Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/old template talk

Older discussions archived:

• Template talk:Spoiler/Archive 1
• Template talk:Spoiler/Archive 2

W3C Validation failure

W3C does not approve of using the same "id" tag more than once in a page. To fix this, use "class" instead. (I'd fix it myself, but the page is protected.) For and example of an article this affects, see DNA Resequencer (Stargate), and validation results. Armedblowfish 13:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC) {{spoil}}

What's the point?

I would really like to know what the point is of having spoiler warnings. Wikipedia is supposed to be an enyclopedia. Who cares if the plot is revealed to someone? That's their problem for reading it. ‡ Jarlaxle 22:54, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Sometimes, you'd like to know things about a book, movie, or TV show without actually knowing plot details. --InShaneee 22:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but the spoiler template makes the articles look weird. Two thick gray lines, embolded words, and bright blue letters. It's a little annoying. ‡ Jarlaxle 23:01, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't that just your "problem for reading it"? B.Mearns^*, KSC 18:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This has been 'discussed' in yes/no comments above - I do not think that Wikipedia can be defined as a regular encyclopedia even though many wish it would. A normal encyclopedia would probably not hold very much information about movies, novels and other non phenomenal entities. You are right that one could claim it is up to the person reading it - but what is the problem with being a little friendly to the reader? :) Pacroon 23:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Whenever (if ever) Wikipedia is turned into a standard encyclopedia and printed to dead tree, all of the spoiler warnings should be removed. Until then, they should stay in. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 08:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

What do dead trees have to do with spoilers? I think all the spoiler warnings should be removed. An encyclopedia is where one turns for information, knowledge, facts. Why shouldn't it ruin the reader's fetish for ignorance? Art/films/books aren't sado-masochistic games where one hides from orgasm; this is learning, not le passage à l'acte. If this is the correct place to do it, I propose that all spoilers be abolished and readers be encouraged to believe that wikipedia is where one goes to learn, not to have ante-orgasmic near encounters with 'what happens'. The template is like a cigarette cancer warning "watch out you might learn something". At the very least they pollute the page lay-out. Why should the those who wish to remain ignorant have any say on the lay-out of an encylcopedia; it's like asking the catholic church for their opinion on the design of an abortion clinic. I also propose adding the following to what wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a babysitter for molly-coddled readers/viewers; let them jump up and down, fingers in ears, and screaming 'nah nah nah I didn't hear that' somewhere else. Pvazz 09:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point of the spoiler warnings. It's not to help people remain ignorant, it's just so people don't unexpectedly stumble across something that ruins a book for them. Maybe somebody's reading an article about a book to get some background on it, to try to decide whether or not they want to read it. Or just out of curiousity, already with the intention of reading it, or maybe even in the process. I don't see any problem with having a template that makes it easy to warn such users that if they keep reading, they might learn more than they were expecting. Or maybe they're reading an article which they don't even realize is related to a book they're reading or going to read, and there happens to be something about the book in it. Why should they have their reading enjoyment ruined just for reading the pedia?

If anything, I think having the spoiler warnings helps people enjoy their reading more–by allowing them to gain relevant background information without ruining the ending–therefore encouraging them to read more, and reducing their ignorance just a little.

More to the point, I really can't see any possible problem with having the warnings; it doesn't prevent the information from being available to those who want it, and I really think any issues people have with the appearance is just knit-picking. For the most part, articles only include this template once or twice in a way that logically divides the article (e.g., seperating "Plot" sections from other sections). If the templates are being used in a way that makes the article appear ugly or cluttered, I think that's just a side effect of the way some people use them, I don't think the template itself is inherently ugly. B.Mearns^*, KSC 12:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't missed the point. I don't believe that Wikipedia has a responsibility to shield its readers from knowledge. A book is not 'ruined' if its ending is revealed. Lay-out is not superfluous. Typography cannot be dismissed as 'nit-pick'. Wikipedia shouldn't nurture the consumerist restraint of orgasm in its readers. Arguing that spolier warnings somehow contribute to people reading more is far-fetched and ridiculous. Wikipedia is not the nanny-state protecting its readers from knowledge. Why should those who want to learn from an encyclopedia with considered typography be swept aside by a group of ignorant readers who need to be protected from knowledge. I would direct those readers to the great religious institutions set up for precisely that purpose.

For those that still refuse the above arguments, can I suggest we greatly reduce the template's size, and move it out of the article's body? Pvazz 05:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

For an example of a place where a spoiler warning is necessary, check out the article on Sisyphus. Or actually DON'T, if you're planning on reading Dark Tower at some point. --Kalthare 06:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

New Proprosal for spoiler warning change

I noticed that on [[1]] a user left a | html comment] on the page after changing the page to forgo using the standard template, and thought I'd propose a change to the template to make it more visible. If anyone has any thoughts I'd be interested reading any suggestions on how we can make the {{spoiler}} warning stand out while still looking good.

Here's the Proposed template design:

Jtkiefer 01:10, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hell no. This version is extremely annoying and unnecessary. I like the present version better and don't think it should be changed. ‡ Jarlaxle 01:21, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

You should take a read of Template talk:Spoiler/Archive 1. You'll see this is a path which was proposed, and abandoned. -- Netoholic @ 02:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Just took a look and I see why it was abandoned. I think I'll have nightmares for weeks about hot pink spoiler tags. Jtkiefer 05:26, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Concur. No screaming banners. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:41, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the triple revert.

I kept receiving an error message, and I checked the history after each instance; all three edits were processed simultaneously at 13:52 (UTC). I've never had this happen before. —Lifeisunfair 13:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The same thing happened when I sent the above apology, but I waited for it to show up. I see that the site's status is listed at irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia as "Slow, edits may return errors but still go through." That isn't unusual, but I've never had them accumulate like that in the past. (All attempts after the first were automatically ignored.) Is this a MediaWiki 1.5 bug? —Lifeisunfair 14:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I know people have wanted to change this template

What about putting a small "attention" icon in the spoiler template??? Perhaps 30 or 40 pixels? I'm not sure if this has been discussed above, but I just thought I'd thow it out there. The current one is too un-noticable. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

It's been discussed and shot down repeatedly. K1Bond007 05:48, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, no it hasn't. There was a small discussion of a huge red stop sign awhile back, but nothing on a small little attention icon. If there were an image, we could take out the bolding since it would stand out without it. It wouldn't be such an eyesore to some, but would stand out enough for the rest. And the edit summary "see consensus on talk page" or whatever it said is the most absurd thing ever said on WP. I just went back through the archive and the rest, and there is just about nothing that has ever received consensus about this template. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

opposition

If people are going to keep opposing to new changes on this template, they might as well lock it up from editing. --SuperDude 02:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

normally I would disagree with locking this, but since this template is used on many pages and there is no real legitimate reason to change this template now that there is such a clear opposition to it being changed I think it might be a good idea. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:51, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

How about...

What about this? People can quit complaining about the bold, etc. and people have something that actually stands out a little bit without being too intrusive. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• I find this much more annoying than what we have. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:16, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Well, good for you, but quite a few people want it changed, and there has been no real consensus on anything on this template. See my comment a few threads up. What would you like seen done? --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• If I had a proposal I'd have made it; I'm just weighing in, saying I prefer the status quo to this particular alternative. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:02, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

• I like it. I would just indent the triangle a little farther to the right. --michael180 14:11, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• It looks nice, and the icon is cute, but I find it unnecessary. At best, it's harmless. At worst, it gets in the way and places unnecessary extra load on the image servers. -Aranel ("Sarah") 16:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It's only 4994 bytes. ‡ Jarlaxle 17:27, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, but this template is used on hundreds of articles. It can add up. (It reminds me a little of the stub images. Cute, but they kept having to be taken down to ease the load on the server.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Well what if I chopped it down and saved it as a smaller image? And many people want the spoiler warning changed to stand out more. I understand about the server load, but could we make it stand out more? People above already shot down a colored box (and I'm not talking about hot pink). I just didn't know how else to go about having it stand out more. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I have it down to 1,041 bytes. Would that be small enough? Let me know and I'll upload it. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally, the template should be left alone. An image would be obtrusive and regardless of the image size, it would put an unnecessary strain on the server. Design changes including color, images (twice fairly recently), boxes etc have been discussed before and all have been reverted to what we have now. K1Bond007 17:32, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well the image discussions above seem to be about a huge red stop sign (did you see that edition?!?!) and a small exclamation point. The stop sign is obvious, but the small single exclamation point (not the one I have suggested) did not have a "clear consensus"). And just because something gets reverted doesn't mean that is must be wrong. Reading the archive and this page makes it clear to me that more people want the warning to be noticable than don't. There seems to be a group of 4 or 5 editors who might be trying to claim ownership. Just my thoughts. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Based on my reading of the page (which I agree is not necessarily any more valid than yours), it is certainly not clear that there is actual consensus that it should be made more noticeable in some way. Most discussion has focused ona particular proposal to make the template stand out, not on the idea in general. Perhaps it would be reasonable to start some kind of straw poll to see how much support/opposition there is for any change to make the template more noticeable before getting into debates about which method should be used. -Aranel ("Sarah") 18:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? 4 or 5 editors claiming ownership? Where are you getting the people want this template to stand out more at too? There is no consensus on that. If anything it seems to be the other way around. K1Bond007 19:05, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Then why do people change it so often? And I'm not just talking about this talk page. People on other pages have mentioned that it should stand out more. And the "claiming ownership" thing was not literal. People just revert claiming consensus and don't think to listen to others. That's all I meant. Whatever, I don't really care, I was just offering solutions. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Here is my submission as candidate for a new spoiler template. --None-of-the-Above 09:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Story Line

Spoiler warning: Plot details follow.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Duis tellus. Donec ante dolor, iaculis nec, gravida ac, cursus in, eros. Mauris vestibulum, felis et egestas ullamcorper, purus nibh vehicula sem, eu egestas ante nisl non justo. Fusce tincidunt, lorem nec dapibus consectetuer, leo orci mollis ipsum, eget suscipit eros purus in ante. Mauris at ipsum vitae est lacinia tincidunt. Maecenas elit orci, gravida ut, molestie non, venenatis vel, lorem. Sed lacinia. Suspendisse potenti. Sed ultricies cursus lectus. In id magna sit amet nibh suscipit euismod. Integer enim. Donec sapien ante, accumsan ut, sodales commodo, auctor quis, lacus. Maecenas a elit lacinia urna posuere sodales. Curabitur pede pede, molestie id, blandit vitae, varius ac, purus.

Going upper left is fine, but the "loud" icon is excessive. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:24, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

When reading the other comments I figured I would get that remark. I could make its baby brother. I like the exclamation mark, even if tiny, to differentiate between the spoiler and the other text. What really annoys me about the current template is that there are so many lines that when placed under a sub-section title it looks really busy. Thanks for the criticization. --None-of-the-Above 05:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

My next submission

!!! THE ICON is ONLY FOR EXAMPLE !! A new non-windows icon would have to be created !!!

GNU head

Spoiler warning:   Plot details follow.

GNU head

Spoiler warning

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Duis tellus. Donec ante dolor, iaculis nec, gravida ac, cursus in, eros. Mauris vestibulum, felis et egestas ullamcorper, purus nibh vehicula sem, eu egestas ante nisl non justo. Sed lacinia. Suspendisse potenti. Sed ultricies cursus lectus. In id magna sit amet nibh suscipit euismod. Forgot to sign ... --None-of-the-Above 12:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Use of "and/or"

IMHO the "and/or" can be replaced with a simple "or". Natural language "or" is flexible. Nobody will read it and expect it to mean a strict exclusive or. The "and/or" is in this case an ugly and useless kludge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.112.0.7 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC).

I agree. Even better would be a simple "plot details follow." After all, the ending is part of the plot, isn't it? Note: I still oppose the spoiler template (details on my user page), but if we're going to have one it should have the best wording in the least obtrusive way possible. --דוד ♣ D Monack 00:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I would be bold and change this, but it's protected. Please change "and/or" to "or". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.225.67.108 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

Please note that you're replying to an old discussion. The wording was changed in this manner, and then it was changed back. (There doesn't appear to be a consensus.) Perhaps we should sidestep the issue by changing the wording to "Plot/ending details follow." (We should leave the word "ending" intact, because many readers otherwise might assume that the article contains only minor details that don't spoil the ending.) —David Levy 23:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The word "ending" doesn't need to be in there. The words "spoiler warning" should be sufficient for all but the most distracted reader. I don't understand what's unclear about "Spoiler warning: plot details follow" or, if this is not strong enough, "Spoiler warning: significant plot details follow". In my view, "and/or" has got to go. It is non-standard English. Quoting The Elements of Style: "And/or. A device, or shortcut, that damages a sentence and often leads to confusion or ambiguity." --dm ^(talk) 04:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Should we allow users to click to skip to the end of the spoiler?

We could let users skip any spoiler by using the following:

We could then edit the {{endspoiler}} template to have the #endspoiler bookmark. Clicking "skip this section" will jump the section if readers wish to skip. It will be easier than scrolling and looking for the endspoiler notice, and perhaps accidently reading something from the spoiler.

The formatting may be ugly, and the exact wording could be done better, but that can be changed later. Right now I'd just like to hear your comments on the general idea. Thanks--Krackpipe 13:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It won't work if there are multiple spoiler/endspoiler pairs in an article. I'm not aware of any articles that have more than one endspoiler tag; on the other hand, there are many, many articles with just {{spoiler}} (sometimes several of them, in different sections) and no {{endspoiler}}, and the link won't work there, either. —Cryptic (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

But if it doesn't work, people can add the endspoilers template when they find out about it, especially if you add a noinclude notice to the template, when they come here after seeing the change. Infinity0 ^talk 18:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If we could get the formatting stuff to work (Maybe multiple templates? "Spoilers1" "Spoilers2" etc.) I would like it. But if there was a way to actually hide the spoiler sections and have a "reveal the spoilers" button, I think that would be the best. --Jazz Hands'n' Sam 21:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Cryptic/spoiler.js. —Cryptic (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

We could always just make a parameterized spoiler template and end spoiler template. I've done so and made a test page that works fairly simply with the functionality desired.--Burzum 03:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Time limit

There should be a clear Wikipedia policy concerning the time limit for "spoiler warnings". Obviously, things do not stay "fresh" forever: after a certain amount of time, they "spoil" on their own, and it is not possible to "spoil" them further: Luke's dad is Darth Vader; "Rosebud" is a sled; Dil's a dude. Personally, I'd put that time limit at about 30 days, but given that some works are not released simultaneously around the world, a longer period might be advisable. Perhaps as much as a year from the first date of publication. I have encountered one person on Wikipedia who has opined that "spoiler warnings" are not time-sensitive at all. If that were so, every article devoted to a fictional subject would be plastered with these hysterical "spoiler warnings". I hope we can all agree how absurd that would be. Such nonsense is properly relegated to fan sites and bulletin boards -- it has no place in an encyclopedia. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk), 2005-12-9 T 08:07 Z

I agree with you, but I think you are too optimistic in thinking that there can be an agreement on this. I've gotten flack when I remove "spoiler" warnings from operas hundreds of years old. - Nunh-huh 08:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Every one reads or views a work for the first time, for someon who has not yet read a work, spolers are still spoilers. On USENET discussion fora (whrw spoiler warnings are common, the "freshness" factor is usaully not applied until a work has been in print for say 5-10 years, and then only on works populer enought that it is reasoanble to assume that almost anyoen in that forum will have read the eork or heard the spoielr info. For more obscurfe works this is even less reasonabel. And since wikipedia has a much less uniform audience, I don't think that any perception of when a work is too old to need spoilker warnings is reasonable or safe. DES ^(talk) 18:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This should only apply to very famous works which practically everyone has heard about. I have never heard of "rosebud" or "dil". 1 year, let alone 30 days, is too short a period for everyone to have read a book. It is probably okay to reveal basic facts of any book, even without a spoiler warning, if this does not reveal the ending or other important events. Pcu123456789 01:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. There is always some people who may not read/hear the story at all, no matter how famous it is. What's more, it seems no hurt to leave this spoiler note, in case if it helps.--Wai Wai 05:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If you need a more visible spoiler warning ...

For a more visible spoiler warning check out Template:spoiler2. It looks like this: {{spoiler2}}

--Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 20:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The situation has updated, please see Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning#A more visible spoiler warning and continue discussion there. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 12:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates

This is in response to Netoholic's revert:

1. We have an entire category of "if" templates, and we've incorporated this type of setup into numerous tags (including {{main}} and {{cleanup}}). How is this any different? —Lifeisunfair 17:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

2. Have your editing restrictions been lifted? If so, does this mean that you intend to go right back to template revert warring? —Lifeisunfair 17:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Those other templates are also in violation of the WP:AUM guidelines. -- Netoholic @ 17:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• I seem to recall that Netoholic objected to teh existance of {{spoiler-about}} when it was initally created. Which would he prefer: the optional parameter in this template, or the existance of two simialr tempaltes? And why? I note also that WP:AUM syas that such constructs should be avoided not that they are banned altogether, and it mostly discusses structure tempaltes, not conditional parameter tempaltes (which did not exist whan that page was first written). It is not clear to me whether WP:AUM should apply to conditional parameter tempaltes, because few if any of the alternatives it suggests can be applied to achieve the same goals as such templates. DES ^(talk) 18:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Having two similar templates is probably the best way not to violate WP:AUM for the time being. It's not hard to maintain the format of two templates, and the usage is quite well-documented. -- Netoholic @ 18:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see what Netoholic is trying to do here ... is he really saying that {{main}} and {{cleanup}} should be thrown out? Is it even possible to do them any other way? And how else would we implement the logic of "If an argument is specified, put in about text, else, display default" without using meta-templates? It's one thing to fix the template to avoid the use of meta-templates. That's constructive. It's quite another thing entirely to revert and create a loss of functionality. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 18:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "how else would we implement the logic" - we don't. We get by using multiple templates, without losing any functionality in this case. I'm not prepared to get into a discussion on this page about the other templates you mentioned. I only want to point out that the present system of spoiler & spoiler-about works just fine. -- Netoholic @ 18:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Alright then, how about my original issue of having a separate, higher-visibility version of the template used in cases where the spoilers cover more than the scope of the article. Normally when you're reading an article you tend to skim right over the spoiler warnings because you expect there to be spoilers for subjects encompassed by the article. But what if there is a tangentially-related spoiler for something else, the spoiler tries to warn you about it, but you just skim over it as always? This has already happened to at least one person who got so annoyed he felt compelled to vent in the talk page. There should be a spoiler tag that looks different that says something to the effect of, "Hey you, this isn't the usual yada yada, you really need to read this spoiler text because it warns about spoilers you wouldn't be expecting going on just the name of the article" ... i.e. spoiling the ending of Cowboy Bebop in the Crows section of Samurai Champloo. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 18:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
      • You can probably do it using the hiddenStructure CSS hack. Just turn on some additional markup if the optional parameter is passed in. —Kirill Lokshin 18:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I suppose that could work. So we could have two optional parameters: one is the "about text" and the other is a flag that says, "Hey, you better look more noticeable." --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 18:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Given the fact that the "about" parameter signifies the presence of a spoiler that's relatively unexpected (because it doesn't relate to the article's titular subject), it could serve both purposes (without the need for a second parameter). —Lifeisunfair 18:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Many people have tried to make spoiler messages bigger, but the community has always kicked that down. I don't think we need the CSS trick right here, right now. We have several spoiler notices that can be used, so we really don't have anything to gain right now. -- Netoholic @ 18:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

If you actually read the technical issues, they don’t relate to using metatemplates but to changing them, a fact the persistant edit warrior Netoholic chooses to ignore in his ill-informed and dangerous crusade, and one that means that the most is necessary may be protecting the logic templates. Given Netoholic’s editing restrictions, which clearly remain necessary, I believe that has changes should be reverted whole. Susvolans ⇔ 16:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, not really... you've either misread, misunderstood, or misrepresenting, but Jamesday's comments extend to all meta-template use. Changing the root template just makes matters much worse because it triggers a massive purge from the cache. -- Netoholic @ 16:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Spoiler-free Template?

Hello, everybody. I was just wondering if there is a "Spoiler-free" template or is there a point in creating it? You see, sometimes you read an article (without any spoiler warnings) and wonder whether it is "safe" to read any further or the author simply forgot the template. Does it make any sense? PS: E.g. ZanZarah and Drakan articles are completely spoiler-free. --Koveras 14:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. I don't think this is a good idea either. A lot of people object to the spoiler warning in the first place. K1Bond007 17:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I see. Well, on the German Wikipedia, they've abolished the spoiler template generally. Now there are dozens of articles, where the authors have to write "Spoilers ahead, please, take caution" in plain text. I consider this stupidity, but that's just my personal opinion. --Koveras 10:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious... How has eliminating the spoiler template worked out for German Wikipedia. Have they been inundated by complaints from readers who had their enjoyment of Moby-Dick or The Castle ruined by unexpected plot details? -- D.M. ^(talk) 09:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...my reading of Moby Dick was spoiled when I found out prematurely that

{{spoiler}}

THE WHALE'S A ROBOT!!!

Template:Endspoiler

Flameviper12 21:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"Skip spoilers" link

I request that this template include "Skip spoilers" as a link to the tag which exists in {{endspoiler}}. Infinity0 ^talk 16:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You may want to look a little further up the page. I think that this link should be there. --Krackpipe 12:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I made a template as such; what pure genius, at Template:Spoil. All you need to type in is {{tl|spoil|X}}, where X is the name of the next section, provided it has one. If not, don't use the template. Anyway...I wish that there was an If template, like there is on Uncyclopedia. If there was one, then you could either

1. Enter in nothing as {{{1}}} because there's no next section, and there wouldn't be a link dangling around

or

2. Enter in something for {{{1}}} and make a link to the enxt section...could someone look into that please? Thanks. Flameviper12 21:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki link to vi:

Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template:

<noinclude>[[vi:Tiêu bản:Biết trước nội dung]]</noinclude>

Thanks.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Cryptic (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

New comment on old discusssion

I see from the archives that the "and/or" wording has been discussed here before. I agree that the "and/or" wording is jarring and distracting. Whenever I read this spoiler warning, it sounds to my ear like a staccatto, mechanical computer voice blaring at me: WARNING!! PLOT AND/OR ENDING DETAILS FOLLOW. LOOKING FOR ENGLISH LESSONS. NEED TO UNLEARN TELEGRAPHESE. HELP!! :-) OK, end of rant. Carcharoth 19:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Question on fundamental purpose and use

A disagreement has arisen between myself and Chcknwnm on Cheers and the use of spoiler tags that we both believe needs a more general answer. The question is are spoilers assumed to exist under a plot section or should one include spoiler tags around the section(s) of the Plot section that include spoilers? Staxringold 14:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

subst

Should this thing be subst:ed? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No, there's absolutely no reason to - why did you suggest that? Stevage 08:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

CSS class good solution to complaints

I noticed that a CSS class "spoiler" has been added to the <div> tag that wraps this whole template. I think this is a perfect solution for those users who are avidly opposed to this template because it interferes with reading the article. For those users, they can now edit their User:USERNAME/monobook.css style sheet and add the following, effectively removing the "ugly" "intrusion":

.spoiler{
 display: none;
}

I'm not sure if that was the purpose of not, but I think it's a great solution to a nagging problem. B.Mearns^*, KSC 13:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

While this saves me the problem of seeing them (and thus ends my crusade to remove them). It has to be realized that visitors to Wikipedia will not know or desire to change their monobook and still find the template horrifically ugly and unneccesary. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 05:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent Change

For reasons behind this change, see this and this. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 12:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on the guideline

There is a discussion on the nature of the guidance relating to this template at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning. Views welcome. Steve block Talk 22:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

JS Solution

What do you guys think about a JS solution to the spoiler templates? The problem: when you have a spoiler template it {{spoiler}}

calls attention to itself.

Template:Endspoiler Could we set up a JS to actually hide the text, as I have seen in game forums? Something like:

And when you click on "Click here", it would expand to:

Opinions?

P.S.: Be aware that as a proponent of Wikia, this change, while possibly too big to be suitable for Wikipedia, may be suitable for smaller wikis. So ignore appliability as a con for the process.

---

This feature is nice to add, as long as the technical side approves too.--Wai Wai 05:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Would this screw anything up in the printable version? Otherwise I recommend going with what I've done above--Burzum 04:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hiding content of the article would be considered censorship, and is not permitted via WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored. Placing the spoiler warning template is about the extent that we can do. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read the censorship article. And I for one would appreciate it if Cryptics spoiler script automatically hid all spoilers on page load. Shinobu 06:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit Proposed

Please include the world "Substantial" before the word plot. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Also, remove "Spoiler warning" taking the template to:

• Do you mind if we hold off on this until the RFC is through? Steve block Talk 22:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Working template!

What has been proposed through the length of this talk page has been fully instated. Look at the working sample at Template talk:Spoil. Son of a Peach 17:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler recommendation (summary)

Wording

Instead of:

Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.

Some people may find it annoying due to the word "warning".
How about words like attention/note/reminder:

Spoiler attention: Plot and/or ending details follow.

Attention of possible spoiler: Plot and/or ending details follow.

Spoiler reminder: Plot and/or ending details follow.

Note on possible spoiler: Plot and/or ending details follow.

Or even remove it, like:

Plot and/or ending details follow.

Image

It is good to add a nice but not too frightening image. It is easier to catch readers attention. One may miss this spoiler note once in a while.

Additional functions

Functions like hiding/showing the spoiler, or skip the spoiler are nice to add too, if it is technically feasible.

• How about using for the image? -AMK152 13:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Guideline revision talk page

In response to the recent RfC, a third talk page has been started for WP:SPOILER to address revisions to the spoiler tag guidelines. You can find the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/guidelines In addition to the use of spoiler tags and notices, the appearance of the templates and sister-spoiler templates may also be discussed. -- Ned Scott 02:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki

I can't edit this template, could someone add pl:Szablon:Spoiler to it? Appleseed (Talk) 19:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please add the following interwikis to the code

[[bs:Template:Spoiler]] [[ca:Template:Spoiler]] [[cs:Template:Spoiler]] [[da:Template:Spoiler]] [[eo:Ŝablono:Intrigo]] [[gl:Template:Spoiler]] [[hr:Template:Spoiler]] [[hu:Sablon:Cselekmény]] [[io:Template:Spoiler]] [[is:Snið:Spillir]] [[it:Template:trama]] [[ms:Template:Spoiler]] [[nn:Mal:Avsløring]] [[no:Template:Spoiler]] [[pl:Template:Spoiler]] [[simple:Template:Spoiler]] [[sk:Template:Spoiler]] [[sv:Template:Spoiler]] [[tr:Template:Spoiler]] You can use the followin tool to find interwikis http://vs.aka-online.de/globalwpsearch/ --elwikipedista 17:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

And add [[fi:Malline:Juonipaljastus]] too. --ZeroOne 00:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

And sv:Mall:Spoiler

Added to Template:Spoiler/doc +mwtoews 06:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My proposal

With this warning, no one will ever read the Romeo & Juliet article again and come away with the spoiler that the couple is going to die. Morningmusic 19:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler/Spoiler-free?

I appoligise in advance that I haven't gone through all the archives to see if this has been discussed before, sorry if it has. Say I go to a page looking for information on a TV show or Anime (etc) that I'm thinking about watching, sometimes there's barely any information above the top section, which is usually called "Story", thus containing plot details, and because of the spoiler warning, I don't read any further. The thing is, I've read these sections on articles for things I've seen, and there can be really big spoilers, but usually there are none at all. This is annoying, because when I go to the page of a show I haven't seen, I don't know whether it's actually safe to read on or not. I suppose this is really about where to draw the line about what's a spoiler, any details at all (e.g. main character's name) are kind of spoilers for someone who knows nothing about the series, but this isn't something people try to avoid being told. I don't really know what a better solution would be, maybe indicating the severity of the spoilers in the warning? This has been nagging me for a while now so I wanted to mention it, feel free to say "problem unsolvable, let's stick with what we've got" and move on if that's how it is. --Aceizace 03:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The basic idea is to give fair warning, but like you've pointed out, it's basically impossible to guarantee if you'll receive the warning at all. You might also check out Wikipedia:Spoiler warning and it's talk page as well. It would seem that this won't be "solvable" in the near future, and probably won't even be a high priority (considering all the other things there are to do for these articles). Probably what should be done is to make it clear that there is a spoiler warning, but the warning itself might not always be there. Maybe noting this in the spoiler warning template itself or just making it more clear on WP:SPOILER. -- Ned Scott 05:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Please add interwiki

[[zh-classical:Template:Spoiler]] Yao Ziyuan 09:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Added to Template:Spoiler/doc +mwtoews 06:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Skip feature

A skip feature should be added to this template. skip=yes would enable it, and an optional id parameter could be used to distinguish between different spoiler blocks on a page. It would be coupled with {{endspoiler}}. Here's the code (to be added after the message text):

{{#if:{{{skip|}}}| [[[#EndSpoiler{{{id|}}}|skip]]]}}

This would produce:

Then at the top of {{endspoiler}}:

<span id="EndSpoiler{{{id|}}}" />

– flamurai (t) 01:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is similar to what I discussed above (and other users as well). I would hope that we get some comments this time on whether people like this idea or not. After we get this idea approved or denied then we can talk about the implementation (since there are many different methods going around). Cheers.--Burzum 02:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I had just thought of a skip feature for spoilers when I came to comment and saw yours. This could use a push through the system. -- Jmax- 21:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Swedish interwiki

Please add sv:Mall:Spoiler. /skagedal^... 20:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Added to Template:Spoiler/doc +mwtoews 06:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Macedonian interwiki

Please add mk:Шаблон:Разоткривање and don't forget to add the swedish interwiki above :) --B. Jankuloski 03:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Added to Template:Spoiler/doc +mwtoews 06:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

White borders

A lot of time the white borders chop images in half. Can we remove them or find a way to make them balance next to the image like the horizontal lines?--CyberGhostface 21:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings in print

Since the spoiler template has style "metadata", it doesn't appear when the article is printed. Is that intentional? —Celithemis 08:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe so, but not for certain. -- Ned Scott 09:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't people who want spoiler warnings onscreen want them just as much in print? —Celithemis 13:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the major reasons we have spoiler warnings is not necessarily because of spoilers, but because Wikipedia is a high ranking site for internet searches. It does stand to reason that people who read Wikipedia should expect to come across spoilers in such articles, with or without the tags, but they might not realize this right away. That being said, I bet there's an easy way for logged-in users to edit monobook.css or something that would allow them to show up when printed. -- Ned Scott 15:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it can be changed with monobook.css, but removing spoiler warnings when an article is printed violates the principle of least surprise. Few users are going to expect or predict that spoiler warnings will vanish when printing, so why make it the default? —Celithemis 00:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Please remove "metadata" from the classes this div belongs to, as per above. Spoiler class gives the necessary formatting without removing them for print-outs. Other metadata is removed because it does not make sense in a print-out. A spoiler warning does. --GunnarRene 01:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Started doc subpage

I've started a doc subpage at Template:Spoiler/doc, and it includes the dozens of pending interwiki links. Please edit the source to:

<div class="notice metadata spoiler" id="spoiler">'''[[Wikipedia:Spoiler warning|Spoiler warning]]: ''Plot and/or ending details follow.'''''</div><noinclude>
{{{{FULLPAGENAME}}/doc}}
<!-- Add cats and interwikis to the /doc subpage, not here! -->
</noinclude>

Thanks! +mwtoews 06:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Luna Santin 07:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

for

There seems to be some demand for a spoiler template that specifies what of several possibilities the spoiler is for. See {{spoiler-season}} and {{sgspoiler}} and related deletion discussions - I think this could be solved without causing template bloat by adding an optional parameter to the spoiler template. --Random832(tc) 15:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggested: <div class="notice spoiler" id="spoiler">'''[[Wikipedia:Spoiler warning|Spoiler warning]]: ''Plot and/or ending details {{#if:{{{for|}}}|for ''{{{for}}}''}} follow.'''''</div> --Random832(tc) 15:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

example: {{tl|spoiler|for=[[Episode List|Some Series]]}} results in:

Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details for Some Series follow.

No need. We have {{spoiler-other}}, {{spoiler-blank}} and {{spoiler-season}}. No need to change anything in {{spoiler}}. I was so bold as to comment out your editprotected for the time beeing. --GunnarRene 16:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

note that the consensus was to delete {{spoiler-season}} and redirect it here. While I don't think full support for spoiler-season's parameters is necessary, something to provide that functionality would be nice. I wasn't aware of {{spoiler-blank}} --Random832(tc) 06:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Reversal to - "Ending and/or plot details follow."

"Ending" might make a stronger and more intuitively understood keyword to begin this sentence with. It more instantly conveys what exactly we're helping readers-of-a-certain-disposition to avoid.

It also opens up the word plot for potential adjective-addition, such as "Ending and/or key plot details follow".

(Nobody seems to have suggested it yet, that i can find? I don't know the history of this template though, so possibly it's a terrible idea! 'The devil is in the detail is on demonkey') --Quiddity 22:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Remove css class

It is unfair to users who don't want to view spoilers that people who don't like the warnings have the opportunity to hide the tags but they do not have the option to hide spoiler contents with user css. --Random832 05:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the warnings themselves aren't considered article content. -- Ned Scott 06:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hiding the spoiling content

Why not have a "show/hide" between the spoiler and end-spoiler tag (like the table of content)? Then those who do want to see the spoiler-content can show it, those who don't can hide it. --sin-man 03:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been suggested before, but many people consider it to be a form of censorship. You might find more info on WP:SPOILER. -- Ned Scott 04:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Change to "only use sparingly, only for brand new stuff"

This change [2] today added the text "This template should only be used on very recent or unreleased works of fiction. Be sparing in its use" and the same editor immediately went to work removing it from older works.

I'd like to ask why? Was a consensus reached somewhere about this? I don't understand why someone who hasn't read or seen something would only want a spoiler warning if it was brand new. What purpose does it serve? Notinasnaid 18:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted it. i don't agree, and i can see no discussion of such a change. Such rules have been proposed before, and generally did not obtain consensus. DES ^(talk) 18:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is an excellent idea to use {{spoiler}} only on recent stuff. It insults the reader's intelligence to put a warning that the plot will be revealed in a section called "Plot". In articles on Shakespeare's works, warnings that the ending might be revealed are really silly, too. People have put spoiler tags on books from the Bible. If {{spoiler}} is to be used at all, it should be limited to things that are current. Kusma (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. While Shakespear and the bible may be excessive, many works that are not "recent" are none the less not nearly as well known as thsoe, and are new to many readers. if there is a point to the spoiler tag at all (and I think that there is) there is just as much point on most older works as on new ones. This point has been debated before, and there has not in the past been anythign like consensus for such a limitation on the spoiler tags. DES ^(talk) 19:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

See lots of previosu discusson at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning DES ^(talk) 19:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should make spoiler warnings opt-in instead of opt-out, then people could use as many as they want. Or create a warning "Warning! Information that you do not know yet might follow!" at the top of every article. Kusma (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This is now saying "Use this template sparingly. It should not be used in sections that are clearly marked with a heading (such as "Plot" or "Ending") that already indicates that information about the plot or the ending might follow." I don't think there is consensus for thsi, either. This text is transcluded in from Template:Spoiler/doc. DES ^(talk) 21:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the recent change

See this, that editor has screwed up, what: 1/2 of articles on Wikipedia? That wasn't discussed at all. Should be reverted ASAP. Matthew 21:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And here I was about to complain. Yeah, that's a horrible idea. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Frankly I'm so shocked by the edit I'd like the admin to go through recall (which I doubt they'd agree to do :\). Matthew 21:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far. This just seems like an idea poorly thought out. The idea is nice, but the execution fails miserably. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Pages displayed wrong for a few seconds between saving {{spoiler}} and {{endspoiler}}. CSS hack cant' be turned on/off on the fly, Wikipedia:NavFrame does. So if you wanna see spoilers, click on "show". I did NOT break half of wikipedia pages, it was jsut that {{endspoiler}} saved a few seconds before {{spoiler}} and therefore in the meantime pages rendered wrong. Gee.. -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 21:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not just that. The bar cuts though infoboxes, images, and other such things. On top of that, in undefined cases, you're hiding entire articles. Really, this is a very bad idea. It really needs to go. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Another agreement here. This template appearing on pages like James "Sawyer" Ford looks horrible - the bar goes right over the top of the image, and also messes up the formatting of things like headers within the box. Please can an admin revert this asap? Mike Peel 21:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've refreshed the screen and the text is still justified "center".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I just came to this through Laura (1944 film) where the spoiler top is covering the infobox... I see there has been at least some friction with reverting this so I won't try... but, I just want to point out that I really dislike this a lot. WOW, look at Babylon 5 and other pages without end spoilers. This has to go, NOW. gren グレン 21:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed this problem at The Dark Knight (film), where the bar cuts across the Infobox Film template. I understand the intent of the design, but if it causes formatting problems like this, I strongly suggest we return to the original format. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you guys NEVER use {{endspoiler}}as you are supposed to do :P that's why. Go and fix THAT. -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 21:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You can'tshouldn't screw up hundreds of pages because you think it is someone else's error. If we agree on these changes then we can run a bot to make sure all pages have endspoiler templates but we should not screw up articles and then fix them, we should fix them so that it's a smooth transition. That is if we agree on this new style... personally, I think it's hideous. gren グレン 21:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dude, my example uses the endspoiler tag, but it still screws with the formatting. And some articles are spoiler-ish all the way through regardless. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Formatting issues, Sylar is centred instead of justified - and why wasn't there some wider discussion about this? At least a mention in the Signpost would have been nice. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

So you create a box around the text automatically that pushes all of the info into a center justification, and covers headers and the infobox?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Bah, brain damage, do as you wish. See User:Drini/sandbox to know what it should look like if you use PROPERLY the template -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 21:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to consider other items on the page, like images and box templates. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Your sandbox still shows it centered, instead of left justification.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted, but I am up to 2 reverts on this page, so i would prefer not to have to revert again. DES ^(talk) 21:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Awful idea. There is no need to hide plot sections; they have prominent spoiler warnings. Mgiganteus1 21:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• This messing about with {{spoiler}} messed up Meerkat Manor and I wondered what was happening. Anthony Appleyard 21:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea

The template right now looks exactly as the average encyclopaedia user would expect: i.e. it's completely blank. Which is perfect. We don't need to be warned to look away before an encyclopaedia (read: comprehensive source of information) tells us that the gorilla dies. So, since a small number of people seem to want the warning, how about this: rework the template so it is hidden by default for all users unless they turn on a css variable in their personal css. In other words, reverse the status quo, making content visible unless poeple specifically choose not to see it. Guy (Help!) 20:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Disabling the template by default is a great idea, and those who wish to see it must enable it. Matthew 21:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue with that is anonymous readers, who would lose the warning and wouldn't have the choice to enable it. Mike Peel 21:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

They do, they just need to tell their browser to display spoiler tags. Apparently that can be done without logging in. Kusma (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

They'd have the choice to register. It's free and easy to do. However I think this is a bad idea because it still lumbers us with these stupid templates. We should just phase them out and delete them. --Tony Sidaway 21:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think things are fine as they are. If the template is going to be phased out, or its functionality changed (e.g. hidden by default, or put in a big box), then it needs to be brought up at the Village pump, and probably mentioned at WikiProjects like WP:TV, to give people time to comment on it before it's implemented. Mike Peel 21:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

blanking

I am blanking this temoplate. The MfD/RfC on the policy page, shows there is no consensus for its use. Rather then delete it, I shall blank it until consensus for its use is arrived at.--Doc^g 21:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please revert. Where is this discussion? Mike Peel 21:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Why? Doc's measure is a temporary one which will prevent edit warring in articles while the RfC is in progress. Picaroon (Talk) 21:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning - it's a nice idea on the surface but has proven severely problematic in practice, as documented at length there. If it stays at all, its use is likely to be severely proscribed - David Gerard 21:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Why isn't this linked to from the template? (cf. Template:tfd) Also, this template is protected, so there shouldn't be any edit warring? Mike Peel 21:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The template is not protected for that reason - but for preventing vandalism. There was no reason why I could not edit it. what I really resent is people reverting me who have not even the grace to enter into a discussion here. That's disruptive.--Doc^g 21:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would have loved to revert you, but I'm not an admin. I've just finished scanning through the RfC, and it looks like there's some good discussion going on there (which I'm not going to join as I don't have the time). What's the harm in leaving this template as it is until that discussion has ended and a conclusion has been reached? Mike Peel 21:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it is currently screwing up the encyclopedia and making us look ridiculous. It has been added to Biblical Books, Classic English literature, Mark Poppins, and Shakessphere. When it has been removed from those individual articles, people have put it back claiming that it is 'standard policy'. That's quite unacceptable. --Doc^g 21:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've unblanked it, as it's still widely used, and I hope that I've effectively pointed people to the discussion appropriately. Thanks! Demi ^T/_C 21:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)