Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 13

There is a discussion on the archiving of this page at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archiving debate

Ownership of articles

Per Ownership of articles, I have made the following edit: [1]

In a work that is uncommonly reliant on the impact of a plot twist or surprise ending — a murder mystery, for instance — a spoiler tag may be appropriate even within a properly labeled "Synopsis" section, if local editors agree. These should be sourced when possible (e.g., by citing a professional reviewer who describes the impact of the surprise).

In a work that is uncommonly reliant on the impact of a plot twist or surprise ending — a murder mystery, for instance — a spoiler tag may be appropriate even within a properly labeled "Synopsis" section, if there is consensus. These should be sourced when possible (e.g., by citing a professional reviewer who describes the impact of the surprise).

This has been discussed before. The concept of "local editors" is absolutely alien to Wikipedia's "anyone can edit" principle. --Tony Sidaway 17:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"concept of "local editors" is absolutely alien to Wikipedia's "anyone can edit" principle" Nonsense. If you show up to edit, you are local. The implied point is you do have to show up. Milo 20:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Then there's no need to mention it.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Then there's no need to mention it" I disagree. "Local" is about where decisions are to be made, not who makes them. The point of mentioning "local editors" or "local consensus" is to establish that certain things are to be decided on the article's local talk page, and thus will not be decided centrally by the guide.

The analogy is to unnamed states' rights and people's rights being explicitly mentioned as reserved to the states and the people in the U.S. Constitution. The framers knew that failure to mention the equivalent of local rights will result in an erosion of those rights. Milo 19:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that "local editors" has no more meaning than "editors". — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

At one time that might have been true, but until Tony's circular reasoning of consensus decided elsewhere than the article and its talk page is completely refuted, it currently needs to be made explicit. Milo 20:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Carl and Tony. There are no "local editors," and there is no "local consensus." Marc Shepherd 20:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There may be no "local editors" or "local consensus," but Milo still has a point. If the language is the issue, why don't we just say that consensus should be established on the article's talk page? Postmodern Beatnik 21:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll explain precisely why the term "local editors" is a very important one in the context of this long, long discussion:

• 20:51, 12 June 2007 Wandering Ghost:

  If the consensus truly is overwhelming, the local editors will make sure to keep them out.

• 12:42, 18 June 2007 Wandering Ghost:

  It has been noted that there is a tendency for people who are vehemently anti- or pro- spoiler warning to show up to spoiler warning tag discussions on talk pages or articles they're uninvolved with, and in numbers which overwhelm the local editors, in an attempt to push their view that spoilers should be rarer or more common. These people should be ignored where there is a strong local consensus one way or the other.

• 22:59, 29 June 2007 User:Jere7my:

  A small handful of admins and senior editors are stomping out brushfires of spoiler tags wherever they arise, usually against the wishes of local editors. It's not cool, man. It's way far away from the spirit of Wikipedia.

• 12:23, 30 June 2007 User:Jere7my:

  As I said on the mediation page, since the anti-spoiler folks think there's broad consensus that spoiler tags are bad, granting more leeway to local editors shouldn't (in their eyes) lead to a lot of new spoiler tags.

• 22:33, 6 July 2007 User:Philipreuben:

  I can agree with this, provided it involves rewording the guideline to make clear that certain issues are contentious and therefore left entirely up to local editors.

• 12:35, 7 July 2007 User:Wandering Ghost:

  ...and often outright claim consensus for removal because the page isn't watched by many people except one or two local editors and the people who decide they need to personally approve or deny every spoiler warning.

• 19:42, 18 July 2007 User:Postmodern Beatnik:

  Are we (by which I mean local editors) up to the task? We better be. Otherwise, we're not doing our jobs.

[[User:NydasMilo]] is right, when he says that "the implied point is you do have to show up" and [Nydas said earlier] "there's no need to mention it." Yes.

User:Milomedes says: The point of mentioning "local editors" or "local consensus" is to establish that certain things are to be decided on the article's local talk page, and thus will not be decided centrally by the guide. I think what he says is right, which is why I include the phrase "if there is consensus." Obviously consensus here has its usual meaning of informed consensus resulting from discussion of the issue in context, and has the same sense of "you do have to show up" that NydasMilo mentioned, and does imply the requirement for discussion. Blind revert wars are not how we decide consensus. If there is opposition we must always decide it by discussion at the most immediate point: the talk page of the article in question.

But my reason for avoidance of the term "local editors" in this context is that, historically in this debate, it has been used to distinguish those who simply turn up from those who might for whatever reason have performed more edits to that article, or to that type of article. It is because that concept has attached itself to the term "local editors" that I would avoid using it in this guideline. If it simply and unambiguously meant "editors on the talk page, making decisions subject to the broader consensus and the sense of Wikipedia policy", then I'd probably go along with it. --Tony Sidaway 01:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Tony, I split my post after writing it, and without a second set of tildes, my emphatic remark (you do have to show up) got attributed to Nydas. I've taken the liberty of making attribution corrections to your post of which I hope you approve. If not, they are at least a guide to your further re-edit corrections and rethinking based on the facts. Feel free to just delete-edit and rewrite it without the strikeout mess that I inadvertently caused.

Several of the quotes use "local editors" in a meaning for which I would use "regular editors", since local refers to geography (in this case virtual geography). In my edit to the guideline, I used the term "local consensus" which I think avoids the problem of confusing "local editors" with "regular editors". There may be another way to describe the same locale.

"if there is consensus" does not make clear enough that certain things should be decided on the article's talk page. Since Wikiprojects are now claiming consensus jurisdiction over articles, a clear distinction of where a decision should be made may help avoid bureaucratic disputes over who has to get consensus permission from whom before doing what.

I'd say that if Wikiproject editors want to exert control over article consensus, they too have to show up just like everyone else. Milo 06:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure where this obsession with "local editors" and "local consensus" comes from. Obviously, in a sense, every article is edited locally: someone has to show up and edit it. But because that is self-evident, those intent on adding "locality" to the guideline must mean something else. I'm guessing here, but I think some folks are trying to distinguish the subject-matter experts who create most of the content, from generalist editors who work all over the place.

I don't think it works that way. The generalist editors have a role to play, too — for instance, in recognizing recurring patters, and making pages look consistent. Decisions accumulate one page at a time, but it's perfectly natural to add or remove a spoiler tag, because similar articles have added or removed it. Consensus, therefore, is not always decided locally in one article. Marc Shepherd 15:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the term "local editor" is pretty obvious. It's someone who has the article in his watchlist and fixes vandalism occasionally, or who writes or edits some content for it, or who just returns there from time to time. On the other hand, I would say someone who monitors large number of articles by bot (where large means more than he could handle himself) or changes an often used template is not a local editor in the affected articles. Of course, the category is fuzzy, but many categories are. There are maybe 200000 articles about fiction (just a wild guess), so people who care about SWs on all of them are not local editors by any definition. Also note that this doesn't goes against ownership of articles - everyone can become local editor of any article he wishes to. Also, to prevent misunderstandings, I don't think that some editors should have say over another. I think "consensus by local editors" in this sense means that there will be no editors going around those 200000 articles and telling other editors (who care more about article in question) how should they place the spoiler tags. I want to discourage such behaviour. Samohyl Jan 18:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your definition of "local editor," but what has it to do with the guideline? Does any other guideline refer to "local editors" (as opposed to other kinds of editors)? On Wikipedia, no one needs to become "local" before they can edit. The consensus process doesn't work any differently for spoiler tags than it does for other stylistic matter. Marc Shepherd 19:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't want to guideline prefer any editor over another (being democrat and anti-elitist, I don't even consider it right), I just want to discourage certain behaviour. Just like WP:ENGVAR (rather gently, imho) tries to discourage people from going around and change the English variety on articles. Samohyl Jan 00:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but it _does_ work differently for spoiler tags than for some other stylistic matters. Because of the editing imbalance. Because a) consensus is not clear one way or the other in this case, and b) one side has an overwhelming advantage in editing their POV.

Let's look at it this way. On some page, Z, there is naturally disagreement about whether a spoiler tag is appropriate. Say in general, X people think it is inappropriate, and Y people think it should be there. How do people in X get to the page? They search for uses of template Spoiler, and once they get there, they remove it. How do people in Y get to the page? They have to already be there. Otherwise they don't know there's a debate going on. They might not even know the page EXISTS. So even if Y is equal to or greater than X, because people in X can easily find the edit on Z they don't agree with, they can win there (and if there is no such edit, they have already won). And then move on to Z', where there may be just as much disagreement. And Z. In essence, _ADDING_ spoiler tags is _already_ restricted to 'local editors'.

If there was a bug that prevented people from searching for words in American spellings, but not for searching for words in British spelling, then it would likewise be very possible for some determined group to remove British spelling from most pages - they might be fought on a page by page basis, but if there were enough of them and they kept vigilant, they could do it.

I still feel strongly that _something_ needs to be done to

address this. If not specifying a preference for local editors in this case, then agreeing on limiting the number of solely spoiler-related edits in a certain time frame (say 3 per day), to prevent people from going on patrol (the rule would apply to either adding or removing spoiler warnings, but in this case would have more effect in one particular area), or a "do not make your only edit the addition or removal of a spoiler, only add or remove a spoiler warning as part of a larger edit", or the creation of a 'disputed spoiler' tag, invisible on the page, but that people can search for and add their point of view, and suggest that when removing a spoiler tag, you should replace it with the disputedspoiler tag. Or something else that I haven't thought of that can help address this. Wandering Ghost 12:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not about specialist versus generalist, it's about not encouraging people who don't give two shits about a particular article, who won't help clean it up or write anything or verify anything, coming along to insist that it's of utmost importance that the article have or not have a spoiler tag; if a handful of editors do so on a number of articles, no matter WHICH side they're on, then vanish once they win, is that really consensus or just subtle spoiler-POV pushing? Kuronue | Talk 21:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example of the situation in which the people who visited the page to remove the spoiler tag never visited it before and haven't visited it since. Have a look at the talk page as well.Garda40 22:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

How can you know they never visited it before or after? You don't have to edit anything to look at it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 23:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing me with a good laugh seeing you quibble about the word visited .Garda40 00:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely the reason why such behaviour cannot be explicitly banned, but should be discouraged. Samohyl Jan 00:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You're saying it should be discouraged to not make some edits because others won't be made too? I for one have a number of pages I watch but have never made an edit to. You speak as if there's something horridly wrong with doing that. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I was referring to behaviour I and Kuronue described above, obviously. Samohyl Jan 07:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The very reason we have a wiki is to enable anybody to edit. If we get to the stage where we are discouraging edits by known, trusted editors, then we might as well give up. --Tony Sidaway 01:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If we get to the stage where we encourage people to go from article to article pushing their POV, we're doomed. It's the same as people coming to, say, all pregnancy- and abortion-related articles saying "We should use the terms "mother" and "baby" and "father" and "womb"" because that fits their pro-life spin (and this is an actual case going on now, mind). We should encourage people to IMPROVE WIKIPEDIA, not to POLICE SPOILER TAGS. Kuronue | Talk 02:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It takes all kinds of editing to improve Wikipedia, and what you refer to as "policing spoiler tags" is only one of them. I (and I'm sure the vast majority of all Wikipedians) would characterize your reasoning as a false dichotomy. we've been here before. On 27 August, I explained the situation as follows [2]:

But that being so, what am I doing to improve Wikipedia? Chopping out tags that some people find useful? Not a bit of it. Mostly I remove redundant tags from sections with names like "Story", "Plot" or "Synopsis". As I've stated above, it's not acceptable in an encyclopedia to write about such matters without covering what most reasonable people would consider spoilers. But that's not all I do. I change the names of sections, or add section names where they do not already exist, so that the reader will not be misled. Don't misunderstand me: I don't create corraled areas of spoiling content. Rather, I create structure in the article that shows the casual reader that this is an encyclopedia and not a fan site, that its mission is to inform and not to conceal. I am performing an essential function in the construction of an encyclopedia: making an infrastructure that permits all significant elements of a subject to be covered, and removing elements that make such coverage difficult to provide in an integrated manner. We shouldn't be dodging in and ou of "spoiler" areas dictated arbitrarily by random editors. Rather we should always feel free to refactor any article to improve the delivery of information.

In short, I'm very happy with the work I've done on Wikipedia, and you have yet to show that it does anything but good to the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 02:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's a bad thing to correct structure of articles; I'm saying it's generally a bad idea to promote that being the only thing you do in all of wikipedia. Nor am I claiming it's the only thing you do, but really. There're FAR larger problems than this one, and nobody should be encouraged to do nothing but police the spoiler tag issue, hunting down every last instance to eradicate it. That's rather WP:POINTish. Kuronue | Talk 23:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes you're right to state that there are other problems that need to solved. I think it would be an extremely short-sighted person who claimed that's the only thing I do on Wikipedia. Blind might be a better word (see this which I've already quoted from at length and which is consonant with my extremely long contribution history). Please read Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (aka WP:POINT). It's very important to understand what it means. It definitely doesn't mean "don't try to improve Wikipedia's content with each and ever edit you make.."

I know I or some other experienced editors asks someone to read and try to understand WP:POINT just about every time it's cited, but there's a good reason for that: it's often cited in a quite baffling manner that it impossible to connect in any way to that text or the sense of that guideline. --Tony Sidaway 23:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm blind? Nor am I claiming it's the only thing you do, from the post RIGHT above yours. I'm stating a WORST-case scenario, not trying to say that it's done. If all you do is start edit was about spoiler tags and force your own personal agenda - claiming consensus is with your side - then that is disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. It's a good thing nobody's that bad -- yet. I'm worried that it might happen in the future, and the way to prevent that would be to avoid advocating monitoring spoiler tag usage across all of wikipedia - the temptation to then bring your own personal agenda, for or against, is rather great. Kuronue | Talk 23:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. As long as we all understand that you absolutely were not talking about the current implementation of the guideline, but only about some hypothetical person who might make considerable efforts to keep spoiler tagging under control.

Starting edit wars by removing spoiler tags, whatever one's personal opinion of the matter, would of course be extremely disruptive, we agree on that. We definitely shouldn't do that. It isn't anything to do with WP:POINT, however. Please do read and try to understand that guideline. Please also stop abusing the word "agenda". The way you use it above, it seems to be absolutely meaningless. "By going to the toilet, Smith was pursuing an agenda of voiding his bowels". Utterly without sense. --Tony Sidaway 23:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry my meager command of the english langauge is not up to your standards, m'lord. I'll refrain from bothering in the future. I've stated my point, anyone can here read it, for better or for worse. I'm done defending it at this point in time. Kuronue | Talk 23:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Local editors" use and misuse

Getting back to the issue of what is meant by the phrase "local editors" —

The problem I observe here may be use of a slang meaning of "local" as incorrectly confused with "regular". If so, editors who don't use the dictionary aren't likely to agree on anything with those who do use the dictionary.
Here are the first two definitions of "local" at m-w.com "local":

1 : characterized by or relating to position in space : having a definite spatial form or location

2 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of a particular place : not general or widespread

"Local", the adjective, means a place in space, in this case cyberspace. Articles on web pages have an address known as a URL (Universal Resource Locator). If one wants to navigate there, a URL is placed in the address bar, and the Go button can be pressed to load the page at that location. When one is at that locale, one is local to it. Whether one has been there many times or only once, one is always local while there, but not necessarily a regular visitor.
Here is the 3rd definition of "regular" at m-w.com "regular":

3 a : ORDERLY, METHODICAL <regular habits> b : recurring, attending, or functioning at fixed, uniform, or normal intervals

and in the inverse, the 4th definition at m-w.com "irregular":

4 : lacking continuity or regularity especially of occurrence or activity <irregular employment>

The confusion of "local" with "regular" may partly arise from informal use of "local" as noun at American Heritage "local":

4. Informal A person from a particular locality.

(Note: I switched dictionaries because m-w.com and COED used the adjective to define the noun.)

In ordinary understanding, a "local" is informally someone who seen regularly in a certain place. When there is confusion, an encyclopedia must default to formal language — but — there seems to be a second stacked-on problem of an informality used as slang. The phrase "local editors", as misused, positions "local" as an adjective, yet it's meaning appears to be that of the informal noun (rhetorically understood as a person seen regularly in a certain place).
So, while I can figure out what Samohyl Jan and other editors mean in a discussion, their apparent usage of an informal noun in a formal adjective position, isn't what is found by consulting a dictionary. Their usage is therefore slang that is not only incorrect for use in a guide, but is usage impossible of consensus.
If my analysis is essentially correct, the simple answer to more closely approaching consensus on this point is for those who are speaking/writing incorrectly to educate themselves, since education is the underlying purpose for which they are working. Milo 01:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Seriously Milo, shut up. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion wouldn't be the same without you, but it sounds like you need a music-intensive Wikivacation to nice up. Milo 02:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly understand this obsession with the term "local" or "local editors", but Wikipedia has been making use of {{maintained}} since December of 2005. This template identifies articles that are "being actively monitored and maintained for quality and factuality by identified users." So the terms in use would be "monitors" and "maintainers"; "active users" or "active editors" would also work. "Local editors" is too much of a neologism and ambiguous to be helpful. —Viriditas | Talk 03:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I've never come across {{maintained}}. It's certainly not typical for policies and/or guidelines to distinguish "maintainers" from other types of editors. Marc Shepherd 03:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a big place. :) {{maintained}} is being used on ~1600 articles or so, but that's not very many considering we have more than two million. Looking at my comments above, you're right in that Wikipedia doesn't use the term "maintainers", however, the term "active editors" does show up quite a lot in discussions, although I've only seen it used on the WP:COI behavioral guideline and in the essay, WP:1RR. If you search the talk and project namespace you'll find the term "active editors" used quite a bit, and "local editors" very little. —Viriditas | Talk 05:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've always been somewhat uneasy about the "maintained" tag, but it's pretty clear that it's accepted as long as the people listed are understood to be there (to quote the template) "to help with questions about verification and sources." --Tony Sidaway 02:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the idea of preferring local editors is a good one. However, I do think there needs to be a distinction between people with some level of involvement with a work of fiction, and those who are on spoiler patrol. There are some edits that are fairly noncontroversial, and for which the spoiler patrol is suited. (For example, there seems to be consensus that spoiler tags shouldn't be used in Plot sections.) For spoilers in other sections, having read (watched, played, whatever) the work is probably necessary to determine how significant the spoilers are. — PyTom (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"there seems to be consensus that spoiler tags shouldn't be used in Plot sections" No, that's just an illusion due to anti-consensus, uncompromising majoritarian force being used on the spoiler guide.

It's the return of the plot=spoilers fallacy. There are many kinds of plots; some plots have spoilers, some don't. The 40+% of readers who want spoiler notices have said that they do attempt to read plot sections that don't have spoilers. This is a habit ingrained in them by publishers' blurbs (a type of "plot"), and that habit among readers arriving at Wikipedia from a Google search isn't going to change. Deliberately spoilering these readers just makes Wikipedia into a "spoiler site" that has been condemned in the external world.

Currently the anti-taggers' position is that sections labeled "Plot summary" means that the section might contain spoilers – but that doesn't help readers because a section just labeled "Plot" or even "Synopis" also might or might not contain spoilers.

The readers who like narrative suspense want to know for sure (in the art jury consensus opinion of local editors using the non-slang meaning of "local"). The anti-taggers don't want to tell these readers for sure, because their principle agenda is to punish and drive away this entire class of readers from Wikipedia. If you haven't been following this five-month million-some byte debate, yes, the proof has been published here. Shocked? If so, you should be.

Please tell other editors what's going on here. If this driving-away-readers agenda can be firmly disconsensed, then the hidable spoiler tag compromise on the table can satisfy all of the legitimate issues. Milo 20:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Compromise package including showable spoiler tags

"Hideable tags" is not a compromise, it is the point we started out from five months ago. Kusma (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I deleted that fact in the interest of shortening my post, but thanks for making my point. Hidable tags remain a valid compromise since they were never rejected for technical cause. Quite the opposite, hidable tags were dismissed because they would work, citing ad hominems based on unprovably vague fears against attracting supposed "internet culture". Had it not been for the previously hidden agenda of driving an entire class of readers away, which was eventually smoked out in debate, the elegantly workable hidable tag compromise could have and would have been consensed within a few weeks. Milo 21:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hidable tags are a valid compromise only if a consensus can be built for them, and so far that has never happened. Whether you agree with the reasoning, the fact is that the idea has been consistently rejected. Marc Shepherd 21:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, tags are still hideable and have been for years (this has not changed, so I don't quite see what it has to do with "compromise"). See for example here for the instructions. What we were discussing was not that people didn't want to see spoiler warnings (it was already possible to turn them off); people didn't want others to see spoiler warnings on articles that do not need them (yes, the tired Bible and Shakespeare examples). Kusma (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I proposed tags hidden by default as a compromise, which is significantly different than what was previously, ie. shown by default but hidable. But I have to wonder - why are some opponents of such compromise so interested in controlling what *other* people can see? What happened to good old (internet) libertarianism? Samohyl Jan 17:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't vouch for other people's reasoning, but here's mine. My feeling is that if something belongs in the article, then everyone should see it. That's how the rest of Wikipedia's content is presented, and I see no reason to make an exception. On the other hand, if something doesn't belong, it doesn't acquire legitimacy by making it invisible to the objectors.

Since no one needs permission to edit Wikipedia, constant oversight is the one and only way that our content maintains whatever good qualities it may have. A hidden spoiler tag isn't necessarily a good spoiler tag. These tags, just like everything else in Wikipedia, can be misused — either due to misunderstanding, lack of perspective, stupidity, or just plain vandalism. Hiding them simply means that the mistakes will not as readily be seen and corrected.

So that's why I am not a proponent of hidden tags. Marc Shepherd 20:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

why are some opponents of such compromise so interested in controlling what *other* people can see? -- wouldn't hiding the tags be doing /exactly that/? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It may be that this terminology isn't clear; "hidden tags" does not quite express the idea. These would be optionally visible or hidden, according to a preference setting for each user, similar to the way each user can choose the way dates are displayed or how many items appear on their watchlist.

So in reply to your question, no, preference-based optionally hidden/visible tags would not control what others would see, they would increase the control of each reader to determine what they see, without affecting what others see.

To me this seems like an excellent solution. It's very easy to implement technically, so that's not an issue. It would increase the attractiveness of Wikipedia, and its readership, by making it more friendly for people who want to avoid spoilers, while at the same time, allowing people who don't like the notices to turn them off so they don't have to look at them.

Eventually, whatever is decided in this discussion for the short term, it seems to me that something like the optional hide/show tags will probably happen. It may take a few years, but as web content becomes more and more personalized, Wikipedia will need to participate in that evolution. There are many other applications for optional hide/show content notices as well, so some may consider this idea a slippery slope. And maybe it is. But it might not be possible to avoid it forever. --Parsifal _Hello 21:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no data, but I'll hazard a guess anyway. My guess is that the overwhelming majority of visitors to this website do not customize the display. If spoiler tags were hidden by default, 95% of readers would never see them. If they were visible by default, then it would be the opposite. Marc Shepherd 02:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Red herring — If 95% don't customize the display, then 95% wouldn't need to. 40+% of spoiler averse readers do need to. Milo 05:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If that were true, then the warnings should be always visible, as otherwise 95% of your 40% won't get what you say they need. Marc Shepherd 12:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly remove tags that were intended to remove information from the article on the basis of certain stylistic choices by individual users, simply because the user already has an option to read the article or not to read it. I seem to recall that we went into the metadata discussion in my early days on Wikipedia, and we decided against. The basic principle is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it shouldn't be permissible for editors to turn it into something else by tweaking variables. --Tony Sidaway 01:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you what young turk editors frequently tell me: "Consensus can change". You'll probably have to compromise for non-tweakable content per language — not format, boilerplate, or notices.

Anyway, by the time the customizable next encyclopedia is fully implemented here, I hope you'll be too busy tweaking Wikipedia articles into pretzels, while making a half vast fortune in the advertising department at Wikia. :) Milo 05:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, appeal to tradition. We are encyclopedia, behold! Tell me this: Is Wikipedia a general encyclopedia or a set of interlinked specialized encyclopedias? Because, at the beginning, it was certainly intended to be the first. So we should delete all of those very specialized articles, then? If not, it can certainly evolve further from "encyclopedia that looks the same for everybody" to "encyclopedia which allows customization". Samohyl Jan 05:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to make your point for the deletion of articles that should be deleted (if you think this is not allowed, you may yet need to re-read the guideline known as WP:POINT, Which is more properly known as "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point", and most emphatically does not outlaw making a point). Please don't fall into the trap of arguing that rubbish cannot be removed because Other shit exists. --Tony Sidaway 06:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, Wikipedia is a web-based encyclopedia. It's obviously different than a paper encyclopedia, and as such it's acceptable to do things differently. Hyperlinks, resizable images, and cleanup templates are all things an paper encyclopedia doesn't have... why shouldn't spoiler warnings be another? After all, because [[WP:NOTPAPER], "we can give more thorough treatments, include many more relevant links, be more timely, et cetera." The first and third of these means that spoilers will occur more frequently. Since there are at least two reasons people may read articles about works of fiction (to find out about the production and to find out about the story), it makes sense to (at least optionally) indicate spoilers.

To put things in perspective, most of the articles with spoilers in them are things that aren't even covered by Brittanica. We have encyclopedic content on works of fiction that finished airing Sunday. That's not a bug... it's a feature. — PyTom (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"It's not in Britannica; therefore, Wikipedia shouldn't do it" is a naive argument, and I don't see anyone here putting it that way—at least, not lately. But that doesn't mean that external evidence is completely irrelevant. I think we should look at a broader range of source materials (not just encyclopedias) and a broader range of media (not just print) for guidance on key questions, like: What is a spoiler? What types of works, and what types of plot events, call for a warning? What form should the warning take?

Now, I know there are some people who say, "Who cares what anybody else does? Wikipedia is a new medium, and it doesn't matter what anyone else has done?" That argument has some appeal, since if Jimbo Wales had guided himself by what otehrs have done, we wouldn't have Wikipedia in the first place. But arguments that aren't somehow tethered to evidence are the weakest kinds. After all, many things on the web have been tried that no one had ever done before, and most quickly failed. Marc Shepherd 22:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Parsifal (21:39) wrote: " "hidden tags" does not quite express the idea .... preference-based optionally hidden/visible tags ... would increase the control of each reader to determine what they see"

Good observation; there does seem to be a public relations (PR) problem with the name of the "hidable/hidden spoiler tag compromise". Kusma didn't distinguish this default ambiguous name for the tag-hiding technique [3] from the systemic-solution compromise package named after the hidable/hidden tag feature. Kusma was also unaware that there are other features in the compromise such as the local consensus art jury, where "local" means "at the article's talk page" (and "local" is not slang for "active", "maintaining", or "regular" editors).

"Hidable" is Phil's term — as he correctly spelled it with no middle "e" — but he was talking about the old tags that are visible by default.

Ok, since they are now to be hidden by default, it's become the

" Showable spoiler tags compromise"

However, this name still doesn't communicate the other features of the systemic-solution compromise package. This bundled compromises package name is an unsolved problem.

This name does pass Melodia's question which is also about the PR of suggestion, not just logic. Logically, the name is ok either way, but in PR language unrelated to logic, if one is hiding something, that sounds bad; if one is showing something, that sounds good. Substitute "showable" into her question thus:

Samohyl (17:30) wrote: "why are some opponents of such compromise so interested in controlling what *other* people can see?" (I substitute:) "-- wouldn't showing the tags be doing /exactly that/?

I answer "no" to the logic, and "sounds good" to the PR suggestion.

I suggest thinking way ahead to a short phrase that might someday be allowed at the top of tagged articles or in a tag menu, and be nicely instructive for Google arrivees. Also consider the generic solution to turn on a tag menu for all kinds of tags using a top menu tab, like the | + | tab that only appears on talk pages menus. The latter may be obvious, | tags | , but what phrase might be used in a menu of tags which the clicked tab turns on (or appears on a button without the menu)?

• For menu pairs, "watch/unwatch" suggests "tag spoilers/untag spoilers", which renders:

| Tag spoilers | alternating with | Untag spoilers |

but that doesn't suggest a catchy public interest marketing name, say, like the USA grade school concept "Show and Tell". Parsifal mentions "hide/show", that suggests

Wikipedia's Hide'nShow spoiler tags

• Which then renders a menu pair of:

| Show spoiler tags | alternating with | Hide spoiler tags |

Feel free to join in brainstorming. Milo 07:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why this proposal is called a "compromise", but whatever. I have nothing against hiding spoiler tags by default (if I understand this correctly, I only have to edit MediaWiki:Common.css to make them invisible). However, we should not further clutter our already-too-complicated interface with even more buttons. If spoiler tags are hidden by default, users should enable them through Special:Mypage/Monobook.css. That is how all other user customizations work: through user-defined stylesheets and javascript. It even allows users to choose their own design for spoiler tags. Show tag/hide tag tabs can be implemented in user javascript if there is demand for them. Kusma (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If tags are hidden by default, that will just encourage editors to write spoiler warnings by hand, since they will think the template is broken. So that won't work. This has been discussed in depth already... — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but it seems to me that there's no lack of people who are willing to dedicate themselves to spoiler patrolling. Of course, I don't see any reason why spoiler tags shouldn't be shown by default... it's less intrusive then, say, Template:cleanup. — PyTom (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

True, except that the cleanup template is temporary. Most people arguing for spoiler tags want them on articles/places they'd be permanent. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Even temporary spoiler tags are more or less forbidden.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Carl, do you have some indicias for this, or is it just a theory? And if so, is there any indicias that it would be any worse than situation without any SWs? I doubt it, since it has not been tried. So this is a very weak argument. (As a side note, we can comment on the fact that SWs need to be switched on in the listing of the templates, so every newcomer who will try to use the template will be immediately informed. The other people won't see it's there, so there is no problem.) Oh, and btw, we could also say that users just need to be educated; the same argument was repeatedly raised by Tony in response that people will not expect spoilers without warnings in Wikipedia. Samohyl Jan 20:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I did a search for handmade spoiler tags a while back, and Tony Sidaway did a separate, independent search. We found quite a few. But I have also seen several instances where editors changed a handmade warning to use the tag. We don't want to make changes that encourage editors to use handmade tags (which are typically much less professional than the template). In any case, the question of hidable spoiler tags has been discussed enough already, and I don't feel like rehashing that, so I'm not planning to respond much further in this thread. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Although not proven, Carl's inferences are pretty reasonable. I'm sure it could be verified that the vast majority of Wikipedia users do not customize the interface. They accept it as-is. I suggested (above) that the percentage was 95%. It might be 90% or 99.99%, but I'm sure it is a high figure. If this is so, and if the tags are hidden by default, then most visitors to the site will never see the tags, and will therefore assume that they don't exist. Marc Shepherd 21:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Carl, you missed my point. Those you have seen were with the current version of the guideline, which discourages SWs, right? But if this happens now, then hidable SWs are *no worse*. I would like to hear an argument why hidable SWs make this problem worse than no SWs at all. If you already presented such argument before, I am sorry, I may have missed that, but from our previous debate I don't remember you did (and I presented this argument only once before, iirc). Samohyl Jan 22:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't going to happen because it would just needlessly clutter the articles with furniture that, while invisible to most readers, would be visible to editors. As such it would carry all the disadvantages of the old laissez-faire spoiler guideline without offering much in return. --Tony Sidaway 03:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you consider SWs not to be useful, you can say that it is "without offering much in return". This is your subjective opinion, other people may feel it is different. That's why it's called a compromise, but you're probably unwilling to have, even the slightest, compromise. And it's actually as little clutter as possible - one template is significantly less than comments that have to be maintaned on many pages to prevent some common wrong edits. Samohyl Jan 05:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Instead of making ridiculously false claims about my reasons for objecting, why not just listen to, and perhaps respond to, what I am saying?

This would bring back all the disadvantages we had before. At least when we had visible spoiler tags before it was arguable that most of those users who could derive some utility, however small, from the tags, could do so. This would provide no such thing. It would simply bring us back to the status quo ante but without visual effect on the articles for the vast majority of users. --Tony Sidaway 07:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Tony backed the recently revised guideline, which is considerably more accommodating of spoiler tags than the previous version. No one could say that he is unwilling to compromise.

But hidden spoiler tags are a dumb compromise, which even the most ardent supporters of the tags would be wise to oppose. What's the value of the tags if they are hidden by default, and therefore, most people don't see them? As I noted above the vast majority of users don't customize their interface. "Hidden by default" means "hidden to almost everybody." Marc Shepherd 13:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There is compromise and there is faux compromise. Tony, and others, have been relatively flexible on his willingness to engage in "Compromises that aren't". Because look, we're down to 3 spoiler tag usages on all of WP. The recently revised guideline is considerably more accommodating of spoiler tags, and yet, somehow, we've got even less spoiler tags.

I've used the example before, but I'll use it again. It's like if a country, accused of going to war too often, got together and said, "Okay, okay, we'll compromise. We won't invade another country when everybody agrees we shouldn't." And people think that's a fair compromise because they'll have some check on things. But then, the next time they want to invade, they simply have to say, "Ah, yes, but _We_ are _part_ of everybody, and we do not agree we shouldn't, so the invasion proceeds." That's not really a compromise at all.

Similarly, some of the anti-spoiler group _know_ they can keep spoilers down by means of the spoiler patrol, even if the wording of the guideline is, on the face, slightly more generous to spoilers. They win even if they _look_ like they're compromising, if it doesn't alter things in fact. So why _not_ compromise there? They are, after all, compromises that aren't. Whenever there are compromises proposed that would lead to a non-trivial number of spoiler warnings out there, heels are dug in.

I took a peek at some editing history. Not a long look, a peek. No more than the first page, and I stumbled across Talk:Bionicle, where they're discussing spoilers, because somebody had went through the bionicle pages and removed spoiler warnings using the discussion there as a justification. The discussion there, from the last few days, has 2 people who seem to be regulars on that page arguing that spoiler warnings should be used (and arguing that their use falls _within_ the guideline), and against? Why, who should it be by Tony, CBM, and, I'm sad to see, Marc Shepherd. That's it. Maybe, coincidentally, one or more of you are all particularly interested in Bionicle, but I doubt it. It looks like the ol' Spoiler Patrol again, hopping on when somebody dared use the spoiler tag without permission (or at all, since permission doesn't come). So it seems it's fine to allow a few boundary cases in theory so long as you control when they "count". A compromise includes not only the theory, but when the boundary cases count. Wandering Ghost 12:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

and, I'm sad to see, Marc Shepherd....

Ghost, did you read the substance of what I wrote on Talk:Bionicle? It's not that I objected to spoiler tags per se. It's that I felt they had been placed from a "fans-only" perspective. It's possible to be accommodating of spoiler tags, and yet, to point out when they've been misused.

I think the "Spoiler Patrol" argument is misplaced. There are people who patrol Wikipedia for tons of things, and there is nothing wrong with that. Those folks play a valuable role, because they have a broad perspective. Someone who comes here only to edit Bionicle articles may be an Bionicle expert, but won't necessarily be a great Wikipedia editor.

Those in favor of spoiler tags ought to spend some time looking at the quality of the tags that are placed, rather than merely lamenting the very small number of them. Marc Shepherd 12:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I am responding to your arguments, Tony. The problem is, arguments of you and other anti-spoilerists are sometimes contradictory. If the SWs are visible, you argue that they are condescending. If they are hidden, you argue the other way. These arguments are not themselves contradictory, but if you are willing to compromise, that means accepting having SWs where you do not want them, and then they will be either hidden or shown. If you maintain both positions, it really looks like you don't want to compromise. I will explain this later and more in the next section. Samohyl Jan 05:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Marc has correctly pointed out that I happily engaged in compromise over the recent rewrite of the guideline, as indeed I compromised over the earlier rewrite in late May--I would have been happy to see all spoiler tags removed.

Secondly there is nothing contradictory about arguing that tags that are only visible to editors will have all the bad effects on the editing of Wikipedia that led to the May rewrite, but will have none of the good effects that pro-spoiler editors argue for, except for that tiny minority of readers who are both willing and able to edit their CSS settings.

So we've been through two de facto compromises so far, both of which I supported. Must I support any and every compromise that comes along, no matter what my misgivings, simply to avoid being accused of refusing to compromise? --Tony Sidaway 05:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Reduced usefulness

Hi. I just wanted to post how disappointed I am at the removal of spoiler warnings from Wikipedia, as it's made the site far less useful. Wikipedia is still the site of choice for looking up almost anything: places, historical figures, mathematical formulae, and random things like Toucan crossings or Caravanserai. But there's now a massive category of exceptions: anything fictional that I haven't seen but might want to.

Obviously I can safely look at the page for a film I've seen, or for a book I already know I won't want to see. But for anything in between those categories – any anime, computer game, film, book, or TV series that I might or might not want to see, as well as for random characters like the Dread Pirate Roberts where I might not be able to remember what fictional work they're from – Wikipedia is no longer safe for me to use.

This is a pity both from my point of view (looking something up on Wikipedia is simply more useful and reliable than googling it) and from yours (because I always make a point of fixing any typos or grammatical issues in WP pages I visit, and contributing new content if I can, even though my wife mocks me for it). --AlexChurchill 09:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well there's a HUGE archive of discussion that talks about why they were removed, the good, the bad, and everything in between. Your comments are pretty much a retread. If you want, go read a bunch of the discussions. But the main problem? WP was *NEVER* 'safe' as you put it. Before the large mass revomal, there were still MANY articles without any spoiler warnings (almost any Final Fantasy and any Opera page, for instance). In fact, I'd say it's MUCH better now -- think about it, if you're expecting a warning (like you seemed to have), and it's not there, then it's worse than it not being expected in the first place.

As for 'safe'? Well, a lot of people would consider a number of photos and articles on profanity and other issues to be 'unsafe', but yet there's near-universal agreement about keeping those as they are. Why should spoiler warnings be any different? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've read a lot of the archive, but it is rather overwhelming in volume and hard to filter down to the actual points. It seems to me that individual pages which are missing spoiler warnings can have them easily added (as people keep doing to pages even now), and it's a matter of what the policy should be. And as for safety of other topics, the point is it's very easy to include the spoiler warning template, it can be easily skipped over by those who don't require it, and it provides immense service that makes the encyclopedia far more useful. It seems like in the same way that everyone knows Wikipedia's bad at webcomics, the reputation of Wikipedia's coverage for all of fiction is going to drop rapidly. (The first few pages of Googling for "Wikipedia Spoiler-warning -site:wikipedia.org" suggest that the majority of the internet wanted spoiler warnings and disapproves of their removal.) And this will be sad, because I like Wikipedia, and I'm sad to see it go this way.

But I'm not expecting anything to change because of this one comment. I'm just surprised that the actions of a vocal minority have been allowed to set the new policy, and just wanted to log a vote for reinstating them when the matter next comes up for discussion. --AlexChurchill 12:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

For the heck of it, I just did such a search. Outside a reference to WP spoiling HP Deathly Hollows in the first line (before the book was out, mind you), the first reference to WP spoiling was in the 21st entry, and all it says was "Its the dang Wikipedia that spoils things for me ". It's not until the 23rd that a truly relevant link comes up, to a forum, which pretty much rehashes this page, including such wonderful comments as "There's a big hole in my life. I guess I'll have to fill it with alcohol. Thanks a lot, Jimmy Wales. Ass.", and from the other side "People who care about spoilers and spoiler warnings enough to moan about something like this could do with a visit from the clue doctor to give them a few shots of HOLY SHIT I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT A PERSON COULD HAVE SUCH FUCKED UP PRIORITIES AND SUCH A SHELTERED EXISTENCE."...so yeah. But a bit down, a VERY interesting comment that says things perfexctly, IMO: So maybe wikipedia is trying to be more -pedia and less what wiki- has become. I can't honestly blame them. If they hope to remain relevant, they can't become so user influenced that all objectivity is lost.

But anyway, that seems to be about the only real place there's any discussion within the first 50 or so entries. So I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with that. Spammy post, but eh... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Melodia offered a good summary, but I would add a couple of points.

The premise that spoiler warnings were deleted by a "vocal minority" is very much disputed. There is anecdotal evidence for and against that assumption. Before the so-called "mass removals," there were warnings on about 45,000 articles, which is less than half of the articles that theoretically should have had them. This is certainly one piece of evidence that the majority either opposes the warnings or doesn't care either way, as otherwise they should have been much more prevalent.

One unsolved problem is that every reader has a different perspective on how much of the plot is allowed to be disclosed without "spoiling it." For episodic fiction (TV shows, webcomics, serial novels, film franchises), some editors believe that only the most recently-disclosed plot details need to be spoiler-protected. In an article on a recurring character, the warnings might surround only the latest events in that character's fictional life. But this is helpful only to readers who are caught up to the exact point in the story that the editor predicted. Those who have gone beyond that don't need the warnings, and those who've gone less far are going to have earlier parts of the story spoiled. Marc Shepherd 15:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no evidence that there was a theoretical deficiency of spoiler warnings. Take away stubs with no spoilers, and 45,000 is about right. As for the reduced usefulness for researching new fiction, it's irrelevant to the anti-spoiler camp; they prefer their self-invented definition of 'encyclopedia'.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no evidence that 45,000 was the correct figure, either. Marc Shepherd 12:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So maybe wikipedia is trying to be more -pedia and less what wiki- has become. I can't honestly blame them. If they hope to remain relevant, they can't become so user influenced that all objectivity is lost. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What do have SWs to do with objectivity? They're no more related to NPOV, verifiability or accuracy than a choice of spelling, article structure or headings. To Alex - I agree with you, I feel same way; in the meantime, you may consider having userbox template on your user page like this: {{Userboxtop|Userboxes}} {{User:Kizor/User spoilertags}} {{Userboxbottom}} Samohyl Jan 06:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ironic, Melodia, considering that that comment falls under the umbrella of user influence. Oh no, a paradoxical conundrum! Wikipedia will crumble under it's own weight! Whatever shall we do? ~_^ Kuronue | Talk 13:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi AlexChurchill, it's difficult to summarize a million-some bytes of disputatious debate into a nutshell. As I've put the story together from the pro-tag view:

In May 2007, a reasonable good-writing manifesto intended to prevent spoiler notices from influencing the structure of articles, got carried away into a bigoted vendetta against mostly young consumers of narrative suspense (which spoilers break), evolved into a majoritarian do-it-because-we-said-so force, overrode compromise consensus while editing the spoiler guide, and was then enforced by ongoing search-and-destroy operations against spoiler-tags, as justified by the majoritarian-forced editing of the spoiler guide. There has long been a workable compromise on the table of good article-writing structure, combined with using spoiler tags hidden by default (you would need to turn them on), but it's going to take a long time to balance out the majoritarians with compromise consensus.

"Notices"? Oh yes, it turns out that spoiler tags aren't "warnings" or "alerts" by dictionary definition, because spoiler disappointment isn't dangerous or unsafe. The opponents have seized on that hyped "warning" misusage to distract from a compromise using the "no disclaimers" (of danger) policy. Correctly calling them "spoiler notices" (a type of content notice like the disambiguation notices) makes that debate distraction go away.

By poll, about 40+% of readers/editors want spoiler tags. This is a large minority, but as a minority rights issue it's only of middling importance. I've estimated that the public issue to restore spoiler tags is only five months into a one to two year campaign. Two external wildcards are that big publishing/Hollywood profits and perhaps a million web posters indirectly support the use of spoiler notices. The SanFrancisco Chronicle has already declared the immorality of spoilers, which hints that moral citizens might not want to donate money to "spoiler sites".

I agree with Samohyl Jan that the {{User:Kizor/User spoilertags}} is a useful way to express your disappointment at the loss of all but a few temporary, token spoiler notices. Tell your friends too. Milo 15:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It was a deletion debate

Milomedes states, inter alia:

In May 2007, a reasonable good-writing manifesto intended to prevent spoiler notices from influencing the structure of articles, got carried away into a bigoted vendetta...

Milomedes has his facts wrong. The change in the spoiler tag guideline came from a deletion debate about the old spoiler tag guideline, which for policy reasons was changed into a Request for comment on the guideline. [4] .

Milomedes's central allegation, that "a reasonable good-writing manifesto intended to prevent spoiler notices from influencing the structure of articles, got carried away" is thus difficult to interpret unless you think that deletion of the old spoiler warning guideline was simply "intended to prevent spoiler notices from influencing the structure of articles." But that is again contradicted by the facts. Phil Sandifer's proposal shows his declared intention in listing the guideline for deletion:

The worst instance I've found yet is The Crying Game, where the twist ending makes the film a major film for anyone interested in LGBT cinema. Spoiler warning says that can't go in the lead. Wikipedia: Lead section says the lead has to function as a short article unto itself. WP:NPOV says all major perspectives must be mentioned in an article. You can pick any two of the policies and successfully apply them to The Crying Game. Since we can't get rid of NPOV, either spoilers or lead sections need to go. [5].

Since that proposal in mid-May, David Gerard's suggestion of "severely restrict to very recent or unreleased fiction[6]. has been more-or-less fulfilled, and this has taken place in the context of a rewrite of the guideline that sets far more reasonable criteria for their use. --Tony Sidaway 18:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What about the aggressive trashing of NPOV with 'fans-only', 'out in the US' or 'everyone knows'?--Nydas^(Talk) 19:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That's more of a systemic bias, really. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. But actually I've no idea what Nydas is referring to. What does the phrase "'fans-only', 'out in the US' or 'everyone knows'" mean? --Tony Sidaway 20:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nydas thinks that the current spoiler-tag policy makes Wikipedia a "fans-only" environment, presumably because fans are the only people who already know the plot, and therefore are in no danger of being "spoiled." As usual, he is selective about his facts, but we've come to expect that. Marc Shepherd 20:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. If that's really what he means, that doesn't seem to be a serious argument, it's all of a piece with Milomedes' talk of "a bigoted vendetta against mostly young consumers of narrative suspense", which seems to me more an attempt to talk up a minor issue into something that sounds more terrible. --Tony Sidaway 05:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a vendetta against the young, it's against non-fans. The aim of the anti-spoiler campaign is to punish or 'burn' them, and you have stated that they are perverse halfwits or have 'demons'. Spoiler warnings aren't a big issue in themselves, but the mentality of the anti-spoiler campaign is symptomatic of larger problems.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The real situation is actually the opposite.

Some of the editors most passionate about adding spoiler tags are editing articles on serial fiction (TV series, comics, etc.). Do you know what they do? They spoiler-protect just the most recently-disclosed plot events. The only readers who benefit from this strategy are the fans who've seen every episode but the most recent one(s). Readers who are farther behind, or who are non-fans, get no benefit whatsoever, because the articles are full of un-tagged spoilers.

Indeed, the presence of spoiler tags in these articles may lend false comfort. Readers may think that the untagged portions of the articles do not disclose "significant plot details," but this isn't the case. If the template were called {{spoiler of the most recent episode}}, it would be more accurate. Marc Shepherd 12:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

How is that the opposite situation? The editors most passionate about removing spoiler tags are most likely to pause over franchises they like or consider important. The people you describe are just trying to live up to guideline as written.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about the people who add the tags, not the people who remove them. And what I observe is that the people adding them are often doing so from a fan-centric, in-universe perspective. In other words, they are making the articles more fan-focused, not less. This is precisely the opposite of what you have always suggested that spoiler tags would do. Marc Shepherd 18:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It is impossible to add spoiler tags from an 'in-universe' perspective, unless someone is worried about the fictional characters reading the article. It's not fan-focused, it's just an effort to add a spoiler tag according to the guideline as written. They're probably under the impression that the spoiler police adhere to the wording of the guideline.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

When I refer to an 'in-universe' perspective, I am referring to editors whose definition of "spoiler" is what they believe hard-core fans would know.

You repeatedly assert that editors who add tags are being influenced by the current guideline (however much they may disagree with it). You have no proof of this; it's simply what you'd like to be true.

In fact, when a new {{spoiler}} tag is added, overwhelmingly the most common placement is right at the top of the "Plot" section, with {{endspoiler}} (if present) right at the bottom of it. Since the current guideline explicitly discourages this, it seems doubtful that these editors have read the guideline. Marc Shepherd 21:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The guideline does not explicitly discourage this.--Nydas^(Talk) 06:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that many of the editors involved in the spoiler tag removals (User:JzG, User:Misza13, User:David Gerard and myself, for example) do not happen to be from the US and do not have a strong editing background in "fan" articles. I wonder what it is that makes Nydas think we edit US-centric and fan-only. I get the impression that we have moved away from a heavily US-influenced Usenet idea of warnings for things the US population considers "spoilers" to a more neutral way of editing. Kusma (talk) 08:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to have to edit fan articles to have a fan-centric worldview. It's a fair bet the editors involved will favour anime and video games over spy novels and historical romances. Hence the solitary 'permitted' spoiler tag being on an anime character awaiting translation. The situation is the same for Russian mystery novel Coronation, or the Last of the Romanovs (no spoilers yet, but it may gain some), though the chances of it getting spoiler tags are non-existant.

It's ironic that you mention USENET given that this campaign was basically decided on that anachronism, the Wikipedia mailing list. Spoiler warnings are used occasionally in the online mainstream media, it's not the preserve of USENET any more.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Tony (18:14) wrote: "It was a deletion debate" – "Milomedes has his facts wrong" Hm, if you are suggesting that a manifesto somehow can't keynote a deletion debate, that would be your rhetorical misunderstanding, not my wrong facts. COED "manifesto":

noun (pl. manifestos) a public declaration of policy and aims.

"Phil Sandifer's proposal shows his declared intention in listing the guideline for deletion: 'The worst instance I've found yet is The Crying Game...' " Tsk, tsk, you selectively quoted Phil's second paragraph with an expanded example, instead of the first paragraph where lies the original manifesto. You also didn't do enough research to discover that Phil re-edited his original one-paragraph manifesto. That second paragraph didn't exist until after ThuranX (21:36) & David Gerard (21:38) had posted in reply. Here is Phil's original, single manifesto paragraph:

Wikipedia:Spoiler warning 21:31, 15 May 2007 Phil Sandifer wrote: "This policy is a flat contradiction of the much more important Wikipedia:Lead section, and, worse, is used to justify actively bad article writing where key aspects of a topic are buried outside of the lead. In its worst manifestations, such as The Crying Game, this is used to bury entire perspectives on the movie (i.e. LGBT perspectives) outside of the lead where they belong. The entire policy encourages writing articles in a way that is organized around spoiler warnings instead of sensible portrayal of information, and has gone egregiously wrong (highlights including spoiler warnings on Night (book), The Book of Ruth, and Romeo and Juliet). The policy is overwhelmingly being used to make articles worse, not better, and for that needs to go." "Phil Sandifer 21:31, 15 May 2007"

Ok, now that we're working with Phil's original source text, let's align your skewed reasoning to it.

Tony (18:14) wrote: 'Milomedes's central allegation, that "a reasonable good-writing manifesto intended to prevent spoiler notices from influencing the structure of articles, got carried away" is thus difficult to interpret unless you think that deletion of the old spoiler warning guideline was simply "intended to prevent spoiler notices from influencing the structure of articles". But that is again contradicted by the facts.' Oh? Let's examine the facts of what Phil wrote in the first sentence.

Phil (15 May 2007, 21:31) wrote: "This [Wikipedia:Spoiler warning] policy is a flat contradiction of the much more important Wikipedia:Lead section, and, worse, is used to justify actively bad article writing where key aspects of a topic are buried outside of the lead."

Milo (15:31) wrote: "intended to prevent spoiler notices from influencing the structure of articles." While Phil and others "got carried away" with intentions beyond "simply", Phil substantially did intend to prevent spoiler notices from influencing the structure of articles – the lead component in this case – so my central allegation is fact-based in that regard. "Got carried away" being a metaphor does requires interpretation, but by your own analysis will not be difficult to interpret.
Q.E.D., Phil's manifesto reads as I summarized it. Milo 13:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Phil's second paragraph was visible for almost the entire deletion debate, which was started with the intention to delete Wikipedia:Spoiler (that is why the debate was at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning). Your decision to concentrate on the first paragraph seems quite arbitrary. Kusma (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"Your decision to concentrate on the first paragraph seems quite arbitrary" Not at all arbitrary, since the first paragraph contains a statement of principle for the manifesto, where one might expect to find it in any persuasive writing.†

A manifesto is an activist statement of philosophical principle. In writing, principles are top-level statements that hierarchically determine the suitable choice of subsequent analyses, examples, rules, proposed actions, and other supporting details. For example, consider the following simple manifesto:

(hypothetical quotation:) In principle, all humans are created equal. Slavery makes humans grotesquely unequal. Therefore slavery is unprincipled. Therefore slavery is bad. Therefore we shall break bad slavery laws to free the slaves.

One writes the principle(s) first, because people are more likely to understand and be persuaded by the details if they already understand the big picture. If the details of breaking slave laws were placed first, and the principle last, fewer people would be persuaded that breaking of slave laws is principled, and therefore is a morally-justified civil disobedience.

†Sometimes preceding the statement of principle, there is a preamble describing a compelling belief or experience which motivates the manifesto, but a preamble is technically unnecessary (and Phil did not use one). This top-down writing structure is also the basis for most persuasive writing including encyclopedia articles. Milo 23:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It was a deletion debate. --Tony Sidaway 23:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting footnote....

Since The Crying Game has come up a lot about 'ingrained into pop culture' and all that, what I find VERY interesting, is how The Simpsons thought it was OK to spoil that plot point a mere half a year after the movie came out -- in the episode Marge in Chains (here has the quote). Just a bit of a curveball...♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons is a show that built a reputation on pushing the envelope and being edgy (even if it has been overtaken in that regard by other programs). So what's analogous here? Postmodern Beatnik 02:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's been done it's been done. You can hardly accuse a wiki of not "pushing the envelope and being edgy". --Tony Sidaway 09:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the luddite 'this is an encyclopedia' argument seems to have such a sway over many powerful admins, it would seem that wikis can avoid pushing the envelope. See also WP:FLR for a similar retreat from innovation.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Flagged revisions are still under development and will almost certainly be rolled out in the German wikipedia, by all accounts, once they are ready. It will be only a matter of time after that before they are implemented here in some form. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and this is a problem. Perhaps Wikipedia can overcome its tendancy towards bureaucratic irrationality, perhaps not.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought that flagged revisions were an innovation, not the avoidance of such. Whether they're a good innovation may be debated (just like spoiler tagging), but that's a whole other matter. Not all innovations are good, and even good innovations must continue to evolve. Marc Shepherd 16:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tag placement quality

I think it's worth looking at the "placement quality" of the spoiler tags that editors have been adding to articles lately.

By "placement quality," I mean:

• Are both {{spoiler}} and {{endspoiler}} used to bracket the sensitive material?
• Is the material bracketed by {{spoiler}} and {{endspoiler}} actually a spoiler?
• Do the tags successfully segregate spoiler-sensitive material from general information?

I continue to find that, overwhelmingly, the most common placement is on the entire plot section or the entire article. A majority of the time, {{endspoiler}} is not present.

When spoiler tags are used in this way, they aren't very helpful. It is often suggested that people who read Wikipedia articles may be looking for general information, but don't want major plot surprises to be "spoiled". If the whole article or the whole plot section is tagged, what good is it? The reader is given no clues to distinguish true "spoilers".

It therefore seems to me that if spoiler tags are going to make a big resurgence, we have to figure out how to better guide people on how to use them, because current usage isn't very helpful. Marc Shepherd 13:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

We do have guidance not to put them into plot sections. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's clear that many people who place {{spoiler}} tags have not read the guideline. Marc Shepherd 15:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be worth posting a note at the Village Pump; I don't know that the last major update was ever really announced. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think one problem is that people may not realize that plot sections contain spoilers... or at least, not until too late. (After all, it's at least possible to discuss the plot of a movie without giving away spoilers... movie reviewers do it all the time.) One possible compromise would be a fairly subtle way of indicating that a particular section may contain arbitrary spoilers. I made an example at: User:Pytom/Plot... I haven't tried to make it compatible with browsers other than firefox, but I'm wondering what people think. — PyTom (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are several parallel examples (the first one originally due to David Gerard, I think) that illustrate why that's not a good solution. Our goal is not to give movie reviews or to give spoiler-free accounts - our goal is to include all significant plot details regardless of whether they are spoilers. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Technical specification

Note: this section contains technical details.

Chemical synthesis

Note: this section contains details about chemical reactions.

Proof

Note: this section contains logical reasoning.

Plot

Note: this section contains significant plot details.

In all fairness, the above counter-examples aren't really relevant. No one is ever dismayed about being told how a chemical reaction works, but some readers might be dismayed about learning (before they see the film) that Darth Vader is Luke's father. Whether Wikipedia has any obligation to "protect" those readers—and if so, how—can be reasonably debated. But the analogy to a chemical reaction or a math proof isn't really helpful.

Part of the problem is that the pro-warning faction doesn't have unity about what problem they're trying to solve. There seem to be a few factions out there:

• Some people think that a section called "Plot" isn't sufficiently obvious as to its content, and that it requires further disclaimers — i.e. "When we say 'Plot', we really do mean the whole plot."
• Some people think that only very significant plot twists (Luke's father) need to be warned
• Some people think that the warnings are needed only where the work is fairly recent; others think that a spoiler is a spoiler, whether it's in Hamlet or Bionicle.
• Some people think that warnings are needed no matter where they occur; others think they are needed when they are in a truly unexpected place (i.e., not in a plot section).

Most of the pro-spoiler tag faction haven't articulated what they're in favor of. They just know they're against the status quo. Marc Shepherd 16:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The point of the examples is to demonstrate out the redundancy of putting a warning just below a section header that the section contains information that it must contain to warrant that section header. Whether that information is logical reasoning or plot details, we have to assume readers will trust that our section headers mean what they say. That's what people expect from a quality encyclopedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Your example analogy is wrong understanding of the problem. First, people don't care if they accidentally read a proof, but they may care if they accidentally read the ending. Second, people still want them as a reminder of this fact, even if they cover whole section, because they may forget, not realize what they are doing, etc. I understand that you try to look at the problem from logical perspective (consistency), but human perspective is more important there and humans excel in ability to deal with inconsistencies in reasoning (often by being inconsistent in what they want). Samohyl Jan 18:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to cater to people who read without paying attention. The purpose of section titles is to describe the content of the section; readers who fail to pay attention to large, bold text interspersed throughout the article don't need to be provided with additional bold text. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not just an attention problem. They need to actually realize that plot section contains SWs. To detect that header says 'Plot' is a pattern-detection problem, it works just automatically. To realize that maybe I don't want to know the plot for this particular piece requires much higher cognitive function. I personally skim over many articles when reading Wikipedia, and I believe it's *very* common usage pattern. And don't forget that amount of people who actually used SWs was quite large; you really want to be so hostile to all of them? Samohyl Jan 19:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I also believe that the number of people who actually realize that the Plot section contains spoilers is small... at least until a person reads a spoiler, and by then it's too late. That's why I like the idea of an unobtrusive tag in the Plot (and similar) sections reminding people about this policy. The page I linked above was one such take. We could obviously change the wording. "This section contains information that may spoil dramatic suspense." — PyTom (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What do these people expect to find in a plot section - coffee cake recipes? Just like a "proof" section will contain logical reasoning, a "plot" section will contain plot details. The situation before May included a proliferation of spoiler notices; these were removed after much discussion, and it is unlikely they will be reinserted. There is agreement that plot spoilers that appear in unexpected places may warrant tags, but not spoilers that appear in sections that are explicitly intended to contain spoilers. Readers will learn very quickly to take our section titles seriously. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

(EC)I think a lot of people placing the tag have never heard of this guideline. Have a look at this: [7]. Before I got to it it merely said "sections, near top" - I changed it to "sections, just before spoiler details" due to a lack of space, but perhaps that should be changed to "see WP:SPOIL"? Kuronue | Talk 18:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a note at the top of the section pointing here, as a sort of compromise. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in arguments against spoiler warnings

I personally wish for a compromise that would allow people that hate SWs (as editors) and want SWs (as users) to coexist peacefully. But any such compromise would inevitably entail that SWs would be there, in some form. However, it seems to me that people who oppose SWs collectively argue in such a way that disallows any SWs to exists, and hence disallows any compromise. For example, there are two different arguments from SW opponents that, when put together, make it impossible for SWs to exist:

1. If the SWs are shown (by default), they are condescending and could make readers hate Wikipedia when they see them (this argument was very common in the original RfC).
2. If the SWs are hidden (by default), then there is a problem <insert your flavor> because they are invisible (I actually don't understand this problem much, there are many other comments for editors in articles which are invisible, but it doesn't matter to my point).

I proposed the SWs to be hidden to address the first problem (which is what bugged most people on RfC), but then the opponents started to argue the second way. Here is another similiar set of arguments:

1. If the SWs are inside the paragraph titled 'plot' or similar, it's obvious from the title it will contain spoilers, therefore they are redundant.
2. If the SWs are in the lead, it's not nice (I personally agree, but can imagine circumstances when it's useful).
3. If the SWs are in some other section, they probably won't belong there anyway (note that this is an implicit argument - usually, why would spoilers be in 'production', 'cultural impact' or 'references' section?).

So, if SWs can be there, where they should go? These counter-arguments cover every possibility where the SW can be placed in the article. And finally, third set of arguments:

1. If the SWs are at the beginning of the section, they serve no purpose, because there is the section heading.
2. If the SWs are inside the section, they make it harder/impossible to read/write about the plot.

Since I disagree with both of the arguments, I have no idea what kind of compromise can be made there, but still, since they cover all possible cases, they are incompatible with any SWs.

I would like that people who oppose SWs and are actually willing to compromise would choose from the three above lists of options what is more dear to them (for example, whether they would opt to see the SWs for their editing or not to see them for their reading, if they find them condescending). Then it would be possible to negotiate a compromise on that basis.

But, looking on the above list, it seems to me that it's like looking for reasons to oppose SWs, while the real reasons for opposing SWs are either traditionalism (Wikipedia is encyclopedia, whatever that means) or consistency (there are no warnings on nudes). These are bad reasons to oppose them, because they are subjective (ie. there is no rational basis for such feelings) and go against what a large minority of users wants (and I believe that readers matter much more here than tradition or rule consistency). Samohyl Jan 19:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is actively advocating deleting the spoiler template. Several people including me think the {{current fiction}} template is a reasonable way to alert readers to possible spoilers in new fiction. But the long discussion in the archives has shown many people agree spoiler warnings are generally redundant when placed in plot sections, whether they are hidden by default or visible by default. The proposal to allow them in hidden form seems to put us back where we were before the mass removal, except that far fewer readers would be able to see the tags, removing any possible benefit to the "large majority of users". — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I said nothing about deleting spoiler template; it's existence is not relevant if it's not used. If the SWs are not allowed in plot sections, they are not allowed in 99% of use cases. And in many cases, there is no other place to put them in the article than there. That's what I consider a problem with this. I don't understand why going back before mass removals would be so bad. Main arguments against SWs at that time were that they are condescending and too proliferate (in many sections in article and in fairy tales), which is not related to the plot sections argument. I personally would prefer if they would be usually only in one section - plot, and perhaps in trivia section, if the article is really long. This should be more than enough to alert the reader. Samohyl Jan 20:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, do you agree with the main argument of this section? If you do, then I take it you don't consider SWs to be condescending (if you argue that hidden are bad). Samohyl Jan 20:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if 99% of the places spoiler tags might be used are in plot sections then they can't be used in 99% of the places they might be used. That leaves 1% of cases where the use can be discussed. I generally agree with JzG's assessment: "spoiler tags are redundant in plot / synopsis sections, absurd in articles on older and especially classic works, a substitute for {{original research}} in articles on future or forthcoming films, and possibly defensible in a small number of cases for new releases where knowing the plot twist is identified by external sources as a spoiler for the subject." However, I think that {{current fiction}} is appropriate for many of the new releases in which there is a concern about spoilers. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen much compromise from the pro-SW camp either. Their main idea is to make the warnings either hidden by default (but optionally viewable), or visible by default (but optionally hidable). Either version of that idea is utterly looney. Both fail because they start with the premise that as long as the anti-SW editors don't have to see the warnings, they'll stop caring about the issue. The reality is that most serious editors (regardless of their viewpoint on spoilers) aren't so easily duped. Editors who don't think SW's belong in WP aren't going to suddenly forget about them because they're hidden. And editors who do think they belong shouldn't be happy to see them cloaked behind a css script. Marc Shepherd 21:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"And editors who do think they belong shouldn't be happy to see them cloaked behind a css script." They aren't happy about it, but they are willing to compromise.

"Editors who don't think SW's belong in WP aren't going to suddenly forget about them because they're hidden." By implication they are bothered by what they can't see, an example of control-freakery. It's generally considered to be a character flaw. IIRC, you are the only one who has ever previously made this claim. Are you a control freak, or are you just defending the indefensible? Milo 03:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)