Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 8

November 8

Template:Spoiler

Template:Spoiler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is totally unencyclopaedic (how many other encyclopaedias actually have "Spoiler Warning" notices?), and is superseded by Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, which explicitly states "Wikipedia contains spoilers." This template is no longer in frequent mainspace usage, appearing only on 10 mainspace pages. I don't see how it could be considered "useful" if that many actual articles are going to use it. I'll try to avoid POV-pushing this TfD, it was horrific looking at how the last nominator had to respond to every keep vote.

I am aware that the last TfD resulted in a keep, however that was a year and a half ago. As I said before, it's summed up in Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, only 10 mainspace pages have the template now, and you don't expect a spoiler warning in an encyclopaedia.

Note: if the result here is Delete, then Template:Endspoiler should be deleted as well, as it would then be useless. L337 kybldmstr 07:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and revert the spoiler guideline to this version (which describes the actual practice of no spoiler warnings). For a huge amount of related discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Spoiler and Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive index. {{current fiction}} is enough to satisfy the needs of the spoiler-averse on recent releases, and there was never a consensus even among generally pro-spoiler tag editors when exactly {{spoiler}} should be used. Kusma (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• See here for the current mainspace links: [1]. Kusma (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the last TfD was actually six months ago, but it was irregularly and arbitarily closed by Tony Sidaway, probably because it was going the wrong way.
• 'Unencyclopedic' is a just a coded way of saying 'I don't like it'. The claim, offered by the anti-spoiler people, that encyclopedias don't have spoiler warnings, is unsupported by any known definition of encyclopedia, and seems to just have been made up by them. It's rather like a medieval shipwright insisting that all ships must be made of wood, and a metal ship is fundamentally 'unshiplike'. The reason (most) other encyclopedias don't have them is technical limitations or niche audiences.
• Spoiler warnings help people find information they want, or avoid information they don't want. They're no different from punctuation, tables or headings. People use Wikipedia to research fiction they haven't seen yet, but the anti-spoiler faction views this as illegitimate and undesireable behaviour, even in the context of differing release dates around the world. Phil Sandifer has expressed the patronising view that non-Americans on the Internet should be used to avoiding spoilers, and CBM thinks that if you want to avoid spoilers, you should never read Wikipedia fiction articles.
• Spoiler warnings are a useful tool for ensuring neutrality, accessibility and a worldwide view. The fact that they have been removed is down to a lack of respect for these on the part of a tiny number of admins. This is down to their fan-centric worldview; Phil Sandifer thinks some articles are 'fans-only', though it remains a mystery how this is determined. Hilariously, Memory Alpha and Wookiepedia were cited in the early stages of the debate as 'examples' to follow. The number of people that have added at least one spoiler warning dwarfs the number of those who have removed more than one, probably by a factor of a thousand to one. Their usage will recover in the event of normal editing patterns taking over from centralised spoiler patrol.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The world's two largest encyclopedias, the English and German Wikipedia, do not have spoiler warnings. Most large online fiction encyclopedias have a single warning on the main page and no specific content warnings further on. I don't think anyone who hasn't been listening to you for months even understands what you mean by the strawman arguments where you take single quotes by Phil Sandifer and CBM out of context. That spoiler warnings interfere with neutrality was amply demonstrated by Phil Sandifer at the RFC. Kusma (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep First of all the argument that the template is unencycloaedic is completely fallacious: there has never been a general encyclopaedia with Wikipedia's breadth and depth; other encyclopedias simply don't have the space to go into the details of a work of fiction's plot so have never had to deal with the spoiler issue. Second, the only reason that there are currently under 10 tags is that a tiny group of 4 or 5 editors are consistently reverting then everywhere, holding back the floodgates; if these 4 or 5 editors were to stop then we would soon be back to the genuine consensus on the issue and have some hundereds/thousands of tags. Tomgreeny 10:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Most spoiler tags are added in a violation of the guideline and in places where there is a consensus against having them (for example, right under a ==Plot== header). Of course these are removed immediately. There is also no way for a handful of editors to force this issue if there truly is general consensus that these tags are useful. Kusma (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Detailed plot details considered 'spoilers' are unencyclopedic. Martin B 11:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a useful template and aids in organizing information, and the attempt to delete the template seems to be yet another attempt at the completely anti-spoiler-warning side to try to get their way when the discussion of the policy itself seems to be going in the other diretion. As other mentioned, there is a determined spoiler patrol who delete pretty well all spoiler warnings without real regard to the policy, and there's a technical imbalance where it's impossible for people who want spoilers to keep up to the same degree. In any event, the number of people who remove spoilers is outweighed by the number of people who add them, which indicates that consensus is in favour of using them. Wandering Ghost 12:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Do we REALLY need to rehash the thousands of K of arguments back and forth than have been going on for months (and hell, years)? I can already see it turning into that. I don't know what else can be said, really, but anything said here will undoubtetdley have been said at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler. Though, this should be about the TEMPLATE'S existence, which, oddly enough, consensus seems to be favored toward keeping even by the "anti crowd", at the very least as some sort of compramise measure. No idea what else to write that I haven't already said... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Template:Currentfiction is superior in every regard to this template. Phil Sandifer 12:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:WarcraftBCharacter

Template:WarcraftBCharacter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template now loaded with lots of redlinks because of a recent AFD discussion, the few that are blue links are currently in AFD Delete This is a Secret ^account 02:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral for now, I'll wait and see how those AfDs go before making a decision. L337 kybldmstr 04:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Wait and see If all the articles get deleted, then sure, it has no further use. But if a few remain, then it simply needs to have the red links pruned. --Falcorian ^(talk) 07:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Vandrep

Template:Vandrep (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as per Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Non-admin_fwarn. Discussed extensively, and consequences of using the template followed by no admin action to incite further bad behavior outweigh value of notice. — Bsherr 00:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)