just got released is annoying but understandable. Putting spoiler warnings on Citizen Kane and Hamlet, though, is just silly - their "statute of spoiler limitations" is long over. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like good grammar, pleasing layout, consistent use of national varieties of English and other measures we take with reading in mind, this is a courtesy to the reader. Of course, there are exceptions, but luckily we are not a bureaucracy and need not be hidebound by our guidelines--the identification of an article that should be kept despite not meeting guidelines for notability doesn't mean we throw away deletion policy. The fact is that an encyclopedic article about a work of art is not primarily a list of stuff that happens it. Demi T/C 22:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with your last point, but I'm puzzled by your overall argument. To my mind, the focus on spoilers and when/where to reveal them encourages summary bloat of exactly the sort you're talking about. Valen and Sue Dibny both suffer badly from this. Phil Sandifer 22:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think fans' fascination with the object of their admiration does this without help of spoiler tags. I think I understand what you're saying, that providing a structure for content encourages that content to exist. But I really don't think overly-detailed plot synopses would go away if we removed this page and/or the associated template (which is neither here nor there as it's not the reason suggested to delete it). Anyway, my point was more about the pedagogical necessity of mentioning plot points in with an article on the work--I think the necessity is the exception rather than the rule. Demi T/C 23:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — an encyclopedia's first duty is to be informative. Spoiler warnings are the opposite of informative. Hiding information from users who come seeking it is not courteous; it is rude. ➥the Epopt 22:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to know information about a subject - don't look it up in an encyclopedia. If you don't want to know how the plot goes - don't read under s heading of 'plot synopsis' - it really is quite simple.--Docg 23:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the nannyism philosophy. Don't give them a choice. Force it on them. Wahkeenah 04:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is that nannyism (I'm not even sure if that's a word)? It's the reader's choice whether to read or not. We as editors have no right to tell them what to read and what not to read, we just make it available for them when and if they want it in a NPOV form. Axem Titanium 04:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And who's to decide "what users do not wish to have revealed"? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 23:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The same people who decide the content of the article. Editors. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are plenty of perfectly valid reasons why you might want to look something up and not have it spoiled. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete — I've said it before and I'll say it again: "'Wikipedia is not censored.' Spoiler warnings break apart the prose and screw up formatting. It's ambiguous at what point in a game events must occur to not be a spoiler. A spoiler for one game isn't a spoiler for its sequel. Encyclopedic information is complete. It's ambiguous how long after a game is released that information becomes widely known and no longer a spoiler. Etc..." Bottom line is, if you're dumb enough to read an encyclopedia article about a game when you don't want it spoiled, then that's your mistake and not the encyclopedia's. You are your own censor, simply don't read it. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 23:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no reason why we can't apply some common sense to this instead of going one way or the other. Including a spolier warning is not "censorship". You can chose to read further if you wish, the information is there and uncensored. There are plenty of valid, non-stupid reasons you might wish to read an encyclopedia article about a book or movie and not have the ending spoiled, and the encylopedia should respect those users. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, hiding a picture (with a show button) is the same as "you can choose to read furthur", yet there's no hidden pictures on penis, nor almost any other article (I know there are a few, but they are by far the exception). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 23:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apples and oranges. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not understand why we should have warnings and disclaimers for information that does trivial harm but none whatsoever fro information that is so offensive as to cause riots. Phil Sandifer 23:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably due to our systemic bias. I personally would support more extensive tagging and markup, and allow users to set preferences to decide what and how to view--I think actually supports Nicholai's point that "You are your own censor, simply don't read it." Whereas, if no such tagging takes place, this is just glibness, since the entire point is that if you read it to see if you want to read it you've already read that it's people. Demi T/C 23:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying "apples and oranges" as if your logic would magically explain itself. In this case, hiding of pictures and hiding of information are perfectly comparable (ie, the opposite of "apples and oranges"); they both involve hiding something, a definition of censorship. A person who searches for something on an encyclopedia would obviously be trying to find out more about it. If the content exists (which it should, being an encyclopedia), then a spoiler warning isn't going to stop that person from reading and learning about it. The only thing that can legitimately stop a person from learning is himself and we as editors have no place to intrude on that. Axem Titanium 23:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments 1. This seems to be discussing the deletion (or perhaps retirement) of a guideline. However, many of the posts above seem to be strongly advocating the removal of the spoiler tag/template. It would be useful to clarify this point. Is it not the case that deletion of this guideline will leave the tag simply not covered by any guideline, and therefore open to use by editors without the guidance a guideline might offer? 2. If, indeed, the proposal is to do away with "spoiler" completely, then there will be many interested editors who are in blissful ignorance of this discussion. If the proposal is to delete the tag, it may be appropriate to, in the short term, pollute the article space with a small reference to this discussion, within the included template, so as to encourage the maximum amount of participation in the discussion. Notinasnaid 23:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Pollute the article space?" Absolutely not.--Docg 23:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should perhaps clarify what I mean. Not a general notice, but an extra line within the expansion of the tag, so it appears with the spoiler warning. If the tag is such a terrible thing, then telling people a discussion of its deletion is under way is surely not a bad thing, and won't make articles a whole lot worse. I think I have seen such things before. Notinasnaid 23:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete templates and guideline. Guidelines aren't policy and this guideline is adding on needless formatting saying what should be implicit in our mission as encyclopedists. Plus, I agree it does violate policy. --Gwern (contribs) 23:50 15 May 2007 (GMT)
  • Comment Neutral-ish. I have three conflicting opinions: one strong one for delete and two weak ones for keep. For delete, it is utterly unencyclopedic to have such a warning. You wouldn't see them in film books which often not only completely tell the plot to the movie in question but also add spoilers to other films if they are relevant to analysis. My reasons for keeping are that this does provide a practical yet amateurish service but it's the fact that I am not sure that MfD should be used to change guidelines. While this isn't a vote it's still not the best way to gain consensus on a new policy. So, there goes. ||| I've decided to make this a comment instead. I've realized there is no way to draw a line about what should have a spoiler tag because it depends so much on the individual. And this is just embarassing... to put a spoiler on an article like that. I do think we need to build consensus on what to do with spoiler templates since just making a guideline historical won't help. gren グレン 23:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can someone explain how the proper usage o spoiler warnings is naught but a large dump atop the policy of NPOV? Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, everything above? The nomination? They blatantly encourage articles to be written with a view to working around spoilers rather than with a view to neutrality. From your comments and those of your fellow project members on my talk page - up to and including advocating edit warring to preserve spoilers everywhere - it would appear that the film wikiproject considers working around spoilers to be of the greater importance. That this policy encourages such a view is directly damaging to the encyclopedia - David Gerard 00:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Arcayne (and other members) speak for themselves, not the Film project. I voted strong delete and I'm an active member of the project. —Viriditas | Talk 01:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's good to know! - David Gerard 07:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So, if I am to understadn yoiu correctly, you are suggesting removing the idea of warning people using spoilers because some clowns try to do an end-run around the need for spoilers. Are you arguing that spoilers are ineffective in accomplishing their task, or that they are somehow encouraging folk to find a way around the policy? And please, can we forego the weasel words, please? Calling something blatant maybe your way of effecting a point, but a more matter-of-fact way to explain the issue might be more helpful. Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what the "end-run around the need for spoilers" you're talking about is. But, again, here's the basic issue - as before, using The Crying Game, but there are other good examples to be found. One of the most important things about The Crying Game is the transgender reaction to it. Because article leads are supposed to give an overview of all the important parts of the article, WP:NPOV demands this perspective get mentioned there. The spoiler policy demands otherwise. Phil Sandifer 00:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To begin with, let's stop using the Crying Game as an example; it's a bad article by any definition (which begs the question as to why someone didn't simply fix the article instead of pointing it out as some sort of bastard child of Ee-vil). The Lead shouldn't be including spoiler info about the plot, and spoilers allow the user to choose for themselves whether they want to learn about the story that they would rather avoid. I disagree with your interpretation of the Spoiler policy being at odds with the NPOV policy. Certainly, a better policing of articles to make sure they remain neutral whilst ensuring that plot information isn't revealed are not diametric opposites.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs)
    Well, no. The spoiler does belong in the lead because the lead has to work as a standalone short article - else the article is badly written and not up to scratch. So it's spoilers or encyclopedic style. Which will win? - David Gerard 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think The Crying Game has a decent lead, albeit a pretty lousy article after that. The lead needs some clean-up to remove some wanky praise (sensitive portrayals? I know a lot of transgender activists who'd beg to differ), but it does the basic job of telling you the highlights of the article. The problem is that it does this by spoiling the movie, and there's no way to do this without spoiling the movie. But if you want another example, Sue Dibny absolutely has to mention Sue Dibny's role as a flashpoint in discussions of women in comics in the lead to be NPOV. That involves revealing that she was raped and murdered. Phil Sandifer 00:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it has a better Lead now, avoiding the specific information about the transgender character (apparenbtly Phil and David took my advice toheart and fixed it up some). The Lead is asummarized overview of the artilce - it isn't the place to reveal who Keyser Soze is, which is why spoilers need to be in the Plot/Synopsis, and nowhere else. A well, Sue Dibney is an artic le you recently re-worked to make a point (an OR point w/out sources, unfortunately). The Lead as a summary doesn't introduce new statements unsupported by the article. The info about the "flashpoint" is not so much that but a symptom of the Women in Refrigerators argument. Hardly a flashpoint.
However, that is a topic for another time. We are currently discussing removing spoiler tags because they apparently inspire allsorts of - as yet unexplained - NPOV violations by their simple presence. That is akin to suggesting that we should do away with baby's diapers because it only inspires babies to crap in them. In both situations, crap is going to occur. Best not to blame the diaper, but rather to instead address the core issue. Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how best to respond to this, if only because it seems to contain the implication that editing articles to comply with our policy on article leads violates WP:POINT. In any case, I've added three sources to the Dibny claim now. But the point here remains - both Sue Dibny and The Crying Game, in order to be good, NPOV articles, need to mention things that are spoilers. Otherwise major aspects of the topic have to get exiled from the lead. I'm not advocating putting the endings to every book, movie, and character in the lead. But sometimes it is the best possible way to do it. The Chairs is another example - that article needs to discuss the play's ending in the lead. (And I'll go fix it as soon as I post this.) Phil Sandifer 01:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the plot synopsis is typically much larger than the intro, that is hardly "marginalizing" anything. Wahkeenah 05:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This guideline is not in line with several policies and is an unnecessary exception of Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. All those ugly, unencyclopedic templates should go too. Prolog 00:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That page has an exception for spoilers, which I've removed. Some people may disagree. I don't particularly care for "no disclaimer", but it's there. Any exceptions to it should not be for such frivolous reasons as spoilers. Eclecticology 01:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no POV issue. It's a red herring. This is an attempt by certain editors to impose their will on the readers of wikipedia as to how they "should be" using wikipedia. It amounts to nannyism in the extreme. Wahkeenah 00:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How, exactly, is the forced exclusion of discussions of transgender issues from the lead of The Crying Game compatible with WP:NPOV? Phil Sandifer 00:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why is your desire to discuss that topic outside the spoiler tag more important than respecting the readers of wikipedia who maybe don't want to have the ending ruined for them? Wahkeenah 00:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your question amounts to "how is writing a comprehensive introduction to an encyclopedia article in a manner compatible with our fundamental content policies more important than not revealing the ending of a movie that is best known for its twist ending?" If you cannot answer that one yourself, I cannot possibly help you. Phil Sandifer 00:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Spoiler warnings themselves are a way for other editors to nanny readers into the everyforum.com culture where it really shouldn't be. Personally, I don't see how this is a red herring at all. Your argument seems to be a "straw man" by turning this into a debate about certain editors rather than actually addressing the issue of Wikipedia policy (NPOV) and the rights of the readers. Axem Titanium 00:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • User talk:David Gerard#Braveheart_Edits is my personal example of the sort of editing this guideline and template leads to - David Gerard 00:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • What that means, I have no idea. And it is about the editors, because suddenly today a few of them decided that they don't like spoiler warnings because it inconveniences them somehow. The spoiler warning is a courtesy to the reader and does no harm otherwise. How about putting the interests of readers ahead of your own? Wahkeenah 00:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I should think that one of the most fundamental interests of a reader that we, as an encyclopedia, care about is their interest in reading well-written, comprehensive articles. Part of that is well-written, comprehensive lead sections. The spoiler policy actively says that we should conceal information in lead sections rather than discussing it. This is contrary to our fundamental policies. Phil Sandifer 00:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • (edit conflict, responding to Wahkeenah)What interests? I'm trying to build an encyclopedia here, I don't know about you. Spoiler warnings violate the NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW by concealing important information from readers. It should be understood that a reader will get spoilers when he reads an article. The reader is harmed when he cannot get the whole story because it was blocked by a spoiler warning. Axem Titanium 00:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • That is absolutely false. Spoiler tags conceal nothing. They simply let the reader know that plot giveaways are ahead, and he/she can read them if they want to. If you read Leonard Maltin's movie guide, for example, he gives all the info in a paragraph and does not give away any spoilers. Nor is it necessary here. It's simply imposing your will upon the reader, taking away the reader's choice by not warning him/her. Wahkeenah 00:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Heading left because I can't count that many bullets)Maltin's guide is a collection of reviews, though. The lead of a movie review needs to do two things - tell me if the reviewer dug the movie, and tell me what sort of movie it is so I know if it sounds interesting. That's very different from what an encyclopedia does, which is tell me all the pertinent information about the movie. For some movies, like The Crying Game, the encyclopedic information includes discussions of the ending. Phil Sandifer 00:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is a spoiler then? The climax? The first hour of a movie? The first 15 minutes? The first minute? It's all a matter of perspective. To someone who's seen a movie, 30 minutes in seems like it wouldn't be a spoiler but to someone who hasn't any early revelations would count as spoilers. There is no objective way to define a spoiler so it's impossible to keep this guideline. Axem Titanium 00:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We really don't need to act like a fan site or a movie guide. We're an encyclopedia so there is no need to give out a warning to the reader that by reading our articles they might actually discover something they didn't know. --Tony Sidaway 00:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark as historical - effectively delete, but don't really delete it. Then restart discussion at TfD. BTW, a good use of the spoiler template was to track down articles that needed rewriting due to "writing about fiction" issues. People will still add spoiler warnings manually, even if the guideline and template family are deprecated. I for one don't want to have the last Harry Potter book spoiled. Carcharoth 00:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: This is a guideline page. We do not delete guidelines, we merely mark them as historical. This is to (literally) prevent history from repeating itself. Therefore if consensus here is to delete, mark as historical instead. Under no circumstances must you actually delete.
  • Note on MFD: Note that it's actually not a good idea to vote on policy like MFD so conveniently seems to allow. Use the talk page instead. Discussion on the talk page of a guideline can easily overturn a decision made on MFD.

--Kim Bruning 23:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note on notes on mfd's. Deletion Review usually comes after the close. Steve block Talk 22:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nomination. Mr Rochester has a wife yet living. Mackensen (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per numerous excellent arguments above. Spoiler tags need to die, in much the same fashion as Trinity dies at the end of The Matrix. --Stormie 00:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - please STOP trotting out spoilers as a joke. People reading encyclopedic articles should expect spoilers. People participating in MfD debates on the general principle of spoilers might not expect real examples of spoilers to be used. It is a standard joke to add a spoiler tag to discussions like this, but there is a reason for it. This is not an encyclopedia article. This is more like a bulletin board or discussion thread, and that is what spoilers were originally used for (on Usenet) to allow people to navigate fractured, rambling, threaded discussions without coming across spoilers. Topics shift and change in forums like this, so spoiler tags are needed on Wikipedia, but on talk pages and project discussion pages, but not in article space. Trinity and Rochester indeed. Hmmph! Carcharoth 01:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Can't understand what the harm is in keeping it. If it helps some readers, why not? Making Wikipedia reader-friendly seems to me a good thing. But what do I know? -Ebyabe 00:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide a neutral point of view to readers. Hiding information does not seem too reader-friendly to me. Axem Titanium 01:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where are you getting this from? A spoiler tag hides nothing, it censors nothing. It simply gives the reader a choice of whether to read about the giveaway plot details. Wahkeenah 01:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • But the policy page says "It is also recommended that editors avoid placing spoilers in edit summaries or section headers (unless the spoiler warning is before the table of contents) and avoid linking from another article to a section inside the spoiler area." And while there's a saving throw a paragraph down about article quality, the fact remains - the page advocates organizing articles around spoilers, not around information. Phil Sandifer 01:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please read up on your definition of censorship. If information is organized in such a way that a certain position is marginalized or eliminated, that is still considered censorship (albeit more subtle and insidious). Axem Titanium 01:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, censorship is hiding information. There is nothing hidden with that tag. You can write the intro a la Leonard Maltin, with no key plot giveaways, and you can put the spoiler tag, and spill all the movie's guts, and the reader has the choice of whether they want to read about the details or not. Wahkeenah 01:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a difference between movie reviews and encyclopedia articles. In the former, you decide whether or not to see the movie. In the latter, you are researching everything about the movie. If I were to talk about, say, evolution and I wanted to advance the position that evolution doesn't exist, I could easily rearrange the article on evolution to discredit Darwinists. None of the information was left out, but the editor (me) was able to spin it towards his own POV. The same can be done with works of fiction. By organizing the article around a spoiler warning, it creates a POV. You also have not responded to my "definition of a spoiler" argument above. Axem Titanium 01:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, you're imposing your own view on the reader about how he "should be" using wikipedia, rather than letting him decide. Wahkeenah 01:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You seem to know a lot about me. Tell me, what is "my view"? As far as I know, I'm using the classical definition of an encyclopedia and applying it to Wikipedia which claims to be "The Free Encyclopedia". If it's not my place to decide that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, then who's is it? I suppose I should turn Wikipedia into a soapbox for my own ideas. That way, I can actually impose my ideas on readers instead of protecting him from reading the encyclopedia. Seriously, what else do you do with Wikipedia besides use it as an encyclopedia? Axem Titanium 02:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • All I know about you and the other anti-spoiler-taggers on here is that your priorities are out of whack. Courtesy for the reader should come first. Show me another "classic encyclopedia" that reveals the endings of movies. Wahkeenah 02:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, I couldn't find a single Britannica article on a film. Encarta has some, but they're all stubs by our standards and don't include any plot summaries at all. Britannica does definitely spoil the ending to The Iliad in its article on Homer, and Encarta has copious summaries of novels. But if we wanted to go strictly by the standards of classic encyclopedias we'd delete all our film articles entirely, or at least the plot summaries. Phil Sandifer 05:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • One of the main reasons we started using spoiler warnings was because we normally rank very high on internet search results. -- Ned Scott 05:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Maybe a compromise would be, when they click on a subject, to automatically pop up that one editor's lecture on the way the reader "should [or should not] be using" wikipedia, to put the reader in their place and keep their expectations low. Wahkeenah 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week delete. Not really doing any harm, but along with issues raised above, there's simply no need for an entire guideline on how to use spoiler tags--nor should the use of spoiler tags really be encouraged more than it already is. That said, I'm really quite ambivolent about it and, thus, fail to see how such a trivial matter could spark such a lengthy discussion. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope that y'all mean "keep, reject and esperanzify" as opposed to "delete", no? Spoiler warnings, for better or worse, have been with us for a long time... --Iamunknown 01:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least mark historical. If these tags were confined to works released in the last 5 years or so, then it would be acceptable, but there has been a drive to keep them on any literary work, ever; we've seen them on Shakespeare plays and even a book of the Bible. This is unencyclopedic and absurd. *** Crotalus *** 01:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Flat delete, do not mark historical, do not Esperanzify. Spoiler warnings are silly things to put into encylopedia articles, which by definition have to discuss endings, plot twists, etc. The time taken up by sterile disputes about spoiler tags is ridiculous--I've even had arguments about whether Odyssey or Medea should have spoiler tags, and those works of literature are 2500 years old. We don't need a guideline about an unnecessary template; we don't even need to mark it historical, just get rid of it. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discard per nom. Even if we don't want to get rid of spoiler templates, we definitely don't want to mandate them as part of the Manual of Style.--ragesoss 02:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see how removing the guideline while keeping the template improves matters. That would increase, rather than reduce, the time-wasting arguments over spoilers. This already includes one important piece of guidance -- don't distort the structure of the article for the sake of spoiler warnings -- and can be further improved. Better a guideline page where we can reach a sensible compromise than a free-for-all. —Celithemis 02:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Guidelines are not overturned by deleting them. Tag it as rejected if it is, sure, but that decision must be made on the talk page. MfD isn't the right place. -Amarkov moo! 04:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong discard: The content disclaimer says that Wikipedia contains content you will find objectionable. Another warning for this is stupid. There's also the case of Wikipedia not being censored. Providing a warning to information is censorship. There's also the article untidiness and obstruction. I am stumped to their major use: plot sections. That's right, a section titled "Plot" has a second warning that tells readers "Plot follows". I am unsure about how removing guidelines works, but if this doesn't remove it, it will at least be leway to that goal. --Teggles 05:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Spoiler warnings are not helpful, I have found. They are merely a placebo, with people even moaning about spoilers even with a big honking warning. Matthew 06:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or mark as historical and do not use. Readers should expect that an encyclopedia article about a fictional work will reveal information about it, including any plot surprises. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's arguments. Kariteh 07:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close per MfD: "Nominating a Wikipedia policy or guideline page, or one of the deletion discussion areas (or their sub-pages), for deletion will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy." Whatever the merits of this, and I can see arguments on both sides (lots of them, covering pages and pages of Wikipedia) MfD is not the place to consider deleting a guideline. AndyJones 07:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Completely redesign. Either delete this, or make it a small unobtrusive icon at the top right of a section with spoilers, like the 'locked page' or 'featured article'. - Francis Tyers · 09:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this misguided template. Spoiler warnings belong on fansites and book review sites, not in encyclopaedias. If you don't want to read an encyclopaedic article about a book or work of fiction, that is, an in-depth article which explains it in full, including the plot twists and denouement, then please go somewhere where incmplete information is the norm. Wikipedia is not such a place. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary (or not so arbitrary) section header

  • Point of policy
  • Note to closing admin: This is a guideline page. We do not delete guidelines, we merely mark them as historical. This is to (literally) prevent history from repeating itself. Therefore if consensus here is to delete, mark as historical instead. Under no circumstances must you actually delete.
  • Note on MFD: Note that it's actually not a good idea to vote on policy like MFD so conveniently seems to allow. Use the talk page instead. Discussion on the talk page of a guideline can easily overturn a decision made on MFD.
  • I'm sure the closing admin will know policy well enough and will read this comment, and the one above (that you posted earlier, and was also at the bottom of the page, complete with requests to post above it). There is no need for the extra emphasis complete with wiki commented <! -- warnings --> to post above it. What is stated here is no more or less important then what anyone else here has stated. (Please note I have not yet made a statement on this MFD) —— Eagle101Need help? 01:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • MFD is wrong venue for policy discussions. This is a compromise as it stands. Two options : Leave MFD open, albeit with caveat, or speedy close MFD as inappropriate venue. One is giving folks a break as per WP:IAR, one is following policy. Your call. :-) --Kim Bruning 02:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For now I think it is best to allow folks to comment, there seems to be a large group of people willing to discuss this issue here, and as such it is probably best to leave it here, even if that is considered ignoring all rules. :) This seems to be getting a very large section of the community involved. Also may I please ask... why is it so important that your comments be at the very bottom of the page through this whole debate? Are they any more or less important then any other comment? I'm sure the closing admin will read the whole thing through, and the closing admin may very well say "ok this needs to go to XXX", but as I see it now, it is allowing some community debate to happen, and thats a good thing from where I am standing. —— Eagle101Need help? 02:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that it shouldn't matter at all in what venue the discussion is held, so long as it is held. MfD is as effective, if not more effective, at gauging support for the rejection of a guideline/policy as a policy's talk page, though it is clearly not the typical route one goes to seek the overturning of a policy/guideline. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per several reasons. One, MFD is an inappropriate format for this discussion, and those who want to delete spoiler warnings are strong-arming not only the change, but what format we use. Less than a year ago BOTH sides of the debate were able to agree for an RFC format, and as heated as those discussions got, at least we had the sense to seek out a discussion format that would be fair, easy to follow, and helpful. Continue this discussion on WT:SPOILER and don't give in to strong-arm tactics. -- Ned Scott 03:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This MFD was started by someone who did not participate in any of the previous debates (to my knowledge) so I wouldn't blame him for choosing the wrong platform. On the other hand, a debate is a debate, regardless of where it happens. MFD is just a name, just like RFC. Whether it happens here or there doesn't change the fact that discussion is happening and that discussion will be used to build consensus. In regards to your other point, who is strong-arming whom? Is reopening a debate such a crime? I've seen nothing but a desire to swiftly crush this debate from you and only after I called you out on it have you actually settled down to try to discuss. Axem Titanium 03:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Plus, this raises an interesting scenerio: if numerous established editors feel a guideline should be deleted, then allowing an MfD is a good idea. The nomination may have not mentioned everything, but that has been covered by others within this discussion. — Deckiller 03:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't blame the nominator, and in reality I'm not really "mad" at anyone for wanting to remove the warnings. However, saying the format for discussion doesn't matter is simply not true. "I've seen nothing but a desire to swiftly crush this debate from you " Because you've assumed that you've helped make the situation worse and not better. That assumption couldn't be more wrong, and in no way was anything being suppressed or ignored. Just because the comments had not been copied over right away doesn't mean they were going to be archived away. I strongly respect the opinions of my fellow Wikipedians, even when they disagree with me. I've stood up for those who disliked spoiler warnings when they were not available to comment, when it looked like the "pro-warning" side was the only ones commenting. But hey, thanks for assuming the worst of me and painting a completely inaccurate picture of my intentions. -- Ned Scott 04:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Though it's a side point, I was vaguely aware of the RfC (or at least, it was familiar to me when I looked at it, though I'd forgotten about it when I made the nomination). I think I declined to participate in it, largely because I thought most of the things being discussed in it (most notably the question of spoilers and NPOV as considered there, where the issue was mostly about whether it's a POV to label a particular fact a spoiler) were kind of silly and missed what seemed to me the major points about spoilers. Phil Sandifer 05:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—if this discussion is moved to a place considered more "appropriate", please allow for a transition period to advertise and set up the transfer before closing this discussion. — Deckiller 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the discussion continues here then such a transition would not be possible.. Of course everyone would have been notified and all comments would have found there way into the new discussion, but it's not really efficient to do that before closing, allowing the work of transition to grow as you are doing it. -- Ned Scott 04:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: For the reasons I described above. I do not find the arguments for deletion all that convincing. Rewrite the article to reflect NPOV, don't blame the Spoiler policy for bad writing. Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete encyclopedias don't use spoiler warnings and as per the above reasons. DarthGriz98 05:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you had read the nomination, you'd know that they do. They interrupt the flow, make information difficult to be covered in the lead, and confine information to one section. The major use, placement in the "Plot" section, is utterly redundant. --Teggles 05:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, they don't. A properly used spoiler tag does none of these things. -- Ned Scott 05:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless you place the spoiler tag at the very beginning of the article, they do. Can you show me a spoiler tag that is "properly used"? --Teggles 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let me give a simple solution - allow certain facts to be in the lead if they have ceased to be spoilers. Simple. Additionally, what's ugly about a spoiler warning at the top of a section? The header does a great enough job of breaking the flow from one section to the next. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have a better solution: mention the spoilers in the lead, and don't give a warning. There's also the case of omitting information from the lead when WP:LEAD says otherwise. "Ugly" is a complete misnomer, I never said anything about that. My key points were information confinement (to a spoiler-tagged section), information omission (from the lead), and redundancy (plot warnings in a plot section). "Interrupt the flow" was only for when the tags are placed between paragraphs, not sections. --Teggles 05:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I know consensus can change, and all that jazz, but people really should take a look at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC. We discussed each and everyone one of these points, and the comments there also apply to this discussion, just as much as the new comments. There we focused on the NPOV issue, the censorship issue, and the "considered encyclopedic" issue. -- Ned Scott 05:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be noted, you focused on a NPOV issue - but it's not the one being raised here, which is that organizing articles around spoilers can violate NPOV. Indeed, I see no discussion of the issue of lead paragraphs in the RfC, which seems to me a very good reason to re-open debate. Phil Sandifer 05:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • We did discuss organizing articles around spoilers, and everyone thought it was a bad idea... It gives undue weight, it can restrict the format, etc. A misuse of the spoiler template does not speak for the concept itself. -- Ned Scott 05:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which is why, notably, I nominated the policy instead of the template. There may well be something useful that can be done with a spoiler template, but a policy mandating that spoilers be hidden after templates, outside of section headers, etc. is a policy mandating that articles be written badly. Phil Sandifer 05:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • But I'm pointing this out more in response to some of the other comments I've been reading, and not so much on the one you've brought up. And also, I have no problem with continued discussion. -- Ned Scott 05:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Doc glasgow, we need not mollycoddle and insult the intelligence of our readers any further. RFerreira 05:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's awful reasoning. Just because it seems obvious doesn't mean we should not put up something to shoo them away if they don't want to read spoilers. Some plots are just short summaries of the basic plot, while others are a complete coverage of every event. And what about characters? A list of characters does not imply that there will be spoilers, but there often is. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Mollycoddling and insulting" readers is a bogus smokescreen. Removal of spoiler tags shows utter contempt for the readers, taking away their choice and imposing the editors' views of the way the readers "should be" using wikipedia. In short, it's nannyism. Wahkeenah 05:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ideally, the plot sections of every article would be comprehensive. However, since Wikipedia is a work in progress, we are not there yet. But we shouldn't make exception for that since eventually all articles will (or should) get there. Anyway, Wahkeenah, you never seem to say anything else. How is removing spoiler tags imposing on the reader? Axem Titanium 05:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This guideline demands absurdly ripping apart the flow and text of an article to fit an ill-defined idea of a "spoiler" into a marked off section. It purposefully keeps relevant and important information out of the lead. It violates the spirit of WP, of disseminating information. It violates NPOV, by keeping points of view that are deemed "spoilers" out of the unquarantined areas of the article. This guideline needs to go. --PresN 05:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've already voted to discard, but here's a list of my points:
    • Make adhering to WP:LEAD very difficult, as it requires the lead to be a summary. You can not summarize without mentioning spoilers.
    • Confine information to a specific area. When you can only mention spoilers in a dedicated spoiler section, it makes development and reception sections less useful because the important spoilers cannot be discussed.
    • Redundancy. Warnings are very often placed in plot sections, but the "Plot" header already infers plot. Saying again is redundant.
    • Ignoring leeway of medical and offensive images, text. A reader may find spoilers objectionable, a reader may find genitalia objectionable. They are the same idea.
    • Point of view... what is a "spoiler"? It creates unnecessary difficulties.
    • Interrupting flow. Although this is not always the case, spoiler warnings allow to be placed in the middle of paragraph.
    • Obvious. An encyclopedia is a set of articles. An article is "a written composition in prose on a specific topic". A spoiler is part of a written composition.
  • I'm sure I've forgotten many points, but this should do. --Teggles 05:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although I don't wholly oppose the use of spoiler warnings, at the moment they are being employed in an unacceptable fashion. Razing the whole structure, waiting a year, and then starting over on a more reasonable scale may the most effective way to produce a good balance for the long haul. As it stands, this page promotes behavior that is not compatible with our mission as an encyclopedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, I think its time I drop in my two cents. I see several issues raised on this little discussion of ours :)

  • First off I note that there were and probably still are concerns about the venue of this discussion. My suggestion as to that is to allow this conversation to go on till its scheduled close. Like it or not there is much more 3rd party input in a discussion of this nature then any discussion that is generated on the talk page of the guideline. (I'm sure if this nomination were on the guideline's talk, there would not be half the amount of discussion that we have now.
  • There are decent arguments both ways, the ones that I find most notable are:
    • Guideline needs to go because of concerns over conflict with WP:LEAD. This may or may not be clear, but we do have the perception of a conflict, and that alone is enough for this argument
    • Guideline needs to go because its overused, I found this one interesting, as it implies that the guideline is not written properly as to insure that the tag is used properly. (more on what to do about that in a bit)
    • Guideline does state that article quality takes precedence over worrying about spoilers. (this was an interesting reason to keep). But in any case there is the problem that this guideline is being perceived to be "spoilers are more important then article quality". If not in word, then in deed, shown by some of the examples that I have seen. (ways to fix this in a bit)
    • You don't have to blurt out details about the article in the intro, only thing this approach has is possible Neutral point of view issues, but doing this means that we are altering our writing style around spoilers, something that this policy does not encourage (or at least is said not to encourage).
    • There are serveral other intersting comments about this as well, I've just listed the ones that I found were most interesting, though there was one above about how figuring out what information is considered a "spoiler" can be considered a point of view. Interesting :)
  • Now that I've listed some of the arguments both ways, I'd like to point out some of the possible resolutions to this debate.
    • Keep - Outright, I don't think this is a feasable solution at this time, quite a few editors have stated objections to this guideline, so some revision needs to take place.
    • Keep - but discuss elsewhere, also consider adding a disputed tag to the guideline itself. (It looks quite disputed to me) this could be done, though I would recommend that discussion (especially since so many editors are having issues with this guideline) continue elsewhere other then the page's talk, to bring in as many 3rd party folks as possible :). I would suggest a policy/guideline request for comment if this route is taken. It may come to a point that the discussion agrees to the deletion of some of the spoiler tags, and or comes to a different conclusion. This of course does not clearly mark the guideline as bad, and the result of this further discussion may well be keep and use in much more limited context, or other fixes. Who knows :S.
    • Esperanzafy - mark historical - this could be done, but it leaves the issue of what to do with all these {{spoiler}} tags that we have in articles, as this debate is more so on the topic of the guideline page, then the tags themselves.
    • Delete outright - This is the only one which I will come out and say I'd rather not see. It is useful to maintain the page, even with the historical tag on it so that others in the future can see what did and did not work. Deleting pages like this is just in my view not that great of an idea.
    • Speedy close of this MFD, and move discussion onto a request for comment and mark the guideline as disputed. (which it looks like it is). (I forgot this option :) ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eagle 101 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • And with that, I'd like you guys to note that I have not really !voted here, but have given you guys some food for thought :) Feel free to discuss below here even if you have already voted above, there are more options then just a plain black and white, yea nay vote here. We do have the issue of what would be done with all the existing tags if the guideline is removed, and or if {{disputedpolicy}} is placed on it. I again would like to emphasize that there are multiple options and outcomes of this debate. —— Eagle101Need help? 07:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with fire We are an encyclopedia. We give you information. If you have a desire to not see certain information, do not look it up on an encyclopedia. Do away with the whole damn spoiler concept. -Mask? 08:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because some people abuse it doesn't mean it should be deleted altogether. Spoiler tags are still useful for details that wouldn't make the lead. - Mgm|(talk) 09:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments: Spoiler templates do not violate NPOV. The information is still there and not hidden. The reader just gets warned. In cases were the ending of a piece of fiction is important enough to be in the lead, it should be, but there's plenty of articles in which that's not even near a requirement for good writing. Also, the no disclaimer templates guideline discusses things like "this article contains profanity" which is hard to define because opinions differ. Spoilers are information that would severely impact the entertainment value of something fictional. - Mgm|(talk) 09:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are cherry-picking the arguments to attack, there is more reason to removal than that. Check my list of reasons, it's about 4 comments up. --Teggles 09:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In all seriousness, if consensus is to keep, I will be proposing a "Nudity warning" template for all sexual content. This is to provide a equal fairness - people who find spoilers objectionable should be treated the same as people who find nudity objectionable. --Teggles 09:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines/Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning&oldid=131257490"