Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning

Moved from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion as that process is expressly not designed for discussing changes to guidelines. This move allows for comments already made and any emerging consensus to be preserved as part of an active discussion.

---

Discussion of draft spoiler guideline: Wikipedia talk:Spoiler

Draft spoiler guideline: Wikipedia:Spoiler

---

This talk page is automatically archived by Miszabot. Any sections older than 48 hours will be automatically archived to the archives. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archived MfD and TfD discussions

These preceded taking the issue here and have been moved their their own subpages for archival purposes and to reduce the load time for those participating in the active discussion (they are also listed in the archive box above):

MfD for Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning

TfD for Template:Spoiler

non-deletion discussion

As this is apparently no longer a deletion discussion, let us think about what is wrong with the current use of spoilers again.

• They make editors decide the order of presentation not by what makes the best encyclopedic article.

• If a work of fiction is most notable for a plot twist, then that belongs in the lead section.

• They are often redundant:

• Use in "Plot" sections: There is no need to warn people that information about the plot may be found in such a section

• They appear in serious articles that do not carry spoiler tags in any other encyclopedia:

• People are commonly using spoiler tags on the Bible, the works of Shakespeare, Homer, or Dickens

The first point could be addressed by making it clear that WP:LEAD always takes precedence, but it is not clear whether people will follow this in practice. The second point could be addressed by prohibiting spoiler tags in sections that are already clearly marked by their section title. The third point could be addressed by only putting spoiler tags on works that are newer than a month.

Whatever the outcome of this discussion will be, it seems clear that a large number of people wish to see a significant reduction in the use of spoiler tags. If spoiler tags are not to be deleted outright, they will need to be strictly limited in their use and not allowed to grow wild again like they do now. Kusma (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Please read the above, folks. Virtually all those wanting to maintain the present use have not dealt with these objections; they just say "But I like it!" without concern for addressing these pertinent concerns. Some people have not been helpful with one-liners like "Delete, not encyclopedic", but these are valid issues — we should not be splashing these all over the place so liberally as we do now. Like it or not, when the choice is between writing a proper article and avoiding spoilers, we must go with the former. In some cases, there is no conflict between these two goals; but in cases where there are, our encyclopedic nature comes first. Johnleemk | Talk 14:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with this, plus CzechOut's excellent "rant" at the beginning of the delete debate. If an outright rejection of spoiler warnings altogether is not accepted, perhaps spoiler warnings could be limited to use only in, say, articles on movies still at the theatre or in the new releases section of the video store, and television episodes of the current season. That way, spoilers can be left only for those items that readers might be expected to only be recently aware of and which they might currently be contemplating seeing. As for books, "recentness" might not be considered as helpful, but the use in, say, Catcher in the Rye (in which there isn't even an ending template; almost the entire article is considered "spoiler") is completely ridiculous. Lexicon (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I think a proper article about fiction containing spoilers needs a spoiler warning. Now what? --87.189.89.215

  Well you could explain why, perhaps. Why do you think an encyclopedia article needs to carry a warning to tell the reader that he may learn something he doesn't know? Isn't it implicit in the purpose of writing an encyclopedia article that it will contain mostly information that the reader doesn't know? --Tony Sidaway 14:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  What's at issue here is information some readers specifically do not want to know.--agr 14:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  WP:NOT#PAPER, we have the opportunity to offer both sets of informations for both kind of readers: The one wanting to look up an actor or a budget or the one wanting the while shebang. Why do you want to remove that opportunity? --87.189.89.215

Comment: Why are people intentionally posting spoilers in this spoiler warning RFC? Doesn't that violate WP:POINT? Ken Arromdee 14:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The "spoliers" in this discussion are used as examples to prove a valid point, not to disrupt. Lexicon (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

By spoilers here, does Ken simply mean that people are discussing the plots of books, films, television shows and plays? I'd say that they are doing so, but that it's seldom disruptive to do so. The "Snape kills Dumbledore" spam was a rare and exceptional case where the intention was to spoil enjoyment rather than inform or engage in legitimate comment. --Tony Sidaway 14:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• It is my view that the use of spoiler templates/warnings ought to be retained, but modified. In no case should content be omitted from an article to avoid a spoiler, and rarely should it be put in a different place in an article (the lead to an article about an unreleased or very recent work should probably not include major spoilers: for example "Snape kills Dumbledore" should not have been in the lead of the relevant article in the week that the book was released, IMO. WP:NPOV must always trump spoiler protection. If there was a consistent way to mark spoiler warnings so that those with a suitable preference setting or css setting would not see the warnings, this would be good, but IMO such warnings should default to being seen by non-logged-in users. As for their use in section labeled "plot" or the like, yes in a sense they are redundant there, but not all plot sections contain significant spoilers, indeed not all plots contain the sort of twists that make their endings a 'spoiler. More importantly, humans are not perfectly logical beings, we sometimes need a reminder about things that ought to be obvious. I think that in spite of the technical redundancy, having spoiler warnings on, or within, sections labeled "plot" or the like should not be prohibited or discouraged. It is mentioned above that most encyclopedias don't use spoiler warnings at all, or do so in a much more limited way than wikipedia. This is true. But most other encyclopedias don't cover fiction and popular culture in nearly as much detail as wikipedia does, and don't include nearly as much plot detail. Given that difference, a different approach to spoiler warnings seems warranted. I do think that some changes should be made, however. My suggestions are:
  1. Spoiler warnings should not be used on classic, widely known works such as the Bible, the plays of Shakespeare, or the works of Homer.
  2. However, spoiler warnings should not be limited to recently released works -- many long relased works are new to particular readers.
  3. Significant facts should not normally be omitted from an article lead merely to avoid spoilers. This may be temporarily suspended for unreleased or recently released works.
  4. There should normally be a marker used to indicate the end of a section that contains spoilers, if a spoiler warning is used.
  5. Editors should be urged to consider whether plot details are really "spoilers". Works where the plot details are relatively obvious and not in any way surprising, and no attempt seems to be made to surprise the reader should probably not have spoiler warnings used at all.
  6. Plot sections in general should be reduced in size ans scope. WP:FICT calls for this now, but is widely ignored.
  7. The use or non-use of spoiler warnings in a particular article should be a matter of consensus among the editors of that article, to be determined on its talk page, just as with all other matters of article content. Drastic changes without consensus are discouraged.
  8. The general format of spoiler warnings should be uniform across wikipedia, and should be a matter of general consensus. Drastic changes should not be made without seeking consensus for the change.
• I hope that these suggestions will be useful in this discussion. DES ^(talk) 14:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It is bad enough that there are spoiler warnings in our pop culture sections, but the part of our content that is also present in other encyclopedias should not look less professional. Oh, and articles like List of suicides don't need spoiler warnings at all (but my removal got reverted anyway). Kusma (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • User:DESiegel (DES), most of that sounds reasonable. I'd expand that to say that we shouldn't normally put unnecessary warnings into articles. We should instead put a note into the site disclaimer saying that the full plot of fictional works will be disclosed in an appropriate manner dictated by our relevant content policies, and no extra warning will be given. We don't put nudity warnings into our articles about famous artists or anatomy, we just have a notice in the site disclaimer. --Tony Sidaway 14:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, we could do it that way -- it would be consistent. i think it would not get consensus, and i strongly suspect that it would lead to frequent edit disputes when some editors attempted to remove information that constituted spoilers, and to significant dissatisfaction on the part of a subset of our readers. If that is our policy choice, i will of course go along, but I don't think it would be the wisest possible choice. A general disclaimer, while logically equivalent, simply does not have the impact that a specific one does. And yes, I agree that a similar argument could be made for nudity and other content that is offensive to some readers, and i don't want such warnings. The difference is IMO that lots of people want to remove or hide all such content, and warnings might encourage this, and also that people might depend on such warnings in ways that we cannot guarantee would always work. Whereas the perceived "harm" of seeing a spoiler is far less, so if someone reads a spoiler that doesn't have a warning, there will be Far less in the way of violated expectations, IMO. DES ^(talk) 16:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually after making the above suggestion I went to look and found, to my surprise, that our content disclaimer already warns of spoilers, in very large letters. I've changed my opinion on this: I now believe strongly that spoiler warnings are nearly always an unnecessary intrusion on articles. They should never be used except when there is a very strong justification. Perhaps for the first month of Snape Kills Dumbledore, or perhaps not. --Tony Sidaway 16:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Tony, if someone uses Google to find information on a book or movie, such as John LeCarre's novel The Honourable Schoolboy, and the Wikipedia article on the novel tops the list of search results (as it did in 2005 when I first searched for it), what percentage of people do you suppose will consult the content disclaimer before reading the article? Maybe, 0.000001%? -- DS1953 ^talk 18:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: People seem to be ignoring the fact that sexual content, medical content, profane content and violent content are not warned on Wikipedia, which I am adamant almost everyone will defend. Yet all "keep" voters are shouting "be courteous"! It doesn't make any sense, they are no different. A person may find spoilers objectionable, a person may find nudity objectionable. More bizarre is the fact some people claim you can't "un-read" spoilers - what? You can't "un-read" nudity either. They are really no different. Even worse is I saw a person yelling "apples and oranges". Yeah, we're allowed apples, bananas, pears, peaches, kiwis and passion fruit, but oranges are different! --Teggles 19:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  Using hysterical hyperbole does not help your argument. --Farix (Talk) 19:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• • My comment wasn't wholly composed of that. If you'd prefer, I'll restate the last comment, but the point gets across either way. --Teggles 19:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think Teggles has the defining argument here. You are absolutely correct that there are many things, such as violence and nudity, which are not warned against. If we want spoiler warnings we must have violence, nudity, profanity etc. warnings as well.

It's true that not many people will read the wikipedia disclaimer (I know I never have) but that just can't be helped. Compare it, for example, to TV. At the start of South Park, there is a warning about violence, coarse language etc. but if someone is channel hopping they could easily see violence in the show without seeing the warning. Does this mean South Park should include a scene-by-scene set of warnings which appear just before every swear word, bit of violence and so on? Of course not.

And even spoiler tags as they are now suffer from the same problems as the disclaimer. If you scroll quickly past them, get section-linked from another page, or skip past them because you used the find function, it's easy to see spoilers without seeing the spoiler warning. In summary, I think that it would be admirable to warn people about violence, nudity, spoilers and everything else, but it's just not practical or even possible.Chutup1 10:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't rightly know about that. My own track record of avoiding properly marked spoilers is a very good one - very few mid-section links in fiction are above spoiler lines, anyway. Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates was created with an express exception for spoilers and has retained it since except for two attempts of deletion by the anti-spoiler crowd in the last four days. Spoilers aren't apparently considered objectionable content - Which we cannot and do not ban - there as much as in-depth knowledge, like medical or law information, but, quote, "The only disclaimer on wikipedia should be the spoiler warnings, because you don't know where they are, and they ruin things for you. You can choose to ignore medical-related content on Wikipedia, but once you've read a spoiler, you can't just pretend you never read it." --Kizor 10:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Disclaimer

Ok, spoiler tempaltes are unencyclopedic and all around useless. If you don't want information on the movie - don't go to the page - get the movie, watch it, then go to the page. I think this could all be solved by a giant disclaimer on the main page: "Contrary to seemingly popular belief per spoiler vote - Wikipedia's Articles DO Contain Information!" danielfolsom 15:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Your point being? --87.189.124.195

Put more eloquently, saying "get the movie, watch it, then go to the page" discourages use of WP and therefore violates WP:IAR -- pushing people away from WP does not "improve" it. 144.51.111.1 16:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

But even with spoiler warnings you can't recommend that someone who wishes to remain unspoiled read the page and skip over the spoiler-tagged parts, as there's no guarantee that the spoilers are all appropriately tagged. Chuck 17:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah what? That argument made no sense. I said if you don't want to know what happened- see the movie, then go to the page, but you said that that discourages use of WP - but in reality - they won't be seeing information on the thing that they didn't want to know about in the first place.danielfolsom 19:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

But - in my experiences - there's a very high probability of the spoilers being appropriately tagged. Lacking tags are rare enough to consider it a virtual guarantee, at least as long as there are no big pastel maintenance boxes at the top. (Yes, I did previously say that I've run into untagged spoilers several times - there's no contradiction, the total number of articles I've checked is a #¤&$load. I'm a Wikipedia fanatic, do you expect my use to be non-disproportionate?) --Kizor 23:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how seeing a warning about spoilers detracts in anyway from the Wikipedia experience. As an example, I think a film character as important as Darth Vader clearly warrants an article. Say I'd been living under a rock for a long time (On this particle subject I was, I didn't see the Star Wars trilogy until 1996, and had not been spoiled on it until VERY shortly before I saw it) and wanted to find something out about this guy, I'd probably come here, and if I didn't think there was that much to him, I wouldn't expect the major revelation that I would surely find, the tag makes it clear that there is something that could ruin the film experience for me. True you could leave that information out, but then the article becomes "Darth Vader is a bad guy who wears black and breathes funny. The End". The warning seems to be the comprimise between keeping articles too bare, and getting someone so angry that they avoid Wikipedia like the plague. Using my personal example of just how out of the loop a person can be on things that everyone else knows also I suspect illustrates the problem with the idea of putting a time limit on spoilers. Just because something came out 6 months ago, or 6 years, or 60 years, dosn't mean people have already seen it or been spoiled on it. However if spoiler tags are to be abandoned, I would personally recommend that articles on books, movies, TV, video games etc. be written so that there is a spoiler free short blurb above the table of contents for the article that gives a brief idea about the subject, such as "A Clockwork Orange is a 1971 film by Stanley Kubrick and starring Malcolm McDowell, adapted from the 1962 novel by Anthony Burgess." and a bit of stuff about the plot no more than you might expect to see on the back of the box, and putting any further information further below, preferably below the TOC, if the article has one, with the understanding that the main body of the article will be more detailed and probably spoileriffic. Sorry my rant was a bit long, but I feel my example might help the debate in some way, I feel rather passionate about the issue, as I'm sure many others on both sides are. 70.191.222.17 04:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

We need a spoiler

Sorry if my opinion seems bland, but I think a spoiler warning is necessary. I know this is an encyclopedia, but I believe in the "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" philosophy. I'm happy with the process, so I don't want to have the spoiler template ditched. - User:Blakegripling_ph

Spoiler Examples

In any discussion like this about spoilers, it stands to reason that people will use spoilers as examples. I'm concerned that casual editors who find their way here are going to see information that they would expect to see in the articles, but not here. Until we settle this dispute about whether spoilers belong or not, or until we can determine what is and isn't a spoiler, let's try to not come up with new examples of spoilers unless it has bearing on a new discussion point. Let's try to use the same examples that have already been provided if possible (Sephiroth kills Aerith, Snape kills Dumbledore, etc.). Spouting off a spoiler in the attitude of "This is how it is, get used to it" is just being a WP:DICK, and doesn't help the anti-spoiler side look any better. --—NicholaiDaedalus 16:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to extend the virus any further than the article space (where in my opinion it has gotten quite out of hand.) In normal conversation one would discuss plot details such as those of The Crying Game, The Sixth Sense and even the latest Harry Potter where they are relevant, so I don't know why it should be so different just because we're discussing things online. --Tony Sidaway 18:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Because while I disagree with using Spoiler Warnings at all, I am not about to enforce my views until a consensus is reached. And people who advocate spoiler warnings come here to advocate them and do not want to have spoilers revealed to them, not even here. Forcing them to see spoilers by posting them loudly on the very place that they come to to address this issue doesn't give them much choice in the matter. --—NicholaiDaedalus 20:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I will not be constrained in my use of illustrative examples such that people who need to read WP:ENC do not learn that Portia dresses up as the judge and takes all of Shylock's money in the trial. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Forcing them to see spoilers? Perhaps the person with the loud signature in Greek would like to reconsider the term. Please do tell us how they are being forced - what method - gun to head? Kidnapped children? Other? Tell me. I don't mind finding out. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Killer Chihuahua: You're use of personal attacks aside, I mean simply that in order to express that they do not wish to see spoilers they have to read spoilers in that very discussion.

Hipocrite: I'm not asking anyone to constrain their arguments, but rather not blurt out needless spoilers that do nothing for the discussion aside from make a WP:POINT. And if it can be said with an already discussed example, then use that. If it can't be said with an already discussed example, then use a new example to make your point. --—NicholaiDaedalus 20:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• What personal attack? Substantiate that accusation or withdraw it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Your rather insulting reference to my signature. You don't like my signature, fine you don't have to. But that has nothing to do with this discussion so leave it out. --—NicholaiDaedalus 20:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A descriptive phrase is not a personal attack, Nick. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"person with the loud signature" is insulting as "loud" has a negative connotation. If you did not intend to insult me, then you should not have referred to my by any sort of description in the first place, you should instead refer to me by name as it's considered polite. But I repeat myself: "(this) has nothing to do with this discussion so leave it out." --—NicholaiDaedalus 21:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. "loud" is not inherently insulting - I find that a truly odd notion, if you didn't want it loud why is it so dramatic and colorful? - so again, not a personal attack. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If you don't intend to insult, then refer to people by name and avoid the risk of misinterpretation. --—NicholaiDaedalus 21:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • To the casual reader, this comes across as a clear insult. "person with the loud signature in Greek" is clearly a choice INSTEAD of using their name. If you are going to make a choice not to use someone's name and create a "description" instead, with the obvious (and successful) attempt to egg them on, then at least have the guts to own up to it.Smatprt 01:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. People call me MurderousCanine or similar variations on my nick's meanings, and I find it amusing. Its absurd grandstanding to call it a personal insult. A personal insult is something like "stupid *expletive* *expletive* jerk" - no ambiguity there. Telling me to "own up to it" is ridiculous. Presuming an insult was meant is clearly an AGF violation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Functional consensus already exists. We're just waiting for everybody to accept it. I do agree that we shouldn't needlessly use spoilers in examples, although the spoilers we're seeing are hardly that: Crying Game, Harry Potter and whatnot. --Tony Sidaway 20:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"Functional consensus already exists. We're just waiting for everybody to accept it." Isn't wide-acceptance what determines consensus? --—NicholaiDaedalus 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for saying that. Concise, effective, hits the nail on the head. :) --Kizor 21:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's over. It's done. Normality has been established. --Tony Sidaway 15:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. --Kizor 17:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

To Tony Sidaway: No offense, but do you realize what you are saying sounds like the most cabalish/presumptive thing ever? Broken down, it's basically: Most people already agree. We're just waiting for them to agree.

Undoubtedly, this is not what you meant, so can you please clarify? Abeg92contribs 01:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Neologism

Is there any way we can at least find a better word for this? For me, a large part of the problem is that "spoiler warnings" are a neologism, and are not really suitable for the overall structure of an encyclopedia. It's not that other encyclopedias don't use spoiler warnings - it's that other serious reference works don't use neologisms. Phil Sandifer 18:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a good point. The word "spoiled" means ruined. And claiming that a classic work of art can be ruined by knowing the plot, is making a POV statement about that work of art. By warning readers that, say, Romeo and Juliet or A Doll's House will be ruined by learning the plot beforehand is rather insulting to these works of art. I claim they can not be ruined that way. That's one of the reasons they are classics and that people see them again and again. Shanes 20:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

One example of a "classic" (at least, best seller in its day) which has been literally spoiled is Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. The original novella was a mystery: who was Hyde and what was his connection to Jekyll? For a modern reader it now falls totally flat. (No, I don't think a warning is needed for that one!) PaddyLeahy 20:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Funny, that. The thriller element is still present and is just as enjoyable if you know that Hyde is Jekyll from watching Lon Chaney or Spencer Tracy transform from mild Jekyll into demonic Hyde on TV. It's in the writing. It has nothing to do with whether you know in advance or not. --Tony Sidaway 21:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

They still shouldn't be in classic fiction articles, though. The more and more I think about it, the more I don't see them as necessary, even for recent works. -- Ned Scott 20:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider this a problem myself. Consider that the neologism is a couple of decades old (pushing the definition?), very well-known, integrated into mainstream language, intuitively and easily understood, and explained in the template itself. (And it's not like we have to prove ourselves anything, including a serious reference work - some of the talk on this page about "sending a message" about being an encyclopedia has the tinge of an inferiority complex.) Then again, I'm more breezy than most. If it should be changed, in a pinch it could be trimmed down to "Plot and/or ending details follow", with a hyperlink in the words to spoiler or the guideline page. --Kizor 20:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's still not in Webster's or the OED, thus putting it in violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (neologisms). Phil Sandifer 21:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh really, if the word "spoiler" is such a problem then just eliminate it from the template; in fact also eliminate the word "warning" if that causes such trouble, and just let the template say something like "the following section contains plot or ending details". There, now it's completely NPOV. It does not say anything about "spoiling" anything for anyone. It does not try to "warn" anyone about anything. It just states a completely objective fact -- that the section about to follow contains some plot or ending details. And if you think even that is too obtrusive, why not make it in a smaller font, and less intrusive colours, and so on ... ... ? Henrik Ebeltoft 01:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I cringe every time I see "Spoiler warning" in a article, not only because it's a neologism, but because it's entirely superfluous to an encyclopedia. Any reasonable person, having not read/seen/heard the book/movie/story of which the article is about, expects to learn something about it they did not already know (author, publication date, setting, plot, etc). Additionally, any reasonable person, having seen the a section title using any form of the word "plot" would understand they are reading about the plot. It makes no sense for an encyclopedia to forewarn someone that they might find out something they didn't already know. This is the purpose of an encyclopedia. Case in point: it would be ridiculous to assert that the Magic Kingdom article contain a warning in case the reader has never been there. A visit to the Magic Kingdom is an experience, not an object. Reading a book, watching a movie, and hearing a story are all experiences and should be subject to the same logic.

Writing a blog on Harry Potter? Sure, put "spoiler warning" before you tell everyone that Snape killed Dumbledore. In an encyclopedia, it is sorely out of place. ++ Arx Fortis 22:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Straw polls

I think that it is time for a couple of straw polls to see at least where we are in the consensus building process. I'm only going to poll for three issues that I think we can easily come to a consensus on. --Farix (Talk) 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, and please add a (hopefully brief and well thought out) comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.

Poll 1

Should spoiler warnings be placed on articles about historical and classical works of fiction?

Use spoiler tags

1. Yes, if (i) said work relies for its impact on a surprise (ii) the surprise is not common knowledge (iii) work is still read for pleasure by a significant number of people (example: Sherlock Holmes mysteries). PaddyLeahy 21:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Yes, if needed. One man's classic in another man's new discovery. Most shakespeare plays remain undiscovered by 97% of Americans. Smatprt 01:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Yes per above, let's not be ethnocentric. It is an international encyclopedia after all. Brisvegas 01:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Yes, imposing a time limit on spoiler tags doesn't make any sense. — The Storm Surfer 13:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
5. While the intent here is fine, the definition is excessively vague. Is classical Homer? Heliodorus? George Eliot? Edith Wharton? James Branch Cabell? J.R.R.Tolkien? Robert A. Heinlein? I think the intent is the first three but not the last three, but who can tell? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Yes per arguments above, and per comments by User:Kizor on my talk page. G1ggy! 00:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Yes. That definition is entirely too vague, and from what Smartptr and Brisv say, there's no reason to assume that the majority or even a significant part of our readership is aware of the plots of such works. (Incidentally, said comments were not an argument, just a simple correction of a misunderstood term.) --Kizor 00:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
8. Yes per PaddyLeahy. I also agree with Brisv's argument because it might be common knowledge in the United States that Professor Plum did it in the billiard room with the revolver, it might not be as common for people in other parts of the world to know that. Q0 01:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
9. Yes, but. I think it should be a judgement call on each article or class of works. What we are talking about is a courtesy to readers.--agr 15:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
10. Yes, spoiler tags are one of the many things that make Wikipedia better than a printed encyclopedia Possecomitatus 17:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
11. Quadzilla99 21:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
12. Yes. Why the heck not? Abeg92contribs 01:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
13. Yes, in principle - let editors decide on a case-by-case basis.—greenrd 01:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't use spoiler tags

1. Farix (Talk) 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
2. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 21:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
3. danielfolsom 21:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Spoilers should be limited to the synopsis section anyway, and it is obvious that that section will reveal the plot. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 22:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
5. -- Ned Scott 00:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
6. David Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 01:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Dlong 01:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
8. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Regards, High on a tree 02:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
9. Embarrassing and unprofessional. --Stormie 04:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
10. I don't really go for the "unprofessional" line of thinking; I just find them redundant, too difficult to adequately use with hard and fast rules because we need a bit of violation of OR and NPOV to use them, and I find it compelling that hardly any other encyclopaedia (online or offline) uses them - indicating that encyclopaedia readers generally do know enough when to avoid reading an article which may have spoilers. Johnleemk | Talk 06:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
11. No. Spoiler tags are an embarrassment to the encyclopedia under any circumstances. Informing about the content of works is what we do. Sandstein 07:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
12. No, the placement of a spoiler tag on Iliad would be ridiculous. Garion96 (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
13. Absolutely not, this is ridiculous. --Cyde Weys 14:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
14. Definitely not. The structured division of the article should be more than enough to indicate where potentially "spoiler"-ific material is located. Coverage of historical works is one aspect where we can approach the quality of a printed encyclopedia, and placing spoiler tags is counter to that idea. We're not in the business of babysitting our readership. --Darkbane ^talk 14:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
15. Redundant tag --Bren ^talk 12:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
16. My reasons have already been discussed above — « hippi ippi » 13:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
17. Not necessary. Jussen 22:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
18. It makes no sense for an encyclopedia to forewarn someone that they might find out something they didn't already know. ++ Arx Fortis 23:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
19. No. People read history articles to know about what happened, not to be shied away be a "spoiler". G1ggy! 00:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Changed to yes per comments from User:Kizor on my talk page.
20. Hooray, Straw polls! Great when you want to ignore everything anyone's said and focus on sheer numbers! --PresN 05:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
21. Absolutely not. Whatever may be said about contemporary works, this one is a no brainer. Are we an encyclopedia, or are we pulp? Unschool 08:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
22. No. This is a no-brainer. These works are discussed in traditional encyclopedias, in books and novels, in popular culture... There is simply no justification for putting spoiler tags on them. --Aquillion 14:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
23. No. --cj | talk 03:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
24. Spoilers are unencyclopedic. Paul August ☎ 05:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
25. No, spoilers warnings are silly and would never appear in any work that takes itself seriously as a scholarly source of information. Also, it is a self-reference, which is always discouraged when possible. nadav (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
26. No. An encyclopedia doesn't warn its readers against learning from it. Shanes 06:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

    So basically, anything that could potentially be a spoiler - be it in the plot section or a character list section, should not be marked a spoiler based on the assumption that the reader will be reading said section knowing that it contains spoillers. The plot section you may have a point about, but nothing you've said can show that a character list willl obviously have spoilers in it, and you cannot show that the readers will know which lists do have them and which do not. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Other

1. Maybe. "Historical" comes closest to the correct distinction, but a better idea is that (as someone suggested in the 'yes' section), a work which is read for pleasure by a good chunk of the readers needs a spoiler warning. This is almost historical, but not *quite* the same; older works like Sherlock Holmes stories may require spoiler warnings when some newer ones don't. It also gets fuzzy when you come to cases like Shakespeare. (Something like Romeo and Juliet, though, should be covered by another rule: you don't need a spoiler warning when most people who read the article can be expected to already know the spoiler.) Ken Arromdee 15:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
   • This is the genuine and reasonable limit: if we're not spoiling the plot, we don't have to warn people; the problem is that it's very difficult, in most cases, to make that decision. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody ever said that writing good Wikipedia articles is easy. But that's not a reason to completely get rid of all spoiler tags for anything more than 2 months old (or a year, or whatever). Ken Arromdee 16:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Poll 2

Should spoiler warnings be placed on articles about fairy tales?

Use spoiler tags

1. Can't think of any where they would be needed, but decision should be made case-by-case, not by category. PaddyLeahy 21:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Agree with PaddyLeahy completely. Stop trying to own every page and let the various page editors decide. NEW fairy tales are written every day.Smatprt 01:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Yes, at editor's discretion, per Smatprt. G1ggy! 00:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Yes: As long as only a summary of the fairy tale is given, there should be a spoiler warning, but I do think it can be omitted if the whole fairy tale is explained in full detail. Q0 05:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't use spoiler tags

1. Farix (Talk) 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
2. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 21:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
3. danielfolsom 21:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
4. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 22:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
5. -- Ned Scott 00:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
   • I'm assuming we're talking about classic fairy tales? -- Ned Scott 01:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
6. David Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 01:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Dlong 01:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
8. Agree not to use sweeping categories for fairy tales, but if someone is researching a fairy tale there's a higher probability they already know the outcome, so spoiler warnings may not be necessary in all cases. Brisvegas 01:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
9. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Regards, High on a tree 02:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
10. Even more embarrassing, although unintentionally hilarious. --Stormie 04:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
11. See my reasoning earlier for the first poll. Johnleemk | Talk 06:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
12. See my reasoning under poll 1 above. Sandstein 07:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
13. No, expect to find the ending when you look up the article about Snow White Garion96 (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
14. Seems kind of obvious that an article about a fairy tale would contain spoilers about it, so the tag is superfluous and ugly. --Cyde Weys 14:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
15. Even more pointless than spoilers on historical articles. If reader doesn't want to know the plot/ending, he shouldn't read the plot section. --Darkbane ^talk 14:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
16. No. It's very unlikely anyone old enough to read Wikipedia would be reading fairy tales for pleasure and care about not knowing the ending in advance, even assuming that they didn't already know it simply because our culture is already full of references to them. Ken Arromdee 15:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
17. No. Just no. J'onn J'onzz 12:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
18. My reasons have already been discussed above — « hippi ippi » 13:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
19. Nope. Jussen 22:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
20. No. --PresN 05:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
21. No, for criminy's sake. Unschool 08:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
22. No. Absurd suggestion. Fairy tales aren't about surprise twist endings. --Aquillion 15:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
23. No. ++ Arx Fortis 16:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
24. No. --cj | talk 03:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
25. Spoilers are unencyclopedic. Paul August ☎ 05:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
26. No, spoilers warnings are silly and would never appear in any work that takes itself seriously as a scholarly source of information. Also, it is a self-reference, which is always discouraged when possible. nadav (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
27. No. An encyclopedia doesn't warn its readers against learning from it. Shanes 06:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Poll 3

Should spoiler warnings be placed in sections titled "Plot", "Plot summary", "Synopses", or any variation thereof?

Use spoiler tags

1. Yes, if relevant. Non-crufty discussion of plots can and often should avoid spoilers, therefore, spoiler warnings should be used if necessary. PaddyLeahy 21:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Yes, if relevant or likely to ruin the story for anyone (not just experts in the subject, but the rest of us)Smatprt 01:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Of course, since not all plot summaries necessarily contain the ending. Brisvegas 01:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Sure, it's only one or two lines after all. — The Storm Surfer 13:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Depends on the situation; a synopsis that goes into detail on the plot twists is probably plotcruft anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Yes. As I've pointed out, plot sections should contain spoiler tags for a consistent user interface. The fact that everyone already knows that a plot section probably contains spoilers is irrelevant. Please don't just count votes on this when many of the people voting "no" don't even address this point. (Besides, a plot section doesn't *always* contain spoilers in the sense of twists.) Ken Arromdee 15:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
7. It depends if it goes into detail on endings or deaths or betrayals or the like. Typically, in my opinion, the plot section should only go into the basics of what the work is about.J'onn J'onzz 12:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
8. My Comment is below... --Armanalp 15:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
9. Yes, per Ken Arromdee's comments concerning use, and The Storm Surfer's comments. What's the big deal, anyway? G1ggy! 00:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
10. Yes. Showing that there are spoilers in the plot section is not their only function. If they end afterward, they signify that the rest of the article is spoiler-free (until the next spoiler tag - we don't need to cram all spoilers under one, because we're under no obligation to only use one.) If they extend to other sections, they signify that those too must be avoided. Kizor 00:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
11. Yes - People might not think about the fact that a "Plot" section might contain spoilers until after it is too late. Even though it might seem obvious, it is only human nature to make mistakes. A spoiler warning helps to avoid the mistakes. I don't think that simply titling a section "Plot" is automatically going to trigger the reader to immediately conclude that the section might contain spoilers. If sections titled "Plot" or "Synopsis" were going to be renamed "Spoilers" or "Plot spoilers" then I would consider spoiler warnings to be irrelavent. Q0 01:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
12. Yes, where appropriate. Not everyone will realize that outcomes may be revealed. Particualrly in cases where suprise, a "twist ending" or unexpected developents are important features of the work, spoiler warnigns may well be approerpite. Also, as mentioned above, a spoiler warning allows for an end-spoiler tag. Decisions should be made on an article-by-aricle basis about whether such tags are approperite, by the involved eidtirs, with discussion on the tallk page, if needed. DES ^(talk) 03:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
13. Yes, This is just a courtesy to readers. --agr 15:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
14. Yes, but in the case of shows with a teaser, the spoiler warning should preferably go after the line about the teaser. That way one can read that line, see the spoiler warning and say, "I don't remember seeing the episode where Kirk and Spock were merged into one being at the beginning, so I'm not going to read any further" or "I remember that episode, I'll read on." Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
15. Yes, this is a courtesy as Arnold said. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 00:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
16. Yes, when the works are reasonably recent, and the 'spoilable' portions are still likely to be new to a large amount of people. By now, no one should be surprised by a shakespeare or dickens twist, but would be surprised by the events of Deathly Hallows for probably two to three months after it is released. There's a limit, because famous twists pervade culture, but for each work, it's different, and the application should be considered in talk page first. ThuranX 01:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't use spoiler tags

1. Patently redundant and crufty Farix (Talk) 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
2. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 21:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
3. danielfolsom 21:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Extraordinarily redundant. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 22:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
5. -- Ned Scott 00:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
6. emphatic 'no' here. It's called plot summary for a reason. David Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 01:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Dlong 01:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
8. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Besides, it is a real insult to readers to treat them as if they were stupid enough to be surprised by information about the plot in a section titled "Plot". Regards, High on a tree 02:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
9. Completely redundant. --Stormie 04:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
10. See my reasoning earlier. The natural caveat, of course, is that WP:IAR exists so this rule can and should be violated if necessary - on a case-by-case basis. I would prefer an option like "Treat them like fair use images; never use spoiler warnings unless you really really really have to", but I'm a bit lazy to make a new option and this option works just as well for me thanks to IAR. Johnleemk | Talk 06:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
11. See my reasoning under poll 1 above. Sandstein 07:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
12. Same reasoning as before, if you go to a article, be prepared to get all the information. Garion96 (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
13. Redundant and ugly. If you're smart enough to read English, you can figure out that, if you don't want to be spoiled, you might not want to read the section header labeled "Plot summary". --Cyde Weys 14:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
14. If a reader does not realize that a section about plot will contain plot details, then we need to ask them to leave the Internet on account of being fucking stupid. I don't think such readers exist in any significant quantity =) --Darkbane ^talk 14:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
15. My reasons have already been discussed above — « hippi ippi » 13:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
16. Nope, the only reason that happens now is when Wikipedia: Spoiler_warnings is cited. We'll need to change this on relevant project pages. Jussen 22:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
17. Simply, no. ++ Arx Fortis 23:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
18. Plot details? In my plot section? It's more likely than you think! --PresN 05:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
19. You know, if we were writing for this project, I might consider it. But to include spoiler tags in Wikipedia is to proclaim every reader of Wikipedia to be a moron. Unschool 08:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
20. No. Plot sections clearly, by their nature, contain the complete plot of the subject, which should also be summarized by a few sentences in the article's lead section. --Aquillion 15:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
21. No. --cj | talk 03:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
22. Spoilers are unencyclopedic. Paul August ☎ 05:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
23. No, spoilers warnings are silly and would never appear in any work that takes itself seriously as a scholarly source of information. Also, it is a self-reference, which is always discouraged when possible. nadav (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
24. No. An encyclopedia doesn't warn its readers against learning from it. Shanes 06:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion.

Spoiler tags violate the Wikipedia policy on disclaimers - and they're redundant. Think about it - if you didn't want to know about a movie (including the plot line) then would you look it up in a paper encyclopedia? No - because a paper encyclopedia would obviously have the ending. Same goes for an online encyclopedia. If they want to know some specific detail, use google, but Wikipedia (and any other encyclopedia) isn't for that. Encyclopedias are for giving out facts about a subject, no disclaimer neccesary.danielfolsom 21:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• In general, I see no reason to use spoiler tags. True spoilers should only be in the synopsis/plot section, and it would be redundant to have such a tag there in the first place. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 22:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Take a "Themes" section. The reader cannot know whether or not such a section has spoilers, and to what extent. A philosophical work about the exploration of space would have this premise on the back cover, and coverage of its themes could be spoilerless. I bought a scifi book on the basis of a rightly non-spoiling theme section this week. For a work about identity that throws in a last-minute twist that turns the entire premise on its head (such as Fight Club), any coverage of themes and subtext, not for "Synopsis", would have to deal with spoilers. Or take "Reception" - if, say, a particularily gory scene is fundamental to the splash caused by a horror movie, it has to be covered under reception, but other works have spoilerless versions of such sections. --Kizor 22:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Alright, perhaps in certain contexts where there needs to be a spoiler in another section, the warning might be merited. But in general, spoiler warnings are meant, for example, to stop the reader from discovering that a certain wizard has killed another certain wizard in the latest Harry Potter, and that simply should not be stated in any section other than the synopsis section. If you find an example of an article that truly merits a spoiler section outside of the synopsis section (where it is redundant anyway), I would like to see it. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 22:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Final Fantasy VII#Legacy for one example off the top of my head. I am illustrating that it is not limited to the plot section, I am not agreeing that it needs a spoiler tag. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 22:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The Fight Club article seems pretty good to me. --Kizor 22:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Finally! I was beginning to fear that we would never have an opportunity to discuss this! --87.189.99.112

• • • • • What is the harm in a little redundancy if it helps someone. Can anyone explain why having the occasional spoiler is actually harmful?Smatprt 01:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not totally against the idea of spoiler warnings, cutting their usage way back seems like a good idea. In the very least I think it's been shown that we don't need such warnings in classical works, or in clearly marked sections. -- Ned Scott 00:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exatcly. People can't complain if they read the synopsis; what do they expect, hidden spoilers? David Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 01:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • I disagree that it has "been shown" this. One man's classical work is another man's new discovery.Smatprt 01:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

While I find a number of arguments against spoiler warnings ridiculous (including the idea that it's okay to spoil fairy tales or classical works because "everybody knows the ending"), I think overall spoiler tags do more harm than good. They force us to structure the article around the tags - people are encouraged to put anything spoilerish between {{spoiler}} and {{endspoiler}} regardless of whether the information would be better off in another section - and I think confining spoilers to just a synopsis section would be just as bad an idea for the same reason. When this is happening, we basically give up writing and comprehensiveness for the sake of avoiding spoilers - an excessive concession that hardly any other encyclopaedia makes (which indicates readers of encyclopaedias do have enough smarts to generally avoid spoiler articles). Johnleemk | Talk 06:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not totally against the idea of plot summaries, cutting their useage way back seems like a good idea. Many editors think that spoiler tags are redundant because they think that the main purpose of articles about works of fiction is to recite the plot. They are wrong. They need to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and take careful note. To me, plot summaries are the least useful parts of such articles; I'm usually looking (vainly) for comments about critical reaction etc. PaddyLeahy 10:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are mischararacterizing here. I'm not aware of any editors who think spoiler tags around Plot sections are redundant "because they think that the main purpose of articles about works of fiction is to recite the plot". Indeed I have seen several users who advocate removing spoiler tags from Plot sections concede that one useful purpose they serve is to draw attention to what is often excessively over-detailed recitation of the plot! Spoiler tags around Plot sections are redundant simply because it is obvious that if the section is labelled "Plot", it will talk about the plot. No more, no less, and certainly no claim that reciting the plot is the primary focus of an article. --Stormie 11:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really a mischaracterization, but more of a reminder for us to be mindful of WP:WAF, just in case we weren't, I think. -- Ned Scott 11:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this section of the discussion. The majority of controversial spoilers seem to be in cases of extensive plot summaries, whic h are against wikipedia policies anyways, (WP isnt' a substitute.) but given that the best articles about works of fiction seem to involve write-ups of the controversies, themes, and reaction, it is inevitable that a truly quality write-up may reveal a major plot twist. Take 6th Sense for example(yes, i'ma give away the seekrit): If the article were to discuss M Night Shyamalan's religious views on the afterlife and how he expresses it through the nature of the twist in the film, it would be quite difficult to do so without mentioning that the main character is himself an unaware ghost. But to eliminate the section to aboid the spoiler would be foolish, and to not include the warning might ruin the surprise for readers who could instead come back after viewing and then read it, reflecting on the themes. A spoiler warning for someone reseraching the film might be a 'flag' to let them consider their approach to their research. Instead of removing the tags, we should instead begin to review them, tough as it may be, and publicize the results to make further discussions on individual pages easier to have. ThuranX 02:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Enough with the polls! By now, hundreds of spoiler tags have been removed from prominent articles. There has been very little opposition and those who have opposed are overwhelmed by those who support. It's done, there is consensus for the current guideline: spoiler tags are to be used only where a strong case can be made that the quality of the article is improved by their presence. That is, hardly ever. --Tony Sidaway 15:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In part because two of the loudest opposers have been off being blocked as a result of the unilateral nonconsentual muttermutter change, and there was no way to infer the presence of this debate from the removal of those spoiler tags... --Kizor 17:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to Ken Arromdee

• plot sections should contain spoiler tags for a consistent user interface.

  Consistent with what?

• The fact that everyone already knows that a plot section probably contains spoilers is irrelevant.

  So you admit that everyone knows, or should know, that a plot section would contain spoilers. But the fact everyone knows and thus renders a spoiler warning redundant is irrelevant? How is avoiding or reducing redundancy irrelevant? This seems more of an, "the facts inconveniently counters my argument, so I'm going to declare the fact irrelevant," line of reasoning.

• Please don't just count votes on this when many of the people voting "no" don't even address this point.

  This is a straw poll to see if there is a rough consensus among editors. If not, the discussion will continue. But if the overwhelming majority is taking one side of the issue over the other, then the straw poll indicates that a consensus has been reached.

• (Besides, a plot section doesn't *always* contain spoilers in the sense of twists.)

  But people still put spoilers warnings even when any aspect of the plot is discussed. --Farix (Talk) 16:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'm simplifying a bit. Most plot sections contain things that some people might call a spoiler. Whether those people are justified, or whether this is close enough to "all" that it should be treated that way, is a separate argument. I don't want to attach a disclaimer to every sentence, so while discussing this I write as if all plot sections contain spoilers even though I know very well that that can be contested.

The argument about the user interface is that it's better for a reader to be able to avoid spoilers by avoiding anything after spoiler tags. If spoiler tags are left out of plot sections, then the user has to avoid spoilers in a more complicated way: by avoiding spoiler tags and plot sections, and anything else whose title indicates that it may contain spoilers. Now, he certainly *can* do this, since he can read the word "plot". But it's bad user interface design to make him do so. Just like the calendar that labels every day of the week even when the user already can deduce the day, we should label every spoiler even when the user can figure out that there's a spoiler there. Ken Arromdee 16:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

How is 20-15 consensus? Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 00:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Protest against premature removal of spoiler warnings

While this discussion has been going on, several editors have been engaged in wholesale removal of spoiler warnings from wikipedia. Moreover, admins on the anti-spoler side have blocked at least two editors who tried to undo this work. One justification offered is that there has been little opposition to this. (Despite topic #PLEASE STOP EDIT WARRING above). Therefore, for the record, I PROTEST. Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way. If not, kindly add your protest here. PaddyLeahy 10:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but go take a look at the actual guideline. That's been changed too. Perhaps you should be protesting that instead. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The presence of (what appears to us etc.) greater injustice prevents us from acting against other injustice? --Kizor 20:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The same should go for those readding the spoiler tags. But frankly, I think this is a good candidate for Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. --Farix (Talk) 12:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that award goes to User: AHEM No personal attacks. courtesy of the ISA. Jussen 22:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Paddy, I should point out that at least one of the IPs above who got blocked was adding spoiler tags to other works, so in this case at least the block was entirely justified. David Fuchs 13:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Strongly agree with PaddyLeahy. Very little maturity or good judgement being displayed on Wikipedia these last few days. The whole affair has certainly damaged the goodwill of many editors towards the project. AndyJones 13:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of these blocks are warranted, by the way. As an anti-siler myself, I still agree that we should not be removing the tags until concensus is reached, which it isn't yet. --—NicholaiDaedalus 14:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus sometimes has to be demonstrated by actual editing. The actual editing performed over the past day or two has shown that there has been excessive centralized discussion and there is in fact very little practical opposition to the removal of the unnecessary and intrusive spoiler tags that follow clearly labelled "Plot" headings and the like. Discussion is important, but so is being bold. --Tony Sidaway 15:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

While myself trying not to remove any given inappropriate spoiler warning more than once, I see that three (so far) of the editors replacing them have been blocked for 3RR, i.e. are hotheads anyway. What I'm finding is that almost all my removals are sticking - that is, that the wider Wikipedia populace really doesn't seem to care, and actually people are nothing like as attached to spoilers on Wikipedia as their advocates here seem to think. I've also yet to hear of complaints from actual aggrieved readers, i.e. the people the spoiler warnings are supposed to be for - David Gerard 16:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You haven't heard complaints because most casual readers didn't know where to complain, or even that there was a discussion (until the spoiler warning was changed), so that argument doesn't fly. I find it very poor behavior on your part to continue removing spoilers while the discussion is still far from resolved. Clarityfiend 17:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

In the last 4 days David Gerard has removed nearly a thousand spoiler tags from articles he has previously shown no interest in whatsoever. The above comment is an absurd attempt to justify the unjustifiable. All you are doing is creating a lot of pointless work for yourselves and for other editors because most of these tags will reappear over time, and rightly so. PaddyLeahy 16:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Will they? Now that the guideline has changed, you might not want to think that so quickly. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The rules were changed later, so he never broke the rules?
Incidentally, I presume Gerard refers to me as one of the blocked editors - I took care not to break 3RR. --Kizor 20:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As you are not one of the blocked users, then it makes no sense at all to presume he referred to you as one. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was. Then I was unblocked, and it would've worn off by this time anyway. --Kizor 22:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There is plainly no consensus for the widespread use of the {{spoiler}} tag. Therefore, including it in articles is shaky at best--it gives the impression that it is official policy, and encourages other users to make the mistake of adding it to articles in turn. While discussion is ongoing, I think it's fair to say that for the vast majority of articles out there, no consensus for the use of spoiler tags is going to emerge in the immediate future. Therefore, we ought to remove them for now; if, in the distant future, a consensus for spoiler tags emerges, it will be easy enough to add them in the places where it is determined to be approprate. --Aquillion 20:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This is self serving logic. Until a consensus has been reached, the tags should neither be added nor removed, because either action implies a decision has been made. And if Gerard wants to hear a complaint from a casual reader about the removal of spoiler tags, this is mine - without the spoiler tag in place, who is to know where to come to debate the issue? Again, self serving logic that gives no weight to the fact that no consensus has been reached, one way or the other. No action should be taken either for or against the matter until that consensus is reached. 60.241.179.28 07:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What. The. Fuck.

I wrote about this subject politely and in great detail in a previous wiki-process of some sort (which I can't find again) like a year ago. This clearly is an issue which won't go away, as an unwelcome link in an article so helpfully informed me.

If you don't warn readers, most of whom don't know about and couldn't give a sweet fuck about "process", what they might find in a top-10 Google hit, than you're pissing off people USING, rather than EDITING, this "encyclopedia". Do you honestly believe this project should be for the wankers worrying about edit-count and adminship rather than the tens of thousands who don't care who can edit the wikipedia, just want to read it?

Seriously, anyone blathering on some principle saying warning people about spoilers is contrary to some imaginary principle of wikidogma should see their family die in a hotel fire, let alone be taken seriously in yet another masturbatory exercise in displaying their keen insight into what an encyclopedia should be. dharmabum 12:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I have a hard time believing you could write about this subject "politely" - but how many people, who as you said, find something in google, would be looking up the "Special Effects" section? A) People go to these pages for the plot, B) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - and last I checked Webster's didn't have a 'spoiler warning'danielfolsom 12:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

a) Webster's is a dictionary, genius. b) Just ignore the swearing and hyperbole. He's right. This is not a paper encylcopedia, this is the Internet. Certain other assumptions have to be taken into account - like the fact that people may have got here via Google wanting to find out certain information about a work other than the plot, and would not appreciate having said plot ruined for them just because someone thinks that placing friendly one-line disclaimers delinating it from the rest of the article doesn't fit with his idea of what an encylopedia should do. Ultimately, you have to ask yourself this question: is Wikipedia for the readers or isn't it? If you couldn't care less about the convenience of the people using the encylopedia, well, then you carry on doing what you're doing, removing helpful templates because "WEBSTERS DOESN'T DO IT HARGUGAGHLGHBLAH" and basically turning it from an encyclopedia into an enormous metaphysical circlejerk. Applemask 13:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

As someone who works on a scholarly journal that is published online, I am frankly insulted to hear the idea that anything that's on the Internet needs to conform to the social etiquette of a Buffy fanforum. Encyclopedia Britannica and Encarta have Internet versions. They still don't use spoiler warnings. We're an encyclopedia that happens to be online, not a website that happens to be an encyclopedia. Phil Sandifer 15:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Which means you have to take other factors, such as search engines, into account. Besides, even if I was to accept your ludicrous proposal that if Encarta jumped off a cliff etc, Encarta doesn't cover things that could be spoiled. Wikipedia does. If the former did too, they probably would use spoiler warnings, just like all other resources on similar subjects already do. Why? Because it's polite. Because it's sensible. Because they're not stupid. Because they won't put their own pretensions of being a wieghty historical resource above the convenience of their readers, and/or the ability to cover ground such as television shows, movies, comics etc in any sort of depth without the risk of pointlessly angering said readers. Removing spoiler warnings would be a travesty of the Wikipedia concept and would probably cause a mass exodus to Citizendium to boot. Applemask 16:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you, as someone who has worked on a web version of a print encyclopedia, as someone who is an active scholar in popular culture (which can be spoiled), as someone who works on an online journal of comics studies, and as a teacher of composition on the university level that no respectable project with any serious oversight from a remotely scholarly source would use spoiler warnings. It is simply ridiculous to assert that Encarta, Britannica, or any serious reference work that leaves editorial decisions up to people with actual qualifications would ever utilize spoiler warnings. Phil Sandifer 17:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

They probably wouldn't utilize spoilers at all. We're talking about basic politeness here, not whether or not Wikipedia is a history textbook. Which, by the way, it isn't. It's a source of information on a broad variety of topics, but we can't treat it like a University text, because the users, on the whole, probably won't. Again, this is about nothing but basic consideration for the people who actually use this thing. Applemask 19:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[ARGH EDIT CONFLICT!] Please be polite. Even if you're fustrated. I think that it will be the reader's fault, if they get annoyed when they get spoiled. We exist to inform, and shouldn't have to think about what the audience wants to read. That's not the point. Wikipedia *is* an encyclopedia, after all. Encyclopedias give factual information. They don't tell you when you're gonna be spoiled or not. But one can argue that Wikipedia is no ordinary encyclopedia, with all the fan content around, such as massive articles on tv shows and music releases etc, but that's another argument. — « hippi ippi » 12:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, of course, it's the READERS' fault for reading the massive enjoyment-ruining blob in the middle of the article. Not Wikipedia's fault for not having the common decency and civility to warn them just in case they haven't seen, or read or whatever, the subject under discussion but still want to find out certain things about it. Silly me, thinking that people could be at all interested in a film, book, comic or TV show they haven't actually seen or read all the way through yet. Applemask 13:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, but of course. I stand by what I have said. Bottom line: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that exists to only inform. We, as editors and writers, also exist to inform. We shouldn't need to think about what the audience wants to read, except for a good quality article, that again, achieves the purpose of informing the reader. — « hippi ippi » 11:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't a spoiler warning considered informative?--agr 13:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A spoiler warning (or any warning) is informative in as much as it is meta information, telling the reader something about what the article contains. What people are arguing here (among many things) is that warning readers that an encyclopedia contains information, even very detailed information, is redundant and contradictory to what an encyclopedia should contain: Information on the very subject they look up in an as clear and encyclopedic style as possible. For this reason we don't use warning tags when an article containins explicit images that many people find extremely offensive, scientific facts that contradicts the Bible, religious testimonies that science don't explain, pictures of the Prophet, offensive words, and all the wikipedia content that is even punishable by death to distribute in some countries. We don't warn about any of this with tags in the articles, even if some of it, quite frankly, is much more worth warning about than some plot detail in a work of fiction. Instead of using warnings everywhere where some people might get offended or learn facts they weren't prepared to take in, we simply state in the general disclaimer that Wikipedia contains spoilers and content you might find objectionable, and we have agreed upon to not use disclaimer templates. Not even in articles on medicine or law, where the risk of the content causing real damage to someone is much higher than when we reveal the ending of a movie. We don't warn. We inform. Shanes 15:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, it doesn't help your cause when you insult others like that. "Masterbatory excersize" or not, you almost prove the point you're arguing against -- the point of Wikipedia is to be the best encyclopedia it can be, for the sake of people who want to use an encylopedia. It has been said time and again on this page why (many of us think, at least) much of the time the warnings are aginst that goal. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 14:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Such incivil comments are not tolerated on Wikipedia. Such incivility can result in blocks. You need to calm down and treat the debate seriously; otherwise, you'll fine that the anti-spoiler users won't be the only ones who are not "taken seriously in yet another masturbatory exercise in displaying their keen insight into what an encyclopedia should be". The same goes to Applemask, whose comments like "Webster is a dictionary, genius" and "enormous metaphysical circlejerk" belong on GameFAQs forums, not Wikipedia RfCs. Until the level of maturity in this thread is raised a few notches, I will not respond to the points mentioned. — Deckiller 15:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I am treating the debate seriously. Removing spoiler warnings would be a betrayal of the whole concept of Wikipedia, assuming that the point of Wikipedia was always the readers of the encyclopedia and not the writers. I mean, if I've got it wrong and the people behind this wiki never actually did care about the convenience of the people using it, then there it is. Applemask 16:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Also I don't know if you've seen GameFAQs forums. I have the advantage over those guys at least by virtue of my ability to write in more or less cogent sentences. Applemask 22:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Removing spoiler warnings would be a betrayal of the whole concept of Wikipedia, assuming that the point of Wikipedia was always the readers of the encyclopedia and not the writers" - that first part it kinda funny, because you obviously don't know the convept of wikipedia since you have to say "assuming [the concept is]" later. I happen to know the concept of Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia - and the point of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia. Spoiler warnings are unencyclopedic, and violate Wikipedia' guidelines per WP:NDT's first reason here (B/c they're redundant) and Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer.danielfolsom 22:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia, yes, is an encyclopedia. A user-edited, continually evolving encyclopedia. It seems your opinion is that it should, despite those obvious off-the-bat differences, be as staid and limiting as print encyclopedias, who are bound with concerns about publishing costs and volume length. It makes me so sad that such short-sightedness is wrecking the most useful thing ever put onto the internet. dharmabum 07:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

So Wikipedia isn't for the people who use it. The readers are in fact less important than some arbitrary rules, and their convenience can be sacrificed for the status of the Wiki. Because as we all know it's "unencyclopedic" to give a damn about the people actually reading the encyclopedia, and all encylopediae ever published show basic and nonchalant contempt for their own readership. Applemask 12:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for the people who wish to use it as an encyclopedia. It is not for the people who wish to use it as a source for movie reviews or what have you. --Stormie 13:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, he is not advocating Wikipedia as a source for movie reviews or what have you. He is advocating that readers can use Wikipedia as a general encyclopedia on the topic of fiction, and as a specialized encyclopedia on the topic of fiction. That is what we they can do with spoiler tags, and cannot do without. In doing so he does not advocate adding any kind of content, such as movie reviews. He considers sacrificing this ability to be detrimental for Wikipedia's readership. --Kizor 13:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, in some ways apple whatever is right - but I actually happen to have this - so I'm right too. Granted I realize that Webster's is better known for its dictionary, so I probably should have used another example.danielfolsom 15:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

ACtually now that I look closer - that's a lie - I don't have that exact version.danielfolsom 15:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[to dharmabum]Wanker, am I? How about some WP:NPA? Anyway, is it too much to ask for the readers to treat Wikipedia as an encyclopedia instead of some cesspool of the internet? Are we imposing too much on them by being an encyclopedia rather than everyforum.com? Axem Titanium 15:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I dont look at game movie pages for the plot, I generaly use them for the criticisim and praise junk. Don't assume people only visit movies/game pages for the plot. --Armanalp 15:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • And criticism, at least of the scholarly sort, is not going to give you a spoiler warning. There are no spoiler warnings in any journal of film studies that I have ever read. We probably shouldn't introduce spoiler warnings when we recount the content of those journals. Phil Sandifer 15:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Responsible publications and critics avoid spoiler warnings as a matter of courtesy to their readers. People studying film studies accept that they will be spoiled about many plots as a trade-off for studying far more films for core content than viewing each of those films will allow. People who come here are not necessarily film students. Professional critical standards do not take into account the kind of internet user who likes to flip to the last page of latest Harry Potter novel and post a spoiler in their blog just to piss everyone off. Such people are not exactly the norm on Wikipedia, but they have the same freedom to edit that we all do, and it is partially against them the spoiler warning mitigates. dharmabum 07:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"We ... shouldn't have to think about what the audience wants to read." That's ridiculous. Wikipedia provides a service, so it is unreasonable not to even consider what the people it provides a service to might actually want. Anyway, the omission of spoiler warnings causes much more inconvenience and trouble to the people who want spoiler warnings than their inclusion causes to those who don't want them. A spoiler warning takes up one little line in an article and is easily ignored. A spoiler without a warning can upset people and cause them to stop using this site. Surely the balance weighs in favour of keeping them? As for what other online encyclopedia such as Encarta do, I'm not sure that's helpful, because one can simply argue that Encarta should copy us rather than the other way around. Just because others haven't yet caught up with Internet etiquette doesn't mean that we shouldn't either. Richard75 16:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Dharmabum, Wikipedia is not an ivory tower. You are welcome to bring forth persuasive arguments in a constructive manner, rather than throwing a bunch of random insults around in frustration, in the process severely embarrassing the people who support your opinion. --Darkbane ^talk 16:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A fourth spoiler fan just got blocked for 3RR. Pro-spoiler fans appear to be hotheads with trouble editing with continence - David Gerard 17:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not generalize please. Although I are being pushed to hotheadedness by your behavior, so it may be a self-fulfilling prophesy. Seriously, you're an admin? Clarityfiend 17:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And former arbitrator, and one of Wikipedia's major press contacts in the UK. Perhaps your expectations are misguided? Phil Sandifer 19:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you expected. When tough things need to get done, fake platitudes go right out the window. You ever seen heated back-room company negotiations?! This is a sheep pile in comparison. --Cyde Weys 21:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually, with qualifications, apologize for my foul language, even though I do not disapprove of profanity and am a firm believer in using the whole scope of the English language. I have a typical Irish temper. It does sometimes cause some people to not take me seriously, and while I do not want to embarass those who support my position, I do not apologize for my position. It takes a pretty silly argument to drive me to that level of frustration. Part of that frustration was caused by having problems finding my well-reasoned, profanity-free argument for spoiler warnings nearly a year ago in a current crusade against them, causing me to question the point of being reasonable and level-headed in regards to this issue. dharmabum 07:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers in Images

If a consensus is reached, and the spoiler tag deleted, does this mean we can upload images that contain spoilers? I know that the tag has, really, got nothing to do with images, but it may give some people reason to upload spoiler images. But then, I suppose fans will take down spoiler images anyway. — hippi ippi 12:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at Final Fantasy VII for an example of a major spoiler with an image -- and it was a Today's Featured Article, at that. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the Final Fantasy WikiProject is anti-spoilertags, so we've enjoyed a level of freedom and expression that other projects discourage. I think it's helped us in our approach to our articles, which has yielded success. — Deckiller 16:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

We have always been allowed to do that. Why shouldn't we have been? --Kizor 18:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you look at Lost and Heroes pages, fans will take down images that contain spoilers. They don't like them. See Talk:The Man from Tallahassee#The picture... a spoiler? for a short discussion - it led to the deletion of the original image — hippi ippi 11:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is relevant here, but there are fair use concerns with including non-free images that give away important parts of a work. For instance if a player can normally only expect to find a certain scene by playing the game and achieving a level of skill, it's more difficult to argue that including an image of that scene in a Wikipedia article would be justifiable as fair use of the copyright owner's material, because it competes with the copyright holder's use of that material. --Tony Sidaway 11:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Aww, not again!

I just stumbled on this discussion and I'm not at all happy to see it. Once again the same flawed arguments are being churned out, and this time it looks as though spoiler warnings are on their way out. Having works spoiled for me makes me feel literally ill, but I really can't be bothered to go through this discussion over; anyone who can be bothered to see my view should read the previous discussion of this topic. I have no intention of actually becoming involved in this discussion, because I simply don't have the time or the energy to argue this point. But I am sad to see that spoiler warnings are on the way out. They did have a functional purpose, I liked them, they were never a problem, and anyone who stumbles on Wikipedia by accident is unlikely to read the disclaimer or policies. I think once the warnings are gone, I'm going to be using this site a lot less often, as it seems spoilers are everywhere. There are thousands of stories that I have never read, and once they have been spoilt for me I never will read them. I don't want to come across an unmarked spoiler outside a plot section, but since it looks like I'm in the minority, au revoir. RobbieG 14:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope you won't leave the discussion, as your perspective as a long-time occasional editor is valuable here. I'm genuinely curious what, as someone who feels very strongly about being warned about spoilers, you think about the following:

• Cases where spoilers need to be disclosed in the lead to write a comprehensive or NPOV article (The Crying Game, Sue Dibny, Valen)
• Spoilers on old or classic texts (Romeo and Juliet, The Illiad)
• Spoilers on articles totally unrelated to fiction (Trivia sections on Wembley Stadium, Voyager 2, or 2005).

Thanks. Phil Sandifer 15:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have similiar views to RobbieG so I will give you my views

For (The Crying Game, Sue Dibny, Valen) I believe a spoiler warning should be given at the top since as you say it would be difficult to write a comprehensive or NPOV article .

I am in two minds about spoilers on old or classic texts as the spoilers in them are more than likely in popular culture but I would lean towards a spoiler warning for the occasional person who somehow doesn't know the spoiler and especially on lesser known texts .

I can't offhand see any justification for a spoiler warning on articles totally unrelated to fiction Garda40 16:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I actually can't take an active part in this discussion, as I'm far too busy with other (non-Wikipedian) projects at the moment, but since you specifically asked for my view:

• I think that spoilers themselves should always be disclosed. I can think of only one possible exception, which is cases where the spoilers in question do not meet the notability guidelines anyway. Apart from that, rather tenuous exception, I think relevant spoilers should be included without reservation, regardless of whether the article in question is about a fictional topic. Obviously, I think we should avoid including spoilers in lead sections if at all possible (for example, I'm not totally sure whether even the examples you provide justify the plot twists that are revealed in their lead sections), but, where necessary, of course we should include the spoilers. However, I feel, as a courtesy, it would be reasonable to include spoiler tags around said spoilers.
• I think for neutrality reasons, spoilers in old or "classic" texts ought to still be tagged. I don't think that the tags are a violation of the NPOV policy so long as they are applied consistantly. I have genuinely been entertained by the plots of classic texts such as Othello, The Canterbury Tales, Bleak House and even Alice's Adventures in Wonderland! I feel that spoiling such stories does reduce many people's enjoyments of the works, as they may be read in the same manner as one can read a modern text.
• I can see no reason to include these tags in articles that are wholly unrelated to a fictional work. However, as noted above, I can quite easily envisage a situation where a discussion of a non-fiction subject might need to mention a spoiler for a fictional work. In those cases, I think spoiler tags are a good idea. I don't think they are needed in other circumstances e.g. history (after all, I don't suppose anybody is concerned about having the events of the year 2005 spoilt for them, since that year is past and gone so they can never experience it first-hand anyway). On the other hand, I would consider - as a compromise - a tag at the top of all articles stating something along the lines of "Wikipedia may contain spoilers for fictional works", the existing disclaimer being small and seldom read. I still think the current tags are preferable to that, but other people may have different views.

Thank you for your time reading my views. Happy discussions :) RobbieG 19:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

MY COMMENT

Honestly how many READERS do you think read disclaimers? I've more than once read something i wished i didn't (B4 I became an editor). I accept than they shouldn't be used too much, but I think they should be kept

For Example I read articles more copmfortably when I know I wont accidenally read a spoiler while examining other stuff 'bout it (critical reception, Intro etc.).

I agree how ever that no non-fictional artical what so ever should have spoiler tags.

Also spoilers that are easily guesses (Such as the My Brother Sam is Dead, Around the World in 80 Days, Halo: The Fall of Reach etc.) shouldn't be tagged. Also stuff like The Crying Game where it is nessesary for a good lead.

I dont see how it violates NPOV...

For those with the paper encylopedia arguement: WP:PAPER (yes I am aware that it is about something else but it can also be used here, Wikipedia is not your average encylopedia, which is a good thing. Why do you what to make it less usefull for those looking for things about a movie other than spoilers?)

For those with the google arguement: Google hits often also have hidden spoilers, and unlike wikipedia, don't have the decency to mark 'em.

I agree with this proposal btw:

Spoiler guidelines strengthened for NPOV

I would like to comment that my intrest in wikipedia will be shaken if spoiler warnings are deleted.

Armanalp 15:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Why? You already know that Wikipedia contains spoilers, so it shouldn't really change anything for editors. Losing a debate is not a reason to lose interest; otherwise, none of us would be here. — Deckiller 16:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Because up to this point I go to the wikipedia page for a tv series or movie I've never heard of before, and I am confident that I can read a *bit* about what it is, without having it spoiled for me! The spoiler warning tells me exactly where to stop if it's something I'm very very interested in seeing someday.

If you remove spoiler warnings completely - I will HAVE TO stop using wikipedia for a HUGE range of useful queries.

Although I completely understand why the "editors"* want to remove spoiler warnings - I think the USERS would desperately like to keep them. Remember that whatever you build here may very well last for hundreds and hundreds of years - and will/could be used by people to "look up" information on a HUGE range of historical media/fiction and content BEFORE they choose to watch/read it. If the first paragraph of every article completely spoils the endings for all media/fiction, wikipedia stops being USEFUL and becomes a dusty storehouse of information** people don't dare use "or else".

PS: I noticed that the spoiler warnings were much reduced in size and almost not-noticable sometime in the past week or so, but it's only today that I saw the link to this massive discussion. Are you telling me the admins went and argued about this and made a decision without consulting the people who USE AND READ wikipedia?

This is one case where the desires of the people who create the content and the people who use the content might very well be diametrically opposed. Be aware

(*) The people who are geared up about creating content and creating an encyclopedia, and are now geared up to prove just how great an "encyclopedia" can be created in this way.

(**) For the articles about media/fictional works.

CraigWyllie 17:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This is what the table of contents is for. Why not just click on the next section down from plot then? Or click the link that says critical review if you desire a review, this would avoid spoilers without a warning, and you wouldn't have to scroll through the plot section. Readers don't have to look at the plot section if they don't want to. Whether the plot section contains a spoiler warning or not, most people would avoid it, even if they didn't know it contained spoilers. After reading one or realizing that it contained the whole plot in depth, logically they would stop reading it before they completely spoiled themselves or read the ending. DarthGriz98 02:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Armanalp for the reasons given, and would also like to add that the so-called "common sense" deduction that plot summaries should obviously have spoilers is as logical as assuming that anyone should understand how to use a computer. You cannot say it is common sense that the plot summary should necessarily have spoilers without having read the customs and policies of wikipedia. (which many readers obviously do not read) What goes in a given section is arbitrary as are the vast majority of definitions. You cannot expect other people to have the same "logical" conclusion as you, nor can you assume that their intelligence is on a level that they would for some reason be insulted by seeing something redundant.Ziiv 19:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings

Saw this discussion linked to on a spoiler warning. Good idea, whoever did that. Having any spoiler warnings on an encyclopedia is retarded. If you do not want to know salient plot points, don't seek out an encyclopedia article on the topic. If the concept of an encyclopedia is too hard to understand, then you should not be allowed to use a computer. That is all. 195.189.142.201 16:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What if you're looking for other information on the subject and are prepared to steer away from the clearly delinated spoiler areas? Because people do that as well, you know. Applemask 16:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Quoting: "If the concept of an encyclopedia is too hard to understand, then you should not be allowed to use a computer.".

I'm sorry but this is just an argumentum ad hominem. You have no method of justifying this comment, nor enforcing it. Many people who don't know how to use an encyclopaedia can use a computer - ICT is a key part of the UK curriculm, the functions and purpose of an encyclopaedia isn't (which might explain the need for WP:NOT.

Anyhow, many people don't look at the link before they click on it. I agree that spoilers should be used with consideration, but think there is a place for the lowly warning. Wikipedia is not an hard-copy encyclopedia at any rate. It is a living edition. This said, spoiler warnings have a place in the web edition of WP. In a hard-copy encyclopedia, the `user` is aware of the potential for spoiling the plot as they can have some idea of the purchase date. WP doesn't have a purchase (update date) which is marked for each article. Philipwhiuk 19:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

As I predicted at the outset, the bulk of the arguments for spoiler tags are arguments made by friends of readers, who decide on their behalf that they're too stupid to understand that a section marked "plot" in an encyclopedia article about a fictional work will contain details of the plot. This isn't a good argument, in fact it's very poor one. --Tony Sidaway 19:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I already pointed out that plot sections need spoiler tags for a consistent user interface. We don't say that putting "Tuesday" on a calendar is for readers "too stupid to understand that the day after Monday has to be Tuesday". The reader could easily figure it out if we omitted it, but we don't, because it's better to make things consistent.

You're also ignoring that not every plot element is a spoiler. The spoiler may be at the end of the plot section in which case we should only put the spoiler warning at the end of the plot section.

And on the other hand, it may be necessary to use a spoiler earlier in the article, in which case the spoiler warning may appear even before the plot section. Ken Arromdee 14:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A more radical approach

Here's a more radical approach to things: rather than making a template that "might offend readers" through some extravagant manner which I still cannot comprehend, we simply make it more obvious that Wikipedia is uncensored. Believe it or not, the average passerby and newcomer will not click on the Disclaimer link at the bottom of the page. Frankly, I didn't even know it was there until a few months after I signed up.

So, rather than a template saying that an article may contain spoilers, offensive content, depictions of nudity, and so forth, we put it on every page. But not through a template. Instead, we (and this is where the "radical" part fits in) propose to whoever up there has the power to do so to add a little line at the top of the article. Essentially...

Page Name
-----------------------
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Disclaimer: To attain maximum encyclopedic efficiency, articles may
contain spoilers or potentially offensive content where deemed necessary.

Again, probably not in those exact words, and maybe not even in that exact spot. This note can go on the main page as well. This isn't so much about "protecting" people from spoilers any more. This is now along the lines of making Wikipedia's censorship policy better known. You can't really miss what's at the top of the page. As noted several times, this is a more radical approach, and I can imagine that even those who argued pro-spoiler warning might attack this idea. I'll welcome all arguments, but please do not argue solely from resistance to change. Regards, You Can't See Me! 04:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

While this might be going a bit too far, I wouldn't mind seeing Wikipedia's disclaimers displayed a little more prominently. Perhaps a link to the disclaimers page near the top of the Main Page? Axem Titanium 04:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea a lot, actually. --Masamage ♫ 04:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The point of the spoiler warning is not just to tell people there are spoilers, but to tell them that while still letting them read as much of the article as possible. Otherwise we could put a single spoiler warning on all of Wikipedia saying "Wikipedia contains spoilers", which some people are suggesting, but which defies the purpose of spoiler warnings.

A spoiler warning shouldn't go at the very top of the article unless the spoilers actually are near the top. The Crying Game, therefore, might need a spoiler warning at the top, since it's hard to meaningfully discuss it without giving the spoiler immediately; however, if an episode of a TV series has a surprise death near the end, and the spoiler is only mentioned in the plot section, the spoiler warning should be given further down--either just before the plot section, or even inside the plot section and just before the end.

I'm a little bit fearful that making spoiler warnings less useful by always putting them at the top can be one step towards removing them entirely--once they're made less useful, it's harder to justify keeping them. Ken Arromdee 14:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added this topic to Wikipedia talk:No disclaimer templates‎, for future reference. You Can't See Me! 02:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This is silly

Can we at least agree that spoiler warnings do not belong in articles on non-fiction books? (Although I suppose it could be argued that calling a book by David Brock nonfiction could be assuming a great deal.) More evidence that these things are stupid and vastly overused. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It shows that they can be overused, I grant you that. Their overuse says nothing about their use, and I believe that the latter is far more significant and far less discussed. Debate here has focused on extreme cases - fairy tales, Shakespearian plays - ordinary works such as contemporary mystery novels have only been brought up once or twice, and then with the response of, quote, "Sucks for them." --Kizor 18:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If they are permitted the tendency to overuse is unavoidable, as the poll above on including spoiler warnings in Hamlet (Hamlet!?!) shows. There has been extensive rebuttal of your last point. Uncle G's discussion is especially persuasive. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I found it a good argument for the use of spoiler tags. The various counterarguments in Uncle G's discussion look better than the various arguments, but considering that some of them are mine, I would of course think that... --Kizor 18:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence in WP:5P is relevant here: Wikipedia is a combination of a general encyclopedia, specialized encyclopedias and an almanac. None of these contain spoiler warnings, even though some of them cover the plots of fictional works. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me as odd that "other encyclopedias don't do it, therefore, we shouldn't either" is not covered by WP:ATA. After all, it is not even a valid argument form. Yet most of the arguments against spoiler tags have been of exactly this form. Curious. (My apologies for the insertion of philosophical questions into this otherwise wonderful slug-fest.) Postmodern Beatnik 20:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And for the record, I do agree with ObiterDicta that spoiler warnings do not belong in articles on non-fictional subjects. Indeed, it is difficult to see how such things can be "spoiled." I suppose that there may be those who are unaware that the North wins the American Civil War, but surely it is not a matter of great suspense. I suppose an argument could be made that one can spoil, say, a soccer match by revealing the outcome early on in the article, but a match would have to be rather famous to warrant an article (and thus the outcome is likely to be common knowledge). Postmodern Beatnik 20:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Why I think spoiler warnings should be used

Ok, I only had the time to read the first arguements at the top of this page. There is no way anyone is going to make me read the entire debate here! Anyway, I started a new section...

An encyclopedia is, according to http://dictionary.reference.com , a "a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject." Never in Encyclopedia Britannica or World Book have I seen plots placed in articles about movies. In fact, I haven't seen any movie articles in these popular encyclopedias. This is why Wikipedia is unique. Our encyclopedia has gone beyond the scope of the average encyclopedia in terms of topics. What does this have to do with a spoiler debate, you ask? The average reader does not expect to see a detailed summary of a film in an encyclopedia, even if the section is marked "Plot". Nobody expects to find such information in an encyclopedia. This is why spoiler warnings are important.

Regarding the issues of placement within the article or disrupting the flow of a paragraph, why don't we just put a little icon on the top right corner of the page, like the protected and featured content tags? It would adequately warn a reader about spoilers, while the flow of the article is maitained.

What's wrong with putting spoiler warnings on Shakespeare's works and other popular literary pieces? I've only read two of Shakespeare's works (Romeo and Juliet and Julius Caesar), and knowing what's going to happen in the end reduces the excitement and suspense in the play. Now the Bible might be going too far, but IDK.--Ed 18:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Does not knowing that Julius Caesar will be assassinated by the conspirators including his son-on-law and his best friend in the senate really play any part on one's enjoyment of Julius Caesar? As for Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare himself inserted the most enormous possible "plot spoiler" into the prologue of the play:

From forth the fatal loins of these two foes

A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life;

Whose misadventured piteous overthrows

Do with their death bury their parents' strife.

If you watch the play, these lines are in the first speech you hear when the curtain goes up. --Tony Sidaway 19:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And Romeo's slaying of Tybalt, the banishment, Mercurio's death, the straying messenger, the twin suicides, the monk Lawrence's plan and the balcony scene? --Kizor 20:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, he doesn't go into a tremendous amount of detail, but he definitely gives the ending away. --Tony Sidaway 21:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And leaves in every single other plot twist. Anyway, Shakespeare and fairy tales are extreme examples, what about less popular or contemporary works? --Kizor 22:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Does not knowing that Julius Caesar will be assassinated by the conspirators including his son-on-law and his best friend in the senate really play any part on one's enjoyment of Julius Caesar?

Yes ,it does because if you have no knowledge of the historical incident upon which the play is based knowing that the title character dies and further that his son in law and best friend help kill him means that you watch the play in an entirely different manner eg keeping a watch for those characters or a particular location only.

I know that I have watched movies looking out for particular incidents,people etc when I have known the spoiler for that movie .Garda40 20:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Those are very good points. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Nor does it have an obligation to protect imbeciles from their inability to understand that a section marked "Plot" will discuss the plot. We should not be putting redundant warnings into the body of articles. --Tony Sidaway 21:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

But what of sections that are not marked "Plot?" Have a look at Naruto Uzumaki's article. Nowhere on that article is there a section devoted to plot synopsis because of a recent attempt to cut down on plot summaries on Naruto character pages. If you read through the article, notice that there are in fact bits and pieces of spoilers all over the place, whether they be in his personality section, his abilities section, etc. While a lot of articles keep their spoilers all under one "Plot Synopsis" header, a lot of others do not. If a museum has a new exhibit, but it doesn't have a banner, the least it can do is get a doorman to notify visitors as they enter. The same applies here. You Can't See Me! 21:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article states explicitly that Naruto is a fictional character. It follows that the entire article will contain descriptions that come directly from the fictional works in which the character appears. Reading the article after the first sentence, if you actively want not to be told about the character, would require a degree of denseness that it would not be reasonable to assume in our readers. --Tony Sidaway 22:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Abilities and personality, the stuff that should be on a character article rather than plot summary, are not spoilers on their own. The problem is, they might (and often do) contain spoilers. If a person wanted to find out what Naruto's primary abilities are, he'd also run into the fact that he was tutored by Jiraiya, fights with Sasuke, and goes through all this other fun stuff; for all we know, he might have just wanted a simple description of the attacks, like the contents of the technique list. However intelligent the human race may be, we as a species - including myself and yours - are prone to moments of stupidity and denseness. You Can't See Me! 22:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Further, he has no way of knowing whether it's an in-depth description, with spoilers, or a superficial one without. He can make an informed decision to be spoiled or not be spoiled if spoiler warnings are used consistently, but not in any other case. --Kizor 22:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PAPER doesn't mean what you think it means. WP:NOT#PAPER states that because Wikipedia is not bound by the constraints of a paper-based publication, therefore, there are no limits to the amount of subjects that Wikipedia covers nor is there a limit on the depth of with the subject is covered. --Farix (Talk) 21:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

To User:Ed, I'd like to direct you to Uncle G's arguments. Britannica is a general use encyclopedia that doesn't include movie articles but there are plenty of more focused encyclopedias that document movies/recent books/video games/whatever, most (and I believe all) of which do not include spoiler warnings simply because they are unprofessional and redundant. They realize that their readers read for the express purpose of learning about that topic so they don't condescend or coddle them with such warnings. Axem Titanium 22:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that arguement, but Uncle G's arguements refer to specialized encyclopedias that are specially made to discuss works of fiction, etc. Such encyclopedias focus on one topic. On the other hand, Wikipedia does not focus on one topic, nor does it's name (Wikipedia) imply an association with a certain topic. Now, if its name was "Moviepedia", then one would safely assume that its articles would contain spoilers. The point is: Nobody expect's to find spoilers on Wikipedia!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow

Just clicked on a link from a page that had a spoiler warning and I don't see the fuss you people re talking about. Thereisnowhy 20:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Yes or No?

I think spoiler warnings are a must, this is a site that gives information and too much information can spoil it for somebody. --Jennica 20:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have trouble taking seriously suggestions that we need to be cautious about giving too much information. Phil Sandifer 20:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

As have I, but I did not read that as a suggestion to remove or not include information, but to mark a specific kind of it. With spoiler warnings, we can give as much information as we want, and readers can choose not to receive some of it if they consider it to be too much. --Kizor 20:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is fine, but I've yet to see a good explanation for why we should mark spoilers but not information that people kill each other over. Phil Sandifer 20:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's also been remarked that we're presently mainly removing redundant warnings after clearly marked plot summary sections. There are very few objections to this, and a very tiny number of people revert. --Tony Sidaway 21:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I stopped reverting The Life of Brian was because I realised something was going on,found the discussion and more to the point noticed that scalps were being counted on banning people for 3R.

Nothing to do with whether spoiler warnings are good or bad just the fact that I didn't want to get banned .Garda40 21:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

So the fact that you chose not to edit war had nothing to do with the fact that your two edits to restore the tags were reverted by two separate editors? --Tony Sidaway 21:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, 'cos people are forced to compulsively edit-war until they get blocked. Ya rly. My new mind control powers are unstoppable - David Gerard 23:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No,because I have seen in the past bad edits repeated by a second editor ,in good faith, until it was pointed out to the second editor that the original edit was wrong.All the second editor did was make me check further and then I noticed the scalp counting .Garda40 22:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Confused

So are we keeping spoiler warnings for certain uses, such as for character lists, etc.? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Character lists would be one of those areas where the presents of spoilers would be obvious. We really should give the reader more credit for being a rational human being. --Farix (Talk) 21:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The readers aren't stupid. But we create articles that looks like they target complete morons. For instance we use huge boxes at the beginning of every article on years in the future, explaining to our seemingly clueless readers that a year like 2031 indeed is in the future and that we don't know every thing that will happen that year yet. If we treat our readers like idiots, we end up looking like idiots ourselves. Instead we should trust the readers to know basic things like a plot section containing information on the plot, or that an article on a fictional character will contain information about that character, what is written about him and what happens in the work of fiction where he is a character. Shanes 21:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen many lists of characters that include spoilers, and many that are simply a short coverage of them. To say that one should expect spoilers no matter what in a list of characters when there are many lists where a spoiler tag wouldn't apply is completely wrong. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete it already!

Since the recent mass-deletion and susequent revert-warring (you know who you are) of the {{spoiler}} template has pretty much caused it to loose its credibility and therefor rendered it completely useless, my advice is to put it up for deletion. If someone wants mark a section as a spoiler, my advice is to do so by hand:

This section may contain spoilers.

No warning, just plain and simple message. Again, the template, and the pages it occupies, are a warzone now and therefor completely rendered useless. Delete it. It doesn't save that much typing anyway. --Edokter 21:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't put redundant messages into articles. That's disruptive. --Tony Sidaway

Great... Before this RFC is long over, anyone wanting to put a spoiler message in, is now all of a sudden regarded as a disruptive editor? I find that highly offensive. --Edokter (Talk) 22:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

We can get a spoiler warning across more subtly and elegant than that by combining a warning with encyclopedic information in the prose proper. For instance, above a plot section on a movie with many surprises we could write that "The movie has been hailed by critics for its many surprise turns and its remarkable twist ending(citation)". This can be an even more effective spoiler warning than simply using a standard tag used everywhere. And it looks much more professional. Shanes 22:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that. Simply mentioning that a plot has "twists" or "surprise turns" is often spoiler enough to ruin things for a number of people. Simply knowing that they're going to be surprised is enough to lessen the shock of the actual surprise. A generic spoiler warning is a pretty good solution to this problem. King Zeal 22:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Not only does that come across as non-NPOV, it is beating around the bush. I find my text to be the most neutral ad non-invasive of all the proposed alternatives yet. Give readers more credit and let them decide if they want to read the rest or not. --Edokter (Talk) 22:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, give readers more credit. If they are afraid of even knowing what kind of movie it is, they will not read an encyclopedia article about it beforehand. Readers aren't stupid, and we shouldn't assume they are. Shanes 22:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

People shouldn't be afraid to read an article for fear of ruining what happens at the end. There's plenty of ways to briefly summarize plot points without finding out that 'X character' dies or 'X character' turns out to be the mastermind. Frankly, if I'm afraid to read an article, I'm not going to read it. This is counterproductive to Wikipedia's purpose. King Zeal 22:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

With spoiler warnings, they do not need to fear ruining what happens at the end when they read the article. Without them, they have to. They therefore will be able to read a Wikipedia article beforehand with spoiler warnings, and will not without them. Your point being? --Kizor 23:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A good article, though, is always going to have all the salient points about its subject in the intro. If a book or movie is infamous for its twist ending or for a particular surprise, that twist should be completely covered in the first few sentences of the article. Our article on The Sixth Sense must reveal the ending in the intro, because that is the main point of the movie... encycylopedic articles are simply not, by any standard, structured for people who only want to know some things about their subject. Readers who do not want to learn the details of Romeo and Juliet or a book they're planning on reading should not be reading an encyclopedia article about it, no more than someone who wants to be surprised as they read ancient history should be reading historical articles. Spoiler warnings have no place in an encyclopedia, plain and simple. --Aquillion 04:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Who wants to read an encyclopedia article about something first before watching it? Wikipedia isn't a blog/reviewing site/IMDB/Rotten Tomatoes/forum. Besides, what's so difficult about admitting that readers will skip over a section labeled "Plot" without the need for spoiler warnings? Axem Titanium 03:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Gotta agree. I'm currently removing all spoiler tags from pages covered by my WikiProjects. they are useless, and this is not the first time this debate has taken place. Just get rid of it already. -007bond aka Matthew G 09:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Obvious redundant use of spoiler tag

Example:

Comments

Many editors use spoiler tags where they are totally useless and redundant, as above. For example, in Landslide_(Heroes) and many other plot sections. Is it not totally ridiculous to warn users that there may be PLOT DETAILS in the PLOT SECTION? – ARC Gritt^TALK 22:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's redundant. But that's beyond the scope of this discussion (which is the whole "proposed guideline/policy" thing, or it should be... I have proposes a more neutral message above. --Edokter (Talk) 22:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, quite redundant. The film project page in fact recommends that one put the spoiler tag in the plot section. Why? They cite Wikipedia: Spoiler_warning hopefully this will change soon, as the circular arguments are making me dizzy. Jussen 22:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Straw polls 2

There are some arguments that are surfacing repeatedly. We should examine them in detail and see where we now are on the consensus-building process. --Kizor 22:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, and please add a (hopefully brief and well thought out) comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.

Straw poll 4

Are spoiler warnings condescending or insulting to readers?

Yes

• The people who hold this view are boycotting this straw poll because truth cannot be determined by vote. Axem Titanium 03:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Aye aye, count me in as boycotting it too. --Cyde Weys 03:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Seroiusly - this better be the last straw poll ... I'm getting sick of voting.danielfolsom 03:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No

1. Kizor 22:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Q0 01:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
3. agr 03:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
4. DES ^(talk) 03:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
6. --- RockMFR 04:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
7. ThuranX 01:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This poll is insulting and condescending to readers

1. Aquillion 04:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Q0 05:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's vote on NPOV!

1. David Gerard 12:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I and some others have mentioned before what you come across as when you consider attempts at serious discussion your frivolous playthings. --Kizor 13:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Enough with the straw polls. Of course they're condescending. Putting a notice saying "warning, you might learn something you didn't know" in an encyclopedia is condescension. It might be justifiable as many disclaimers are justifiable, but I'm not seeing any justifications here that merit messing our articles up. --Tony Sidaway 22:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There are many people who say that they aren't. Let's sit this one out and see if either of us is surprised, shall we? It's not like it can do harm. --Kizor 23:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers are different from other information in Wikipedia because spoilers are information that some readers would rather not know. I agree with Kizor that the warnings can't do harm. Although it might seem obvious to some that "plot" sections contain plot details, others might not find it obvious. I suspect that without spoiler warnings, many people will read plot sections without thinking about the fact that they might contain spoilers. They might think to themselves, "I guess I should have known it would have spoilers in it since it is titled 'plot'" but I still think we should be considerate of readers like that and give them a fair warning when it can help them. Also, when people read things, they generally don't have to think about whether or not they would regret continuing to read. Since it is an unusual circumstance for readers to be in a situation where it can be harmful for them to continue to read, I think it is only considerate and fair to give the reader a "heads up" in cases where the reader might rather not know the information that follows. Therefore, I think spoiler warnings should be used. Spoiler warnings are potenially very helpful and I really don't see how they would get in the way of anything. Q0 01:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what kind of consensus is this straw poll suppose to measure? On what point in the guideline is this straw poll suppose to help settle? As far as I can tell, this straw poll measures nothing and does not attempt to settle anything. So it's worthless. --Farix (Talk) 00:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It is supposed to measure the consensus on the subject of this straw poll. There have been arguments both for and against this, and a consensus on one side or the other will tell what the prevailing opinion is and help settle the subject. --Kizor 00:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't vote truth. Axem Titanium 03:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You can vote to discover the prevailing conception of it. Maybe the phrasing should've been "Should ... be considered". My philosophy courses are urging me to engage you in a massive debate about our ability to know the truth at all. --Kizor 04:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I said this before, and I'm going to say this again. Wikipedia is a "special" encyclopedia in which nobody expects to see spoilers about movies, books, or films, simply because most of the popular encyclopedias that people use simply don't have such articles. My grade school library offered one encyclopedia, and that was World Book. Now the World Book encyclopedias don't go into detail regarding plot summaries, do they? When readers step into the realm of Wikipedia, especially if they're new, they don't expect to find all of this information. Therefore, spoilers are not insulting to readers.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, please see Uncle G's position. There are many more encyclopedias besides Britannica and World Book which cover fictional topics with more depth which don't include spoiler warnings either. Wikipedia is not "special" in that way because other encyclopedias exist which cover such topics. New readers are not stupid or ignorant like you believe they are. They have knowledge of what should appear in an encyclopedia. Why is it so difficult to trust the readers to avoid the "Plot" section without a spoiler warning? Axem Titanium 03:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think readers are stupid or ignorant but I do think that they are not always fully alert, are not always paying full attention, and make mistakes. The spoiler warning explains the reader that they need to pay attention. Q0 05:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Word up on that. Do you pay full attention to everything when you casually browse? Further, and in my opinion much more importantly, Axem, you're ignoring the fact that sections other than "plot" can have spoilers, sections that the non-stupid, non-ignorant reader cannot be expected to recognize by section title. --Kizor 09:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Why I just don't think these things are acceptable

I'm afraid it all boils down to my blank incomprehension of suggestions that we should put redundant warnings into our articles just to mollycoddle people who, knowing of their own personal wishes not to have foreknowledge of the details of fictional works, would stupidly or perversely choose to read articles about those works.

If they want to read about the work, let them read the article. If they don't, let them refrain. It's not Wikipedia's business to tell people what to read, but it isn't Wikipedia's business to put redundant warnings into articles. These people have to wrestle with their own demons, and good luck to them. --Tony Sidaway 22:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, I remain incomprehending of why people do not acknowledge the fact that there are valid reasons to read about fictional works that they are not familiar with, without wishing to have foreknowledge of all the details. They can do so with spoiler warnings, but cannot without. With consistent use of spoiler tags, a reader who has heard the LucasArts adventure game LOOM is exceptional will be able to learn about its unprecedented take on the genre and its use of Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake as its soundtrack. Likewise, someone who's interested in Moulin Rouge! will be able to learn of the play's critical acclaim and, in detail, the numerous awards it has won. Without spoiler tags, both of them will have to assume the entire articles off limits. --Kizor 22:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC) (examples added later, edit-conflicting with Sidaway's answer)

Certainly I can acknowledge that some people may wish to only have a highly selective subset of information about fictional work. This is their problem, not Wikipedia's. If they come to Wikipedia, they'll get the works. They know this and if they still insist on coming to Wikipedia then that is their problem and not ours. --Tony Sidaway 22:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

So in other words, it's not Wikipedia's responsibility to appeal to the readers. Wasn't appeal to the readers the whole reason that this ordeal started? Sorry if this seems a bit cynical. I'm just a bit confused by the fact that we're removing something that will aid readers because they might-or-might-not find it insulting, yet it's their problem if they want it back. You Can't See Me! 23:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The spoiler warning lead me here, other than that I have no idea about how this "en" bureaucracy works, so I'm just going to add my opinion right here. Wikipedia is a site which provides information. If you do request and later read an article here, you will (hopefully) find just that. "Spoiler" warnings are redundant and at the Norwegian (bokmål) wiki our policy is to avoid them. Warning readers that there is information in an article doesn't seem right to us. I do like how the "en" warning has decreased in size, I would like to see them disappear completely. However readers/users reach an article, they search information and expects to find it. I can only speculate that the spoiler warning is something a movie fan subculture has been able to force into the system.

Apart from the uselessness of the template in general I also do see it as an insult to the reader. It's often located after some sort of "Story/Plot" subtitle/section in the article, which makes it so redundant one would think the person who put it there must be a little slow himself. One argument is the user is stupid enough to study extensive information about a movie without wanting to know what it is really about, another is the user actually reading a "Plot" section of an article without wanting to know the story. Although the first is far-fetched, the latter really is an insult to most normal people.

Wikipedia is not IMDB. Nor are we an idiot-proof operating system: Wikipedia should be accessible, we don't need "do you really want to read this" warnings. Btd-no 23:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And it will cause genuine damage to that accessibility to remove spoiler warnings. With them, people may learn about works they wish to experience later. There's every valid reason to do that. Without them, people cannot. --Kizor 23:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the rhetoric is getting a little out of hand here. Reading a spoiler isn't going to cause "genuine damage". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for frak's sake. Nobody can genuinely say they were surprised if they come to read the article about Harry Potter, and surprise surprise, they learn that Snape kills Dumbledore. --Cyde Weys 03:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Genuine damage to that accessibility, as I said. Of course not genuine damage as in a blow to the thorax, the technology to do that online is being kept strictly restricted to pain only. --Kizor 04:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The reader does not necessarily know what kind of information is going to be in a Wikipedia article and which information will not be. The reader might be very new to Wikipedia. I don't see why the reader's desire to avoid spoilers should be "their" problem especially when they might not even know that the article contained spoilers until after reading it. Q0 01:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting examples. I'm familiar with LOOM, perhaps the most beautiful game I've ever played. The plot has absolutely nothing to do with the enjoyment of the game. Similarly I cannot imagine how knowledge of the plot of Moulin Rouge! could harm anyone's enjoyment of the film. These are petty obsessions of a few people, and must not impinge on our task of writing the article.

Moreover I note that in both of the articles you mention, Moulin Rouge! and LOOM, the spoiler warnings followed clearly marked "plot" or "Gameplay" section headings. So we're not only assuming that our readers put a perverse and ideosyncratic emphasis on plot details, we're also assuming that they cannot read simple words like "Plot" and "Gameplay" but can read the more complex spoiler warnings. There's just no sense to this. It's quite baffling. I know these asinine warnings are common on Usenet, but Wikipedia isn't Usenet and we should get rid of them. --Tony Sidaway 23:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary, I state that the majority of people will find their enjoyment of the vast majority of works, be they literary, theatrical or televisional or whatever, to be diminished if they know about the plotline. Take, for instance, mystery novels, where fundamental points to the enjoyment of the work are suspicion, clues and puzzles, and horror works, where the they are surprise and uncertainty. Take Pratchett's detective novel, Feet of Clay - the author remarked fondly on receiving a postcard that said "We were sure it was in the wallpaper, you bastard!" --Kizor 23:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, that does not apply in many cases and it would be monumentally dense to naively assume that a section marked "Plot" would not contain any spoilers. Axem Titanium 23:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You honestly submit that the majority of works, enough to be a rule, are not diminished with foreknowledge of their plot? I will address the section marked "plot" in more detail. --Kizor 23:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The plot is important but is not the make-or-break deal that some people in this discussion are making it out to be. It honestly isn't. For instance I'm really looking forward to seeing the third Pirates of the Caribbean film when it's released in a few days, but foreknowledge of the plot wouldn't harm--and might well greatly enhance--my enjoyment of the film. The two earlier films were not noticeably original in their plot, but they were very enjoyable to watch. --Tony Sidaway 23:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Foreknowledge will ruin Fight Club, or any film, book, or any other work with a large plot twist that turns the premise on its head. It will ruin any work where the point is tension. It will ruin any "will-they-or-won't-they" romance or drama. It will ruin horror movies, detective novels and the xenobiological mysteries of the Sector General series alike. It will ruin the tension about whether or not a character survives or succeeds. It may not ruin comedies or action movies. It will ruin soap operas and dramas. When I sit down on Monday to watch Heroes, which has built up excitement for months about whether or not New York will be destroyed and will reveal the outcome in the next episode, my excitement will not be enhanced nor maintained if I know the outcome beforehand. Plot is vital. --Kizor 23:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No I can't see this. Indeed I didn't bother to watch Fight Club until someone told me it wasn't about fighting. I was put off by the title. This pre-occupation with concealing plot is quite idiosyncratic and mustn't be used as some bizarre excuse to blight our encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 00:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion is quite bizarre to me. My opinion is quite bizarre to you. Axem below agrees that plot is vital. Maybe we should get a few more opinions... --Kizor 00:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't straw man me. The fact that plot is vital was not the main point of my reply. Axem Titanium 00:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That was a straw man? I did not realize, and if it was, I apologize. I was aware that it was not the main point of that message, but it is the main point of this series of indents. --Kizor 00:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Plot is vital, yes. Readers are also not stupid and will realize that a section labeled "Plot" is going to have this kind of information. You make a good point that yes, certain knowledge may ruin fictional works (maybe not so strong a word), but we can't force a reader to read something simply because there's no spoiler warning there. The reader should assume that it's there because of the way the section is labeled. Axem Titanium 00:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Or he just might notice that this is an encyclopedia. How much are we willing to bend our primary objective in order to pander to the stupid and the perverse? --Tony Sidaway 00:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

How does having spoilers "bend" the primary objective? It in no way removes any material. It is simply a convenience for those unfamiliar with the arbitrary customs of wikipedia. Also, why do I see the statement that people who don't expect spoilers in a plot section are stupid? Frankly there's nothing stupid about it at all. Wikipedia decided on the arbitrary decision to have spoilers in their plot sections. Someone who was not informed about this beforehand, or who has not personally experienced it is very likely to assume that there will not be any spoilers. English is a very flexible language. There is nothing about the word "Plot" that necessarily implies that spoilers will be present. Spoiler tags provide users who are not familiar with this convention with a convenience, and those users who do not wish to see spoiler tags can turn them off.Ziiv 00:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Spoiler#Guideline_rationale, in particular the part about the compromising of the article by corraling certain important facts behind a spoiler, which belong in the lead section. You describe the inclusion of encyclopedic information in Wikipedia in terms of "arbitrary customs" but you could not be more wrong. Delivering information about the subject matter in a balanced, verifiable and encyclopedia manner is the core of our mission. If the reader doesn't realise that, he soon learns. --Tony Sidaway 00:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You're using the changed version of the spoiler guideline to support the changes made to the spoiler guideline? You're using the changed rules to justify changes to the rules? Before it was rewritten, as a part of this discussion, it said the express opposite. --Kizor 00:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm citing the well worded arguments in the guideline rather than trot them out here all over again in my own words. --Tony Sidaway 01:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

(to Ziiv) Those "arbitrary decisions" you refer to are actually the definition of an encyclopedia. If that's not what readers expect, that's really not our problem. We can't cater to the minority who don't realize that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Axem Titanium 01:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you know that only a "minority" don't realize that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia? Visiting a Wikipedia page is very different from opening up Britannica. People don't surf around paper encyclopedia like the way the surf on the web. There are many Wikipedia mirrors and people are likely to find them without knowing that they came from Wikipedia. Many readers might find a Wikipedia article from a google search not even know what Wikipedia is. Q0 02:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1) If you can't read the logo which says "Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia", you probably can't read much else anyway. 2) Wikipedia mirrors are thieves anyway. We shouldn't be responsible for those who don't honor the GFDL. Axem Titanium 03:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

To 2): Er - what? Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks says that "Many correctly follow the licensing terms." Other's don't, but that's quite a different thing as them all being thieves. [Answers.com], for instance, linkst to the GDFL when it uses Wikipedia content. --Kizor 03:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Mirrors are not thieves. However, I must add to this: we are not responsible for their use of content originated by users of our site. --Tony Sidaway 03:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No, we're not, and I don't place a lot of importance on them myself, but we can still be courteous. A minor issue, but, well, an issue. --Kizor 03:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea

First off, lololol 343KB, keep it up! In all seriousness, here's a big point made by this discussion: it's stupid because a section labelled "Plot" will obviously give away the plot so spoiler tags are stupid. Then how about we simply restrict it to sections of articles where a spoiler isn't so obvious? MessedRocker 02:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I was about to post nearly the same exact thing in response to the above conversation, and got edit conflict'ed. Many of the anti-spoiler crowd seem to want to conflate spoiler warnings under "plot" sections with their stance on spoiler warnings in general. There is actually a good and proper debate on whether warnings are appropriate under "plot" headers. However, it is entirely possible to say that such warnings are redundant, and still strongly support warnings elsewhere when they appear in surprising places. The "redundant" argument does not apply against spoilers in general. (Same with article structure, mind. "Spoilers should not warp article structure" and "Spoiler warnings are good" are entirely compatible positions, and was in fact true already under the old policy.) SnowFire 02:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem that sometimes important facts are missed from article leads on the grounds that they're spoilers. For instance, until I edited it the lead of our article on Romeo and Juliet omitted important facts that, although technically plot spoilers, Shakespeare thought important enough to put into the words of the prolog to the play: that Romeo and Juliet die for love and their suicides are instrumental in ending the feud between their families. As another example, until recently the lead our article on The Crying Game omitted the most famous fact about the film: that an apparently female character turns out to be male, and that the film is noted for its sensitive treatment of sexual minorities.

This is why I think Messed Rocker's suggestion only addresses part of the problem. We have to come of age as an encyclopedia, and cast aside our childhood preoccupations with plot spoilers. --Tony Sidaway 03:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Mm. I don't know what bee has gotten up your bonnet, considering your repeated references to how stupid readers who prefer warnings must be and your "childhood" allusions. However, even if you think people who prefer warnings are stupid idiots, we are still users. What do you think all those warnings on top of the image upload page are for, warning in big letters that "your image will be deleted and you will be banned if you lie?" Clearly non-idiot uploaders will do their due diligence and research all the applicable policies before uploading, right? And yet, we keep the warnings. Hmm.

So, let me ask this: What horrible things will happen if spoiler warnings are allowed, but there is a stern reminder in the policy to not warp article structure for the sake of spoilers? Your recent examples still rely upon people violating the original guideline. SnowFire 06:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

When I go to an article on Wikipedia regarding a work of fiction or other entertainment, I fully expect that it will reveal details about the ending. As a reasonably intelligent consumer of information I have found the spoiler warnings to be redundant, and inconsistent. As an example, the American Idol (Season 6) article does not give the warning (nor does The Bible for that matter), even though results are posted before readers on the West Coast see the results show. If want suspense, I avoid the article for those few hours. We should assume a basic level of intelligence for encyclopedia users.Seaphoto 04:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Seaphoto, spoiler warnings are common practice in many other places. Do you think that's because those places are wretched hives of people without even "a basic level of intelligence"? Or because people may want other information on a subject, without knowing the end?

Even if we ignore that and assume all articles are "fair game" for spoilers, while repeated users such as yourself may know that Wikipedia articles are not safe, it seems quite clear to me that the average anonymous IP editor- much less the IP reader - may not be familiar with Wikipedia policies. Even the smartest person in the world, as a beginner or occasional user, will not know many things. Any website designer can tell you that making a site accessible and clear to first-time users is absolutely crucial, and well-worth possibly adding some seemingly useless "fluff" for repeat users. Spoiler warnings are fairly subtle and easily ignorable if a user don't like them, and they can even be turned off by those who really don't like them. Other websites can often times not even do that, and yet still keep the "basics" in view because it's just that important.

As for redundant, we're working on that, and as for inconsistent... this is Wikipedia. A certain amount of inconsistency is expected when the project is managed by tens of thousands of editors, few of whom read even a single guideline. For sure, that can and should improve, but it's hardly a unique issue- many if not most other style guides are also implemented inconsistently as well. SnowFire 06:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts

I read about a tenth of this page before giving up. I'm going to give my thoughts and hope that I'm not repeating something. One of you needs to summarize the thoughts on this page and then archive all of it. Here's my thoughts:
1. Most novels have a coverleaf / back cover summary of the novel, and many paperback novels have an excerpt on the first page; these are presumably legal to use without explicit permission, and do not need a spoiler warning. I use these to determine if I want to read a novel or not, and the publishers are generally quite good about creating summaries or excerpts which accurately convey the essence of the novel. This summary is probably suitable for the article lead.
2. I saw some people say that classices should not have spoilers. There are many classics which I have not read and may want to read someday. Therefore, I think the rule, whatever it is, should be consistent for all fiction. Further, a novel or film which is considered classic or well-known in one English-speaking country may be a virtual unknown in another. Films, for example, are released at different times in different countries, so setting an arbitrary date to expire a spoiler does not necessarily make sense. If a spoiler is appropriate, leave it on permanently.
3, I've seen some articles use a technique to hide things (like the TOC can be hidden), and which can be revealed with a mouse-click. Can this be done wih spoilers and so forth?
4. I'd suggest that spoilers be part of a "things which a significant number of people may not want to see" guideline or policy, to cover spoilers, nudity, obscenity, pornography, and things which may generally be considered inappropriate for children who are othewise capable of reading the text, and so forth, in primarily English-speaking countries.
5. Combining items 2 and 3 above, can specific things, which meet whatever the guideline/policy turn out to be, be hidden by this technique? The default setting for this for editors could be controlled by the profile, or it could be hidden for readers (need to click), and visible for "flattened" print versions. Thus, images (but not the associated description) of a human male reproductive organ, for example, could be hidden, and the reader could click on the "(show)" link to see it.
6. There may be legal issues for some of this stuff, so it may be wise to make it optional before some government or court decides to either force Wikipedia to conform or not allow people in a certain jurisdiction to view Wikipedia (witness China, although I don't think optional hiding of material would have been sufficient in that case).
7. Quit talking about disclaimers; as a number of people have indicated, they're just technicalities.
8. I do not know if the hiding technique needs to be on it's own line or not; if it can be embedded in a paragraph, so much the better. The information is still there; the user only has to click to see it; it is the user's own choice whether to see it or not.
9. I think spoilers should be announced only if the ending or a plot twist is not relatively obvious (for instance, if the lead already says "this is the archetypical the butler did it story"), and I agree that using it in a "Plot" section is redundant.
10. Pictures are slightly different, in that it's hard to skip an entire section without seeing (comprehending) the pictures, so there should be no such exception if this technique is used.
--Scott McNay 05:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The thing about the hiding technique is that it would interrupt the prose and hinder one's reading. Spoilers are nearly unnavoidable when dealing with fictional subjects; in effect, that [show] tag will appear every other sentence. This would slow the reader's speed, damage percent of comprehension, and in some cases, fully prevent understanding when a spoiled tidbit is absolutely necessary. Not to mention, this would be prone to overuse and a popular toy for vandals. You Can't See Me! 05:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If showing spoilers could be disabled from a person's profile (I was under the impression they can), then that should be a nifty way to do that. --Kizor 05:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

People can disable the warning template, but not the spoilers themselves. -- Ned Scott 07:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

fine the way it is

I think it's just fine the way it is right now, because you can choose to see it or not. You don't need to go into psychological mindreading because everyone has their own choice. As for hiding, that would be much too complicated. I can't imagine a page like this:

[show]

[show]

References

[show template]

[show disclaimer]

--

That would really be pathetic. --Camelcast 06:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

One variation is to allow a spoilers=yes setting either in preferences or as a script add-on that inserts a spoiler tag into any section with a ==Plot== or ==Synopsis== heading. This could be expanded to include hidden tags as well. That way, anyone who wants a spoiler warning could get one based on their settings. Problem solved. —Viriditas | Talk 07:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I waded through this whole page after seeing a spoiler alert on the first Survivor season. People have made compelling arguments on both sides, but I lean toward the convention that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Information (often the most up to date information) is its hallmark. If I wanted to get information about a movie, without spoiling the plot, I would never do a Google search or look in Wikipedia. However, the spoiler alerts are a minor annoyance and can be rather easily skipped over (although they seem somewhat silly). I would prefer a system where general users would have to turn spoiler alerts on rather than turn them off, but that is just one user/editors opinion.

Ursasapien 10:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I would be satisfied with an outcome where spoiler use was left intact and such a system instated. --Kizor 10:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Irony

You know, we are sooooo worried here about "ruining" a movie for some poor reader of Wikipedia. Have any of you watched any movie trailers lately? When I go to the movies, I usually stay away for 18 months or so afterwards, because the trailers for coming motion pictures give away the whole story now. They have decided, sometime in the past 20 years, that the public is too unsophisticated to be tantalized into watching a movie unless they know the whole story in advance. I remember going to movies back in the 60s and 70s and not even really knowing beforehand what the movie was about, but a cleverly edited trailer had whetted my interest. Today, that'll never happen. So you folks worried about messing things up, forget it. You know, Gene Siskel actually revealed the big secret of The Crying Game on the air in his preview show with Roger Ebert. Just how the hell important do we think we are? This whole discussion just demonstrates what an inflated sense of ego we all have. Look, we have just one thing to offer: Well written information for those who want to know. Spoiler tags don't fit in that picture. Unschool 08:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I just copied and pasted this whole discussion onto a Word document. It was 114 pages long. This is really ridiculous. Unschool 08:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

First, please cut the sarcasm, condescension, obscenities, veiled insults and open insults. Try to cut back on that "proclaiming absolute facts" attitude as well. We are trying to do something here. Second, not that you'd apparently care, but there are books it takes weeks to get through, TV series that take months to get through, book series that can take years to get through. There also are other ways of viewing movies than going to the theatre, there are people who manage to avoid trailers, and there are people from countries that do not share yours' movie conventions nor yours' public among the tens of millions of international readers of Wikipedia. I have several other cans of worms if you wish to view other sides of the issue. --Kizor 10:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Unschool, that is a generalisation. I haven't seen a recent movie in months (though I have seen numerous trailers), but I *do* remember POTC: Dead Man's Chest, and I must say, the trailer did *not* spoil anything at all. Therefore, your first point is no valid. Also, please refrain from insulting us. This is a discussion, and a polite one at that. However, I must agree with the "Well written information for those who want to know" thing. I have written this a few times, but Wikipedia, an encyclopedia exists to inform with a high degree of quality. We, as editors and writers should not need to speculate about what readers might want and/or not want to read (except for the fact that they want good quality articles that perform its proper function - to inform - to a high degree of accuracy etc.) It is indeed the reader's fault if they are spoiled when they read an article about for example, a film. For starters, the subtitle "Plot" should ring alarm bells. — « hippi ippi » 11:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

While I personally feel that you can't ruin a movie by knowing the ending, it's the experience of the work, not knowing what happens, that's important; (otherwise the Harry Potter films would have made no money). However as should have been gleaned from this discussion everyone has differing opinions, and we should learn to respect it and keep cool and calm about it all. David Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 11:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So because one movie doesn't, that means none do? Cast Away and What Lies Beneath both had quite revealing trailers (I'm more positive about the later), and I'm sure others could easily bring up other examples. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Does that affect us in any way whatsoever? Again, we also have books, theatrical plays, computer games, tv episodes and what have you, and ample ways to watch a movie without learning the plot in detail first. --Kizor 13:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, if ever there was a call for assuming good faith, wow—this is it! Man, I actually didn't expect any responses to my little post. I was feeling lighthearted (what we would have called "gay" in an earlier time) and rather unconcerned about the way this whole debate pans out (not that I don't have any opinion on the subject; I do, but I don't think that the world rides on this one). I've now reread my post, and tried to see it with the eyes of people who weren't with me when I wrote it, and yeah, I guess I can see that my cheerful demeanor did not come across. Oh well. But the vehemence with which some of you responded was absolutely remarkable. Sarcasm? Sure, I can see that. But "veiled and open insults"? Huh? And then when I read, there are people from countries that do not share yours' movie conventions [sic], I can only think, really? Okay, now I am being very sarcastic. Of course there are people with different experiences and different opinions! That's why these discussion pages exist! Now who's insulting whom? For you to imply that I don't understand that other people don't share my experience is to imply that I am still at the level of a four or five year old. I mean, that's insulting. (and notice that I gave a specific example of the alleged insult. As you did not, I could assume it was because you didn't actually find an insult, but I'm going to assume good faith and guess that you didn't believe it necessary to include a specific example either because a) you thought (erroneously, I'm afraid) that it would be obvious to everyone, or b)you didn't want to pour salt in the wounds, or c)you just forgot. Frankly, I don't know what you found insulting, and I don't know why you didn't explain it, but it's okay; I'm assuming that you had your reasons. So we're cool. And regarding my comments about movie trailers being a generalization, well, I'm sorry to have to inform you that—you're right! Most of what we say on these discussion pages is a generalization. My comment had to be a generalization if only for the fact that I go to movies so rarely now that I really don't have a significant foundation for my statement! But I didn't think it mattered because I was just making a light-hearted observation, not a brief for Wikipedia v. Spoiler Tags.

Authors spoil plots as well

Tony mentioned above that "Shakespeare thought important enough to put into the words of the prolog to the play: that Romeo and Juliet die for love and their suicides are instrumental in ending the feud between their families" - this is an important point, and I'd llike to add examples from the works of J. R. R. Tolkien. His introductions often told the reader what would happen in the story. It is just that the plot is not the whole point of the story in some stories. Sometimes a work of literature is more about the writing, and interaction of literary themes, than the plot per se. Not all works of fiction need the plot kept secret to avoid spoiling it for the reader. I can see an argument for the use of some spoiler warnings in some articles, but I don't know how we can prevent each successive generation of Wikipedia editors overusing spoilers in the wrong place? Maybe devise a system where you blacklist the use of spoiler tags, or one where you whitelist the use of spoiler tags? Have a place specifically to discuss addition of spoiler tags, and require near-unamity (say, 90% support) for them to be used? Though that kind of says "we don't trust some of our editors not to overuse spoiler tags"... Carcharoth 11:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The writing is always more important than the plot. The proposed new guideline, Wikipedia:Spoiler, deals very sensibly with the problem of over-use of spoiler tags by requiring proponents to "provide a compelling and justifiable reason to insert one. Such reasons should show that knowledge of the spoiler would likely substantially diminish many readers' enjoyment of the work." --Tony Sidaway 11:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's surprised that I have doubts about the effectiveness of that rule, in large part because the reason needs to appear "compelling and justifiable" to such editors as you, who has previously said that preknowledge of the plot does not substantially diminish the enjoyment of a work. Might be a bit hard in those circumstances. --Kizor 13:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It is beyond question at this point, I think, that there is no clear consensus for the use of spoiler tags; if anything, there's a consensus leaning towards banning them in a wide range of situations. Therefore, if you want to use them, you must justify them on a case-by-case basis. Naturally this will make them hard to use... it should be hard to plaster a tag across thousands of articles when there is so much disagreement over it. --Aquillion 15:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings are fine

We would not have this problem if everyone followed something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate, where you are told to split the plot into a spoilers-free section and a spoilers one. Personally, without a definitive guide like the one from WikiProject Novels, the tags should stay. -- ReyBrujo 12:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That should only be done if it doesn't violate NPOV, see examples brought up by others earlier. Warning readers about spoilers is optional, and should not be required in an article template (I have removed the tags from the template). Kusma (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Then remove the infobox as well, which should be optional. While I agree people can have different opinions about what is a spoiler and what not, at least we should give them the opportunity to do so. The Spoiler warnings may be used in articles whose primary subject is fictional where the editors proposing them can provide a compelling and justifiable reason to insert one. Such reasons should show that knowledge of the spoiler would likely substantially diminish many readers' enjoyment of the work. reasoning is bullshit (not attacking the one who wrote that, but the spirit of the guideline): once the tags are removed, nobody will allow them to come back, even if a "compelling and justifiable reason" is given. -- ReyBrujo 12:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering most leads have a synopsis of the plot, as part of the summary for the entire article, that right there is your spoiler-free information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really, because the leading section should focus not on plot, but on other general information about the article. -- ReyBrujo 12:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be perverse (and needless to say, contrary to Neutral point of view) to omit mention of the distinguishing plot twists from the Wikipedia:lead sections of, for instance, Deathtrap, The Crying Game, The Sixth Sense. It is here that we see the starkness of the divide between an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia and a fan site where sensitivies about plot twists are given priority over plain exposition and balanced writing. --Tony Sidaway 12:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the rationale for adding the warning is not consistent. A "compelling" reason can be "The show aired yesterday for the first time, demonstrating who the series main villain is", which after a couple of months becomes less compelling because "show is already a month old". -- ReyBrujo 12:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the spoiler warning can be removed as time goes by. On the Doctor Who project I've suggested that we remove spoiler tags for all episodes except those first shown in the past two years. This allows ample time for each season to propagate through the distribution chain, and the tags may be useful in providing an extra reminder for readers in countries where recent programmes have not yet been shown or distributed on DVD. --Tony Sidaway 13:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, here is the point where people confuse "plot" with "synopsis". The lead is a summary of the entire article, thus a "synopsis" is just as appropriate as who wrote or directed the film, as it's part of the "basic" information in the first paragraph of lead. I don't think there is any problem with having a spoiler in the plot, as it's a tip to casual readers that may have stumbled into an article. Can we live without them? Yes. But it doesn't contradict Wikipedia. Spoiler warnings are not censoring anything, they are simply say "hey, keep your eyes open because you are about to read things that may spoil the film, book, etc for you". Bignole 13:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That word "spoil" again. It can be assumed that any article about a fictional work will contain information about the fictional work, including the plot. If a plot element is a significant part of the work (such as for instance Julius Caesar's assassination in the Senate) then it will likely appear in the lead. It may "spoil" the article for people whose enjoyment of literary works inexplicably demands complete ignorance and surprise at every scene. They must find a way to live with their problems. They are not Wikipedia's problems. --Tony Sidaway 16:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

An ample amount of people have put forth their opinion that plot is vital. I don't know how to get through to you that "spoilers" aren't called that because of some willful perversity of USENET or partisanship by pro-tag editors. They're called that because that's what plot revelations are considered to be, right up to in the dictionary. Plot is vital. No decision here should be made or influenced based on the few singular claims that it is not. --Kizor 22:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

My Lord

Wikipedia's chat rooms is as confusing as always. You think hiding over 805,000 different spoilers on every single show and series is going to solve the problem? there are many other wiki sites brewing around the web with the same information, you intentionally typed in www.wikipedia.com typed in your target on search and reaped what you bloody sowed, dont start winning about spoilers when you ruined it for your self at that point, i offen look up spoilers here to see whether the series is good/bad or a waste of my time, if you are going to start removing spoilers then please remove all the cooking recipes extensive tips and hack info from this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.110.237.213 (talk • contribs)

First of all, are you arguing for or against spoiler warnings? Second of all, could you possibly be more civil? Third of all, what? You Can't See Me! 06:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

My Lord - im arguing for Spoilers and arguing against whining brats who couldn't stare away from the Spoilers

Whodunnits

I recognize that many far more experienced editors than myself have well-thought-out points of view here that cover the broad issue of spoiler warnings, but I'd like to suggest that the whodunnit is a special case that could use a spoiler warning -- and perhaps a special one that says, "This is an article about a whodunnit, and if you read any further, you may find out who the murderer is." Whodunnits have a long history of spoiler warnings because if you find out whodunnit, even accidentally -- for instance, by hitting "Random article" and getting an article about a novel that doesn't have a title especially indicative of a whodunnit, like Agatha Christie's "Five Little Pigs", or a whodunnit by an author of whom you've never heard -- well, you've ruined the whole experience that the whodunnit is designed to provide. Whodunnit fans are accustomed to seeing and heeding spoiler warnings in material they read on the internet. I have read a lot of good arguments here for and against spoiler warnings, and I'm torn about the problem of warning people about films such as "The Sixth Sense" precisely because issuing such a warning may alert the canny reader to the fact that something is afoot. But as a very specific case, I suggest that it would be worthwhile putting a "whodunnit" tag on whodunnit novels (and films), so that people interested in whodunnits in general can find new ones to enjoy without ruining their enjoyment of same, and people who have already learned whodunnit can learn more about the book/film itself. Accounting4Taste 23:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't disparage your argument skills that quickly. When I brought this point up to said experienced editors a couple of times, one responded, quote, "sucks for them," and another denied that foreknowledge harms enjoyment. This is fortuitous because my blood pressure had been found to be unusually low. Your argument is quite insightful and better thought-out than mine; would you mind copying it over to the project page? I'd do it myself right away, were that polite. --Kizor 10:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings were never meant to be a guard, only a heads up. -- Ned Scott 10:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

People who hit "random article" might also find a page that contains shocking images of diseases, nudity, or content that their religion prohibits them to watch. We don't have a warning for them; having one movie/game/book ending spoiled is rather mild in comparison. Kusma (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The point about whodunnits is instructive. The spoiler warnings have been stripped from Murder on the Orient Express, with the justification that the work is 'incredibly famous'. I didn't know the ending was 'incredibly famous' as well, but there you are. Our hopelessly vague guidelines in action. Aside from anything else, it seems inconsistent to have different standards for different works in a series, based purely on subjective notions of fame.

The effect is that people considering branching out into a new genre of fiction cannot use Wikipedia to find out about a major work in a genre without risking having it spoiled for them. I, for example, know nothing about romantic fiction, and apparently now have no business glancing at the article on Pride and Prejudice, just to get some historical background.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is so much importance attached to knowing the plot of a novel? Why do we call it "spoiling"? If some nitwit can't enjoy a novel of which he knows the plot, really that's his problem, not Wikipedia's. How do such people survive a normal education, where one skims hundreds of works of fiction and reads works on thousands more, in order to gain a basic grasp of their culture? --Tony Sidaway 14:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, basically, it ruins the experience. E.g. You're reading a book with a major twist at the end. Someone comes along and spoils it for you. You're now robbed of the experience of surprise and shock, and can never try to gain it, (most likely) ever. That's why people want - experience is valuable. It's pretty rational for one to avoid spoilers. — hippi ippi 14:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I still don't get it. What harm does it do me if I know the plot? If it has a clever twist, it might make me want to read the novel to see how the writer does it. I've watched Sixth Sense several times now, and I enjoy it somewhat more now than when I just found it a rather puzzling story. Knowing the ending enhances the experience of watching. --Tony Sidaway 16:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's well established that there exist people who find narrative suspense distasteful. They've been a distinct minority since at least the nineteenth century.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well we're not talking about such people, who may not exist for all I know, we're talking about people who are so wedded to the necessity of maintaining narrative suspense that they want it to be projected from the in-universe elements, such as the plot of the book, even to out-of-universe exposition of the kind that one finds in a Wikipedia article. I don't think we should have any truck with that. --Tony Sidaway 16:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I do. It's perfectly normal, not the awful mental illness you're rudely insisting it is.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it's not a mental illness, but it's problematic for us if it causes someone to insist that Wikipedia insert redundant warnings into articles just in case they go looking for information on a subject they don't want to know about. --Tony Sidaway 19:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You have stated that people who like spoiler warnings are stupid, imbecilic, perverse and have demons to wrestle with. Your posts also make it clear that you don't care about narrative suspense, for example, you claim that 'the writing is always more important than the plot.' Your problem with spoilers isn't encyclopedic, it's aesthetic.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It is pretty easy to avoid spoilers on whodunnits in Wikipedia by not reading an article on that particular whodunnit. Wikipedia has a much clearer structure than a typical usenet group, so spoiler warnings are not necessary. Kusma (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It is pretty easy to ignore a spoiler warning if you don't like them. They do no harm whatsoever. Many people may want to read an article to see if they the book interests them, but not learn the ending. Who are you to tell them, essentially, to get lost?--agr 14:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

We are the people who tell those who complain about images of a penis in penis and of cartoons that people have been killed over in Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy to get lost. Kusma (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to another laughable argument from Tony Sidaway above: part of the enjoyment of a novel, film or play is not knowing how it will end. Indeed, not knowing the plot' is also very important to me, no matter how good the writing might be. There are a few Charles Dickens books I have yet to read, and no nothing of the plot, so I wouldn't want my enjoyment of them to be spoiled through Wikipedia. That said, I'm largely agnostic about the spoiler tags - I'm old enough to know what I want to avoid, but they're essensially harmless :-) but I think Mr Sidaway should try and find some better arguments for removing them! Stephenb (Talk) 15:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been participating in this discussion, so I have a number of points to add. Regarding knowing the ending, here's an example that I have: Fear, by L. Ron Hubbard. The book has an awesome twist at the end. I had the unique experience of not reading or remembering the book for about 5 years, so I had completely forgotten the ending, so when I read it again, I enjoyed it immensely. Now, having been caught by that surprise, I cannot forget it again, and so I cannot read the ending with the same level of enjoyment anymore. Also, I've had the endings of the sixth Harry Potter and Fight Club spoiled for me, and now I have no interest in actually watching the movie completely. It's disappointing to know the ending, cause you're expecting it the whole time you're watching it.

Oh, and the Plot subheadings? People say that people should realize that there will be spoilers within it. But you're attempting to hold the general community to a certain level of intelligence. You cannot discount stupid people. The Warning: Spoilers ahead will always be better at "setting off alarm bells" that a simple Plot. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can discount stupid people. This is why we have disclaimers, so we can show them after they kick up a fuss about Wikipedia not meeting their expectations. As I said earlier, I wouldn't have bothered to watch Fight Club if someone hadn't explained what it's actually about. Not all good films have sensible names. --Tony Sidaway 16:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What does that signify for people other than you? --Kizor 16:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

For Wikipedia, it signifies that plot spoilers are of minimal concern and do not merit insertion of intrusive and redundant warnings. There are stupid people, but we don't forbid the sale of kitchen knives. --Tony Sidaway 16:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that this Whodunnit point is a very important one. I disagree with Tony that it doesn't matter if you know about the twist ending at the end—the fact is that such works are written specifically to build towards that one climactic moment, and many readers take great pleasure in "competing" with the protagonist to find out "whodunnit". However, this does not require that we add spoiler tags. A well-written opening introduction can include references to "one of the greatest whodunnits ever, with a remarkable twist ending"—similar to a good movie trailer—will suffice. The reader is thus warned that when he enters into the plot summary, that he might ruin it for himself. Unschool 18:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Within the plot of the book, yes, there may be suspense and tension. However outside the book, the main thing to write about it might be that it's most notable for being the first whodunnit in which the detective is the murderer, or the first whodunnit in which the narrator is the murderer. If you omit this from the lead just because somebody might feel that he has been damaged by learning something, then you're really missing the point of writing an encyclopedia article. I don't know whodunnits too well, but I know that the most important thing about The Crying Game is that Dil and Fergus find love in a most unexpected way, a major plot feature of the Sixth Sense is that the dead people don't know they're dead, that Julius Caesar is assassinated in the Senate, and that Romeo and Juliet both commit suicide. Those should probably be mentioned in the leads of their respective articles, with requisite context and due detail. Because that's the difference between writing an encyclopedia and playing at writing an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 19:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The few historical works are ignored by the non-historical works ten to one, twenty to one, fifty to one. Dismissing the great majority of plots that are not known to the general public by quoting the few that may be is missing the point. --Kizor 23:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A nice suggestion for consensus. Give an option to a user.

Why not give user an option to turn spoilers on/off? It is possible even now with monobook.css (.spoiler {display: none;}), why not make that setting available in preferences and turn it on or off by default, as voted? I believe I understand people who think that spoilers ruin encyclopedic text, but please understand people like me. I do not care about that encyclopedic show-off, but I am very sad, when the article spoils my fun. It is not the purpose of WP. --Akral 15:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have expanded on your suggestion with more detail and argument below. The question of which option should be default is easily decided, as I explain.—greenrd 23:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You could not read articles about films that you have not seen if you don't want information about them (the spreading of information or knowledge is the purpose of Wikipedia, not the hiding of stuff that you don't want to see). Kusma (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Great advice. Especially for people who does peer reviews and likes to contribute to featured article status. -- ReyBrujo 15:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can't even read the whole article because you're afraid of spoiling something, don't bother doing a peer review or trying to help make the article better for FA. You won't be helping. Articles need to stand together as a single unit, and it makes no sense for someone to be editing or review one section in depth without even having read the whole thing. --Cyde Weys 16:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Kusma, you are deconstructive. Of I course I can just not read the articles. I can simply stop using WP. But what are you responding to? To a suggestion of giving an option? Does this mean you do not consider it as a possible solution? That makes you a terrorist, you do not try to understand others. :P --Akral 15:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't call other editors terrorists for expressing their point of view - this is not being civil, as you should have known. Better words to convey the same thing in this context would be "unreasonable" or "completely unreasonable" or something like that.—greenrd 23:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I read about films/animes I want to watch to know, if I really should watch them. Do I like the filming/drawing style, what actors are there, etc. What's wrong with that? --Akral 15:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Some people, like me, look up movie articles to see what the movie is about (e.g. an overview). The last time I did this, I read the lead, and then, right below that was a spoiler tag, so I looked no further. The tag is not hiding anything itself, but allows the user to regulate what he/she reads. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

We cannot do anything about people who are stupid enough to look up articles that they know contain information they don't want. Wikipedia is intentionally designed to deliver information, not to conceal it. Other sites may be more suitable for your purpose. --Tony Sidaway 16:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Calling other editors "stupid" is unacceptable on Wikipedia. See WP:NPA. --agr 17:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't dream of calling Temporarily Insane stupid. I was referring only to those who know that they don't want to know something but nevertheless insist on reading about the subject. Now that is perverse and stupid. --Tony Sidaway 18:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You have just called me perverse and stupid. I believe one should be ignored in any discussions, if he can't respect other opinions. --Akral 18:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of calling you perverse and stupid. If I have, or have given the appearance of doing so, I withdraw the offending comment and apologise. My opinion on the perversity and stupidity of reading about a subject the knowledge of which would cause one discomfort, however, stands. --Tony Sidaway 19:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have explained it before already, but let me give a real life exmample this time. Once I have finished watching Oban anime series, I was wondering, what to watch next. After browsing the web, I found out a possible candidate: Avatar: The Last Airbender. I am interested in it, but up to the point. I want to know how is it drawn, what is it about, what its genre is, what are the cultural references, to evaluate, should I watch it or not, but I do not want to know, if their journey is successful, who gets killed or who is the Bad Guy (c). Spoiler helped me a lot, because, while of course, I skipped Premise and Plot Synopsis sections, I thought, that it would be great to know about the Characters. Yet I was stopped by a red light – a spoiler. Hadn't it been there, I would lose some share of fun. Why? Simply because somebody finds spoilers unencyclopedic. Simply because somebody thinks, we have limited disk space and one word Spoiler would fill our quota.

Now since I was "reading about a subject the knowledge of which would cause one discomfort" and that is "perversity and stupidity", I am perverse and stupid.

Is it that hard to open your monobook.css and add .spoiler{display:none}? Or we could make all spoilers hidden by default and people who want, would add .spoiler{display:block}, but why delete them altogether? --Akral 19:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm writing an encyclopedia, not a guide to anime. Whether we should include spoiler tags in encyclopedia articles on these subjects is a valid question. You don't get to dodge the question by asking me to mess with my css settings.

Now as luck would have it, our article on Avatar: The Last Airbender has a spoiler tag that is way, way high up on the article, and if you don't read past it you'll miss all kinds of setting information that cannot possibly be described as plot spoilers. There is a plot synopsis section which is clearly marked, but this is much lower down. Of course the character section necessarily describes the characters in terms of the way they're drawn and what happen in the plot. This is probably because with most fictional works there is absolutely nothing else to write about the characters. You're unlikely to find a work on this anime that describes the characters without saying who is the bad guy, because (of course!) the bad guy is one of the characters.

If you did read about a subject the knowledge of which would cause our discomfort, and I'll take your word for it, then that was indeed a perverse and stupid thing to do. It isn't wikipedia's problem. It's yours. You must take responsibility for it. --Tony Sidaway 20:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

People are not perfectly rational beings - don't be so hyper-critical. Secondly, even if they were, you're not distinguishing between the knowledge of which and some knowledge of which, which makes your argument sophomoric. I want to know some knowledge about a film before I watch it, but not all types of knowledge. That is an elementary distinction.—greenrd 23:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Solving a problem by asking users to change preferences or their css pages is a bad idea. If we encourage that, we encourage people to war over what the default behavior is. Trust me, you don't want to start encouraging edit wars on the MediaWiki pages or Template:Spoiler or any other pages. This issue should be solved either with a project-wide guideline on spoiler usage or discussion on individual pages. --- RockMFR 20:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

To new participants: don't comment here - be bold!

This discussion is a red herring. While it continues, spoiler tags are being removed in a semi-automated way. Two policies have been re-written to justify this: WP:NDT which used to have a section giving spoiler warnings as an explicit exception, now replaced with a much weaker comment, and WP:SPOIL, which has been re-written to disallow almost all spoilers warnings currently present, and make it extremely difficult to justify new ones. Editors involved point out correctly that on Wikipedia, policy follows consensus, and consensus is established by unreverted edits. I don't know if this doctrine envisaged a few editors armed with WP:AWB changing thousands of pages over the course of a few days; maybe so, I'm pretty new here.

I'm glad the template itself has now been updated to point people here. Those in favour of spoiler warnings should restore them in articles where they think they are appropriate (this currently contravenes no policy, since WP:SPOIL is only a proposal as yet). Don't edit war, just one revert per article (burned my fingers doing more than that myself). You might also try to edit the policies back to something that reflects current practice, but (as I found) this will quickly be reverted; there is no interest in further discussion over there. I hate to give this advice and would welcome any better suggestions. I'm not going to take it myself: I've done my bit; if spoiler warnings are as popular as their widespread use suggests, there should be plenty of editors to do the work. PaddyLeahy 18:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to be bold and do something useful, you can also check out Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Spoiler and Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Endspoiler and remove tags that are unnecessary. Kusma (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

While Wikipedia encourages newcomers to be bold, I really think that this is the sort of time that being bold would end in pointless edit warring, 3RR violations, and subsequent blockings, especially if set by moderators who are biased to one side or the other. This is one of the times that it is best to wait things out. You Can't See Me! 19:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you encouraging new users to begin edit wars over spoiler warnings? Even if you tell them to make only one revert, this kind of editing in mass can be seen just as disruptive as 3RR violations. Imagine if a bunch of editors began adding the warnings to articles, then many more begin to take the away, you have one giant editing war. I am stating this from a non-biased and logical standpoint. Telling users to purposefully revert spoiler warnings back into articles, or have users take them away again, and again, and again, is bad for Wikipedia and any user involved. DarthGriz98 19:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not ask people to remove all spoiler warnings, just those that are unnecessary, many of which exist. If the warnings are truly unnecessary, this won't lead to revert warring, but to a better encyclopedia. Kusma (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

My comment was directed at the overall revert them back in opinion of User:PaddyLeahy, not at the appropriate removal of obviously unnecessary warnings. DarthGriz98 19:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, editors who are less than expert can easily losed their heads and let their behavior degenerate into edit warring, which in the present circumstances would certainly get them blocked (several such instances have already occurred). If anyone feels they must do this, remember that it's always best to discuss edits like this on the talk page if you're reverted. This way you communicate clearly what you're doing and why you're doing it, and the other editors working on the page have a chance to read and perhaps be won over by your justification. Note that the mass edits being conducted by David Gerard are once-only edits. In general he isn't going back and edit warring if he's reverted. This is how one edits boldly without causing disruption. --Tony Sidaway 19:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The whole "once-only" thing only works if all users follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle. In this case, there seem to be many places where multiple users are removing tags and reverting. The bold-revert system doesn't work if everyone thinks they should have an opportunity to "be bold" on every article (in the worst gaming, three times per day). We can be as polite as we want here, but that doesn't change the bullshit edit wars that are going on across numerous articles. --- RockMFR 20:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think what I've observed here (and I've said it before on this page) is that the people putting tags back are quickly overwhelmed by the sheer number of people removing them again. This is as close to an empirical measure of consensus as we have on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 20:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No matter what side of the debate you're on, you can't possibly decide consensus by looking at which side can get more accounts clicking the revert button. --- RockMFR 20:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In practice, that's sometimes how policy changes on a wiki. Editors, convinced by argument, change their editing practices in sufficient numbers to establish a new hegemony. Those who oppose the change eventually accept it because they are overwhelmed by force of numbers. If there is sufficient opposition, the policy change fails. --Tony Sidaway

Voting is evil.

Wikipedia is NOT democracy. --Akral 20:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

...and if you want to be bold and do something useful, you can also check out Category:Animated_series and add tags that are necessary. --Akral 19:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Life of Brian article where I first noticed the discussion about Spoiler Tags was edited by two different editors ObiterDicta and Kusma and if I had kept editing it I would have been caught by 3R not those editors .Garda40 20:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I mean by "overwhelmed by force of numbers". --Tony Sidaway 20:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm also of the opinion that we shouldn't make this into an arm-wrestling contest, but the removal of tags doesn't say much about consensus when one side uses AWB to make literally thousands of edits and the other doesn't. --Kizor 22:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Questioning the encyclopedic nature of the spoilers being warned against

I'd like to bring up a few questions I think are relevant and not being discussed.

• What is the meaning of fiction to the knowledge seeker? Admittedly the purpose of an encyclopedia is to make knowledge more accessible. What does that mean in the realm of fiction? Cutting an expression of non-facts down to major facts of the expression may miss the point. The events within a work of fiction are trivial and non-encyclopedic. The effect of those events may well be important and encyclopedic.

I disagree. If a particular event in a work of fiction is discussed in several mainstream media reviews, arguably it's notable and not trivial. With respect, you seem to be coming at this from the point of view that an English Literature professor or a philosopher might take. An ordinary Jo or Joe might be more interested in what happens in a movie, or what is unique about a movie, rather than the the effects of the event - the "moral message", "plot motifs", "technical vision", or any of that high-falutin stuff that a lot of people don't care about, if you see what I'm getting at.—greenrd 22:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The effect can be described without repeating the fictitious elements. To reproduce fictitious elements not otherwise noteworthy is to reduce a portion of the encyclopedia itself to fiction. The facts of a fiction are generally not noteworthy.

• Related to the last point, noteworthiness should always dictate treatment. Classics are definitionally noteworthy, and their meanings have been amply researched and prepared for encyclopedic treatment. I think a problem we're having may be the definition of classic, and we're running into ever more neo-classics. We have a sense that a given movie or television series will be classic, but we don't know what primary sources to consult for importance. Another unconsidered question may be the tainting effect that promotion has within mass media: while mass media may be acceptable sources for articles on world events, perhaps they are not acceptable sources for articles on other constructs of the mass media.

• Is it possible that the qualia of witnessing a plot twist, for example, in the context of a fictitious world is a kind of knowledge perhaps not suited to an encyclopedia? If that knowledge is suited to an encyclopedia, I would propose that in general it is as yet missing — that knowledge is dropping on the floor during the reduction from the fiction to the fact of it.

• Are there are a lot of articles on unimportant subjects? I'm not sure what I think of this, but perhaps if a subject is important, the treatment should be confined to the important aspects. The interplay between media and their mass audiences may be important. An encyclopedia should cover the important parts.

I think a lot of the problem here is the original research aspect to most articles on fiction. Editors are writing what they experienced of fiction, rather than what society has digested into commentary which can be cited. I think that to talk of whether spoiler warnings are encyclopedic, when the content of articles itself is not, is missing the point. Discussion of spoiler warnings might even be best deferred until we have an understanding of what should (or should not) be present to warn against.

I have used some weasel words until now, in part because I don't have the answers —and probably don't even have a position— and in part to try to soften my critique. (End weasel words.) Typing up what happened in a work of fiction is fairly masturbatory. Encyclopedic knowledge lies outside recountings. Christian Campbell 20:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right to raise the notability point, but we're not going to see the kind of drastic narrowing of Wikipedia's scope that you propose, any time soon - it would be a huge change, requiring a huge consultation. Whether to exclude such a large amount of material is, I respectfully propose, a debate for another time and another place - let's not make the spoiler warning debate any more complicated than it already is! If anyone wants to continue the debate in this section - I urge you to take it to another page - thanks.—greenrd 22:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers should be hidden by javascript [unshoutied & shortened]

The fact that encyclopedias do not contain warnings misses the point, because each article that needs a spoiler warning is actually a combination of two articles. The first is about how the subject is *presented* by their authors and by the press in general and MUST NOT CONTAIN SPOILERS. The second is about what people who experienced the subject write about it to an audience that wishes to know about the details of the experience.

An alternative to spoiler warnings could be to split articles, but it is less convenient for users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.167.204.15 (talk • contribs)

Spoilers are not corralled behind one single section; they are spread through out an article in bits and pieces. Do you really expect an article to be coherent when every other sentence is hidden? You Can't See Me! 21:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a really dumb idea, no offense. It even contradicts the old version of the spoiler policy. Axem Titanium 21:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sentences whose meaning depends on spoilers are to be considered spoilers too, obviously. 192.167.204.15 22:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, just because we are an online encyclopedia doesn't mean we have to use every form of netequette out there. We don't type our articles in AIMspeak, nor are we to present material as if we are a fansite. I can live with tags for certain situations, but certainly not hiding spoilers. That's what they do on message boards, not encyclopedias (regardless of what kind of encyclopedia we are; it's something we just don't do). — Deckiller 22:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that non-encyclopedias do something means that we shouldn't do it? That strikes me as the inverse of the proposition that the fact that other encyclopedias do something means that we should do it, and I can't support either. Every "edit this page" link is a breach of convention, and the existence of Wikipedia is proof that we've built a reference not on the basis of what others do or don't do, but on evaluating on our own what's good and what works. On reflection, we're the kind of encyclopedia that's an ecletic mix of old and new. --Kizor 22:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, but let's also put this into perspective. We're talking about masking half the text in the article with javascript, not adding a few tags or making some policy changes. My response was focused squarely on the concept brought up in this thread, not on the general philosophy of Wikipedia. — Deckiller 22:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Then that was rather a waste of a good argument on my part, wasn't it? --Kizor 22:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps :) But you do have a point. Although the community should always compare ourselves to other things and remember the function of an encyclopedia, it's not the only factor that should go into discussion. It's just one aspect. Nevertheless, I believe that there are other arguments as to why spoiler tags (or most, at the very least) should be removed that don't just have to do with comparing ourselves to other projects, but we won't go over that for the millionth time :) — Deckiller 23:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should be warnings, but not hidden text, otherwise we would transform Wikipedia in a Choose Your Own Adventure book. -- ReyBrujo 01:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, spoiler WARNINGS should be hideable with Javascript, not spoilers themselves

A great number of people like spoiler warnings, and a large number (no-one knows how large) dislikes them. Simple solution: allow readers to dismiss the warnings, by clicking a link (which would set a cookie). If the user wants to make that change permanent, so that it takes effect on whichever computer they're using, they can create an account.

This would satisfy almost everyone, because everyone gets the opportunity to see the version of Wikipedia that they prefer - and would dampen down edit wars over spoilers, which are a waste of time and disruptive to Wikipedia.

Spoiler warnings would have to be on by default, simply because, otherwise casual users don't get a realistic opportunity to know they exist.

The existing editing policy would be unchanged: do not contort an article's structure in order to fit it around spoiler warnings. No need for (inevitably arbitrary) time limits on spoiler warnings - you could even potentially have spoiler warnings on Charles Dickens works if there is consensus among article editors - no problem.

Hopefully this is a compromise that the vast majority could support - and I think it's the only compromise that both sides could support.—greenrd 23:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

SUPPORT - spoiler warnings make a lot of sense, and I am glad to have them in WP. On the other hand, the moronic text in the spoiler warning saying that the template itself is being discussed and considered for deletion is ironically way more distracting than the spoiler warning itself! Change the spoiler warning template back - they are so common no one really notices them anymore, anyway. But they do now.68.146.200.201 23:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Enough with the voting. As it stands, editing your CSS config will hide all spoilers. Voting for this is like voting for midsummer. --Tony Sidaway 23:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

My proposal, if enacted, would mean that anyone who understood an English phrase like "hide these warnings" could switch off spoiler warnings - not just people who were prepared to create an account, find some technical instructions relating to CSS, and follow them correctly(!).—greenrd 00:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you're proposal is probably the most reasonable solution I see, but I'd rather address the more interesting question of, "do spoiler warnings belong in an encyclopedia?" Unfortunately it seems like the conversation is starting to die down and I haven't a clue as to what the consensus is. Jussen 00:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Support - This would be a great compromise between those that want the spoiler warnings and those that do not want the spoilers warnings. --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 00:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This idea effectively avoids the question of whether spoiler warnings are appropriate for an encyclopedia or not. It simply sidesteps it until someone else starts complaining about the need to edit around a spoiler warning, except it will be worse since he can't even see the warning that he's trying to edit around. This is a bad idea. Axem Titanium 00:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the point - to sidestep it. I believe we are never going to achieve consensus on this question on an encyclopedia-wide level. So, realistically, I think the are only two ways out: someone high-up steps in and makes a unilateral policy decision - which would cause anger, and would be a bad outcome I think - or we find some kind of compromise. Of course the editor in your example would be able to see the warning because (a) it would be on by default (b) he or she would be able to turn it on and off in prefs, and (c) it would always appear in edit boxes anyway. It's not going to solve all arguments but it should at least solve most of them. Cases in recently-published works where a big spoiler really "needs" to be in the lead section are rare to non-existent, in my view. —greenrd 00:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't Support Or however you say ~support. I'd rather try to address the more interesting question of, "do spoiler warnings belong in an encyclopedia?" (as I stated above, though probably in the wrong place) Unfortunately it seems like the conversation is starting to die down and I haven't a clue as to what the consensus is. Jussen 00:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think that spoiler warnings are appropriate for this encyclopedia because Wikipedia provides the following information for fictional works:

1. Information regarding the fictional work's publication, inspiration, impact on society, criticism, and many other things about the published work. This type of information does not require a spoiler warning, since it doesn't hinder one's enjoyment of the book or movie.
2. Information regarding the work's characters, settings, writing/filming style, etc. These don't interfere with one's enjoyment of the fictional work as well.
3. Information summarizing the work's plot, ending, or climax that would definitely hinder one's enjoyment of the fictional work.

Because Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia focused on one subject, we should not expect people to know that we're going to give them spoilers. Other general encyclopedias, such as World Book and Britannica, do not give spoilers away. If the general encyclopedias don't give away that kind of information, what makes you think that our readers will expect to find spoilers here? They need to be warned that Wikipedia is a unique encyclopedia in which we give away information about everything.

If some editors don't like it, then they can hide the spoiler warnings. It's that simple.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 00:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Before we go vote-happy on this proposal, why don't we step back and see if we agree with the current wording of the Wikipedia:Spoiler page? It has received considerable work and if anything, that should be considered first. Axem Titanium 00:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

(To Ed) According to WP:5P, Wikipedia is a combination of "general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs". None of those use spoiler warnings. Why should we? Axem Titanium 00:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh...you got me there! True, other encyclopedias don't use spoiler warnings. However, websites that are specifically made to describe movies, such as http://imdb.com/ , do prevent their readers by hiding spoiler content. This is done by adding a "more" link to a separate page with all of the plot summaries. If a site that's devoted to movies censors its spoilers, why shouldn't Wikipedia censor it's spoilers as well?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That may be fine for IMDB, but on Wikipedia, that's called a content fork, a practice that was frowned upon, even under the old version of the spoiler guideline. Axem Titanium 01:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. What I meant to say was that since IMDB warns its readers about spoilers, Wikipedia should warn its readers about spoilers as well.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that? All I see is a "plot outline" and a link that says "more". It has nothing analogous to Wikipedia's current spoiler warning. Axem Titanium 01:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The link that says "more" practically says, "Don't click here unless you want the spoilers." In this case, the spoiler warning is implied, since it restricts readers from reading potentially ruining info.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I see but that method is impossible on Wikipedia because it is a content fork. On the other hand, I have nothing against an implied spoiler warning. This entire time, I've been calling the "Plot" header a form of implied spoiler warning that wards away people who don't want to see spoilers. Axem Titanium 01:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, I'm not suggesting any content forks. Don't forget that in some articles, the plot section might just be an overview of the work of fiction, while a separate section marked "summary" might give the actual details of the plot. In the "plot" section, the spoiler warning wouldn't be necessary while the "summary" section might actually need one.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

(To Axem) That's basically what I'm saying. We should continue to see how this page (the spoiler page that is) turns out and go from there. Jussen 01:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Axem Titanium 01:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"(To Ed) According to WP:5P, Wikipedia is a combination of "general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs". None of those use spoiler warnings. Why should we? Axem Titanium 00:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)"

Because Wikipedia is neither. Rather, it's both. A general encyclopedia does not go into detail at all or only when necessary, a specialized encyclopedia can assume that its readers want the specifics. As a general-purpose work, Wikipedia cannot make that assumption. Readers use it as a general encyclopedia and as a specific encyclopedia. No other work has the resources for that. --Kizor 02:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a good idea. There are good arguments on both sides and this seems like a highly reasonable compromise solution. JoshuaZ 06:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings have been hideable for years. Making them hideable does not change anything, is not a compromise at all and does not address the problems with NPOV and WP:LEAD that were the reason for Phil Sandifer to start the MFD. Kusma (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Warning, sm*rk ahead

When people say "A great number of people like spoiler warnings" I wonder who they're talking about. I've removed hundreds of spoiler warnings in the past few days, and some people have removed many thousands of them. The silence, with all due deference to the people discussing matters in this page, has been deafening.

None of us has had to edit war, but those who care enough about the spoiler tags seem to be so few and far between that they themselves are usually in an edit war with two, three, four or more who remove the tags. So evidently this love of these intrusive marks is very rare.

Most spoilers are hidden behind a clear signal like "Plot", "Synopsis", "Gameplay", "Characters" or whatnot. If you can read English (and most people can) then there's no problem, just go to the contents list and skip to the next section.

There are probably more people who dislike the word "smirk" than there are people whose day would be ruined by hearing that Blake is Cram's father, that Crunge sees stupid people, but they don't know they're stupid, or that Sherella is really Herella. We don't hide the word "smirk" behind nasty, ugly marks saying "warning, sm*rk ahead" with a horrible great blight of bold italic across the page. We don't patronise people who don't like the word "smirk", we assume that they are aware of their limitations and have developed strategies to deal with them. Further, we don't demand of people who dislike the horrible warnings, that they mess with their browsers so as to avoid seeing them in an encyclopedia that the came to because they wanted information.

And that's what we're here for. We're here to produce informational articles, not to act as nannies to people who want to turn us into a conduit for the selective dissemination of information. If someone needs to have our informational content filtered, let him pay a premium for that service, using our content at no cost, with the filtering performed at his expense. This is not out job. We are producing the material, we are not going to kow-tow to an interest group that wishes to censor our manner of presentation. --Tony Sidaway 01:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

removed from where it was placed inside my edit. --Tony Sidaway 03:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. That's like saying, "the silence, with all due respect to the many arguments I've heard against it, has been deafening". Have you been editing high-traffic articles or low-traffic articles? Also, maybe the anti's are more represented among the "hardcore" editors and the pro's are more represented among readers who don't want to or feel confident enough to edit? You've got to at least admit it's possible...—greenrd 01:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

end of moved comment. --Tony Sidaway 03:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, that's what I'm saying! Though while you're making those hundreds of spoiler removals, why not point them to this page? I don't see why we're removing these things now when we'll basically be doing it all over again in a week or so after everything gets reverted. People are reverting because we're still discussing, so why not wait a bit till were done? Do spoilers really matter that much? Jussen 01:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no clue what the word "smirk" has to do anything with this, but I'll move on...

The reason we're not reverting the removal of spoiler warnings is that we want to avoid what we call an edit war. In an edit war, two opposing parties revert each other so that they could get their own point across. Instead of reverting, we're all gathering in this page to discuss things, although things do seem to be getting quite slow here.

Now my question to you is: Why are you removing spoiler warnings during a debate that discusses the their existence? Shouldn't we be discussing rather than taking immediate action? I don't know what your heart says, but I think that you should revert back until we solve our differences. Listen to your conscience... --Ed 01:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just not quite sure who you're talking to. I'm sure Tony Sidaway knows what an edit war is (as do I, but hey, I'm the new guy). And while my conscience (or whatever) tells me to get rid of spoilers, I'm waiting until we finish this discussion. So, um, whaddya talking about? Jussen 02:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh great, I think I've gotten caught up in the joke thread. Jussen 02:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You keep on triumphantly declaring that there is a consensus against spoiler warnings. Saying that doesn't make it true. As best I can tell - and I'm trying not to let my preference color this - it sure seems like it's the same hardcore editors who for some bizarre reason feel really really passionately about not kowtowing to the, er, special interest group. The rate of text output is not an indication of consensus, and a fair majority of casual browsers are pro spoiler warnings. The previous RFC was also fairly dramatic on that issue and is obviously still relevant- the final vote tally was something like 43 in favor of keeping warnings, 14 against, yet both sides were about evenly represented in the debate. Just look at the TFD, which grabbed considerably more random people than the ill-trafficed MFD and had more people voting "Strong Keep" than "Delete" (13 SK, 12 K, 3 WD, 11 D, 2SD by my quick count.) SnowFire 02:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say if you were to just go by votes - the fact that the delete votes nearly double the keep in the mfd above prove consensus. And the tfd you say grabbed "more random people" - and if the mfd is any indication you mean ip addresses/new accounts - which don't count (in which case the delete votes more than double the keep votes in the mfd). danielfolsom 02:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me quote at length from Wikipedia:Consensus:

On the other hand, it is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue. This, however, is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia's decisions are based not on the numerical fact of how many people showed up and voted a particular way. It is based on a system of good reasons. Attempts to change consensus must be based on a clear engagement with the reasons behind the previous consensus - not simply on the fact that today more people showed up supporting position A than position B.

This paragraph seems to apply to you guys.—greenrd 03:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I had nothing to do with the first one - or asking again - however it's a completely different thing - while I have not seen the tfd I imagine that some people voted per policy - and now more people are fighting the policy. danielfolsom 03:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that how consensus works on Wikipedia? A decision is made, an action is taken, disapproval is expressed, and negotiation takes place. This can be taken to a larger scale and applied to anything - even policy, especially when policy is rewritten after a quick judgement that a large portion of viewers and users were completely unaware of. You Can't See Me! 03:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

i'm not really sure what your arguing here ... all I'm saying is there's like a hierchy - articles -- > policy -- > Basic principles. For the tfd, people should have voted based on policy, but this time it's different - since we're arguing a policy.danielfolsom 03:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I'm not sure exactly what you're implying here. All I meant by "random" people was the fact that MFD is almost certainly the least visited XfD, so few people not watching the spoiler warnings page would accidentally stumble upon it (I know I knew absolutely nothing of it). And if you refer to the "asking again" thing, I disagree with you doubly. First, asking again is fine since "consensus can change." Second, if anyone is asking again, it is the against crowd, since the last RFC ended conclusively in favor of spoiler warnings. Now, as per the first statement, this is fine, of course; if there is a dispute, the policy should be revisited. But yeah, I don't see how this can be held against the anti- crowd. SnowFire 03:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You were the one that brought up asking again ... but whatever danielfolsom 03:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

In reply to greenrd, my understanding is that by early this morning David Gerard had removed spoilers from about 5,000 articles, about 10% of all articles on the wiki that formerly contained spoilers. This includes high traffic and low traffic articles. There has been very little response of any kind, and certainly no great revolt.

In reply to Jussen, I'm just not seeing any reverts to speak of. A piddling few for the number of edits performed.

In reply to SnowFire, my experience doesn't bear out your findings. Please revise your position in view of the empirical evidence. --Tony Sidaway 03:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, let's get rid of some spoilers! Jussen 04:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait, I can only get rid of the warnings, not the spoilers? Oh well. Jussen 04:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

A quick opinion from a casual user

As someone who has edited maybe a dozen articles and written none, perhaps my opinion doesn't hold as much water as some. That said, this whole arguement seems a bit strange. Wikipedia is a great source of information. However, it is not an encyclopedia in the same sense that the large multi-volumed encyclopedias in a library are encyclopedia. Those books would never have the extensive sections about television shows and pricing games on The Price Is Right that Wikipedia has. Although Wikipedia may have started out with the intent to be one of those, it has grown into something different, something new. It is, I think, the primary source of information on the web, with many other sources of information (answers.com, google, etc.) pointing at it. This puts it in fundamentally new, uncharted waters. Many users, when looking for any information at all, will load up wikipedia and type in the subject they want to research. Or, they will load up google, type in the subject, and the first hit will be wikipedia. These aren't people who are intentionally consulting an encyclopedia. They are people looking for information. Wikipedia shouldn't concern itself with encyclopedic integrity or the avoidance of redundancy or even providing aesthetic pleasure, it should concern itself with providing information to people seeking information.

I don't buy the arguement that "plot" implies spoilers. The plot of Citizen Kane could be described as "a rich newspaperman's life is remembered" or "a rich newspaperman desires Rosebud, his sled." No one would mind having the first told to them before they saw the movie, but plenty would be angry to discover the second. Thus, I think wikipedia has two options; either not include information that could be spoilers (which is silly and contrary to the idea of providing information) or warn readers of spoilers. In my opinion, it is more important to provide information to readers without risking making the work any less enjoyable for them then it is to cater to the egos of editors with lofty ideals about encyclopedic integrity.

I think this whole arguement assumes that wikipedia is for the information providers, when, of course, it is really for the information seekers.

But that's just my opinion. 71.232.175.180 01:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well said--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well said. The views of Wikipedia readers have been radically underrepresented here. The discussion on this page seems to have been dominated by a relatively small group of "anti's", who don't seem to realise how unrepresentative this discussion has been so far. I only heard about it because the spoiler template was edited to include a link to this page.—greenrd 02:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear! I'd take it further: this discussion often seems to assume that spoilers are restricted to the "plot" section, but they're not. Does a "themes" section have spoilers? Some do, some don't. "Reception"? "Characters"? A reader has no way of knowing this in advance, regardless of his familiarity with the encyclopedia. --Kizor 02:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, other wikipedians think they know the Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything, and spoiler warnings isn't it. -- ReyBrujo 02:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm willing to listen to anyone's arguments, but the fact that "It's [the reader's] problem" was mentioned above (multiple times, nevertheless) worries me. You Can't See Me! 03:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As another casual user, I have to say I agree completely, especially with the argument that plot summaries and spoilers are not necessarily the same thing. NurMisur 04:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Back to Work, Youse!

Uhg! More pointless arguments over minor issues. Let's get back to editing the damned encyclopedia, people! Nricardo 02:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

We like endless discussions. -- ReyBrujo 02:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

*Ahem*

An issue that, in my quick skim through, seemed to come up was that of patronizing "casual users", or those that come in from a search engine. The solution that I see is an obvious one: tell users that we expect them to have enough reason to know about spoilers, profanity, and the like ahead of time. The oh-so controversial spoiler warnings can be used where spoilers aren't expected, such as in a trivia section of an article on mathematics. I hope that my creation of this humble new section isn't objectionable. - AMP'd 02:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving the disclaimer links to the top of the page rather than the bottom would be a great way to do this. All we have to do is... Eh, I don't know beyond that. I proposed something similar up above and also at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:No disclaimer templates‎.You Can't See Me! 02:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Not just the spoilers, but maybe the "About" page should be more prominent. We might as well kill as many birds of policy with the stone of consensus as we can. At the Reference Desks, where I frequent, we have issues with the medical and legal disclaimer.And I can't imagine what the people over at fuck have to deal with. - AMP'd 03:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I mean. Those three links at the very bottom of the page should really be at the top. It's too late to read the disclaimer that says "You might run into depictions of nudity," after seeing a full frontal while researching issues in public nudity. The disclaimers link, along with the Private policy and About Wikipedia links need to be made more prominent. The best - and probably the only - way to do that is to put them on a spot on every page that makes them more noticeable: the top. You Can't See Me! 03:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Medical and legal disclaimers are fundamentally different. As the "No disclaimer templates" page read until very recently: [...] The only disclaimer on wikipedia should be the spoiler warnings, because you don't know where they are, and they ruin things for you. You can choose to ignore medical-related content on Wikipedia, but once you've read a spoiler, you can't just pretend you never read it. -Frazzydee|✍ 12:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

from Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/April 2005#Template:Medical

--Kizor 03:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The disclaimer links are at the top in my skin, so presumably its just a matter of messing with the standard CSS. I find it utterly unbelievable that at one time Wikipedia had a policy that said okay no medical disclaimers but heaven help us if some sensitive soul found out without warning that Julius Caesar is assassinated in the Senate. I wonder what planet the people who wrote that policy thought they were living on. --Tony Sidaway 03:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The skin that I'm currently using is MonoBook, the default skin; this skin displays those links at the bottom. That means that everyone without an account (which is more-or-less the majority of readers, not even counting those who do have an account and do not change the skin) will not see the disclaimer links until they get to the bottom. That also applies to users who use anything other than Classic or Cologne Blue skin. But as you noted, it's just a matter of messing with the standard CSS. You Can't See Me! 04:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Where's the middle ground?

Surely there must be something between the "Spoilers warnings for every plot detail" that had been the case in the recent past vs. "No spoilers warnings for anything". It seems too many people on both sides are too willing to blow up the middle ground on the application of spoiler warnings. --Farix (Talk) 03:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we've got the middle ground. Spoiler warnings where the proponent can make a strong case that substantial numbers of readers, not editors, will suffer greatly from knowing the plot or some other information, if it were not preceded by a spoiler tag in addition to any other matter such as "Plot" headings and the like.

At the moment on the Doctor Who project I'm working with a two year horizon. Spoiler warnings are de rigueur for anything first broadcast after May, 2005, no spoiler warnings for anything broadcast before unless someone objects and then we talk about it. --Tony Sidaway 03:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)