Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 13: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:49, 21 May 2007

Unacceptable alternatives

What about reasoning why those "Unacceptable alternatives" are unacceptable??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.165.250.10 (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

I thought the reasoning was explained well enough. Which one are you unsure about? — CharlotteWebb 20:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If you just would have let me save {{endspoiler}} then it would display fine, kee jerk reaction, let me finish. See User:Drini/sandbox to see what I'm trying t oachieve. Spoilers collapsed by default so people won't see them if they don't want to. -- drini ^[meta:]_[commons:] 21:25, 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)

Reading this conversation when all the Template:tls were mistyped as Template:trs was quite funny. --tjstrf talk 23:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested complete change

To save this page from MFD, I suggest the German spoiler policy (this is a translation by me and babelfish, with adaptations by me):

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 plot should, however, always be clearly denoted, for example by the heading ==Plot summary== or ==Synopsis==.

- David Gerard 22:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless if we have spoiler warnings or not, there should still be some form of spoiler guideline, even if all it says is to use or not use warning, and to not remove spoilers for simply being spoilers. -- Ned Scott 02:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The German wording seems okay to me. --Tony Sidaway 03:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, sounds like a good compromise, plot details go into a section that is clearly titled. --Iamunknown 03:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
In the light of the massive amount of anti-spoiler-tag feeling on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning, and agreement her on David's suggestion, I've been bold and adapted the German wording to this enclopedia and inserted the result in place of the old guideline. --Tony Sidaway 03:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And I've reverted that. It's really messed up that people just go and ignore all the points brought up in the past simply because a little bit of time has passed. I know consensus can change, but this is more like strong-arming the change. -- Ned Scott 03:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It's fine to revert. I was just being bold. We now have a concrete suggestion in the history of the policy page to discuss. Nobody is strong-arming, but it's clear from the MFD discussion that consensus no longer exists for the guideline as it stood, and we need to work on what to do about that. --Tony Sidaway 03:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The concrete suggestion was right here in the talk page. Putting it in the article was unnecesary, and yes, smacks of strong-arming the change.

Feelings are strong enough -- pro- as well as anti- --without that. Goldfritha 03:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No Wikipedia is a wiki and there was certainly strong enough consensus to support a bold edit. No harm in reverting it either. --Tony Sidaway 03:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Now the point is that we now have a proposed new version to discuss:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning&oldid=131208283

Whoever is edit warring please calm down and stop it. Whatever we end up deciding on will be the result of consensus. --Tony Sidaway 03:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, based on the discussion so far on various venues (including MFD and the mailing list), I think there is an emerging consensus that:

Article structure should not be dictated by the need for spoiler warnings, especially if a balanced encyclopedic approach requires that they be mentioned in the introduction.
Spoilers should not be used for anything but recent works; slapping {{spoiler}} templates on Shakespeare and the Bible makes us look silly.

If any commenters here disagree with the above two statements, please explain why. *** Crotalus *** 03:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Historical tag

I believe that the appropriate measure is to tag this page as historical. Even though it was prematurely closed, the MFD attracted substantial comment, and the evidence is strong that a consensus of users either wanted to delete the page entirely, or else deprecate it as historical. I think there is obviously no consensus for keeping the page the way that it is, as the MFD discussion indicates. A strong majority of users are dissatisfied with current spoiler policy. Crotalus horridus 03:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We've seen MFDs and AFDs swing in a matter of days, so it's hardly accurate to say that less than a day's worth of MFD was anything near an accurate consensus. -- Ned Scott 03:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Then you should have left the MFD open, so a fuller consensus could be reached. Crotalus horridus 03:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Unsuitable forum.

There has been a lot of passionate support for the template; unless there is a reason to believe it vanished, the less than a day has to be presumed to be the cause.

Note that the people who want the change generally are the ones who act first; responses come after. Goldfritha 03:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should continue the discussion here. --Tony Sidaway 03:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

MfD is back up in part because of MfD talk page. --Iamunknown 03:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

MfD closing is disturbing

I find it ridiculous that the MfD was closed. Hate to say it, but the MfD was an infinitely better method of handling the situation. First, it's more clearly advertised then a conversation on a talkpage. Second, it gains the appeal of a wider range of editors by displaying it in multiple ways. Third, it gauges consensus easily. Just because it violated protocol doesn't mean common sense should be used. IAR really needs to be renamed to "Use Common Sense". I'm confident those numerous "delete" !votes will not be drowned out so easily. — Deckill er 03:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, its back up so no more disturbance is needed. --Iamunknown 03:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
If someone reverts it again, I'm contemplating pasting the entire discussion here. Nulling consensus building by hiding behind policy is appalling. — Deckill er 03:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not surprisingly, a user has reverted once again. We have a policy called WP:IAR for a reason. Streamlining community discussion as a means to improving Wikipedia is still improving Wikipedia. Again, circumventing a large delete swing by hiding behind policy isn't good. — Deckill er 03:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting the feeling

That not everyone is on the same talk page... -- Ned Scott 03:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for protected page edit

Please could someone remove the MFD tag because that discussion has been closed as inappropriate for discussion of a guideline, and moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. Perhaps the tag should be replaced by a note that discussion of the guideline is continuing on that moved page. --Tony Sidaway 13:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

done. Kusma (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Closed again to move to an RFC.. heh. -- Ned Scott 18:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

With the TfD closed...

How will we notify the people reading the pages with spoiler templates? 168.229.22.213 14:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We won't. That way we get to have our way instead of the reader's way. — The Storm Surfer 13:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings and netiquette

The major problem, not just with this guideline, but with {{spoiler}} tag itself, and the reason why it keeps getting supporters even though it's flatly unencyclopedic and goes against most of our other policies on content warnings, comes, I think down to the first edit, which inadvertently says why spoiler warnings are bad policy that keeps surviving. From the very first edit:

Wikipedia is an attempt to write an encyclopedia.

...

It is traditional netiquette for this discussion to be surrounded with warnings of "spoilers".

This is, in a nutshell, the problem with spoiler warnings and the reason people keep insisting on adding them. Spoiler warnings have no place in an encyclopedia; but people are simply used to seeing them on message boards, in internet discussion forums, on Usenet... There are many compelling reasons for including spoiler warnings on message boards, but none of these have anything to do with making an accurate, professional encyclopedia. Worrying about how an article will affect someone's enjoyment of a book or movie is, basically, unencyclopedic; the logical extension of spoiler warnings would be to say that we can't report critical opinions of books and movies, even when widespread or noteworthy, because it might make it harder for people to enjoy them. Likewise, netiquette does not apply to Wikipedia content, and, indeed, a concerted effort should be made to avoid having netiquette and other internet-biased views influence article space. I think that this policy should be simple, straight, and to the point: "Spoiler warnings are always unapproprate for an encyclopedia, and should not be used in articles." --Aquillion 18:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

An intelligent analysis. Very nice, and I agree. — Deckill er 18:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is not quite the same as every other encyclopedia, is it? We cover a great many more subjects, of a different character, than others, and present information in a different way. The idea that because other encyclopedias don't have spoiler warnings, we shouldn't either, doesn't hold water. Maybe we shouldn't cover subjects trivial or unimportant enough to include in a real encyclopedia, either? Or include dynamic media, which doesn't appear in a print encyclopedia? Demi ^T/_C 20:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My concern was with new users who often will exclude or remove spoilers when they are appropriate. But, to be honest, it's not a major concern. -- Ned Scott 18:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Demi, the issue is that the reason why it is always unencyclopedic to employ spoiler warnings applies equally to Wikipedia: The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide accurate and useful information, as clearly and directly as possible. That is all. Aside from necessary legal concerns, there are no other issues worth considering in writing an encyclopedic article. When people start making arguments like "This will annoy--" or "This could ruin someone's day--" or "This might hurt someone's enjoyment of--", they've gone wildly offbase. That is appropriate for a webforum, perhaps; but it has no place in an encyclopedia. Spoiler warnings are an artifact of this flawed way of looking at Wikipedia; the concerns they are made to address are simply not of any relevance to us at all. Whether or not it ruins someone's day to learn the ending of the book, or even whether or not (as some people have threatened) they stop reading Wikipedia to avoid spoiling the book, have nothing to do with the way we write articles, and should never, to the slightest degree, be used to influence our policies and guidelines on writing articles. Wikipedia is not "the free messageboard anyone can consult for a fun look at a book they were thinking of reading." It isn't a review service, or a political party that has to worry about who's going to vote for it, or anything like that. It is an encyclopedia, and that means that when you click on the Wikipedia page for a book or play, you should get a complete, immediate, straightforward description--a listing of what it's famous for, who kills who, what the major plot twists are, and so on, preferably with the key points in the introduction. If a book or play is famous for a particular plot twist, that should definitely be in the introduction; and, for clarity's sake, that introduction plainly cannot be broken up. That is why spoiler warnings fall completely and irreconcilably outside of Wikipedia's scope; that is why, I think, in the long run they are going to be removed completely, and policy rewritten to (at least) strongly discourage them. --Aquillion 05:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler removal

Several editors are systemically removing spoiler warnings -- from everywhere as far as I can tell. At least one explicitly declared that he does not care about that the use of the spoiler tag is disputed. (See Talk:A Wizard of Earthsea#Spoiler warning.)

This sort of end-run around the policy does not bode well for the end results of the dispute, if they are not reined in. Goldfritha 00:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Editing an article isn't an "end-run around policy". It's editing! It's what a wiki is for. Now please stop edit warring with the multiple editors who happen to disagree with you about the appropriateness of the tags you keep putting at the top of clearly labelled "Synopsis", "Plot summary" and similar sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs)

No, they are just using common sense. Think of it this way. The first section is "plot summary". Readers immediately see the wall of text. Two major reasons why spoiler tags are not only laughable, but unnecessary by any definition of the term in that situation. — Deckill er 00:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Then I will dare say you will have no objections when, in a month or two, other editors have attacks of common sense that spoiler warnings are appropriate to all sections with spoilers and then go and put them everywhere. Goldfritha 00:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not exactly common sense, because they aren't seeing where they are "needed" (although I'm in the deletion camp). There's a difference between removing poorly inserted spoiler warnings and adding them everywhere without thinking. — Deckill er 01:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you intend to persuade them that your view is common sense? Given that they are as entitled to the tactic of using "common sense" as you are. Goldfritha 01:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It would result dropping a spoiler tag on every "spoiler" on Wikipedia, even if it's common knowledge like the suicides in Romeo and Juliet, or in sections already labeled "plot summary". We don't have signs reminding us that "red light means stop", but we do have signs in those situations where right turns on red could be dangerous. We don't have signs reminding us what a "line" is at the grocery store. Nor do we have the definition of the word "stop" below the stop sign. People can read. A plot summary is a plot summary. Thin point, but the fact is that people will anticipate things, regardless of the scenerio. That is the essense of common sense. — Deckill er 01:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with "common sense" is that everybody has their own definition. To paraphrase Meta:Don't be a dick -- if a significant number of reasonable people differ with your definition of common sense, whether bluntly or politely, the odds are good that you are not entirely in the right. See also WP:POINT. It's clearly inappropriate to rampage around taking out spoiler warnings (at least the ones that don't immediately, clearly violate some of the guidance on the policy page, like a warning before the Plot subhead) when the dispute tag has already been applied. 144.51.111.1 14:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoever the editors are who are simply deleting spoiler warning because 'they can' - I would ask them to stop and discuss these edits on the pages themselves. Deciding something quickly (between only a few editors) on this page and then surfing thru WP and making changes to pages these editors harldy care about is rather rude and a bit presumptious. I am another voice asking these editors to stop. I am certainly not part of their hastily assembled "concensus"Smatprt 03:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And did the page editors at the time the warnings were put in decide through consensus then too? See the problem? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 03:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. And the problem is that the proper location to discuss this matter is here. They should not be enforcing rules that are not part of the guidelines. Goldfritha 03:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaking editing articles for "enforcing rules". --Tony Sidaway 04:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If you check, you'll see that there have been discussions on many talk pages. No good reasons have been advanced for including these extra tags after, to take an example from some of the articles that you edit, the "Synopsis" header on an article about a Shakespeare play. What we're saying is quite reasonable: if you must add this bold, intrusive message to an article, justify it. Explain what the article loses without it. The Synopsis is clearly marked. What else does it need? --Tony Sidaway 03:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where this idea that removing redundant spoiler warnings from sections whose titles clearly indicates that they contains spoilers is somehow an end run around policy. Exactly which policy is being "end run" around?

But the recent RfC does give an good indication that there is a consensus support to such removing redundant spoiler warnings and warnings from historical and classical works of fiction. --Farix (Talk) 12:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused on all of this, so I'm just going to mention my take on this whole thing. I feel that Spoiler Tags are unnecessary and have only caused a lot of debate. This is an online encyclopedia, people come here to learn new information and they should expect something to be revealed. By telling people that they might find some information in an encyclopedia that might reveal something is pointless and completely defeats the purpose of it. It's a direct violation of Wikipedia:Not censored and is already stated in big bold writing in the Wikipedia Content Disclaimer. I don't see any of the other things on that list placed on every article on Wikipedia. The tag is only really used underneath headers that say Storyline or Plot, which really is unnecessary. I really think the tag should only be used for articles about an unreleased subject. - .:Alex:. 19:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the wiki-wide removal of spoiler tags is entirely justified and long overdue; reluctance to be bold in taking them out by the roots is what convinced numerous people to mistakenly conclude that they're acceptable, encouraged, or even required and led to this current dispute. Often they're added by one person with no discussion, and since they're made (wrongly) to look official, most other editors assume that that person knows what they're doing. It's probably a bad idea to go through and remove them without explaining it, no, not until a MfD on the {{spoiler}} template itself finally goes through, but I think that if we talk it through most people will understand why they have to go. If you're going to protest the removal of spoiler tags while this debate is ongoing, though, it has to work both ways... would you agree that no new spoiler tags should be added to any articles until a clear consensus on them is reached? --Aquillion 04:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion?

Please point out the consensus leading to the addition of the section "Where spoilers may be inappropriate". --87.189.124.195

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning shows pretty close to unanimous agreement on those particular areas. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I participated in that discussion, did I make the impression I'm that easily fooled? Please point out the section and paragraph where the the consensus happened. --87.189.99.112

Shortcut

Please remove WP:SW from shortcuts as it redirects the the Star Wars WikiProject. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)}^|^HISTORY 20:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the redirect change, as many talk pages and talk archives appear to still be using WP:SW to reference this page. -- Ned Scott 21:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What is classic?

"They are also generally inappropriate in respect of factual works, classic works of fiction (including films), or subjects where plot twists have been the subject of considerable external debate."

What makes a work of fiction a "classic work of fiction"? As a first approximation, does it refer to any work of fiction whose copyright has expired? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The only appropriate meaning in this context would be a work that you could expect any reader of Wikipedia to have read.

Given that Wikipedia is accessed worldwide, the suitable response would be none. Goldfritha 00:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I would reasonably assume that literary and film scholars will have a say on what works are considered classic and which are not. --Farix (Talk) 01:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If reading or studying it is considered part of a well-rounded (western?) education, I'd think that would be a good indicator. It's basically there to codify the common sense guideline of not putting a spoiler warning on Beowulf, The Epic of Gilgamesh, or Macbeth. --tjstrf talk 17:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The works of Dickens and Shakespeare, the science-fiction of Asimov and Heinlein, the films of Hitchcock and Welles. There is a good deal of agreement on what constitutes classic in these areas, I think. Guy (Help!) 18:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be astounded if even 10% of the American population, let alone the world, even knew who Asimov and Heinlein were. Really, this whole debate is extraordinary. On the one hand we have people who want to take Wikipedia in the direction of one of those old-fashioned paper 'encyclopedias', but at the same time insist that 'everyone' knows who Luke's father is and what happens to Dumbledore, a view that only someone who spends a large amount of time on the Internet could have.--Nydas^(Talk) 06:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to fix real-world illiteracy :-) Regardless, anybody even moderately well-read in SF will be aware of who they are, and it's unlikely you'll find any significant discussion of their works that does not include the crucial plot details. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Rejected

I've marked this as rejected. Whilst its merits as a guideline are obviously disputed - some people think it ought to be a guideline - it is obvious that it does not have a consensus in support in its current form - so it is quite clear that it is rejected (for now anyway). Does anyone seriously wish to argue that there IS a consensus in support of this.--Doc^g 08:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

We'll never know. The MfD was closed after a day, the TfD was closed after even less time, and the RfC is a bloated mess. It's interesting that the MfD (broadly in favour of deletion) is transcluded onto the RfC, whilst the TfD, (broadly in favour of keep) isn't. Of course, this whole sorry debacle is overshadowed by the mass actions of a group of admins, who seem to think that this has to be settled in a matter of hours, rather than weeks or months.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know when the spoilers suddenly got so badly out of control. I don't recall seeing them on articles on Biblical books and the works of Dickens before this debate started. Guy (Help!) 15:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

New draft

Taken from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning#Time to close this - results are obvious, Tony Sidaway's adaptation of the German policy, several of the comments from the RFC, and a few of my own ideas. -- Ned Scott 01:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Like it so far. I think it does a pretty good (though not perfect, yet) job of reflecting consensus, and keeping a neutral tone, giving justifacation toward removing all the (what a lot of people consider ) silly places for them, etc. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

My problem is with "Spoiler warnings should never be used on ancient texts, literary classics, classic films, or works whose plot is 'common knowledge'." Can you confirm that the plot os all of Shakespeare's plays are "common knowledge"? For example, without looking it up, how many editors of this page can assure me that they know the plot twist at the end of "Timon of Athens" ? Smatprt 03:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No, we can't, but this is a compromise document. Even before this whole mess, spoiler warnings were never meant to be a "right" to the reader, but only a reminder, because we were in a position to do so without a big fuss. You might have gotten used to using spoiler warnings on classics, but that's not why we allowed spoiler warnings. -- Ned Scott 04:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

- Who is this "we" you refer to in your last sentence. I thought on Wikipedia we are all "we".Smatprt 05:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"We" is referring to the consensus that allowed the spoiler warnings. Take a look around on the talk archives on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning. -- Ned Scott 06:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm opposed to all spoiler warnings. But I think I could support this new text as a compromise. Basically you can have them on very recent works - but most others get removed.--Doc^g 11:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

While I'm still opposed to spoilers in general, I think this cleaves them into a good middle ground. Nice job, Ned. David Fuchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 13:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Commentary

Seems like a good start. Some commentary on a few lines:

{{spoiler}} should only be used where the spoiler is not integral to the understanding of the work, and that knowledge of the spoiler would likely substantially diminish the readers enjoyment of the work.

Why shouldn't it be used if the spoiler is integral to understanding the work? I think I see what you're getting at here- if the only thing something is famous for is inherently tied up in "spoilerness," then go ahead and put that in the lead, which should not have spoiler tags. But if a spoiler is integral to understanding the work and in most of the article? Well, tag the first section of the article with the spoiler warning, then. That won't compromise the article structure, but it will offer fair warning. I'd tentatively suggest just chopping out the first half of that sentence, although perhaps there's a better phrasing.

Tagging an article should only be done for recent works of fiction. (Maybe on this one?)

I would not support this line. While I'm not in favor of spoiler warnings for Shakespeare and other classics, I'd stretch the definition of "contemporary" considerably farther. Not sure what a good phrasing is, but roughly "one lifetime" seems about right. King Kong is fair game; something from the 80's, however, is quite likely to still be experienced afresh. The 60's are a grey area, although I'd lean away from spoiler warnings. (Also, Snape kills Dumbledore is absolutely worthy of a spoiler warning — if it's mentioned outside the "plot" section for some reason. The same is true of all your other examples - I don't think they're nearly as widely known as something which has entered the language itself, like, say, Jekyll & Hyde.)

Spoilers should not be unnecessarily disclosed in the lead, and avoided only when reasonable.

"Reasonable" is fuzzy and kind of circularly defines itself. I'd suggest something like "Spoilers are only rarely appropriate for the lead, but may be reasonable in cases where the topic is inextricably tied to such information."

Also, there should probably be a line in there about not twisting the article structure for the sake of spoilers. I'd propose something like:

Articles often break down neatly into sections which contain spoilers (such as plot summaries and literary controversy) and sections lacking spoilers (considering authorship or lists of actors / characters). That said, this is not always true, and articles whose best structure would contain spoilers throughout should not be bent into "spoiler" and "non-spoiler" sections. Simply mark the first section with {{spoiler}} instead.

SnowFire 05:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Make it rare, like fair use images

Should we add a sentence with an analogy comparing such tags to fair use images, i.e. use them only when absolutely required, because in most cases, and especially classical works (compare with fair use images and living people), they aren't necessary? Johnleemk | Talk 06:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Once only

I strongly object to "Such tags should only be used once in an article." Consider articels such as Aubrey-Maturin series where a whole series of works is discussed in a number of mini-articles. Spoilers can exist in multiple sub-sections of such articles. DES ^(talk) 09:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The idea is that we're moving away from spoiler warnings being an exact tag on an area, and more of a heads up, that Wikipedia might contain spoilers at any time, anywhere. -- Ned Scott 11:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Starts off on the wrong foot

This draft exemplifies the problem on the RfC discussion. The following text has appeared only recently in the existing spoiler warning (I realise it's not new to this draft), clearly placed there by the "anti" element:

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.

This is a false description of what such articles should do (per the MoS:WP:WAF). It foregrounds in-universe plot summaries (bad) and relegates the primary purpose of the article (giving the work's place in the overall field) to secondary status. It is clear from WP:WAF that a good article about a work of fiction need not include a "full" description of the plot, whatever that means. If the work is of minor notability it need not include any details of the plot.

We also have the standard kow-tow to traditional encyclopedias:

In encyclopedias, however, this is rare, and spoiler warnings are generally avoided.

Right now, Wikipedia is THE encyclopedia (I speak as an academic). It is as accurate as any general-purpose encyclopedia, far more detailed, and far more accessible. Moreover, it is the only useful and serious encyclopedia designed for on-line reading, where spoiler warnings are particularly useful. PaddyLeahy 10:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with with you about WAF, and was thinking about that when I was tinkering with the draft. A few ideas had popped into my head for some better wording, I'm still a little foggy about how to best put it. -- Ned Scott 11:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And I'm not really sure what to do with "In encyclopedias, however, this is rare, and spoiler warnings are generally avoided." Something should be said to the effect that we generally try to avoid such warnings. -- Ned Scott 11:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the first problem with it is that it's inaccurate - we've found no instances of spoiler warnings in other encyclopedias or serious reference works, which is the problem. This is one of the major problems with spoiler warnings - ostensibly our competition is serious reference works like Britannica, and yet we have editorial practices associated with Internet forums. I've tried to tighten this sentence a bit, but I agree - it still needs something. Phil Sandifer 13:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a good point. Why don't we just cut the sentence? It doesn't really do any heavy lifting in terms of the guideline's meaning. In fact, I'll go kill it now. Phil Sandifer 13:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait a few days before declaring cooked

Ned's proposal, mixed with Phil's, looks not insane so far.

I'm still taking lots of inappropriate spoilers out to be shot, and I'm seeing that ... most are sticking that way. And those reverting them are tending to get themselves blocked for 3RR, i.e. are hotheads anyway. This suggests to me that the actual wiki-wide consensus either agrees with me or doesn't disagree. As such, I'd suggest leaving finalising this for a few days to see if complaints flood in from actual aggrieved readers (the people this is supposedly for) about spoilers.

(I don't hate spoilers. I've even added them myself. It's just almost all of them at present are redundant or ridiculous.) - David Gerard 15:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes - I like the current proposal, though it doesn't hurt to see if anyone comes up with improvement for a few days. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

preface to "Problems with spoiler warnings"

Somehow, I don't think the section on "Problems with spoiler warnings" is complete without first explain how the use of spoiler warnings have been abused in the past. So here is my attempt at an introduction to:

Spoiler warnings and spoiler protection came about as a way to protect readers of internet forums and newsgroups from being "spoiled" about what many considered an important plot point, plot twist, or ending of a recent TV episode/series, book, or film. However, as the internet culture matured, spoiler warnings were given when any detail about a work of fiction's plot was discussed. It was even argued by some that reveling the name of a character who will appear in a future episode or novel or the actor or actress who would play the character constituted a spoiler.

Perhaps someone can reword it a bit or take the basic idea and come up with their own introduction. --Farix (Talk) 17:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

(EC) I can see spoiler tags being used on very recent works of fiction (unreleased or just released), but that should be pretty much it, and I'm even hesitant to endorse that, I personally think we should have it in the general disclaimer and that is all. Still, this is a step in the right direction, and at least we won't be seeing any more "spoiler warnings" on The Passion of the Christ or The Iliad. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding 'what is a spoiler' - David Gerard 17:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Magic tricks and puzzles

I've removed mention of this entirely. It is impossible to do even the weakest article on a magic trick without revealing its workings. Sawing a woman in half is a prime example of an article that is just dreadful because it's unwilling to reveal the method of the trick until the very end of the article, leaving it with an entire history section that leaves out key parts of the history like how the trick was completed at various times in its history. The same, it seems to me, can safely be said of any magic trick of sufficient notability to have an article - the history of the trick is its methods, and thus there is no article without revealing the secret constantly. Puzzles seem to me essentially similar - no meaningful analysis of them can take place without the solution being revealed. Phil Sandifer 17:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Having "spoiler warnings" for these just as absurd has having spoiler warnings for fairy tails. --Farix (Talk) 18:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers in articles not about the fictional work itself

I've added "about a fictional work" or words to that effect to various sections that say removing a spoiler is wrong. There are several cases where plot spoilers have been added to unrelated works and then marked with a spoiler warning, and in some cases the addition of the spoiler was really not relevant to the subject at all. For instance the Roger Bacon article has something about a Bacon character in a video game. This says:

A villainous character claiming to be Roger Bacon appears earlier in the story but proves to be an imposter, and eventually the "real" Bacon assists the game's protagonists in disposing of the pretender.

This gives the game away to some readers, but obviously it's of at best very tangential relevance to Bacon so the whole thing, or at least the spoiler itself, could be removed from the article and the article would most likely be all the better for that. A spoiler tag formerly on that article, on account of that plot spoiler, has recently been removed.

So I have added this:

It is sometimes acceptable to remove a spoiler about a fictional work from an article whose primary subject is not that work. For instance one might reasonably, if consensus for this exists, remove information about a plot twist in a film about ghosts from the article Ghost, but not from the article about that film. If inclusion of the spoiler would otherwise suggest that a spoiler warning should be expected because of its appearance in a largely unrelated article, this is worth considering.

Perhaps this is over-egging the pudding, though. Please edit mercilessly. --Tony Sidaway 17:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems more like a problem with WP:TRIVIA then with WP:SPOILER. --Farix (Talk) 18:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Grim Tuesday

Currently, I have noticed that in the Grim Tuesday Article, lines from the spoiler formatting are impeding on pictures. This could just be my computer, but if something can be done...? 86.132.249.228 18:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Two of the images are in clear violation of our non-free content criteria policy. I've removed them as such. --Farix (Talk) 18:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

A Show of Hands

As much as we could argue about this 'till kingdom come, it appears that (finally) we're getting somewhere with the prop'd guideline. Can we just do a show of hands to see if the proposal has support/needs tweaking? David Fuchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 18:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be some sort of mention or acknowledgment that a part of the English Wikipedia community feel that spoiler warnings are never appropriate in an encyclopedia, perhaps at the point where the German ban on spoiler warnings is mentioned. - Nunh-huh 18:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed these proscriptions

Spoiler tags are redundant when used in ==Plot== or other sections that are clearly going to discuss the plot. Using such headers is stylistically preferable to a tag.

As noted repeatedly on the RfC, redundancy is not a sin and these sections do not necessarily contain spoilers. Therefore spoiler warnings may be appropriate.

Except that we're trying to minimize spoiler warnings. Redundancy is not good if one of the redundant things, namely the spoiler warning, is something that we're trying to reduce. Phil Sandifer 19:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

A plot summary that doesn't spoil the plot is (1) not comprehensive and (2) not a plot summary, but a "back-of-the-book advertisement". — Deckill er 19:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to these points already on the RfC and had some support from other editors. PaddyLeahy 20:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles about fictional characters, objects or places can be expected to be substantially made up of elements of the story in question and should not need spoiler warnings.

This is an outright invitation to fancruft. If there is nothing but in-universe comment to give, the article should be deleted.

PaddyLeahy 19:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This misunderstands the point of that proscription - the point is that such articles can be expected to rely on details from the story, as their subjects are somewhat detailed. I've rephrased. Phil Sandifer 19:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you're just trying to have your cake and eat it. Given that the RfC has been bypassed by one side on this argument, edits to this page are the only way of carrying on the debate. PaddyLeahy 20:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather stop the debate, where it's clear that there is no consensus for the inclusion of spoiler warnings on much of anything, and move on to writing a policy that actually comes to a useful compromise. If you'd prefer to stubbornly insist on a minority viewpoint that is untenable, you're welcome to do that, but I'd certainly prefer you don't do it on a guideline page that has an actual chance of creating something useful. Phil Sandifer 21:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Rehashing the debate on the guideline page

Since the guideline is, in its current form, coming down against spoilers, it seems beside the point to rehash the pro-spoiler warning arguments. The purpose of that section, as I see it, is to offer an explanation for the logic of the guideline, which is important so that people, when directed to the guideline, do not see it as arbitrary. To rehash the debate implicitly promotes further fighting over spoiler warnings. If any of the counter-arguments listed sincerely have a consensus behind them, the guideline should be adjusted to fit them. Otherwise, they probably don't belong. Phil Sandifer 19:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

If this guidline is to be accepted, it has to reflect the consensus. The only consensus possible at present is to agree to disagree. So I've been bold and modified the guideline accordingly. (This also stops it being used as justification for rash action by proponents of one side of the argument.) PaddyLeahy 20:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I am very uncomfortable with this, simply because it all but invites further fighting and makes dissent from the guideline frankly encouraged. "It's only a guideline, and the guideline has all these reasons for disagreeing..." and then we're all but where we started. There's plenty of dissent about WP:RS - and I'm one of the main dissenters - but I'd never argue that counter-arguments should be put in the guideline. Phil Sandifer 20:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Seconded, Those arguments belong on this talk page or on the RFC, not on the guideline for future editors to war over. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed example

Examples

In mid to late 2006, a spoiler template before the fact that Snape Kills Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince would be warranted. Due to the wide dissemination of this information, however, a spoiler tag would not currently be appropriate. The same reasoning can be used for major spoilers in Ender's Game, The Usual Suspects, and The Sixth Sense.

I can't be the only person in the world who has neither seen The Usual Suspects nor heard the spoiler. And I only know about the one in The Sixth Sense through participation in this debate. Thanks, guys and girls! PaddyLeahy 19:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You're surely not. The better question, though, is whether the majority of people who are going to see The Sixth Sense or The Usual Suspects have already done so. Proportionally speaking, I think it almost unquestionable that in both cases they have. Phil Sandifer 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Lots of them havn't been born yet. PaddyLeahy 20:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And? The nature of popular culture is a tendency towards immediate consumption. Phil Sandifer 20:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

How will someone who is 12 years old today manage to consume the last 100 years works of fiction and media "immediately"? How will someone who is born 100 years from now manage to consume the previous 200 years works of fiction "immediately"? Are you saying that they should NEVER EVER DARE consult wikipedia for tidbits of information on fiction or media works? Your comment smacks of elitism. "Oh, YOU haven't read Enders Game yet?"

Another thought. I know they chose "encyclopedia" when they started making wikipedia, and "encyclpedia's" don't contain spoilers. But maybe THEY SHOULD? There's a reason that spoiler warnings developed into netequette! Maybe we should be building an "encyclopedia+".

Finally, do encyclopedia's contain the full storylines of the works they are reporting on? Do they actually give away the endings as much as the huge all-encompassing "articles" that we have here? I've seen articles on wikipedia that are basically a minute by minute summary of a work. Is that "encyclopedic"? CraigWyllie 18:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's not, and it usually trimmed down because of the fact it's getting close to going against other policies (fair use, etc). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 18:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Snape kills Dumbledore" is on its way to becoming a cliched phrase in English and may deserve its own article soon - David Gerard 20:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The presumptions being made all through this debate are symptomatic of Wikipedia's bias. How many women over 50 will know who Luke's father is? How many English-speaking Africans will know the twist in the Sixth Sense?--Nydas^(Talk) 20:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

How many will even be looking up these articles? Complaints from actual outside readers so far: 0 - David Gerard 21:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not our place to guess. Actual readers are unlikely to know how to complain now that so many of the tags have been whisked away after a couple of days of discussion. The sensible thing to do would have been to stick a link to the discussion on the tag and leave it for a week. Announcing the discussion on the Signpost would help as well.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Actual users have, historically, been very good at complaining. Or, at least, we regularly field complaints from actual users. That is how WP:BLP got built. It's how we learned about the worst of AfD. To my knowledge, and someone who handles OTRS stuff can correct me, we have had no complaints in blogs, phone calls, e-mails, or elsewhere about spoilers. Ever. Anywhere. Phil Sandifer 21:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As one of those whose phone number seems to have become Wikipedia's phone number, I can corroborate this. I get people calling and complaining about their login not working as well as every other content issue under the sun. I have never had a complaint that we spoilt a work of fiction for someone. I await a single piece of evidence, not conjecture - David Gerard 22:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And that's testament to the fact that the public understands that we contain spoilers, or just doesn't care. Ironically, perhaps the anti-spoiler tag people, myself included, are putting it in perspective. — Deckill er 22:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Then there should be no problem restoring the tags, slapping a link to the discussion and letting it run for a bit more. And mention this in the Signpost. There's (three days late) a mention on the centralized discussion template, though it could use a more descriptive title. 'Changes to spoiler warnings guideline' doesn't really capture what you're trying to do here.

I'm more concerned about the systematic bias in all these 'obvious' examples, though. Only people who spend large amounts of time on the Internet are likely to know about them.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That's in the form of a logical argument but doesn't appear to be. There seems to be zero evidence of the alleged benefits of spoiler warnings, and we're a top 10 website that's been around for six years. Therefore there should be no problem not restoring the tags until evidence that they're of any use is produced - David Gerard 22:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And regarding the claims of systemic bias by not including spoiler tags — perhaps the relevant WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, can be convinced to take up the cause of spoiler warnings? - David Gerard 22:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see what evidence has to do with it. The last RfC in 2006 ran for two weeks. This one has been rushed through in two days. Why?--Nydas^(Talk) 23:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The last one was contentious, whereas this one found spoiler warnings actively hurting the encyclopedia quite quickly and has moved on to trying to fix the problem and create a good guideline? You might have more luck trying to tune the guideline to being useful instead of stamping your feet. For instance, if you know of anyone who has ever actually been upset by a spoiler in Wikipedia, that would be useful so we can make sure to write a guideline that helps prevent that. Phil Sandifer 23:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The evidence that lack of spoiler warnings is bad doesn't yet exist because your frantic removal operation has only been in operation for a day or two, and the discussion has been poorly documented and handled.--Nydas^(Talk) 23:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. We only ever had spoiler warnings on 45,000 articles. We discussed fictional subjects in far more than that. If people cared, we would have complaints. Phil Sandifer 23:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Six years. Zero documented reader complaints. Not, of course, that mere evidence has anything to do with it - David Gerard 23:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a distraction to the actual argument. See the reasoning as to why people might not feel too keen about complaining, especially when they might be derided as whiners for doing so. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
As well, might I ask you to cite both the basis of your claim of 45,000 spoiler-tagged articles as well as your reference for zero "documented reader complaints"? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That was the number of pages that Template:Spoiler was transcluded on before David started removing it. As for documented reader complaints, I am not sure how to provide evidence of their absence. But since nobody seems to know of any, it seems reasonable to assume they're not around. Phil Sandifer 00:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that must be an admin tool thing, as I didn't see any sort of numbering at the link provided. And not to be semantical, but stating unequivocally that there were zero complaints when you are unsure as to how to define the paramters for such complaints seems a bit unreasonable. It would be more accurate to state that you yourself have not heard of any reader complaints. I can guarantee you that they exist, as I put one in while still an anon user (and boy, doI wish I could remember the article; all I remember is that the editor who replied was kind of a dick about it). Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not an "admin tool thing". You can count them by hand, or get the number with AutoWikiBrowser. My profound scepticism comes from the noted willingness of our readership to complain loud and long about every other aspect of Wikipedia's content, but not this one - David Gerard 04:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Callibrating the teeth of this guideline

It occurs to me that it would be easier to better calibrate where this guideline supports and discourages spoiler warnings if we could actually turn to the readers. Would the pro-warning people be so kind as to provide, briefly, any accounts they are aware of where people have complained because their enjoyment of a work was actually diminished by a spoiler revealed in Wikipedia? Not a case where you think someone's enjoyment might be, or where you personally learned a detail about a movie that you were maybe kinda going to see one day. I'm talking about cases where somebody looked up Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince while they were still reading it, learned that Snape killed Dumbledore, and were upset to learn this information. If we can have a sense of who is actually upset and hurt by spoilers, it's a lot easier to write an appropriate guideline. Phil Sandifer 22:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The only guy I've ever seen "complain" about spoilers was 65.184.123.30, who took it upon himself to repeatedly blank a page for being spoiler filled even though it had a warning on it. --tjstrf talk 22:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

(as Phil and David seemed to use essentially the same post to argue their points, I will reproduce, with minor alterations, the response to David's identical argument) Not to be too flippant about it, Phil, but that question has been answered repeatedly by a great many users. In itself, the question is a logic contruct based solely upon the idea that the reader is some whiner who is going to complain every time when the surprise ending is given. the first time they may do so, and someone will berate them for believing in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus, or some other derisive comment. What's the point in complaining, when the damage is already done and nopting the disappointment will not only fail to fix the situation but will garner derision?

Speaking personally, I had not seen Unbreakable before I read the WP article. Imagine my surprise (and disappointment) when I discover the ending was given without spoiler warnings. Shymalan's other films appear to have spoiler warnings; indeed, the critical success of films with surprise endings, like The Usual Suspects, depends upon the secret being kept. Other films, like The Blair Witch Project (a mess of an article, to be sure) depended upon the viewer's specifically manipulated (via the media) belief that they are viewing actual documentary footage, rely on spoiler warnings - some people are still not aware that the film was a complete fiction. And yes, I was rather pissed when the Snape spoiler was provided without warning. I prefer to fal into the story like a reader, and not analyze it like a coder or some such.

People keep making the argument that WP is an encyclopedia, so we 'best grow up and act like one', or some such elitist nonsense. Frankly, the point being missed is that we are an online encyclopedia, and a great many people are used to spoiler warnings, as they are considered courteous. Not "mollycoddling", but polite. Do articles need to be written better? Yes, I think that's evident. However, changing the policy regarding spoiler warnings is akin to simply changing the brand of band-aid purchased to stop a sucking chest wound.

Lastly, its rather unfair to accuse users like David and Phil of attempting to cabal thir own interpretation of a guideline to force a fait accompli down the community's throat. Certainly, they are surely waiting for the dust to settle and some sort of guideline/policy to solidly emerge before doing something to disrupt Wikipedia simply to make a point. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me be clear on this: You saw a heading ==Plot summary==, read it, and were quite upset it contained plot elements? Or where was the spoiler without a tag that spoiled it for you? - David Gerard 23:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, treating me like a dummy isn't going to win my love and respect here, David. I think that kinda illustrates why folk don't bother complaining, if in doing so their basic reasoning skills are going to be called into question.Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm asking if what I describe is or isn't the case. Was the article in bad shape? Was the spoiler in the plot summary? Was it somewhere else? Please keep in mind that this section of the discussion is for calibrating the teeth of the guideline - that is, coming up with a spoiler guideline that actually serves a purpose. If you can help with that, good; if you want to rant, it's probably not going to be helpful - David Gerard 00:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And, while noting yours, I was asking about any examples of people who had flagged their complaint before the question was asked here. Have there been any? - David Gerard 23:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Surely this is a difficult question to answer, because up until a couple of days ago, pretty much everything did have a spoiler warning on it (even nursery rhymes, which I agree is silly...) I don't mean to be facetious, but isn't it possible that this explains the lack of complaints? Now that spoiler warnings have been removed I can imagine complaints starting. Of course if they don't, then we can all rest happy. AEH 23:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There were, at the high point, around 45,000 spoiler-tagged articles on Wikipedia. I'm guessing here, but I think our coverage of fictional subjects vastly outstrips that. So we should have generated some complaints if anyone was actually offended. Phil Sandifer 23:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, 45,000 articles sounds like a lot to me. Does the number of fiction articles with detailed plot summaries vastly outstrip that? Have you encountered any articles yet that revealed an ending but did not have a spoiler tag? Again I'm not trying to be funny here, but I'm wondering if the reason for the lack of complaints is that there was a system that worked well. AEH 00:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that having 45.000 warnings against reading information in this very same encyclopedia is a lot. But, still, there are plenty of information in the almost 2 million articles we have that could be seen as revealing plot details in some works of fiction. The (dreaded) trivia lists we have in so many articles come to mind. And this is one reason why even trying to keep spoilers tucked in between tags is a bad idea. We can never make a completely "spoiler"-safe encyclopedia, even if everyone here wanted. So by the mere existence of spoiler warnings in some articles we only support an illusion that reading an encyclopedia will always only reveal information you are prepared to take in. It never will. We can't and we shouldn't try to live up to that and further the impression that we try very hard. That it's in an encyclopedia's mission to tuck away information. And the lack of complaints from readers in all these years is also a sign that the readers understand this. Readers are smarter than us editors often seem to believe. Shanes 00:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

45,000 sounds about right to me. A lot of fictional articles will be stubs with little chance of containing spoilers.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a vote for keeping spoiler tags. I had "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" spoiled for me wile reading it.. but that spoiler came on a message board about another film (someone making a snotty comment about spoilers in general dropped that bomb). I think this "all you people who have been spoiled by Wikipedia spoilers step up so we can gage it" is a specious argument. So lets see... we need to find people who read Wikipedia, know what a spoiler is, read a spoiler, are annoyed by a spoiler, read Discussion pages, and have the free time and inclination to post on a Discussion page that they were spoiled. That sample is so self-selecting as to be non-existent. Spoilers are annoying no matter where you read them. Courtesy dictates that you warn about them at least. I have seen no guidelines one Wikipedia banning courtesy. Halfblue 00:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Misapplication of guideline?

I think the misapplication of the spoiler tag is part of the problem as well. There should be tags for films (both relatively current and those which rely upon the element of surprise for effectiveness) as well as literature utilizing similar methods of surprise. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, is there a citation for that number?

Yeah. Eagle_101 counted them with a bot, I counted them with AutoWikiBrowser - David Gerard 00:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversy surrounding spoiler warnings on Wikipedia

This would be better as a talk page note, where people can still understand the background of this debate without having to read archives, but doesn't clutter the actual guideline. -- Ned Scott 22:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup box it on the talk page as a summary of the debate and not to be archived - then perhaps a link on the actual page saying - "this has been the subject of heated debate - for details see [here]"--Doc^g 22:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I still think some explanation of the reasoning behind the guideline is worth having in the guideline, it should be noted. But I'd accept a colorful box at the start of the talk page or something. Phil Sandifer 22:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, my feelings are mostly from a stylistic point of view, so whatever. -- Ned Scott 22:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The talk page notice would work for the list of arguments bit, but at least the paragraoh about policies on WikiProjects and other Wikipedias should probably stay on the main page. --tjstrf talk 23:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

People write essays about everything on Wikipedia, and sometimes links to these essays are appended at the end of guideline or policy pages. I think that could be appropriate here, too. Shanes 23:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

and a nice shrubbery would be pretty as well. ;) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That would spoil it - David Gerard 23:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then just down a tree with...a herring! (our dearly beloved President says to do so, staying the course, and whatnot). Arcayne 23:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate that having a lengthy section of "reasons people dislike this guideline" is silly. If any of these viewpoints actually have consensus, they are reasons to alter the guideline. If (as I suspect) they do not actually have consensus so much as a few dogged adherents, they belong at Wikipedia:Why spoiler warnings are good, which should be tagged as essay. To put them in the guideline page they oppose falsely elevates them, and excessively encourages ignoring the guideline. Furthermore, many of the reasons in there currently are just... bad. People might not speak up about movies being spoiled? We should include spoiler warnings when we don't include any other disclaimers? Calling these arguments a reach is generous. Phil Sandifer 02:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's beginning to look like a debate with some of the few dogged defenders of spoiler warnings. Removing the whole thing off to an essay seems reasonable. --Tony Sidaway 03:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be because the general community has never been informed, or has it? No announcement, no tag. The debate is between those anti-spoiler editors who happened to see it and those pro-spoiler editors who happened to see it. --Kizor 04:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The general editor community doesn't complain on my talk page - it's those hotheaded enough to revert it it ways that get them blocked that seem to - David Gerard 04:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that disproves the claim that the editor community is quite unaware of the whole thing. --Kizor 04:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been on MfD, TfD, RfC, talked about on IRC, ANI, and the mailing list. Short of sky-writing, what exactly would you prefer be done to notify more of the editor community? Phil Sandifer 04:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The MfD and TfD were both closed in under a day. There was a single tangentially related topic about it, possibly two, on AN/I. Haven't been to the mailing list or IRC, I'm afraid. Very few editors read RfC. I would prefer a note of the ongoing discussion - at the moment, a webcomic AfD gets more exposure than this. (Not an exaggeration, to be anal, they're transcluded to a single page that is on a great number of watchlists.) Change the spoiler template. Add "The status of spoiler warnings is currently being discussed; see this debate." If there indeed is such an overwhelming consensus, you can do that. --Kizor 04:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridicules to the point that I've removed the entire section. The guideline should not be rehashing the debate where one side tries to "out point" the other. If you wish to make a point for or against spoiler warnings, it should be done here on the talk page or at the RfC. --Farix (Talk) 05:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates

This is severely disappointing: The "No disclaimer templates" policy page had a specific exception for allowing spoiler tags. It was removed because of the pressure to change spoiler policy here. The lack of the exception is now being used in the arguments here for pressure to change spoiler policy. Am I the only one who sees a problem with this? --Kizor 04:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm appalled it made it into NDT as an exception in the first place - David Gerard 04:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I know that you're extremely confident about you being right, but I'm faulting the process here. How does the validity or lack thereof excuse the use of such circular reasoning? --Kizor 04:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't use the lack of the exception as an argument, so it's not clear who you're talking to here. There's more than one person behind all these "bad spoilers suck" accounts ya know - David Gerard 05:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I am very well aware of that. I asked why your appallement is relevant. --Kizor 05:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't using it as an argument, just saying so. For further joy, here's one from 2003 - David Gerard 10:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop bringing in things that you openly admit have nothing to do with this argument! Some of us are trying to accomplish something here, foolishly or not. --Kizor 16:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Were you genuinely surprised when editors noted in the RfC that your smug condescension and sense of superiority come across as insulting? I mean, you're using what is desperately attempting to be a serious argument as your plaything. --Kizor 16:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If the "anti" element are seriously trying to write a guideline which allows use of spoilers in a way which minimizes distortion of article structure, they should welcome the use of {{Endspoiler}}. Without this tag, editors are driven to place spoiler material at the end of the article, after all the information they would like to be seen by readers who don't want to see the spoiler (e.g. those contemplating reading/viewing the work in question). By the same token, the advice (on the template page) not to use {{Endspoiler}} at the end of sections should be removed. PaddyLeahy 10:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Without this tag, editors are driven to place spoiler material at the end of the article" - this would only apply if they were editing badly, i.e. warping the article for the sake of spoilers. That's the sort of thing that inspired the demolition of spoiler tags in the first place: that the expectation of them is damaging to the encyclopedia itself - David Gerard 11:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I sense the agenda here is to use the stipulation that text should not be distorted to effectively ban spoiler tags despite apparently allowing them. Not very subtle. PaddyLeahy 11:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The agenda here is that writing a good encyclopedia article that conforms to fundamental content policies is far more important than any consderation of spoiler warnings, as I and many others have noted repeatedly. Because it is - David Gerard 12:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Endspoiler is the single worst part about spoiler warnings, in that it encourages restricting spoilers to a single section of an article instead of putting them where they would naturally occur in a well-structured article. By creating a spoiler section of the article Endspoiler implicitly advocates writing around spoilers. The vast majority of my objections to spoiler warnings would vanish if we stopped using them on plot summaries, stopped using endspoiler, and acknowledged that there are cases where thes poiler will have to go in the lead. Phil Sandifer 15:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It is possible, and from the truckload of spoiler-warninged articles I've seen since this whole mess began, not uncommon, to use multiple spoiler and endspoiler tags. I've seen spoiler warnings often cover multiple sections until and endspoiler. Neither of those is restricting spoilers to a single article. Most of the rest of the uses of endspoiler that I've seen have been when there was a genuinely spoiler-free last section or sections, such as awards or themes. --Kizor 16:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I'll just echo what Paddy has said. I'm not in favor of spoiler warnings causing an article's structure to warp, and endspoiler will help that task if anything. SnowFire 22:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy

David Gerard has removed my deletion of the stipulation that "Plot" sections should not be marked with spoiler tags, labelling it "silly". But this is the heart of the argument. This line, which of course is the principle new item added in this draft, justifies David's (and a few other editors) precipitate action in deleting many hundreds of spoiler warnings. I have given two reasons for resisting this proscription, which have not been satisfactorially answered by the anti element:

Plot descriptions need not and often do not contain spoilers

For instance, up until I would guess about 1700 most works of fiction were based on stock plots which the writer expected the audience to know. Therefore knowledge of the plot can hardly be described as a spoiler (so the line on the tag "Plot and/or ending details follow" misses the point... the current project page gives a much better definition of spoiler). Even today, many fictions do not rely on a surprise ending or plot twists but get their impact from the depth of characterisation etc. And many plot summaries on wikipedia do not reveal crucial plot twists. Is any of this disputed?

Redundancy is not a sin.

F y dn't blv m why nt rmv ll vwls frm wkpd—t's wll knwn tht nglsh txt cn b rd wtht thm. Or why not remove the lead section since it is supposedly a redundant summary of the rest of the article? Re-inforcing the message that Plot sections etc do indeed give away crucial elements (in specific cases) is one of the main points of spoiler warnings. PaddyLeahy 10:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, would you have any actual complaints from actual readers who expected Wikipedia not to have spoilers and were upset to find them here? It's just that so far there's zero evidence their alleged audience actually wants them. Which strikes me as strange given how eager they are to complain about every other aspect of Wikipedia's content. Note that I mean complaints not invoked by me asking - I'm trying to gather complaints on the matter from the readership, rather than the editors, over the past six years. Thanks! - David Gerard 11:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Several contributors to the RfC including me avowed from personal experience as readers that they found spoiler tags useful. As has been pointed out repeatedly, such tags are very widely (I'd accept too widely) used in Wikipedia at present, so complaints about them not being used were not expected. Despite your trawl of the blogosphere you have only found one or two complaints about their actual use... you havn't said yet how many irate readers have rung you up, in your apparent role as the Wikipedia complaints dept, to complain about the presence of spoiler warnings. Per my first post on this issue, it ain't broke, don't fix it. PaddyLeahy 11:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

OK ... from people who don't keep getting blocked for trying to edit-war their opinion in? - David Gerard 15:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's simple: a plot summary is naturally assumed to summarize the plot. Furthermore, articles that don't summarize the plot are low grade; they lack comprehensiveness. — Deckill er 15:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy is bad when it involves adding something harmful to an article. Spoiler warnings are harmful. They introduce a neologism, they encourage restructuring the article in counter-intuitive ways, and they suggest that the level of discourse here is that of a fanforum, not a scholarly work. They may be necessary at times, but they are harmful, and their use should be reduced. Phil Sandifer 15:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Was that response to my comment? If so, my comment was anti-spoilertags, and I was explaining how a plot summary is naturally assumed to have spoilers. — Deckill er 15:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It was in response to the initial statement by Paddy. Phil Sandifer 15:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What was your take on the multiple suggestions for alternative phrasings in the RfC? --Kizor 16:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Searching for public opinion

OK, we have apparently zero complaints from readers about spoilers from before Phil and I started asking for such complaints.

So I went looking for general public opinions on spoilers in Wikipedia. Since the Internet public in general complain chronically about any and every aspect of our content.

Quickly hitting blogsearch.google.com with "Wikipedia spoiler", I didn't get a lot. Or indeed any. I did find an expectation of full detail in Wikipedia, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4] (where he spoils 300 for himself by reading Leonidas), [5], [6] (expects spoilers, doesn't sound entirely pleased by this), [7] (uses Wikipedia as source for a spoiler), [8] ("Spoiler warnings are the scourge of modern civilisation"), [9], [10], [11] ... - David Gerard 11:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There's the fact that we HAD our spoilers clearly marked. Please check the German-speaking part. --Kizor 16:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion! I look forward to your data - David Gerard 16:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Fictional characters, etc.

I like this write up. I think it accurately represents the consensus that has developed. The only part I'm not sure about is:

Articles about fictional characters, objects or places can be expected to be substantially made up of elements of the story in question and should not need spoiler warnings.

I'm not sure I agree. There are three types of information on fictional characters, etc. There is real-world information (who played them, who created them, etc), there is background information (who the character is, basically stuff that happens before the story starts and isn't secret) and there are the events that took place in the fictional work involving them. Only the last one involves spoilers. I think it can make sense in certain articles to include spoiler warnings before bits of information fitting into the 3rd category. Quite often those bits of information will fall into a "Plot Summary" type section, so wouldn't need a warning, but that's already mentioned in a different bullet point.

--Tango 16:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Including spoiler warnings in this class of articles would encourage sectioning spoiler information off when that is inappropriate. So it should be done only in extreme cases with a good rationale for each case. Kusma (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The first item - the one we should focus on in Wikipedia - should require spoilerish information if the article is well-written. A well-written article on a character is going to deal with criticism and analysis focusing on that character, documented fan response, writer/actor comments, etc. These are likely to be made in relation to the evolving plot, and certainly are likely to be torturous to de-integrate from the plot. Susan Ivanova is an article that I'm somewhat proud of how deals with this - but spoilers are integrated throughout the article, and with good reason. (I still think there's too much in-universe stuff, but sections like "Talia Winters" and "Departure from Babylon 5" are quite good, I think.) Phil Sandifer 16:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Works whose plot is 'common knowledge'

Can we have a coherent definition of this bias-magnet? Despite all the thundering denunciations of the 'everyforum.com' mentality, most of the examples (Star Wars, Harry Potter, etc) suggested as 'known to everyone' are really only known to members of everyforum. Are the works of Barbara Taylor Bradford or Jacqueline Wilson (both massive authors) 'common knowledge'?--Nydas^(Talk) 17:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Use editorial judgment on a case by case basis on article talk pages. Guideline pages give guidelines, not manuals. Phil Sandifer 17:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's still exceedingly vague, even for a guideline. Why not simply remove it and strengthen the other criteria?--Nydas^(Talk) 19:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, just remove this one. While the recency of a work certainly affects whether warning are appropriate for other reasons, "common knowledge" is such an extremely high bar to set it would apply in practically no cases. I would venture that a plot spoiler is only common knowledge if people know it without even knowing the existence of the work. For one of the rare examples of this, I'm sure that some people think that "Jekyll and Hyde" comparisons are just a phrase and have no clue who Robert Louis Stevenson is (for those not familiar with the book, it is in fact a spoiler; that they're the same person is not revealed until near the end). Can the same be said of even canonical examples like King Kong dying? I doubt it. I'm not saying that King Kong should have spoiler tags, but "common knowledge" is not the correct argument here. SnowFire 19:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Common knowledge" doesn't mean that everyone knows it; it means that everyone could know it. I think that the answer is to strengthen it, instead. For example: "Any play, book, movie, or other work that has been in publication for over a month should be considered common knowledge, and articles on such subjects should never contain spoiler tags. Extremely high-profile works may become common knowledge much more quickly." The exact length of time could be changed, but I think that that captures the idea nicely. Additional advantages of this method is that it will make the eventual phasing-out of spoiler tags entirely that much easier by allowing them to be cleanly removed from the vast majority of articles; and that it will prevent the "creep" effect where people see spoiler tags on one article, incorrectly assume they're supported by policy, and start adding them to other articles. --Aquillion 19:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Erm... if you admit that you want to abolish spoiler warnings from Wikipedia forever, then can you just advocate that? Advocating an equivalent "guideline" that says warnings are (basically) never appropriate is silly; just advocate against the policy as a whole, because your statement only makes any sense from the perspective of "let's destroy spoiler warnings, but slower to cause less alarm." My statement was from the perspective that spoiler warnings are a good idea but may not be necessary in certain topics. SnowFire 21:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that we've just had two completely different definitions of 'common knowledge' speaks volumes about the worthlessness of it as a guideline.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I do agree that we should eliminate spoiler warnings entirely, SnowFire. I just also support anything that would limit them as much as possible and prevent them from spreading further. They are inherently bad things, and the encyclopedia is removed every time one is taken out... the eventual goal, naturally, is the deletion of {{spoiler}} itself and barring recreation or the use of warnings in another form, but that can wait until it's been removed from most articles. The template has an inertia, I think, that these discussions are slowly sapping away. --Aquillion 14:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"Common knowledge" means a random person on the street is likely to know it. You are thinking of "public knowledge", which means that a member of the general public can find it out if they want, but they don't necessarily know it. "public knowledge" would be a very bad guideline since by definition anything that is published is public knowledge. Common knowledge is a good guideline, it's just very difficult to really determine if something is common knowledge. I think Aquillion's definition is good - if you can find a major source for the information which doesn't mention the work and has nothing to do with the work (a magazine targeted at book clubs would be a bad source, for example, a general newspaper a much better source), as you could with Jekyll and Hyde, then it is common knowledge. --Tango 10:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Neologism?

The project page currently states:

Scholarly reference works tend to frown on the use of neologisms like "spoiler," however, (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (neologisms)) and thus spoiler warnings are generally avoided on Wikipedia, and are controversial when they are used.

"Spoiler" isn't a neologism. The American Heritage dictionary (4th ed, 2006) defines it thus:

spoil·er n. [...] 5. A published piece of information that divulges a surprise, such as a plot twist in a movie. [12]

Compact Oxford has the definition "a news story published with the intention of reducing the impact of a related item published in a rival paper"[13] which is clearly a very closely related definition.

May I suggest removing this sentence and finding a different reason why people don't want to include them to elevate up to the top section? JulesH 19:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not think the OED definition is close enough to be useful. Neither the OED nor Merriam-Webster has it. the American Heritage definition that I'm looking at [14] specifies "post to a newsgroup," which does little to remove the claim of neologism. Phil Sandifer 19:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Err... his says "2006", yours says "2000." His is the more updated version which outdates the last one. I'd say it does quite a lot to remove the claim of neologism... --Kizor 01:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What the hell kind of logic is that? Give me a break man, and cut out the bullshit. -- Ned Scott 10:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that JulesH has a later edition of the same work, which supersedes the one Phil Sandifer uses. JulesH's edition does not have the specification which Phil Sandifer's edition has, and which Phil Sandifer uses to strengthen the claim of a neologism. If that's not clear enough, let me know so that I can try again. --Kizor 11:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Zero Documented Complaints?

"In six years, there are zero documented reader (as opposed to editor) complaints about a lack of spoilers in Wikipedia, when readers famously complain at length about every other aspect of Wikipedia's content."

Well I'ld like to destroy this argument right now. Try reading Talk:Shadow_of_the_Colossus. You'll find at least two. On top of that, the argument is fundamentally flawed seeing as there ARE spoiler tags. What do you expect? Why would people complain when there are already plenty of spoiler tags on most pages where spoilers occur?Ziiv 20:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt the possibility of writing an encyclopedia to satisfy people who are capable of being surprised that plot details get revealed in the plot section. And, furthermore, people who keep reading, seeing that the plot is getting described in more and more detail, and then don't realize "Hey, this might go all the way to the end..." Furthermore, the big complaint on that page seems to be a lack of consistency - that spoiler tags exist in someplaces and not in others. This could be satisfied in two ways - putting spoiler tags on all discussions of plot, or eliminating them so that people know to be cautious on their own. The former solution is clearly unacceptable, leading me to think that the complete abandonment of spoiler tags is probably the more reader-friendly solution. Phil Sandifer 20:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I just glanced at it, and yes, it seems to me that the complaint was "I expected spoiler warnings because it's on other pages", not "I expect spoiler warnings <as a rule>" -- are there any complaints of people who don't have the PRESUMPTION of "Wikipedia has warnings" complaining about it? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, the lack of complaints implies that Wikipedia's current policy of marking spoilers is working - people who read on and see a spoiler have only themselves to blame if they didn't want to, and are unlikely to complain. This seems a rather weak argument "against" warnings, as I've seen several cases where unmarked spoilers in a surprising location have in fact caused a complaint on the talk page- one from me awhile back, in fact. SnowFire 21:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

But was the complaint based on having seen them elsewhere in WP or not? THAT is the question we (or at least me) are trying to get examples of. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"I sincerely doubt the possibility of writing an encyclopedia to satisfy people who are capable of being surprised that plot details get revealed in the plot section."

Then I'm afraid that you aren't very familiar with the flexibility of the english language. You honestly can't expect people to automatically expect spoilers in the plot section unless it's specifically said so or demonstrated so. Heck, you can't expect anyone to automatically understand anything unless it's specifically said so. The presence or absence of spoilers in a plot section is arbitrary, as are the meanings of just about everything in English. Expecting people to assume anything is a flawed concept unless there are numerous previous examples that would support the assumption. In this case, there are no previous examples, and thus no reason for people to expect that the plot section in and of itself would have spoilers. I'ld like to think that the simplicity, consistency, and popularity of windows over other more complicated and arbitrary operating systems would be enough to demonstrate this fact.

You also say that spoiler tags are for some reason unacceptable, and don't give any reason. If you don't like them you can turn them off. Please also tell me how abandoning spoiler tags is more "reader friendly"? I see no advantages for the reader. At best, all he can do is not read any articles which may contain spoilers at all, which makes wikipedia useless for him. Whereas if spoilers are marked, he can read any trivial or background information about the subject without fear of spoilers. (I'ld like you to note that many users are suggesting that spoilers should be allowed in opening paragraphs, so your plot summary argument is moot regardless)Ziiv 23:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone back this up, at all? And since when do we not count editors as readers? How on earth is such a small click of editors supposed to know about every single complaint about Wikipedia for six years? I don't care what side you support, this is just stupid. Pulling such claims out of one's ass isn't acceptable. Do you honestly expect any reasonably intelligent person to just accept such a statement, simply because someone said so? -- Ned Scott 10:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the discussion above? I'm one of the people who gets loud complaints about every other aspect of Wikipedia's content. I've not yet heard an outside reader complain once that we should have had a spoiler tag on something. I asked on wikien-l, no examples from there either - just more hypotheticals. Six years, zero complaints. I'm actually going out and asking this question and getting nothing - David Gerard 12:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

But that's because we had spoiler warnings on everything!!! Arghh!!!!!! 142.177.42.255 14:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Untrue. Many articles do not have spoiler warnings. Wikiproject:Final Fantasy, for instance, does not use them, so most of our Final Fantasy-related articles have no warnings. The German wikipedia bars spoiler warnings quite strictly, and has reported no issues. Additionally, realize how many complaints we get about other things that shouldn't have been that way--people who were called nazis by vandals, ugly-looking stubs, bad or incomplete information, whatever. If there was genuine concern over spoilers outside of a handful of noisy editors influenced by bbforum conventions, you'd expect at least a few people would have come across untagged articles and complained. Nobody has. Ever. --Aquillion 14:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Template merge

To simplify how many templates we have, I've proposed this change to {{spoiler}}. -- Ned Scott 21:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Guideline rationale

Ned Scott moved these here from the main page. --Tony Sidaway 11:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The use of spoiler warnings is controversial amongst Wikipedians. Key arguments against are:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a current event discussion forum. It aims to contain complete information. The general content disclaimer states that "WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE".
Spoiler warnings have in the past spread to articles on authors, mythology, religious text, fairy tales and nonfictional works and topics.
Warning about such content in sections marked "Plot", "Plot Summary", "Synopsis" or similar is redundant.
Such warnings are disproportionate. Per (Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates) we don't warn about other objectionable content — including, in cases such as Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, content that people have been killed over.
Some Wikipedias forbid spoiler warnings entirely, like the German Wikipedia (de:Wikipedia:Spoilerwarnung). On the English Wikipedia, some WikiProjects do not use spoiler tags, such as WikiProject Final Fantasy and WikiProject Opera.
Spoiler warnings might, by their nature, encourage bad article layout, causing important information that would normally have been referred to throughout an article to be restricted to one or two areas so that it can be delimited by tags. Where this means that important information is omitted from the lead section, this seriously compromises the balance of the article.

Key arguments for are:

Few readers look at disclaimer pages.
The text will frequently be present on mirror sites where our disclaimer is absent.
Addressing plot points is believed by some editors to spoil the reception of the article for the casual reader.
Wikipedia is not censored; therefore, it is arguable that spoilers regarding key elements (surprise endings and the like) should have alerts, allowing the user to determine for himself if he wishes to proceed. It is not our place to decide for him.
Spoiler tags can be hidden. Editors with aesthetic objections can prevent themselves from seeing them.
Two years ago, Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates was created with a specific exception for spoiler tags [15] [16].

This looks good

This page is well-written and gives reasonable restrictions to limit the proliferation of spoiler tags. >Radiant< 10:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It was also dictated more than talked out, I'm afraid. --Kizor 11:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

"Spoiler warnings are inappropriate in articles discussing classical works of literature, poetry, film, theatre, and other fields. In grey areas, editors placing spoiler templates should attempt to justify this on the individual article's talk page and be ready to defend them in discussion."

What exactly constitues a "classic work"? Sabre Knight 12:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the answer is "a bias magnet." For one, Homer is classic; for another, Heinlein. --Kizor 12:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fundimentally, I agree with you; this is one of the reasons why spoiler warnings will always be inappropriate for articles. Everyone agrees, I hope, that it would be comically absurd for us to put spoiler warnings on Homer; therefore, it follows from Kizor's statements above, we must ban spoiler warnings everywhere... if it is a choice between putting spoiler warnings on Shakespeare and putting spoiler warnings nowhere, I think it is plain that putting them nowhere must win out. --Aquillion 14:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

@@ Line 169: / Line 169: @@
 :We'll never know. The MfD was closed after a day, the TfD was closed after even less time, and the RfC is a bloated mess. It's interesting that the MfD (broadly in favour of deletion) is transcluded onto the RfC, whilst the TfD, (broadly in favour of keep) isn't. Of course, this whole sorry debacle is overshadowed by the mass actions of a group of admins, who seem to think that this has to be settled in a matter of hours, rather than weeks or months.--<strong>[[User:Nydas|Nydas]]</strong>[[User talk:Nydas|<sup>(Talk)</sup>]] 10:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
+:: It would be interesting to know when the spoilers suddenly got so badly out of control.  I don't recall seeing them on articles on Biblical books and the works of Dickens before this debate started. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 15:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 ==New draft==