Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 13: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:12, 7 July 2006

Request for comment

A discussion has taken place over the status of this page, as archived at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/Guideline status, and participants are seeking comments on the following questions, in a bid to gain consensus on this page's status and purpose. Steve block Talk 11:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Questions to consider

Should the placement of spoiler messages be a guideline on Wikipedia? Is it unencyclopedic or would readers expect such warnings?
Where should any spoiler message go, at the top of an article, in the wikipedia disclaimer or in the relevant section?
What constitutes spoilage? Are there time limits as to what can be spoilt, for example would Shakespeare's plays or Moby Dick need warnings?
Should plot details in fiction be included arbitrarily, or only where relevant to a sourced, critical discussion of the work and its impact? By this we have in mind that a summary of Moby Dick is relevant to an article discussing the book and its impact and place in the wider world. A summary of the details of the latest Batman issues is not as germane to an article on Batman, discussing the character's history, impact and place in the wider world. So should plot details, or spoilers which aren't germane to an article be inserted?

Discussion

My opinion:

The placement of spoiler tags is established practice on Wikipedia; the guideline merely captures what's been done for a long time. I see nothing unencyclopedic about them (they are not content; they are merely metadata).
Of all the so-called "disclaimer templates", spoiler warnings are the only ones which have been generally accepted at Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates#The exception.
The spoiler template should not be placed at the top of the article; at least the lead (intro) section should be outside it, explaining what the article is about (even if it's only "X is a fictional character in the work Y"). The warning can already be found at the disclaimers; however, the template makes it possible to mark only part of an article as a spoiler, so even the ones who do not want to be spoiled can read at least part of the article.
I personally believe even classical works should have spoiler tags; some people haven't read them yet, but might intend to in the future.
Just because it's a spoiler doesn't mean different rules apply; the standards for inclusion of information should be the same both inside and outside the spoiler-marked section.

--cesarb 15:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You can see how strongly is the use of spoiler warnings supported at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 4#Template:Spoiler. I think there's no question as to the guideline status of the use of spoiler warnings. --cesarb 15:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

With the increasing use of the Internet, people have begun to expect spoiler warnings. I';ve seen it mentioned as jokes on TV, so I believe it's pretty common knowledge of such a thing. Is it unencyclopedic or would readers expect such warnings? No. The information is still there. I am liberal with the use of spoiler warnings, however, and I think that it should only cover comprehensive plot summaries that give away surprises, etc. With serialized fiction, such as comic books, spoiler warnings should cover only recent (around six months) or ongoing storylines. Spoiling is about not giving someone the chance to enjoy the work for himself; with Shakespeare, hundreds of years have passed, and that's a pretty good chance at reading the plays, but more importantly, I think it would generally be unexpected to see a spoiler on something that old. That's why I think we should loosely limit spoilers to works from either 50 or 100 years ago. Spoilers that aren't necessary or even relevent to the article should not be included. --Chris Griswold 15:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

1) I personally detest spoiler warnings. However they should be placed in wikipedia articles to keep people from needlessly editing articles to remove spoiler content and to keep those who dislike spoilers happy.
2) The spoiler message should be used sparingly. It should either go on the effected section or, if huge chunks of the section are spoilers, it should go after the WP lead, but before the TOC. Articles should not constantly open and close spoilers. I, personally, like the way the French Wikipedia does spoiler warnings.
3) What constitutes spoilage? It depends on the work and on the spoiler. Consideration should be given to the timeliness of the series and the depth of the spoiler. Saying that "Sailor Uranus is a comrade of Sailor Moon" is a spoiler for anyone who's not seen past a certain episode of the show, but... it's also a common fact. So, one has to differentiate between major and minor spoilers and how much time has passed since the spoiler was revealed.
4) Should spoilers which aren't germane to an article be inserted? Should they? They will weasel their way in even if they are banned. Undoubtedly Batman has battled his archenemies Guarnagirl in that edition of the comic and it leads to some plot detail that could be inserted in her character profile. Guarnagirl, however, isn't notable enough to earn a solo article so editors have included her in the "Characters" section of the Batman article. --Kunzite 02:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

We are all aware that I regard these templates as very unsuitible material. In their usage, many claim that "people have come to expect spoilers", which doesn't compute because then that would establish that the insertion of the template would be redundant. One must really ask themselves if they see a header with "plot" or whatnot and there's text below it what lies within. One also has to note are our editors even attributing our readers with enough common sense to navigate a page on wikipedia, which given our general organization and interface is very acessible. To claim the spoiler, a silly template, assists in the nature of warning a reader when obvious placement of text gives one the green or red light to is entirely inapropriate.

As for the "strong concensus" exibited on the previous TFD, nothing ever came of it. The common views were a little broken at the time, I think, and no one came forward to address the usefulness of the template other than the poor reasoning of its time on wikipedia, which, was at any rate, not particularly a good reason. I was a newbie once, and that is how we viewed things. I've gained more experience since then and seen more of wikipdia's pattern of working. Such experience has proven the usefulness of the template has never been helpful to the encyclopedia. When I was a new editor, such tags seemed new and interesting to me, but even then I could not endorse their usefulness, ethier for the intended usage or the website.

As for the argument of editors removing content from articles because of spoiler tags being non-existant, I've found there to be no such instance. And if there was, such an edit would be immediately reverted as perception of valid content removal, which is not acceptable. That's similar to saying the No original research policy would ban original research and editors continue to insert it (which is true). I think any policy that bans content people don't agree upon will still be slightly contested by some. We can't really stop all who attempt it but to enforce it. "With the increasing use of the internet, people have come to expect spoiler warnings". Sure they do - on websites that don't consider themselves encyclopedias. It becomes a false attribution because it carries the presumption that we are not an encyclopedia and deliberately commit to being a fan site, movie forum or the like.

I'd say it's obviously incorrect to use the template about an article that is considered a classical work of fiction or any other article. The template is useful for fansites and other general purpose websites where such information is considered outlandish to some people, but it's misapplied where in an encyclopedia where making such summeries is our job and being one the largest sites on the internet, people expect spoilers and elaborate summeries, so it's a doddle to google on it. By adding such tags that contridict the meaning of the encyclopedia, we end up destroying perfectly good articles-in-progress. -Zero^Talk 22:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, Zero, in everything you said. But, sadly, as time passes people are getting so used to them on Wikipedia that more and more people believe it's how an encyclopedia article on a book or movie should look like. That warning readers about an article containing information is appropriate for an encyclopedia. It isn't. Many people argue that "the tags are useful to some readers", so we should keep the spoiler warning for that reason. I really doubt that these tags are saving many people from learning things they don't want to learn. But even if they are "useful to some", it's beside the point. Many things are useful, but we don't include them because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: We don't include dictionary definitions, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary. We don't include telephone numbers to hotels and restaurant articles because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a travel guide or phone book. We don't have how-to's or recipes because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an instruction manual. And we regularly delete long lists of external links because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a link repository. All of these things (and much more) could easily be included in many articles if "being useful" was a legit criteria for inclusion. But it isn't. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and this implies rather strict rules on how articles should be written and what they should or should not contain. Wikipedia articles should not contain spoiler warnings, because wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a movie blog or fan site.

But I have not very high hopes for getting rid of the silly warnings anymore. They should have been killed from the very beginning and I'm afraid it's too late now. The Germans, with a huge majority, banned the tags from all articles on their Wikipedia, but, well, they are Germans. The best we can hope for, I think, is to get consensus in banning them from a limited number of articles here. The people at WikiProject Opera, recently agreed to ban them in all opera articles. And maybe that's the way to proceed. To approach it on a WikiProject level.

But, of course, I'd love to get rid of them on the whole english wikipedia, and if anyone still belives in The Little Engine That Could (Warning: article contains spoiler template(!)), I'll help pushing wherever and whenever it might help to get rid of the tag. But too often I tend to get angry whenever I see the template or its "usefulness" being discussed and I try to stay out of arguing about it for the sake of my own mental well being. Shanes 06:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If you'll look below, you'll see, that the tag has become so posionous and blindly accepted that users wish to implement it in the articles pertaining to the bible! That's a little sad that these useless things have gotten so out of hand and the additon of the tag to the The Little Engine That Could, a classic children's novel and encyclopedia article horrified me and drove me quite giddy. I removed it immediately. -Zero^Talk 09:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the so-called "strong support" for the template in the discussion that cesarb linked to, I'd just like to point out that -- far from consensus -- the only thing that particular discussion truly reflects is the ability of many people to jump on a discussion that they have made no effort to really understand, and proceed to toss out support for something without any actual basis for doing so (in a venue in which support for voiced opinions is mandatory, no less). Granted, that isn't fair to claim of all the parties involved who called for "Keep." There were quite a few more who made claims that the template is "useful," and, thus, should be present, though they offered no verifiable support for this claim, nor an explanation for how the template is useful in the encyclopedia's purpose of being an encyclopedia (informative and comprehensively so).

But you know what? Maybe we should just discard logic. I don't know. Shanes, Zero, what do you think? Should we disregard arriving at a rational conclusion by way of analyzing this template's encyclopedic value on the basis of whether or not it has encyclopedic value? Maybe we should. While we're at it, let's expand the spoiler warning to be even more useful. If we're going to do something, we shouldn't half-ass it, right? So I propose that this (that's a link, folks) becomes the new spoiler template. And that we put it before every sentence in each article. Just to be safe. Ryu Kaze 19:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ha! -Randall Brackett 19:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Shane gives really good advice. Per the comment noting the Opera project attended this from a specific level, I have made a proposal on the talkpage of WP:CVG. -Randall Brackett 20:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler messages belong in Usenet postings, not in an encyclopedia. Moby Dick and Shakespeare don't need them. Plot details belong in articles about specific works. A "Plot" heading is sufficient: if anyone doesn't want to know the plot of a work, they should avoid its article. - Nunh-huh 18:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You forgot reality. People often (I know I do) read an article to see if the game is worth buying. It we don't have the option of putting spoiler tags in at least on a case-by-case basis, removal of all spolier tags in all articles will likely ruin the game. Articles have to have a section on the plot, (notability and what-not,) but sometimes the paragraph(s) about the plot are simply too short and/or problematic to be put in its own section. Note that this reasoning doesn't just apply to games, it applies to a lot of other things, too.

In my opinion, spoiler templates are far from deprecated. Anyone who has actually written an article knows that spoiler tags are necessary. Since all the admins who have posted here (the majority of comments actually) have forgotten the existing consensus, go read it again. I suggest nominate {{spoiler}} (and related templates) under TfD again and see the results. My money is on speedy keep under the snowball clause. --DavidHOzAu 05:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. ~~This coming from a user that still has a welcome message on his talkpage.~~ "Read an article to see it worth buying...?" This isn't a review site. If that's the reasoning for the template, then its even more silly. An encyclopedia is where you go to learn, gain knowwledge. If that is what a reader decides upon to come to Wikipedia, they are obviously not at the right website.

As for that concenus, we've already noted its sheer idiocy compounded by lack of reasoning and empty votes. No matter, I think you'll find there is a strong concensus by the community to avoid thought processes and actions that avoid the realm of review sites and the like. I've experienced many explanations of the support of the tag but none as so outlandish as that.

Anyone that has actually written an article...? Riveting words from an editor that has not started one article in the course of his time at wikipedia. See Zero (Mega Man), a GA-level article I wrote from almost the ground up. Not one spoiler. I've started and written many articles- RayStorm, Gate (Mega Man), Bass.EXE, Dead or Alive Ultimate are only few of the hundreds of articles I've done. No, we're going to nominate it. I'm patient. And I'm aware my felllow wikipedians are sensible people. I will go about the wiki and in this time frame I will use advocacy and simple common sense. Such explanantions tend to go farther than the hasty nomination for deleton. My money is on this is an encyclopedia and that nonsense is not going to fly.-Randall Brackett 10:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Truth be told, this is the first message I wish I hadn't posted, and I apologise for its blunt tone. I meant to post this on the CVG project talk page, (too many tabs open,) and was wondering why everyone else here was admins and not my fellow editors. I'm sorry.

I think if there is consensus for removing them, I'll go along with it. However, I still think that are times are places for everything on wikipedia, and that we should shy away from saying "thou shalt strictly use no spoilers". (IMHO, overly-strict enforcement of all rules is why deletionists have such a bad name as they don't seem to listen to reason in my experience.) My point is that we really should let editors decide what they want to put in a particular in an article or not; we're already lecturing enough rules to them as it is.

P.S. The welcome message is still there because I don't see what's the big deal about removing it. I have 1434 edits on Wikipedia, I do not consider myself a newbie, and I am doing nothing wrong by improving existing articles rather than creating new ones. --DavidHOzAu 12:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my bad faith, there. I was aware of your edit count, rather I presumed the welcome message was still present becuase of your low amount of talkspace edits (11). [1]-Randall Brackett 14:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that Zero would say you've done anything wrong by only working on pre-existing articles, but given that part of your previous message (which you've gracefully apologized for) was "Anyone who has actually written an article..." that's probably why he said that. In my own case, I doubt I've ever started any article, but the pages I've worked on are quality, many getting to Good Article status. I haven't checked in on most of them over the last couple of months, but there are a few that I do consistently check on, such as Final Fantasy X, the article I almost completely re-wrote and got to Featured Article status.

Anyway, with all the work I've done -- some of which constitutes writing an article myself, given that I've completely re-written some -- I can say with complete confidence that spoiler warnings contributed nothing to them. Which is why I've removed them from three pages I put a lot of work into: Final Fantasy X, Spira (Final Fantasy X) and List of locations in Spira. With all I've done for these pages, I'd never make an edit to them unless I felt like I was improving them by way of removing unencyclopedic content or adding more quality content.

As far as the points you raised go, Randall's already handled all those the way I would have, so I'll say no more. Ryu Kaze 12:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've no problem with David's differing viewpoint and editting habbits on the matter of this subject. Being an encyclopedia with a wide range of editors and mindsets I think its an asset to wikipedia for us to have these. It was his comment of those who don't write articles which atonished and horrified me to no end and being an editor that has created many, was a comment that I really did not appreciate.

David is correct. I strongly endorse the view that wikipedia should not be dictated by process and rules. Policy is what is created to assist wikipedia, not vice versa. If we simply suscribed to the reasoning of only following policy to that end than I think wikipedia would be harmed in many ways (Such is the problem with WP:DRV) and everything just becomes a big bag rules. This however, is a different case. This is the intregity and meaning of the encyclopedia being discussed. Many user's viewpoints of an encyclopedia have been perverted by this tag. It causes one to believe an encyclopedia does not provide complete summeries. It imposes the ideal that this is how a encyclopedia should be constructed. It is an practice adopted from social and review websites. It causes some users to believe it contributes to the value of our articles. Some even think it is a foundation of this website's goal to become a great encyclopedia. It is harmful. And it must die.

The addition of spoiler tags isn't even attempting to be helpful. This nonsense was added to such articles such as List of current Disneyland attractions, The Legend of Zelda series weapons and items and even Romeo and Juliet (or at least it was until I removed it). I think this was intended, originally to e a helpful tool but this is no longer true. An editor's choice of wording for this template's purpose was unfortunate, for the opposite impression was conveyed. The poisonous nature of this template aside, if our editors can not even use it correctly this template should definitely not be used in article space. Incorrect formatting is just as harmful to the encyclopedia.

We have a strong consensus that content that does not assist in being a encyclopedia is unacceptable for Wikipedia. Editors cannot subvert that by assembling a subset of Wikipedians and implementing a inapropriate tag across a wide number of articles. Consensus involves all of us, not just a few people who persistently flaunt the reasoning of social websites into the need of the project. -Randall Brackett 14:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Randall's absolutely right about this illogical, misleading and inappropriate practice being taken to absurd proportions. As I just said in the CVG discussion of this matter:

"Yes, this classic children's book [ The Little Engine That Could ] had actually had been given a spoiler warning... and so had Romeo and Juliet... and Beowulf... and Citizen Kane... and Lolita... and Odyssey... and The Pit and the Pendulum... and The Divine Comedy... and The Magnificent Seven... and Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea... and The Brady Bunch... and A Midsummer Night's Dream... and Rocky... and The Breakfast Club -- for some of which their "spoilers" are their basic premise or common knowledge imbedded into our culture... and what the hell kind of spoilers can there possibly be in Mario Kart or Iron Chef?? Absolute absurdity. We're warning people that articles contain information apparently. We'd better get spoiler tags for toaster oven and blender soon. God knows if we don't, someone will think they require them."

Really, this whole thing has just gone too far. It's gotten out of hand and it was never appropriate for an encyclopedia. Including this one. Ryu Kaze 14:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm against spoiler warnings. Some of my reasoning:

Wikipedia is not censored — we don't warn readers about expletives or potentially shocking images in a template on every page, so what precedent exists for spoiler tags?

Wikipedia is not a GameFAQs messageboard, nor should it resemble one — On forums, a cushion of blank lines are used in conjunction with various spoiler tags to hide spoiler information. Isn't it hypocritical that we disallow the blank lines, yet allow the spoiler tags? Both are disruptive, ugly, ultimately ineffective, and unencyclopedic; the only difference between them, really, is that one is slightly less disruptive than the other. Wikipedia shouldn't attempt to be a slightly less disruptive version of everyforum.com. It should attempt to be an encyclopedia, and everything else be damned.

Reputable encyclopedias do not use spoiler tags. Wikipedia aspires to reach (or surpass) the heights of Britannica and the like. Quite simply, I don't see spoiler tags being a part of that. I believe these warnings make this ascension harder by degrading Wikipedia's image. AMHR285^(talk) 15:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia shouldn't attempt to be a slightly less disruptive version of everyforum.com. It should attempt to be an encyclopedia, and everything else be damned."

Just wanted to say that I loved that, and may be adding it to my user page. Nicely said. Ryu Kaze 18:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead with adding it to my user page. It was too good not to. Ryu Kaze 22:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia with addenda

Dear sir,

I was very surprised not to find the traditional "spoiler warning" at the beginning of this article : Genesis.

Regards, ...

An encyclopedia tries to tell everything. An average reader only wants bits of it.

Some articles are not readable when you are not a notorious big specialist of the domain (I'm thinking of mathematics). Some plots are bare-naked and you have to exert yourself with your keyboard to avoid an unnecessary defloration.

We could oblige ourselves to do with some parts of an article what we can do with a TOC. A TOC begins with the words : Contents [hide]. Other parts might say : Plot [hide], or Very technical part [hide :-]. To me, it seems technically feasible ; but shall the mind of the average WPian, full of knowledge to be given gracefully, be inclined to restrain his production like that ? --DLL 22:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

A generally contested practice

I find it a blatent misrepresentation of the facts to falsely claim this process was given a strong support by concensus. General conflicting issues against the process of implementing spoiler tags has been present ever since the initial creation. Relevant discussion can be viewed here, here and here (note there are various discussions pertaining to this issue; I elected to choose the most relevant). The opposition to the template has been opposed regularly. How is it this has been accepted as concensus by the community? -Randall Brackett 00:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

My response to the above questions

Should the placement of spoiler messages be a guideline/Is it unencyclopedic/Do readers expect it?

Anybody reading an encyclopedia article about a work of fiction would expect a summary of the plot and, therefore, the spoiler warnings are redundant. An encyclopedia article is not a review after all. JChap 02:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Where should any spoiler message go?

If spoilers are kept, there should be no set rule. Rather, editors should use their judgment on where to place them. JChap 02:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What constitutes spoilage? Are there time limits as to what can be spoilt, for example would Shakespeare's plays or Moby Dick need warnings?

The most interesting question of the lot. My first response would be, if spoilers are kept, that we put spoiler warnings in every work of fiction, so as to avoid discussions about what works are "canonical" and which are not. For example, it may be fairly obvious that we do not need a spoiler warning before "Rosebud was a sled," but what about "Mr. Orange is an undercover cop?" It all turns on whether you think everybody has (or should have) seen Reservoir Dogs. There are editors here who will insist we should not put the spoiler warning in Finnegan's Wake because only a complete Philistine would not have read that book. JChap 02:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Should plot details in fiction be included arbitrarily, or only where relevant to a sourced, critical discussion of the work and its impact?

Question answers itself. Only where relevant obviously. JChap 02:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

a courtesy to readers

Spoiler tags are given as a courtesy to readers, not as censorship. It's the same reason the Main Page doesn't have a giant picture of a woman's vagina on it. This courtesy clearly out weighs any negative effect the spoiler warning would have on the article. -- Ned Scott 18:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You bring up a good point: Shouldn't Wikipedia's front page have a giant picture of a vagina on it? --Chris Griswold 20:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ned is entirely incorrect. The reason we do not have the vagina on the main page becuase the relevant article is absolutely inadequete to meet Featured Article status. Its difficult to attain a featured image for them becuase of the associated sources they are derived from. Wikiepdia is not censored. -Randall Brackett 21:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, I was talking about featured pictures, which do not require a related article. -- Ned Scott 21:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you were referring to. Whatever, featured image, featured picture. Same thing. I noted that in my previous comment. -Randall Brackett 22:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

taken from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Digimon Systems Update#Spoiler tags:

I'm very flabbergasted by this statement. What makes you presume the readers even care...? I'm certain people arrive to wikipedia to learn content, not hide from it. Although, I would be willing to hear some edvidence sustaining how this assists the encyclopedia. -Randall Brackett 20:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, for one, I'm a reader.. and I was one long before I become an editor. The typical "spoiler warning" is found all throughout the internet, to the point where readers almost expect them. I think this was pointed out on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning. I watch for it all the time, even now, when I look up quick article about something I'm watching/ about to watch/ etc. (For example, I'll wonder about basic info, such as, did this come from a manga, how many seasons did this last, was this done by the same animation studio as blah blah, etc). WikiProject Stargate even went to the point of making a "spoiler free" version of their episode lists (List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, List of Stargate SG-1 episodes without spoilers). On some articles that aren't well formatted, I sometimes won't read it at all, for fear of the spoiler tag not being properly used. -- Ned Scott 20:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, you still have not answered my question. How does the encylopedia assist the project....? I am aware it certainly cannot be helpful, as the casual reader is commonly the lot that does not expect to see an encyclopedia go aganst what an encyclopedia is supposed to do - the inclusion of elaborate content. Your interpretation seems to be something entirely different, indeed almost the opposite: that an individual who comes to wikipedia would not wish to learn and thus avoid content comparable to a movie review or blog posting. This is true, up to a point, but it isn't what Wikipedia is about.

There are two problems with your reasoning. I'll address each in turn.

Firstly you say "fear of being spoiled". This has been refuted several times both by myself and by numerous other editors, who cite if you wish that, you would not come to an encyclopedia or you would avoid the section anyway. I'm fully aware of Wikipedia's navigation tools, in this paticular instance, the table of contents. If a person truly wanted to avoid infromation, common sense is more than adequete for that purpose. Please don't play me for a fool.

Secondly, the expectation of spoilers is fully and adequately described in the disclaimer of wikipedia pages itself, and certainly would not apply here, even if there were no warning of this in policy. Here I'm not saying your reasoning is wrong, but that you cite wikipedia wrongly believing that it must imitate the circumstances of other websites where clearly it does not. Expectation of spoilers (and I find that perception difficult to believe) has nothing to do with wikipedia simply because of one's personal opinion and not in intrests of the encyclopedia. Sadly editors are right to say that others believe that the spoiler is commonly used on the wiki. People persist in using it to which it clearly does not apply. -Randall Brackett 21:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now you've become downright rude. Take you for a fool? excuse me? I provided my honest response, I don't even know you. Do you always take such offense to editors who disagree with you? It doesn't matter, this crusade to remove the spoiler warning will easily fail. You clearly do not have an open mind and are not taking my comments into consideration. You are simply on "argument mode", instead of having a valid discussion. Spoiler warnings on Wikipedia have been used for almost 5 years now, take a look at how many articles use it [[2]]. You guys really think you'll get support to remove it? I'm not the only one who has no problem with the tag and feels it's completely appropriate and at home here on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 21:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"Spoiler tags are given as a courtesy to readers, not as censorship. It's the same reason the Main Page doesn't have a giant picture of a woman's vagina on it."

Care to cite a source for that? I'm fairly certain that Wikipedia's policy says that nowhere. In fact, it says exactly the opposite: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements. While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography) and provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted."

It's right there in black, white and blue that Wikipedia doesn't censor itself, and nowhere does it claim to make an exception for an erroneous courtesy purpose that no one can even verify it actually serves. All I ever see on the matter is "If someone was looking for...," "Someone might..." and "Just in case someone..." hypothetical situations, that are usually absurdly unlikely anyway, like the one brought up here: "People might be searching the internet for help on Insert name of game here, end up here, and find out about what happens at the ending." Putting aside just how unlikely something like that would be (check my response to it on the discussion page there), another editor responded with the logical comment that "...we can't let hypothetical situations like that determine policy."

So, this is a long way of me saying "We don't have a picture of a vagina on the front page because it isn't relevant, not because of some imaginary courtesy. Should the vagina article ever accumulate enough content and professionalism (which isn't to say that it isn't a well-designed page already; it's just lacking in content) to warrant Featured Article status, we very well could see a vagina on the front page, and no neutral editor would care." I'd like to remind you that neutrality is one of the fundamentals of Wikipedia and, again, point out that Wikipedia is not censored. There's nothing stopping a vagina from being on the front page of Wikipedia except the status of the vagina article itself.

"This courtesy clearly out weighs any negative effect the spoiler warning would have on the article."

Wrong. Unencyclopedic content hurts the encyclopedia's image as a serious encyclopedia along the line of the Britannica. Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, has even said that he wants Wikipedia to achieve that quality or higher and be printed. If Wikipedia is ever seen in print, do you honestly expect to see those absurd spoiler warnings? Do you see them in the Britannica? No. Why would you expect to see them here? For the ten thousandth time, this is an encyclopedia, not a blog, fansite, game help site or film review website. An encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is defined as follows: "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge."

"t doesn't matter, this crusade to remove the spoiler warning will easily fail. You clearly do not have an open mind and are not taking my comments into consideration."

Now that you're done insulting us, I'd like to point out that you're clearly the one who isn't here to have a discussion given that you're saying that this request for the betterment of Wikipedia will easily fail. I'd also like to ask how we are the closed-minded ones when we're the ones pointing out that this isn't the IMDB or GameFAQs, and that the man who founded this very place wants it to have the quality of the Britannica?

"You guys really think you'll get support to remove it?"

Have you been reading the discussions? There's plenty of people who find fault with them, and we can actually verify that they are unencyclopedic and can reasonably call into question the erroneous claims that they help the encyclopedia on some unsubstantiated courtesy level. As it stands, this concept of it being a courtesy is entirely hypothetical and uncorroborated. In most hypothetical cases presented (like the one I mentioned a little while ago), it's even downright illogical, and the chances of it proving to be some saving grace in such situations are improbable to the point of hilarity.

"I'm not the only one who has no problem with the tag and feels it's completely appropriate and at home here on Wikipedia."

When last I checked, Wikipedia was not an experiment in democracy. Consensus is reached through logical discussion in which issues are raised, points are addressed, and -- if need be -- counter-points are distributed on the basis of verifiability. As I've already said, we can easily verify that spoiler tags are unencyclopedic, that they are redundant and that they contribute nothing to Wikipedia's goal of being a quality encyclopedia. Furthemore, we can reasonably determine that any claims that they fulfill some courtesy are highly questionable.

Now are you ready to discuss the matter? Ryu Kaze 21:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Trying to play the "wiki is not censored" card, eh? Censorship is not including spoilers, NOT warning about them. This is not an issue of censorship. I looked all over this talk page, including the archives, and it seems this objection does not reflect consensus. I can't believe I'm having to debate one of the more useful tags found on Wikipedia. I recall having a similar debate over some of the current and future event templates, and I'll look for the archives of those discussions. They contain many of the same points that I am trying to bring out. We have many templates that you will NEVER see in Britannica, such as stub templates. Hell, are you ever going to see some of these fictional articles on TV shows or even on specific TV show characters in Britannica? You really think you can even compare the two? -- Ned Scott 22:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You have deeply confused me there. What on earth are you talking about...?

I agree that we should end here. We're starting to go into a flame war of sorts. I'll end by summarising Wikipedia concensus so that you may, perhaps, see that it means something more subtle than you believe. The fitting summary (taken from the policy itself) is "It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially the neutral point of view (NPOV). At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus."

Another view I endorse can be located on Template talk:Spoiler. "I don't believe that Wikipedia has a responsibility to shield its readers from knowledge. A book is not 'ruined' if its ending is revealed. Lay-out is not superfluous. Typography cannot be dismissed as 'nit-pick'. Wikipedia shouldn't nurture the consumerist restraint of orgasm in its readers. Arguing that spolier warnings somehow contribute to people reading more is far-fetched and ridiculous. Wikipedia is not the nanny-state protecting its readers from knowledge. Why should those who want to learn from an encyclopedia with considered typography be swept aside by a group of ignorant readers who need to be protected from knowledge. I would direct those readers to the great religious institutions set up for precisely that purpose." - Pvazz 05:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC) -Randall Brackett 22:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia provide a warning for content-relevant pornographic images? Does it provide a warning for images of human torture? No. It doesn't. Because it's not censored. Censorship doesn't stop merely at the removal or exclusion of information. Regulating it to any degree outside of treating it like other information also meets the criteria for censoring it. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. We are supposed to treat content-relevant pornographic images and spoilers the same way we would treat information on the function of a toaster. Because Wikipedia is neutral. It is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia sees information, not spoiler-laden information.

And again comes the claim that this spoiler tag is useful, yet again you don't provide us with verifiability for this, even in the face of verified facts that it is unencyclopedic, redundant of what these articles are here for and that it contributes nothing of value to this encyclopedia's purpose.

By the way, there's a difference between having room for articles on tv shows and having a different philosophy of what an encyclopedia is. Wikipedia has the extra room. That doesn't it mean it's trying to redefine "encyclopedia" and how one treats relevant information (which is supposed to be in a neutral matter in which it is all viewed as one thing and one thing only: information). Ryu Kaze 22:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of the front page, I've never seen a spoiler tag used there. Maybe no one considers them acceptable in a serious context (an encyclopedia article for example)? AMHR285^(talk) 22:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Or because the spoiler tag is embedded into a section on the article that is not being displayed on the main page? -- Ned Scott 22:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Any extra additions (including in-line references) get removed from front page previews for aesthetic and/or formatting reasons, so that's a moot matter anyway. Ryu Kaze 23:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand. That's not "on" the front page, that's in another article being linked from the front page. Let me say it this way: If the front page happens to contain a spoiler, should it not contain a spoiler warning as well?

It just so happens that at this very moment, the main page contains one hell of a spoiler:

Template:Spoiler

France defeats Portugal 1-0 in the semi-finals of the 2006 FIFA World Cup.

Template:Endspoiler

To demonstrate the impossibly vast consensus that many wikipedians share regarding spoiler tags, I think you should go and add a spoiler tag to the main page. In return, I pledge to forever support spoiler warnings on Wikipedia. AMHR285^(talk) 23:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A live event is a bit different than a spoiler in a work of fiction. Also, normal editors can't edit the main page.. If you're trying to make a point about spoiler comments not being well received by wikipedia as a whole.. then again I point you to the fact that such warnings have been used for almost 5 years now on Wikipedia, and the thousands of articles that currently contain the warning. -- Ned Scott 00:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no difference between the two. People expect to find news in a news section and plot analyses in a plot analyses section. You say that spoiler tags have accumulated thousands of uses over 5 years, and I agree, they have — but why? It's been asserted that most people don't bother to learn whether the tags are an official guideline or not, and I'm of the belief that their widespread use is due to this misconception (I once thought they were). That's no proof of support, just proof of ignorance. I've yet to see much in the way of logical support for them except from a handful of individuals. AMHR285^(talk) 01:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, in all fairness, a lot of people have misconceptions about the spoiler warnings. Some have thought they were Wikipedia policy on the same level as "Wikipedia is not censored." On one humorous occasion, Randall encountered an admin who thought that. Hell, I even thought it was a strictly enforced Guideline until Randall informed me otherwise. It's actually not even in the Manual of Style's fiction guide. Ryu Kaze 00:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem on other encyclopedias

Most encyclopedias don't have articles on Stargate SG-1 or Cowboy Bebop. Not only that, but we're not a paper encyclopedia, and we're highly connected to internet culture. Has the term spoiler warning even existed for very long? Wiki is far more likely to include deep details than your average bookcase encyclopedia, let alone deal with TV show topics that are current and active, and who's articles can be edited so fast. In other words, it's not a problem in other encyclopedias. Simple saying "un-encyclopedic" doesn't seem to.. mean much here.. Wikipedia is covering a lot of new ground, and you can't really compare this to what "the other guys" are doing. The very fact that spoiler warnings are exemptions from WP:SELF should tell you something about how this whole issue is treated differently than the norm'. -- Ned Scott 21:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that the founder of Wikipedia compares it to "what the other guys are doing," I think it's reasonable that we do. We're here to make an encyclopedia, not redefine the word. Ryu Kaze 21:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

heh, Wiki is not paper:

"Although Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not bound by the same constraints as a paper encyclopedia or even most online encyclopedias. The length, depth, and breadth of articles in Wikipedia is virtually infinite. As Wikipedia grows, so will computing power, storage capacity, and bandwidth. While there is a practical limit to all these at any given time, Wikipedia is not likely to ever outgrow them.

Founder Jimbo Wales has stated his desire that Wikipedia should not become yet another discussion forum. But it definitely is something different from a paper encyclopedia, and Wikipedians should take advantage of that fact."

and

"Some standards of writing that apply to paper don't really apply to Wikipedia. Jimbo Wales has said that Wikipedia needs its own style standards, but these will evolve to suit its needs and abilities."

So much for that argument, eh? -- Ned Scott 22:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, not so much for it at all. Again, there's a difference between having the room to cover extra topics and having a different philosophy of what an encyclopedia is. Nowhere has Jimbo suggested that Wikipedia should be defined as something other than an encyclopedia, and, again, he was the one who said he wanted the place to meet the Britannica's quality and see print.

Stop comparing two incompatible concepts as though they're identical. Having room for extra content is not identical to redefining how an encyclopedia handles content. Ryu Kaze 22:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm still confused as to not being hindered by the limitations of paper has to do with diverging from the standards of an encylopedia.

We do take advantage of the fact by nature of this being a wiki. We link, provide in-line references, have templates for navigation, categories and other neat things. All these things allow the wiki a more variable means of providing its knowledge in an accessible manner as well as influencing the quality of the encyclopedia itself.

"Our goal is to get to Britannica quality, or better." -- Jimbo Wales December 2005 " -Randall Brackett 22:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Because Britannica isn't going to include spoilers of the same nature, Britannica would likely not have a "spoiler warning". Also, the concept of giving a spoiler warning is something that is more known to be seen on the internet, where here it is not unusual at all. We're not familiar with seeing the usage outside of the internet, true. However, you seem to have some invisible definition of an encyclopedia. I'm saying it is extremely likely that this concept of spoiler warnings hasn't even been visited by most paper encyclopedias, and that's why they don't have them. You seem to think that a lack of spoiler warnings in paper encyclopedias means that a "true" encyclopedia is barred from having them. In fact, this seems to be the main argument here. Wikipedia deals with the topics of fictional articles far more than any paper encyclopedia. This has nothing to do with philosophy, because we're dealing with new concepts (that is, the concept of writing about TV shows, etc, in such depth). Especially about active TV shows and such, where information can change on a daily basis. -- Ned Scott 22:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

By the time a paper encyclopedia gets printed any TV show articles about it will hardly be seen as spoilers. Our articles, on the other hand, have live updating information about things in progress, or even before they're started. Paper encyclopedias don't have to deal with that. -- Ned Scott 22:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well that's his quote, not mine. If you disagree with his assesment of the project I suggest you discuss on User talk:Jimbo Wales.

Of course Britannica isn't going to include spoilers of the same nature. I believe any information of any faucet in an encyclopedia can not be considered a spoiler by merit of this being a source of knowledge. A spoiler is described as a sudden revealation or plot twist unexpected in a inapropriate location not germane to the subject. Its okay here, because that's what we do in wikipedia. Simply being an elaborative editor can not be be considered a spolier by any stretch of the imagination. -Randall Brackett 22:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with his words, because I'm not stretching them to comment on something that is beyond the original context. What is considered a spoiler or not is not being debated, what is being debated is if a warning message about the spoiler is acceptable in the articles. -- Ned Scott 23:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I have some encyclopedias. They feature entries on Moby Dick, Uncle Tom's Cabin, Citizen Kane, Romeo and Juliet and a plethora of other subjects. Subjects that have been around for a while. I don't see a single spoiler warning in any of them, yet you're suggesting that professional encyclopedias "just haven't gotten around to them yet," despite the fact that they've had plenty of time to and the fact that spoiler warnings would contradict two interrelated fundamentals of encyclopedic philosophy: neutrality and no censorship. To that I have a few things to say: 1) again, Jimbo -- not us -- suggested that Wikipedia should be trying to meet Britannica's standard or surpass it; 2) professional encyclopedias have had plenty of time to concern themselves with the notion of being comprehensive despite spoilers, and can do so as readily as any internet source, given that... well, need I actually say it?; 3) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Should we go ahead and add Jimbo Wales' "Death" section to his article even though he's not dead yet? He might be someday, so why not, right?? Let's do it for Johnny Depp too while we're at it, and maybe Diane Lane. I mean, why not? Death hasn't considered them yet, but maybe it will tomorrow.

By the way, there's nothing invisible about the definition of "encyclopedia" that we're using. We have repeatedly referenced where we're getting our definition. Ryu Kaze 23:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Err, I think there's some confusion here. Although one could debate that information on Moby Dick could still be seen as a spoiler, I think we both agree a warning, on any site or book, would be unnecessary. I'm talking about recent / in progress/ etc shows, like Lost or Stargate Atlantis. For one, in progress works aren't even being considered for Wikipedia 1.0., let alone a printed wiki-- Ned Scott 23:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with that assesment. Warn them for what...? I mean, it already dubious if spoiler warnings are even fullfilling their purpose currently (and even if they were how does it assist the encyclopedia...?). And if someone sees a spoiler so what...? Is it going to harm them...? Not so. I would as so far as to contest that fellows come to find information not easily found anywhere else. "Fear of spoilers". Indeed! -Randall Brackett 23:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

An article for a program-in-progress is still part of the encyclopedia, isn't it? Anyway, in most cases, the most recent episode of a show isn't going to matter. Some episodes of Stargate SG-1 or Star Trek, for instance, are simply filler not relevant to the overarching plotlines, and, thus, usually not relevant enough for entry here. By the end of a season, one will have enough info to work with (provided the producers, directors, actors and everybody else on crew did their job) to detail a relevant development. As far as actual relevant info goes, I don't see summaries of every episode of a show or every issue of a comic book mattering that much, but that's a completely different discussion and I'm getting off the topic.

I do understand that individual installments can each be as important as every other. On a show like Lost or Survivor, every episode is as relevant as every other, but in cases like that, again, such an article is still part of the encyclopedia. Some would, perhaps, argue that an article for a program-in-progress could maybe reasonably be treated differently given that you can't really call the article "complete" yet, but I'd like to point out the obvious fact that -- as far as what information has so far been made available goes -- the article is "complete" (I put the word in quotation marks because improvements are always being made to articles, even Featured ones). The same is true of every article on a work of fiction that Wikipedia has (provided, of course, that it's being updated by some editors dedicated to it).

If it were logical to wait until the program was finished to call its article complete, we could be waiting years in some cases (Stargate, for instance, is still going strong). And, hell, think about comic book articles. Articles for Spider-Man and Batman would be waiting for as long as there's human beings probably. There also comes the logical questions of "Why are we even creating an article for this yet if it's not yet being treated like the rest of the encyclopedia?", "How is this not holding to a double-standard given the treatment of older articles, as Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and treat all relevant info the same?" and "At what point exactly do you call an article 'complete'? Do we even have an article that would qualify?" Ryu Kaze 23:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying articles that contain spoilers or are recent shows are "incomplete". I'm saying that when talking about current fiction, the polite thing to do on the internet is give spoiler warnings. This is a concept many (editors and readers) feel very strongly about. Britannica is just too different (in this context) for it to be used as an argument for your side. It's an issue that Britannica hasn't come across yet, so just because they don't do it doesn't mean it's un-encyclopedic. If the only argument for removing the spoiler warnings is that it "doesn't look good", then that's a pretty weak argument. You guys are defining what looks good based on printed encyclopedias that don't have deep attachments to the internet community. If Britannica had some form of encyclopedia, online or not, that had as much fictional article coverage as wikipedia does, especially about recent and active works, you bet your ass they'd have spoiler warnings.

The concept of spoiler warnings is still a bit new in the world, since we're able to actually provide news and information and encyclopedia articles about fictional topics. It's no surprise that we don't see "spoiler warning" in many places. This does not have anything to do with being professional or not. It in no way restricts the information covered in an article, or how well worded an article is. -- Ned Scott 00:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see someone saying that Britannica isn't the best example of encyclopedic standards as far as current media goes (does this mean you acknowledge the matter concerning older media, or are we just focusing on current media at the moment?), but that again still leaves all the other issues I've brought up concerning neutrality, censorship and treating new info the same as old, because -- on the basis of neutrality -- relevant info is simply relevant info. On these grounds alone -- Britannica aside -- the spoiler tags still qualify as unencyclopedic.

As I've said, censorship doesn't exclusively refer to the exclusion of information, but also its regulation in a way that differs from the treatment of "normal" information. Being that it meets that criteria, the issue of neutrality has to be considered. On that basis, spoiler tags shouldn't be used, especially in light of treating all information the same.

By the way, on what basis do you "bet your ass" that Britannica would use spoiler warnings? Given what an encyclopedia is, why would they care? Do you really feel like the concept of spoilers somehow qualifies for a change in the philosophy of the encyclopedia, given that it would be introducing hypocrisy, double-standards and intense redundancy to a logical, balanced, efficient system? Ryu Kaze 00:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This has already been debated

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 4#Template:Spoiler, notice the results: The result of the debate was Speedy kept per WP:SNOW

That was a pretty recent discussion, too. This isn't like the first time anyone has considered this, ether. Like I've said before, we've been using spoiler warnings for almost 5 years. Oh, found another one:

Template talk:Spoiler/Archive 2#Spoilers not needed where one editor (Benc (talk · contribs)) said:

"Yes, the spoiler tag should exist. Wikipedia is not paper; the lack of spoiler warnings in Encyclopedia Britannica and the like is not an applicable precedent here. Unlike the Britannica, Wikipedia has extensive information about popular movies, video games, and fiction (i.e., entertainment). You won't find a blow-by-blow plot summary of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets in a traditional encyclopedia. There are more people reading more information about more works of entertainment. In the entertainment world, spoiler warnings are standard."

Sums it up pretty nicely. -- Ned Scott 00:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This has already been addressed

As we've said repeatedly in the last week, this "consensus" mostly featured people saying "Keep" without citing any actual reasoning, which is mandatory in those discussions. "This is a joke, right?" and "Are you crazy?" isn't reasoning. They voided their own votes by not supporting them.

As I mentioned, consensus on Wikipedia isn't a show of hands. It's discussion in which issues are raised, points are addressed, and -- if need be -- counter-points are distributed on the basis of verifiability and logic. For example, if you were trying to get an article to FA status, and only four people voted in favor while 1,000 voted against, if the four who voted in favor gave sound, verifiable reasons while those who voted against simply said "Article's stupid," "I don't like the subject" or "I don't like the editors of it," the article would reach FA status.

The closest that discussion got to any reasoning on the part of the "Keep"-ers was -- once again, and not surprsingly -- the old faithful claim that it's courteous, useful and that tons of people benefit from it. Of course, not a single individual stepped forward to corroborate this, instead thinking that hypothetical situations that may or may not apply should somehow determine Wikipedia policy. Hell, a good many Wikipedia practices only developed after the initial need for them had come and gone. We've yet to ever see an archived discussion featuring a demand for the inclusion of spoiler tags. They just showed up one day and have been freeloading ever since.

I wasn't part of that previous discussion, and I for one am not willing to just cave in when people refuse to acknowledge my verifiable evidence in favor of their hypothetical situations that they make no move to corroborate. I intend to see this matter reach its conclusion, with spoiler tags either moving out or becoming an unshakable, unquestionable aspect of Wikipedia. Given all the logical inconsistencies involved with the latter eventuality and my stubborn resolve, I don't believe the matter will end until the former has come to pass. Ryu Kaze 00:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, WP:SNOW isn't a Guideline, and I don't think it applies in this situation. If neutrality, policy and logic are considered -- which they are supposed to in the determination of what reflects consensus -- I don't see how it possibly could. Ryu Kaze 00:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

So the reasons I've stated are... what? invisible? I haven't seen any evidence that shows that spoiler warnings hurt wikipedia, yet I have seen evidence to see that they've helped people (myself included). The reason people say "are you kidding" is because it's so blatantly obvious that it doesn't warrant discussion. I'm sorry we haven't spelled it out for those of you who want to remove spoiler warnings. Note the template talk archive discussion I pointed out, where they not only addressed if it was appropriate or not to have spoiler warnings, but the very spelling and appearance of the message was taken into consideration for appearing "encyclopedic". The archives on this talk page also show that the feedback of many editors have been involved. This is somehow not consensus? So just because you are kicking and screaming, your argument should have more weight? -- Ned Scott 01:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

We've gone over this and gone over it. Where's the evidence you see that they've helped people? Why haven't you shown it to us? It's not in the template talks and archives. All we have there is people clamoring that readers expect the editors to think them incompetent and incapable of reading a dictionary (or even our own article on encyclopedias), and that this template is magically useful. Apparently it's so magically beneficial that it makes people forget they ever had a problem.

Long story short, yes, your reasons are invisible. You've given us your reasons over and over, but where is the verifiability that we have provided you in our arguments? We've given you the definition of "encyclopedia," referred you to the Britannica (considered by most to be the standard of encyclopedic quality and style), to Jimbo Wales' statements concerning his hopes for the quality of this encyclopedia, to Wikipedia policies that the spoiler tags violate, etc. What more can we possibly provide you given that we've been provided with nothing so far?

By the way, why is it that many of the issues we've raised -- such as the counter-points to your original argument concerning vaginas -- haven't been addressed? You began this discussion with the argument that Wikipedia does endorse censorship, but not only was the reasoning there fallacious, but other "objectionable material" that inarguably has the greater potential for psychological scarring -- such as images of humans being tortured -- doesn't feature warnings. Hell, when that template came up, it was shot down. Is spoiling that Snape killed Dumbledore more traumatizing than seeing someone dissected alive? What an age to live in if it is. Ryu Kaze 01:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time right this moment to address everything, but WHOA, I NEVER said censorship is endorse! DO NOT put words in my mouth or try to twist my meanings around! and the Jimbo quote I addressed, you are using it out of context. I'm so tired of people trying to use "what jimbo said" for their argument when he wasn't even talking about the same thing. Are you seriously not reading what I am posting? As for your evidence of helpfulness, a straw poll will clear that up very quickly. Did I just hear you correctly, that you are saying that the reason no one has made major objections is because every editor that was involved in the template, guideline, and applying them is because they are ignorant? -- Ned Scott 01:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh you should have plenty of time. You advocate it so strongly and therefore to support your stance on the matter you must obviously have gobsmacks of edvidence to refute our surprior arguments.

It is precisely as we say. If everyone was so knowledgeable about how the template could assist the project they would have said something at the TFD review. Straw poll...? See m:polls are evil. That's not concensus. Yes, there are a great deal of people who love the damnable trinkets. But if they cannot even defend their usage properly, then its not considered concensus. Not at all. Establishing concensus isn't by voting and attaining a large amount of support. Its coming together with your peers and concluding to a end that is sensible, agreed upon and has basis of fact. -Randall Brackett 01:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You are being needlessly rude now. I had to eat dinner, if you must know, that is why I didn't have time..

As I CLEARLY said before, we could use a straw poll for gathering information, NOT to decide what to do.

I see only a handful of rude editors here pushing for the removal of spoiler warnings. How is that consensus? How are your opinions on the usefulness any more relevant than mine or others? -- Ned Scott 02:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course its meaningless. This has been adressed numerous times. Simply becuase of pack of a wikipedians get together and say "we need this template" and "its crazy to delete it" doesn't hold any relevance (see Wikipedia:Concensus). Such concensus is only advisible when editors actually speak of the usefulness of the template in question. No editor fullfilled this task in that capacity though I conceed there was support in light of ignorance.

On other hand, various editors such as myself have actually attmepted to establish concenus with solid rebuttals and elaborate arguments. And its quite fruitful. I am complacent to say that the current concensus for the removal of spoilers from CVG articles is frimly behind me. I would advise you, in furthur debates to discuss the helpful nature of the template to the encyclopedia, something that you still have not answered. -Randall Brackett 01:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

To summarize, Randall and I are asking for some kind of verifiable example of how the spoiler tags benefit Wikipedia -- that you can link to as easily any of the things we have that show how they violate its policies and are downright redundant of the fact that this is an encyclopedia. If it involves a hypothetical situation along the lines of "If somebody accidentally...," "When someone accidentally" or "Just in case somebody accidentally...," then it doesn't really qualify. Ryu Kaze 01:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I could certainly reconsider if the presumption of people, in reality "spoiling" themselves somehow affected the encycloepdia, but it doesn't. What, if they end up expanding their horizons, what are they going to do..? Sue us for being an informative source of knowledge..? -Randall Brackett 01:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

To summarize, Randall and I are asking for some kind of verifiable example of how the spoiler tags benefit Wikipedia Okay - I just did a spot survey of six people in the office where I am whom I know who use Wikipedia. I asked them the following-

1) If you used Wikipedia to check on a movie you had not yet seen, would you appreciate it having a spoiler warning before plot details were reveled?

2) If you used Wikipedia to check on a movie you had not yet seen, would you expect it to have a spoiler warning before plot details were revealed?

3) If there were no spoiler warning, and this resulted in you accidentally finding out plot details, would you be annoyed, pleased, or neutral about this?

4) If this happened, would you be more or less likely to use Wikipedia to search for movie details in future?

The results were: all six would appreciate spoiler warnings, 5/6 would expect them, 5/6 would be annoyed (1 neutral, none happy), and all six would be less likely to use Wikipedia for movie searches in future. These last two points are particularly important - removing spoilers would annoy readers and make them less likely to use Wikipedia. In which case, it harms Wikipedia, especially since an encyclopedia of this sort thrives on word-of-mouth goodwill for its popularity. Grutness...wha? 01:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice, straw man & argumentum ad populum in one tidy package. Here's a different way to frame your poll questions:

1) Would you expect plot and/or ending details when reading an article section clearly titled "Plot synopsis"?

2) If you were interested in a movie, but did not want to find out about any plot twists, would you read an article section titled "Plot synopsis"?

3) If you accidentally discover plot details while reading the "Plot synopsis" section in a movie article on Wikipedia, would you be annoyed, pleased, or neutral about your decision to read an article section entitled "Plot synopsis"?

4) What are you more likely to use when searching for movie details, IMDb or Wikipedia?

Also, I'd say that Wikipedia thrives on unintentional google-bombing and fluffy promotional articles. Lets say there was a poll whose participants said they would be more likely to go back to and recommend Wikipedia if each article was emblazoned with a really cute picture of a puppy, would that poll then dictate Wikipedia policy? (Sorry for the sarcastic tone, I just wanted to illustrate several flaws in your rhetoric) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As the 16th largest site on the internet I would consider that a misled statement. I'd say we're pretty popular!

"If you used Wikipedia to check on a movie you had not yet seen...?" I presume you neglected to tell your peers we have headers which commonly say "plot", "synopsis" and the like. If a normal, sensible person cannot navigate plain english in bold to find what they need in wikipedia, then there is a serious problem. -Randall Brackett 01:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the fact that you're trying to use a hypothetical situation as the basis for policy, Grutness, that's original research, and hardly something that we can say is a reliable indication of the majority. For that matter, it in no way addresses the issues regarding neutrality, censorship, or unbiased treatment of articles on old and new media. Furthermore, Wikipedia isn't a movie review site, nor does it advertise itself as one. People coming to a comprehensive, neutral, non-censored body of knowledge and expecting that it not contain spoilers that are treated the same as the film's acting roster have no one to blame but themselves, I'm sorry to say, especially if they look at the headers marked "Plot" and/or "Story" and don't expect the text below it to contain information about the plot and/or story. Come on, are we really assuming readers to be incompetent? Just because an encyclopedia's trying to inform people, that doesn't mean it should assume them to be stupid.

As far as the issue of word-of-mouth and this harming Wikipedia, I think this encyclopedia has gone way past the point of having to rely on word-of-mouth for people to learn about it. It's been mentioned in Time and other well-known publications. Historians, journalists and schoolteachers know it like the back of their hand. And if a few people stop thinking of Wikipedia as a place that would be devoid of comprehensive information, then them coming to recognize this encyclopedia as an encyclopedia would be bad in what way?

By the way, you didn't actually address on any level how the spoiler warnings contribute to the encyclopedia's purpose of being comprehensively informative on a variety of subjects, and how the lack of spoilere warnings would detract from Wikipedia's ability to do this. Why does all this keep going in circles? Ryu Kaze 01:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:OR only applies to article sources, not article and guideline disputes. A well written article can have a plot summary without any major spoilers, so the fact that a section says "plot summary" doesn't mean anything to someone trying to avoid major spoilers. -- Ned Scott 02:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Original research is related to the verifiability policy, which does matter when making an argument concerning policy. Arguments concerning articles/templates/images for deletion and matters related to policy require input that makes an attempt at supporting itself. In order for it to be supported, you kind of have to have verifiability for it.

Ned, now tell me if I misunderstood... because it basically sounds like what you said is "I have nothing to back up the arguments I've been making for the last 12 hours -- plural because I've changed my argument around more than once -- unlike you, the people I've been talking to, so I'm going to now try to claim that backing up what I say is unnecessary, and you should all just fall in line with it." Given that you said little else and that it's been almost two hours since you said this, I assume you said all you intended to say, and I can't see what else you could have meant by it. Really, I'm trying to see what else you could have meant by it, but after all this discussion, for you to resort to a comment like that suggests little else. Please tell me I'm reading you wrong.

By the way, tell me how a plot summary can be encyclopedic if it's not comprehensive. Given that this is an encyclopedia. Which is defined as a comprehensive collection of knowledge. Are you suggesting that people should assume that the paragraphs of text under "Plot summary" can be comprehensive, neutral, uncensored and -- reiterated because it's important -- comprehensive without being comprehensive...? That they should expect to look under a header of "Plot summary" and not find a summary of the plot? Are you kidding me?

Look, the absurdity of that argument is baffling to me. I'm just going to quote something Randall said recently: "As an encyclopedia, its our job as editors to include complete summaries." That's all I have to say. Well, and this: you suggested that Randall didn't really want to have a discussion when this started, and then you pull this? Yeah, you totally wanted to have a debate. Ryu Kaze 04:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

My OR comment was directly about Grutness's comments and input and nothing else. Fucking hell man, did you take that the wrong way. Original research, such as trying to figure something out via other editors on Wikipedia. This has been done many times in order to find "most used name" for NC of article titles. -- Ned Scott 05:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You could have been more clear on what you were talking about then. In any case, the rest of what I said still stands. Great that you didn't address it. Ryu Kaze 12:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Just let me know when I need to vote.

I have tried to read the views of those I disagree with, allowing them a chance to sway me, but the discussion has devolved into snippy argument, I have no interest in reading this any longer. Should this come to a vote, I will be voting to keep the spoiler templates. Someone do me a favor and let me know if my vote is needed. --Chris Griswold 04:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris, no offense, but if you've read our discussions, then you know it's been mentioned on no less than three occasions that concensus is about debate, not a show of hands? It's about logic-based discussion in which views are presented, weighed, analyzed, tossed back and forth, dissected, challenged, supported, etc. What we've had so far is a whole lot of Randall and myself supporting our argument, while the closest the opposing view has come to doing so was an unverifiable, original research survey conducted by Grutness (kudos to him at least for making some effort; in his one post on this matter, he's done more than anyone else so far, so I do thank him and congratulate him for that, even if it can't have any bearing on the discussion).

The behavior of some parties on this issue since... well, ever since the issue's been around... has been extremely unprofessional, as it showed little to no concern for actually discussing the issue, and has never -- in any of the archives or discussions that we've gone over -- featured someone pushing for the presence of spoiler tags actually taking the time to sit down and explain how they help Wikipedia do a better job of being a comprehensive reservoir of knowledge. Now please, is it so much to ask that somebody make this effort?

We can verify that the presence of spoiler tags is redundant.

We can verify that they violate Wikipedia policy.

We can verify that their presence has been an example of a double-standard no one has made the effort to justify (I think it reasonable to conclude that images of human mutilation conducted willfully and intentionally by another human being are at least as unsettling to the human psyche as shouting "Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father!" outside a showing of The Empire Strikes Back in 1980 would have been).

We can reasonably challenge that they provide any service beneficial to this encyclopedia's purpose.

We can ask you to discuss this matter with us and explain to us how it does that. Now you can refuse to do this, in which case your view remains unsupported and invalidated, but why would you choose to do that if you can support it? Ryu Kaze 05:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is basically about no editors taking the time to explain their perfectly valid reasons, because most editors feel this is such an obvious issue. This situation was recently visited TWICE in the last month and both times it was rejected to remove the spoiler warnings. But a handful of editors did not feel closure on the issue, and since they didn't get an explanation spelling it out for them we are still in this little debate.

We can verify that the presence of spoiler tags is redundant.

I disagree, the Wikipedia:General disclaimer is not adequate warning. WP:V is mentioned in policy and on every edit window, that is more redundant than the spoiler warnings. Also, redundancy is not always a bad thing, especially about warnings.

We can verify that they violate Wikipedia policy.

No, no it's not. This is not an issue of censorship, or some quote from Jimbo taken out of context.

We can verify that their presence has been an example of a double-standard no one has made the effort to justify...

You only assume people have made "no effort to really understand", which really isn't assuming good faith, now is it? This is basically saying "I think they're ignorant, thus I'm not going to listen to their option" with no evidence that the editors that are pro-spoiler warning were ignorant at all. Many of these editors did make long detailed explanations that were totally ignored. See the top of this very talk page for examples.

We can reasonably challenge that they provide any service beneficial to this encyclopedia's purpose.

And how many times have you been given reasonable answers? It's for the benefit of the reader, a part of common courtesy. To ignore the community as not a valid reason is insane. To say it hasn't helped anyone when you have a large list of editors who say it has helped them and they know others who it's helped is... insane.

Again, this is what, 4 editors here, being extremely rude and going to the point of not assuming good faith and twisting people's words around to better support their arguments. Go ahead, try to remove the tags, then you'll get people's attention, a well defined explanation, and a swift kick in the ass. -- Ned Scott 05:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh I've been removing the tags for quite awhile. I've removed lots and lots of them from hundreds of articles over the past month. I'm still fine.

There can be little good faith assumed here. My experience in the removal of the spoiler tags and prior discussion of the subject has proven many editors do not intend to explain their usage of the tags in a appropriate manner. When inquired, such replies were "Its policy (?)", "It will spoil the reader", "There are spoilers" which honestly doesn't tell many anything. None of those quibbles have to do with an encyclopedia.

I really don't believe I've misinterpreted Jimbo's quote in regards to Brinnitca. I'm inclined to think the encyclopedia is a place where knowledge is shared freely and the encyclopedia is sucessful becuase they treat their data the same and equally. I think that's what Jimbo is attempting to say. We should give our information that same freedom and care they do to reach or surpass their quality. Citing a piece or information as spoilish or unable to be read doesn't reflect that respect or care. I think we must realize that when we place information on wikipedia, its intended to assist in the learning process for that subject and that information in an encyclopedia can never harm a person because that's what any encyclopedia is suppposed to do. -Randall Brackett 12:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"This is basically about no editors taking the time to explain their perfectly valid reasons, because most editors feel this is such an obvious issue."

Well, it isn't. If you had perfectly valid reason, you and they and everyone else has had plenty of time to explain them many times over by now.

"This situation was recently visited TWICE in the last month and both times it was rejected to remove the spoiler warnings."

Uh... actually, no. The most recent times it was visited, we saw a successful challenge of the Guideline status (that, as far as we can see, only was present due to an act of WP:BOLD at some point in the past), and several people who challeneged the claims of usefulness regarding spoiler tags. If you're referring to the list of "Are you crazy?"s (which, again, had zero discussion value in that instance), that was in May. Still recent, yeah, but I wasn't part of that then and am wiling to make the more logical points.

"I disagree, the Wikipedia:General disclaimer is not adequate warning."

It's kind of on every single page. Hell, the spoiler tags have never even been able to claim that. In any event, I wasn't referring to just the disclaimer. I was referring to the definition of the word "encyclopedia," which you've been ignoring for the last day.

"WP:V is mentioned in policy and on every edit window, that is more redundant than the spoiler warnings."

Verifiability is a fudamental aspect of this encyclopedia's philosophy and purpose. It's also a policy. Spoiler tags are not. For that matter, they show up under completely different circumstances and have completely different uses. An automated notice reminding editors to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia is a tad different from a manually-placed banner that reminds people that this comprehensive collection of knowledge contains information.

"No, no it's not. This is not an issue of censorship, or some quote from Jimbo taken out of context."

Why do you keep ignoring that censorship is not just about excluding information, but also about regulating it in a manner different from how "normal" information is treated? Relevant information is relevant information. It's all supposed to be treated the same. Wikipedia's an encyclopedia. It doesn't have a bias (except for where relevant, verifiable info is concerned). That's why it's neutral.

By the way, I really don't see how I was taking Jimbo's quote of context. Given that he said he wants Wikipedia to meet or surpass Britannica's standard, I can't see how that's ambiguous. At all. On the other hand, you did certainly take his quote about taking advantage of Wikipedia's unique situation (an obvious reference to the fact that we have more space, the ability to place in-line references and links into our articles, and the ability for anyone to edit this thing at practically anytime) out of context, turning it into "Ignore encyclopedic philosophy and standards, even in the face of me speaking of the Britannica as our role model." And then you keep jumping around with arguments like "Britannica maybe just hasn't gotten around to spoilers yet. Nevermind that they've had over one hundred years to do so" and "Verifiability is irrelevant in a discussion of policy."

"You only assume people have made "no effort to really understand"..."

I'm assuming nothing. They demonstrated by the fact that they didn't attempt to discuss the matter at all, nor acknowledged verifiable claims that they didn't like. They might as well have been "voting" on the basis of which side they thought wore nicer clothes, because they certainly never bothered to address the issues involved.

"And how many times have you been given reasonable answers? It's for the benefit of the reader, a part of common courtesy. To ignore the community as not a valid reason is insane."

Again this claim. Where's the proof that the spoiler tags are so invaluable that Wikipedia would crumble to dust without them? Where's the evidence that the readers of this encyclopedia are so incompetent that they would look at the plot section for Gladiator and express astonishment that they were being given details of the plot? Do you really think that the readers are so stupid as to need to see a notice of "Spoiler warning: plot and/or ending details follow" in order to know that they were about to read information about the damn plot? Was the "Plot" header not clear enough for them, despite its size? If their eyes are that bad or that cognitive ability that poor, then I don't think the spoiler warning is going to help much anyway.

Seriously, how can you not see that the spoiler tag is warning people about information? The section is entitled "Plot." The "warning" says "Plot... details follow." What. The. Hell?

"gain, this is what, 4 editors here, being extremely rude and going to the point of not assuming good faith and twisting people's words around to better support their arguments."

If you think you haven't been rude, you need to go back and read your messages. Talk about not assuming good faith... hell, you're the one who's said on more than one occasion that you think this discussion is meaningless and that what we've been talking about never had a chance to amount to anything, despite your refusal to support the opposing stance. At this point, our assumption of good faith is just a little strained. And, truly, you don't have the room to talk when it comes to claims of twisting people's words around. I didn't do that to your words. I asked you if what I was reading out of it was accurate. Go back and read it again.

"Go ahead, try to remove the tags, then you'll get people's attention, a well defined explanation, and a swift kick in the ass."

Aren't you just the picture of civility. In any event, if there is a well defined explanation, we can have it now. So how about it? If you're a concerned Wikipedian, then you care about conensus and you'll provide this reasoning you speak of. Yeah, I know that doesn't sound like an assumption of good faith, but what am I supposed to think when you constantly say stuff like this yet never make a move to offer the information you claim to have. Ryu Kaze 13:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

User input

Has anyone done a user survey on this topic? Most of this is rhetorical fluff. Has there been any formal poll to gauge the position of the end user on this topic? --05:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. We're taking it around one wikiproject at a time. I'd prefer the relevant discussion be carried out in the specific mediums rather than having a immense satuaration of views on one page. I think it becomes more and more difficult to gauge a concensus the higher amount of editors are invloved as it tends to incline people to vote, rather than discuss the matter. -Randall Brackett 12:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about editors. I'm talking about visitors to the site. I haven't seen any hard data on their use or non use of the tag. --Kunzite 18:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia!

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, obviously, different situations may come up. An encyclopedia being printed to paper obviuously won't have articles about Final Fantasy CXII (or whatever number they're up to), or Smokey and the Bandit, but there's no reason we can't have them on Wikipedia. I really think the same applies to spoiler warnings. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but it's also much much more than any encyclopedia has been in the past, so we need to be open to the idea that we may need to break some new ground in the field.

As far as the actual spoiler warnings, I think they're a fine idea. The whole purpose of this encyclopedia should be to spread knowledge, and the warnings certainly don't prevent us from doing that. On the other hand, not having the warnings could very well discourage users from reading great works because they already know the endings. Using "Plot" as a section heading might be enough to indicate spoilers, but there are times when spoilers are made outside this section, even outside the article about the thing being spoiled. For instance, Mona Lisa contains a minor spoiler of The Da Vinci Code, as does Holy Grail, and I'm sure several others. My point is, aside from any valid reasons a person may have for reading up on a book they plan to read without wanting to know the ending or plot twists, it's perfectly possible that they will come across these spoilers in articles that they don't even realize are related, and having warnings could help them to avoid information that will ruin their reading experience. And honestly, do we really want to discourage people from reading any more than they already are?

I don't think placing a time limit on spoilers is neccessarily a good idea. While I wouldn't be surprised to not find a warning on Romeo and Juliet or Moby Dick, I still think the same reasoning applies equally well to them. Sure, they've been around for hundreds of years, but most of us haven't. I've only been around 21 years, and there's only so much reading I can do in that time.

Lastly, some people think the template itself is visually intrusive. I don't see it personally, but for those of you who do, the template has recently had a CSS class added to it, "spoiler". So if you don't want to see these warnings, all you have to do is edit your monobook.css (or whatever skin you're using) and use "visible:none", or something like that. And then you don't have to look at them. We could even make it into a bumper sticker:

Don't like spolier warnings?
Don't look at them.

B.Mearns ^*, KSC 13:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, obviously, different situations may come up."

The Wikipedia is not paper policy explains itself as referring to the number of topics we can cover, not encyclopedic philosophy.

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but it's also much much more than any encyclopedia has been in the past, so we need to be open to the idea that we may need to break some new ground in the field."

That's one of the core issues at stake here: why do we need to warn people that the encyclopedia contains information? Like I was telling Ned just a moment ago, on the Gladiator page we have a section header that clearly reads "Plot" in plain english and in large text. We then have a little banner under it that warns people that information about the plot is about to be presented: "Spoiler warning: plot... details follow."

"On the other hand, not having the warnings could very well discourage users from reading great works because they already know the endings."

Continuing the issue of having a need for spoiler warnings, why is it that the Britannica, Americana and other encyclopedias have been able to talk about famous works -- classical works at that, regarded by some as defining pieces of literature from our history -- without spoiler warnings for all these years, but Wikipedia can't?

"Using "Plot" as a section heading might be enough to indicate spoilers, but there are times when spoilers are made outside this section, even outside the article about the thing being spoiled. For instance, Mona Lisa contains a minor spoiler of The Da Vinci Code, as does Holy Grail, and I'm sure several others."

In most cases, such information only appears on related subjects, and when it doesn't (and when it does), it's usually clearly indicated. The paragraph on the Mona Lisa page (personally, I don't know that I'd even call that a minor spoiler) that mentions The Da Vinci Code begins "The painting features significantly in The Da Vinci Code...." Well right there, the reader now knows that this paragraph is talking about The Da Vinci Code. In the case of the Holy Grail section on the matter, the section is even marked (in large text) "The Da Vinci Code." Readers aren't stupid. They know what they're looking at. In any event, we're not here to shield people from information or to treat relevant info differently from other relevant info. We're here to educate our fellow human beings with information that is treated impartially.

"And honestly, do we really want to discourage people from reading any more than they already are?"

I'm going to have to ask you to explain this. We're building people potentially the most comprehensive encyclopedia ever compiled by human hands, and we're doing it for free. How could we possibly be encouraging them to read less? As an editor, I honestly am baffled by such an accusation. What makes you think we're doing that?

"I don't think placing a time limit on spoilers is neccessarily a good idea. While I wouldn't be surprised to not find a warning on Romeo and Juliet or Moby Dick, I still think the same reasoning applies equally well to them. Sure, they've been around for hundreds of years, but most of us haven't. I've only been around 21 years, and there's only so much reading I can do in that time."

In those cases, we'd have to shelter people from their culture too. Romeo and Juliet's tale of star-crossed lovers and Ahab's self-destructive quest to kill the white wale are as ingrained into our culture as the evening news. Hell, even The Da Vinci Code is already an icon of pop culture that people from the US to Greece know the significance of.

"So if you don't want to see these warnings, all you have to do is edit your monobook.css (or whatever skin you're using) and use "visible:none", or something like that. And then you don't have to look at them."

Personally, I don't care about how they look, but even if I did, they'd still be there, regardless of whether or not I could see them. The issue at stake here is this encyclopedia's integrity and quality, and that's not something that will improve if merely I cannot see the spoiler tags. I am an editor. I'm supposed to concern myself with what the readers are seeing. Ryu Kaze 13:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Reading a spoiler doesn't necessarily ruin anything for anyone — this is an extreme over-generalization.

"On the other hand, not having the warnings could very well discourage users from reading great works because they already know the endings."

Show me the policy that turned Wikipedia into a pro-reading campaign. A more serious issue would be the readers being turned away by the hokey GameFAQs spoiler shield. AMHR285^(talk) 15:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

In reply to "Don't like spolier warnings? Don't look at them", I am sorry but I cannot help but see them. They pollute the article space for dubious reasons, they are stupidly in the edit window and then placed in the most uneeded of places. Everytime I have to improve an article or clean-up prose it is there intrusively obstructing the space of a header where empty space or informative text should be. They are too ridiculous to ignore.

Yes it is a extreme over-generalization. "Being spoiled" is some stupid slang, a fictional "harm" a person would take from being purged of their ignorance. Such nonsense has no place in wkipedia. If you are more concerned about ignorance then our goal to share knowledge then perhaps you need to find another project to contribute to. It is absloutley biased to say "I think this is a harmful piece of information and I think people could take offense." No information is offensive in an encyclopedia, be it wikipedia or any other. -Randall Brackett 15:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"No information is offensive in an encyclopedia." Then why are you working so hard to remove information from this encyclopedia? —CWC(talk) 17:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not. You seem to have misread my comment. -Randall Brackett 17:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

How is trying to remove the spoiler warnings removing information? As I've said several times, spoiler warnings just reiterate what the section headers of "Plot" and "Plot summary" say. We're warning people that a section entitled "Plot" contains information on the plot? How is removing such an irrelevant banner removing information from Wikipedia? Ryu Kaze 17:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

So much effort

I am greatly impressed by the astonishing amount of text the anti-spoiler people have written, here and in at least one other place. The quality of their arguments ... not so good.

Whether other encyclopedias do or don't have spoilers is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not like other encyclopedias. The function of an encyclopedia is to provide comprehensive information; the presence or absence of little bits of metadata helping readers decide whether to skip parts of articles in no way hinders that function, and makes Wikipedia more useful to some readers. We're trying to create "Wikipedia, the free on-line encyclopedia that anyone can edit", not "Wikipedia, the website with lots of articles about movies, books and games that you don't want to visit until you have finished the movie, book or game in question".

Two months ago, someone tried to delete the spoiler warning template. The Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_4#Template:Spoiler result was "Speedy kept per WP:SNOW", the strongest possible rejection of a deletion attempt. As User:cesarb said above, the use of spoiler warnings is long-standing policy. Those who advocate removal of all spoiler warnings will need some powerful arguments to win this debate. At present, all I see from them is astonishing amounts of repetitive verbosity. (If you can write a short argument against warnings, please do so and then link to it frequently.)

Cheers, CWC(talk) 17:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with being verbose about the situation. If one decides to make a massive change across article space they had better be elaborate to clarify their reasoning. I'm inclined to think its vastly preferable to irrelevant nonsense like a lot of people voted on something, the false assumption this is a policy (Its not) or someone learning something they'd rather not know at a place they're supposed to go to learn.

You're welcome to your opinion on the validation of my arguments but I see you've no basis of fact to refute it. There were a significant number of votes, both which imply they thought the deletion of the template was ourageous, and of the manner of deleting it difficult to comprehend. I agree that it's a judgement call, but I follow the dictum of our concensus policy: "It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position. Nearly every editor believes that his (or her) position is reasonable; good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may also be reasonable. But Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith. With respect to good faith, no amount of emphasized assertions that one is editing according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view while engaging in biased editing will serve to paper over the nature of one's activities.". I still don't see what encyclopedic purpose was served by this material in this instance, since it will only be misused in an inapropriate manner in the wiki. -Randall Brackett 17:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"The quality of their arguments ... not so good."

Then why are ours the only ones with any verifiability behind them?

"Whether other encyclopedias do or don't have spoilers is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not like other encyclopedias."

Wikipedia isn't paper, yes, we know. The amount of space an encyclopedia has to fill has what to do with the definition of "encyclopedia" and encyclopedic philosophy?

"The function of an encyclopedia is to provide comprehensive information; the presence or absence of little bits of metadata helping readers decide whether to skip parts of articles in no way hinders that function, and makes Wikipedia more useful to some readers."

Do we have evidence that they make Wikipedia more useful to readers? Do we have evidence that a spoiler banner that uses text smaller than the header above it screaming "Plot summary" somehow conveys to readers what the header does not? If you see a header entitled "Plot," what do you think a reader expects the paragraphs under that header contain? Does seeing a notice of "Plot... details follow" convey to them what the header does not? Do we have any reason to think so? And is it actually relevant to this encyclopedia's purpose?

"We're trying to create "Wikipedia, the free on-line encyclopedia that anyone can edit", not "Wikipedia, the website with lots of articles about movies, books and games that you don't want to visit until you have finished the movie, book or game in question"."

There is a table of contents. There are sections clearly marked "Plot," "Story," "Plot summary" and similar such red flags. No one has to read the plot details if they don't want to, and we have been offered zero evidence that a spoiler warning conveys to them what those section headers do not. Since when did hypothetical situations dictate Wikipedia policy?

"Two months ago, someone tried to delete the spoiler warning template. The Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_4#Template:Spoiler result was "Speedy kept per WP:SNOW", the strongest possible rejection of a deletion attempt."

To anyone accusing us of not assuming good faith: this is why get frustrated. No less than half a dozen times, we've gone over this particular archive. First off, WP:SNOW is not a policy. Second, even if it were, it doesn't apply in this situation given that we have provided verifiability for our arguments, something those with the opposing view have yet to do. Third, policy is not determined based on votes. It's determined based on discussion and how well arguments are supported. Given that our arguments have support while no one has provided support for claims of the spoiler tags' beneficial presence -- neither with regards to readers or the encyclopedia's purpose -- I have to say that WP:SNOW is the last thing to cite in a situation like this given the side of the fence you're sitting on. If we were going by WP:SNOW and the standard for finding consensus, it would be a landslide in our favor at the moment.

Fouth, that "discussion" from May featured tons of people thinking they were voting for who their local government leaders were going to be instead of participating in a template discussion. Comments such as "Keep Are you crazy?" and "Keep This is a joke, right?" are considered invalid, voiding the "vote." The closest anyone came to trying to support spoiler tags in that "discussion" was constantly repeating what we've been hearing here: that they're useful, that they help the encyclopedia, that they benefit readers. However, just like in this discussion, no one ever stepped forward to support these claims, and, thus, the matter has gone and here is the discussion again.

"As User:cesarb said above, the use of spoiler warnings is long-standing policy."

It isn't a policy at all. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

"At present, all I see from them is astonishing amounts of repetitive verbosity. (If you can write a short argument against warnings, please do so and then link to it frequently.)"

I have done so several times:

They are redundant of the fact that this is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is defined as "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge."
They are redundant of the content disclaimer accessible from the bottom of every page of this website that states "Wikipedia contains spoilers and content you may find objectionable."
They are redundant of section headings entitled "Plot," "Plot summary," "Story" or something similar. For an example, look at the page for the movie Gladiator. The section entitled "Plot" has immediately below it a warning that the section contains information about the plot: "Spoiler warning: plot... details follow." How does the "Plot" header not convey this given that 1) the header is in plain english, 2) the header already tells readers the same thing the banner does and 3) the header is in larger text than the spoiler banner? In other words, these spoiler tags are warning people that these encyclopedia articles contain information and that is all that they are doing.
They are an example of a double-standard. Templates warning people of images of humans being tortured were not allowed (even an image-free version of one particular article was deleted) on the grounds that it violated Wikipedia's no censors policy. Yet somehow the spoiler tags remain. Are we to think that telling people that Deckard might be a replicant is more psychologically scarring than showing them images of people being tortured and humiliated by other people?
They violate two of Wikipedia's fundamental policies: neutrality and no censorship. Censorship is not simply the exclusion of information, but its regulation in a manner different than that of other information that is equally relevant. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. It is not supposed to see "Non-spoiler information... spoiler information... non-spoiler information... spoiler information" and then categorize it based on this. It's supposed to see relevant information and relevant information only, and treat it all impartially. It's all just information to an encyclopedia, and that's how it's supposed to be treated.

For that matter, the spoiler tag has been misused to an outrageous extent, showing up on the page for Romeo and Juliet, The Little Engine That Could, Moby Dick, Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Citizen Kane, Odyssey and countless other classical works, the basic premise of most of which is their so-called "spoiler information." Furthermore, in these and other cases, the information is so ingrained into our culture's common knowledge or even our very history (Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father; Rosebud is a sled; the boat fucking sinks) as for it to be absurd to call it a spoiler. When spoiler warnings start showing up in Bible articles, something is terribly wrong.

That is our argument. You can see there our verifiability for it. We have provided this information countless times and not received a single verifiable counter-point in return. Ryu Kaze 18:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem Solved

Those who cannot tolerate spoiler warnings should use the following Cascading Style Sheets rule:

.spoiler { display: none; }

Any web browser which supports CSS (as almost all do) will then hide the spoiler warnings. (You will still see them in the Wikitext when editing.)

There are lots of ways of doing this, especially for Firefox users. Here is one way. It has one big disadvantage: it only works if (1) you are logged into your wikipedia account and (2) you use the "monobook" skin (which most of us do — it's the default skin). On the other hand, this method is simple to explain.

Log in to wikipedia.
Bring up your user page.
Click in the "location box", which should now contain "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YourUsername".
Press the "End" key on your keyboard.
Type in "/monobook.css".

The location box should now contain "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YourUsername/monobook.css"

Press the "Enter" key.
Click on the link to create the page.
Enter the line shown above.
Save the page.
Follow the instructions in Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.
Enjoy your spoiler-warning-free version of Wikipedia!

Cheers, CWC(talk) 17:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I have a more productive one that solves the problem to a greater extent.

Look up a revatively simple bot on wikipedia. (look in Category:bots, I believe)
Inquire the user in question if the bot can fullfill the purpose of navigating mainspace.. Generally, many bots can work in various capacities.
a simple bot + Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Spoiler = no more template.
Enjoy your spoiler-warning-free version of Wikipedia!

Cheers, Randall Brackett 18:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

@@ Line 406: / Line 406: @@
 :You're welcome to your opinion on the validation of my arguments but I see you've no basis of fact to refute it. There were a significant number of votes, both which imply they thought the deletion of the template was ourageous, and of the manner of deleting it difficult to comprehend. I agree that it's a judgement call, but I follow the dictum of our concensus policy: ''"It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position. Nearly every editor believes that his (or her) position is reasonable; good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may also be reasonable. But Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith. With respect to good faith, no amount of emphasized assertions that one is editing according to [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] while engaging in biased editing will serve to paper over the nature of one's activities."''. I still don't see what encyclopedic purpose was served by this material in this instance, since it will only be misused in an inapropriate manner in the wiki. -[[User talk:Randall Brackett|Randall Brackett]] 17:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
+:*"''The quality of their arguments ... not so good.''"
+:Then why are ours the only ones with any verifiability behind them?
+:*"''Whether other encyclopedias do or don't have spoilers is irrelevant. '''Wikipedia is not like other encyclopedias.'''''"
+:Wikipedia isn't paper, yes, we know. The amount of space an encyclopedia has to fill has ''what'' to do with the definition of "encyclopedia" and encyclopedic philosophy?
+:*"''The function of an [[encyclopedia]] is to provide comprehensive information; the presence or absence of little bits of [[metadata]] helping readers decide whether to skip parts of articles in no way hinders that function, and makes Wikipedia more useful to some readers.''"
+:Do we have evidence that they make Wikipedia more useful to readers? Do we have evidence that a spoiler banner that uses text smaller than the header above it screaming "Plot summary" somehow conveys to readers what the header does not? If you see a header entitled "Plot," what do you think a reader expects the paragraphs under that header contain? Does seeing a notice of "Plot... details follow" convey to them what the header does not? Do we have ''any'' reason to think so? And is it actually relevant to this encyclopedia's purpose?
+:*"''We're trying to create "Wikipedia, the free on-line encyclopedia that anyone can edit", not "Wikipedia, the website with lots of articles about movies, books and games that you don't want to visit '''until you have finished the movie, book or game''' in question".''"
+:There is a table of contents. There are sections clearly marked "Plot," "Story," "Plot summary" and similar such red flags. No one has to read the plot details if they don't want to, and we have been offered ''zero'' evidence that a spoiler warning conveys to them what those section headers do not. Since when did hypothetical situations dictate Wikipedia policy?
+:*"''Two months ago, someone tried to delete the spoiler warning template. The [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_4#Template:Spoiler result]] was "Speedy kept per [[WP:SNOW]]", the strongest possible rejection of a deletion attempt.''"
+:To anyone accusing us of not assuming good faith: this is why get frustrated. No less than half a dozen times, we've gone over this particular archive. First off, [[WP:SNOW]] is not a policy. Second, even if it were, it doesn't apply in this situation given that we have provided verifiability for our arguments, something those with the opposing view have yet to do. Third, policy is not determined based on votes. It's determined based on discussion and how well arguments are supported. Given that our arguments have support while no one has provided support for claims of the spoiler tags' beneficial presence -- neither with regards to readers or the encyclopedia's purpose -- I have to say that [[WP:SNOW]] is the last thing to cite in a situation like this given the side of the fence you're sitting on. If we were going by [[WP:SNOW]] and the standard for finding consensus, it would be a landslide in our favor at the moment.
+:Fouth, that "discussion" from May featured tons of people thinking they were voting for who their local government leaders were going to be instead of participating in a template discussion. Comments such as "'''Keep''' Are you crazy?" and "'''Keep''' This is a joke, right?" are considered invalid, voiding the "vote." The closest anyone came to trying to support spoiler tags in that "discussion" was constantly repeating what we've been hearing here: that they're useful, that they help the encyclopedia, that they benefit readers. However, just like in this discussion, no one ever stepped forward to support these claims, and, thus, the matter has gone and here is the discussion again.
+::*"''As [[User:cesarb]] said above, the use of spoiler warnings is long-standing policy.''"
+::It isn't a policy ''at all''. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
+::*"''At present, all I see from them is astonishing amounts of repetitive verbosity. (If you can write a short argument against warnings, please do so and then link to it frequently.)''"
+::I have done so several times:
+::#They are redundant of the fact that this is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is defined as "a '''comprehensive''' written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge."
+::#They are redundant of [[Wikipedia:Content disclaimer|the content disclaimer accessible from the bottom of every page of this website]] that states "Wikipedia contains spoilers and content you may find objectionable."
+::#They are redundant of section headings entitled "Plot," "Plot summary," "Story" or something similar. For an example, look at the page for the movie ''[[Gladiator (film)|Gladiator]]''. The section entitled "Plot" has immediately below it a warning that the section contains information about the plot: "Spoiler warning: plot... details follow." ''How'' does the "Plot" header not convey this given that 1) the header is in plain english, 2) the header already tells readers the same thing the banner does and 3) the header is in larger text than the spoiler banner? In other words, these spoiler tags are warning people that these ''encyclopedia articles'' contain information and that is ''all'' that they are doing.
+::#They are an example of a double-standard. Templates warning people of images of humans being tortured were not allowed (even an [[Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (no pictures)|image-free version of one particular article]] was deleted) on the grounds that it violated Wikipedia's no censors policy. Yet somehow the spoiler tags remain. Are we to think that telling people that [[Themes_in_Blade_Runner#Deckard:_replicant_or_human|Deckard might be a replicant]] is more psychologically scarring than showing them images of people being tortured and humiliated by other people?
+::#They violate two of Wikipedia's fundamental policies: [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutrality]] and [[WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored|no censorship]]. Censorship is not simply the exclusion of information, but its regulation in a manner different than that of other information that is equally relevant. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. It is not supposed to see "Non-spoiler information... spoiler information... non-spoiler information... spoiler information" and then categorize it based on this. It's supposed to see relevant information and relevant information only, and treat it all impartially. It's all just information to an encyclopedia, and that's how it's supposed to be treated.
+#For that matter, the spoiler tag has been misused to an outrageous extent, showing up on the page for ''[[Romeo and Juliet]]'', ''[[The Little Engine That Could]]'', ''[[Moby Dick]]'', ''[[Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea]]'', ''[[A Midsummer Night's Dream]]'', [[Citizen Kane]], [[Odyssey]] and countless other classical works, the ''basic premise'' of most of which is their so-called "spoiler information." Furthermore, in these and other cases, the information is so ingrained into our culture's common knowledge or even our very history ([[Darth Vader]] is [[Luke Skywalker]]'s father; [[Citizen Kane|Rosebud is a sled]]; [[Titanic (1997 film)|the boat fucking sinks]]) as for it to be absurd to call it a spoiler. When spoiler warnings start showing up in ''Bible articles'', something is terribly wrong.
+''That'' is our argument. You can see there our verifiability for it. We have provided this information countless times and not received a single verifiable counter-point in return. [[User:Ryu Kaze|Ryu Kaze]] 18:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 == Problem Solved ==