Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Spoiler

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Demi (talk | contribs) at 20:59, 16 May 2007 (→‎Spoiler warnings and netiquette: "spoilers don't belong in an encyclopedia" non sequitur). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Older discussion can be found at:

Unacceptable alternatives

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

I thought the reasoning was explained well enough. Which one are you unsure about? — CharlotteWebb 20:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
If you just would have let me save {{endspoiler}} then it would display fine, kee jerk reaction, let me finish. See User:Drini/sandbox to see what I'm trying t oachieve. Spoilers collapsed by default so people won't see them if they don't want to. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 21:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Pages displayed wrong for a few seconds between saving {{spoiler}} and {{endspoiler}}. CSS hack cant' be turned on/off on the fly, Wikipedia:NavFrame does. So if you wanna see spoilers, click on "show". I did NOT break half of wikipedia pages, it was jsut that {{endspoiler}} saved a few seconds before {{spoiler}} and therefore in the meantime pages rendered wrong. Gee.. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 21:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Reading this conversation when all the Template:tls were mistyped as Template:trs was quite funny. --tjstrf talk 23:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested complete change

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

When discussing creative works, e.g. books, music, computer games, TV series or films, then an encyclopedia's task is to give a summary of the work and its place in the overall field. Thus, it is natural that the action of a book or a film will be described and discussed in full.
Many books or films lose their attraction, however, if too many details or the ending are revealed before they are read or seen. So it became common on the Internet to put before such descriptions a spoiler warning.
In encyclopedias, however, this is rare. In the German language Wikipedia, after long discussions, consensus developed not to include spoiler warnings, and to remove existing ones. The section which contains a description of the plot should, however, always be clearly denoted, for example by the heading ==Plot summary== or ==Synopsis==.

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

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

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

And I've reverted that. It's really messed up that people just go and ignore all the points brought up in the past simply because a little bit of time has passed. I know consensus can change, but this is more like strong-arming the change. -- Ned Scott 03:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
It's fine to revert. I was just being bold. We now have a concrete suggestion in the history of the policy page to discuss. Nobody is strong-arming, but it's clear from the MFD discussion that consensus no longer exists for the guideline as it stood, and we need to work on what to do about that. --Tony Sidaway 03:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The concrete suggestion was right here in the talk page. Putting it in the article was unnecesary, and yes, smacks of strong-arming the change.
Feelings are strong enough -- pro- as well as anti- --without that. Goldfritha 03:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
No Wikipedia is a wiki and there was certainly strong enough consensus to support a bold edit. No harm in reverting it either. --Tony Sidaway 03:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Well, based on the discussion so far on various venues (including MFD and the mailing list), I think there is an emerging consensus that:
  1. Article structure should not be dictated by the need for spoiler warnings, especially if a balanced encyclopedic approach requires that they be mentioned in the introduction.
  2. Spoilers should not be used for anything but recent works; slapping {{spoiler}} templates on Shakespeare and the Bible makes us look silly.
If any commenters here disagree with the above two statements, please explain why. *** Crotalus *** 03:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Historical tag

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

We've seen MFDs and AFDs swing in a matter of days, so it's hardly accurate to say that less than a day's worth of MFD was anything near an accurate consensus. -- Ned Scott 03:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Then you should have left the MFD open, so a fuller consensus could be reached. Crotalus horridus 03:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Unsuitable forum.
There has been a lot of passionate support for the template; unless there is a reason to believe it vanished, the less than a day has to be presumed to be the cause.
Note that the people who want the change generally are the ones who act first; responses come after. Goldfritha 03:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

MfD closing is disturbing

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

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

MfD discussion

This policy is a flat contradiction of the much more important Wikipedia:Lead section, and, worse, is used to justify actively bad article writing where key aspects of a topic are buried outside of the lead. The entire policy encourages writing articles in a way that is organized around spoiler warnings instead of sensible portrayal of information, and has gone egregiously wrong (highlights including spoiler warnings on Night (book), The Book of Ruth, and Romeo and Juliet). The policy is overwhelmingly being used to make articles worse, not better, and for that needs to go.

The worst instance I've found yet is The Crying Game, where the twist ending makes the film a major film for anyone interested in LGBT cinema. Spoiler warning says that can't go in the lead. Wikipedia: Lead section says the lead has to function as a short article unto itself. WP:NPOV says all major perspectives must be mentioned in an article. You can pick any two of the policies and successfully apply them to The Crying Game. Since we can't get rid of NPOV, either spoilers or lead sections need to go. Phil Sandifer 21:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete or Revert. I would love to know when the template got changed to a layout wrecking monstrosity. It changes my fonts, font sizes, creates a bizarre box around the entire article, sub-boxes when nested, and generally looks like HTML diarrhea. It used to be a basic text banner. Quiet, unobtrusive, but clearly warning others off. I hit my watchist today, and half my watchlist is suddenly the victim of bad design. (Comment left by User:ThuranX)
  • Delete or severely restrict to very recent or unreleased fiction. As per the above examples, it not only encourages ludicrously unencyclopedic labeling and article writing - on The Crying Game, it blatantly causes violation of NPOV, a fundamental content policy - David Gerard 21:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    In fact, I really like Kusma's suggestion of using the de:wp one translated (the below is my pitiful knowledge assisted by babelfish):
    When discussing creative works, e.g. books, music, computer games, TV series or films, then an encyclopedia's task is to give a summary of the work and its place in the overall field. Thus, it is natural that the action of a book or a film will be described and discussed in full.
    Many books or films lose their attraction, however, if too many details or the ending are revealed before they are read or seen. So it became common on the Internet to put before such descriptions a spoiler warning.
    In encyclopedias, however, this is rare. In the German language Wikipedia, after long discussions, consensus developed not to include spoiler warnings, and to remove existing ones. The section which contains a description of the action should, however, always be clearly characterized, for example by the heading ==Plot summary== .
  • Delete per above. I'd list elaborate reasons, but we've done that before. — Deckiller 21:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Encourages summary-cruft, and Wikipedia is not censored. Sean William 21:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I doubt I can say anything that hasn't already been said before, but they go against policy in various ways, are ugly, lead to bad articles (like The Crying Game example), and yes, dare I say it, are unencyclopedic. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've never been a fan, I've argued on many occasions to downgrade it from guideline status, it's too contentious and there's no real consensus either way on whether to use spoilers or not. For me, Wikipedia ain't censored and I trust our readers that they can work out what an article on any given subject might likely contain. As a UK resident I'm well aware of how to modify my surfing to not stumble across spoilage for US TV series I might enjoy. It beats me we'll stick a picture of an erect penis in articles but we get scared that someone might find out Romeo and Juliet die. Steve block Talk 21:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this please. Whilst there may arguably be some legitimate uses there are two problems. 1) It insults the readers' intelligence - if you look under 'plot summary' don't be surprised when you find (guess what) .... the plot. Wikipedia provides information - we don't censor it for taste, national security, religious sensitivities, or adult content - so we certainly should not censor it because someone doesn't want to know who was Darth Vader's father. We don't put sensitivity tags on images of the prophet telling Muslims to avert their eyes, and we shouldn't mollycoddle our readers like this: 'plot summary' is warning enough! 2) The second reason for deletion is that this is drastically being misused - Phil cites good examples - whilst buffyfandom may like such things - when applied to English literature (Shakesphere, Jane Austen, and Snow While (??), never mind classical latin texts (yes, Petronius's Satyricon - I kid you not!) it just makes us look ridiculous. Encyclopedias should do what encyclopaedias do - and that is not take their lead from trekkie episode guides. Yes, Snape kills Dumbledore - get over it!--Docg 21:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or translate the German version, which states that encyclopedias do not use spoiler warnings, and therefore Wikipedia does not use spoiler warnings. Kusma (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The butler did it delete. This warning is so overused it is becoming harmful. Dil is a man, Jack Dawson drowns, Gollum falls into Mount Doom with the ring, Sergeant Trotter killed Mrs Boyle, Leland Palmer killed his daughter Laura, Apollo 13 got home safe. Sam Blacketer 21:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Based on WP:NPOV and the Crying game example. Silas Snider (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Just before the MFD tag was added, Kusma added a short paragraph clarifying that article quality takes precedence over worrying about spoilers. Before that paragraph was added, I'd agree that the policy was a poor one, but in its current state is looks fine to me. It could probably do with some improvement, but certainly not outright deletion. --Tango 21:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    You shouldn't take anything I did today seriously; I also added a spoiler warning to the spoiler warning to show how ridiculous it is. Anyway, I don't believe that restricting spoilers will work. Either they all go or we're back at this point in a couple of months. Kusma (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    You shouldn't take anything I did today seriously… WP:POINT? — The Storm Surfer 23:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    See, this is why jargon obstructs actual communication. If you have a look at the title of WP:POINT, your comment doesn't actually make sense. There's no guideline telling people not to help Wikipedia in order to illustrate a point - David Gerard 00:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    While some of the edits Kusma made today may have been debatable, and some are certainly good, I fail to see how this edit could be seen as help[ing] Wikipedia. — The Storm Surfer 00:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, adding a "o btw don't do this" doesn't change the thrust of it - it encourages NPOV violations as a habit and the way things are done here. That's really bad. - David Gerard 22:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Such things just encourage the industry's marketting plans. Eclecticology 22:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, if this goes through, I will believe that Wikipedia will have reached a new level of maturity, one where it transcends the everyforum.com mentality and becomes a real encyclopedia. I think User:Doc glasgow said it best of the people here, but I know that many eloquent speakers have taken to this cause before. A couple more things: Soylent Green is people, Darth Vader is Luke's father and Jesus dies (and comes back, too!). Axem Titanium 22:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per all the comments on the mailing list. 86.143.233.233 22:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. In most cases you can write a comprehensive article without needing to blurt out plot details in the intro. Have respect for the readers of the encyclopedia who want to know the context and history of something they are reading or viewing and not have the ending spoiled for them. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    The fact that this page only demands ignoring NPOV on some articles instead of all of them does not seem to me to be a compelling reason to keep it. Also, given that we do not remove images of genitalia, feces, or other things, what is the reason to have a differing policy on spoilers? Phil Sandifer 22:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    Apples and oranges. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    Yes. In censorship cases, such as Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy we include images that people have strong religious reasons to not want to see. In this case, we exclude information that causes no genuine harm. Phil Sandifer 22:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    When we have to for the sake of writing a good article, yes, but when we don't have to, there is no genuine harm in preserving spoilers. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    Your "strong keep" is invalid insofar as it advocates violation of NPOV. The lead summary is meant to be a complete standalone short article; this is actually important as many plans for a Wikipedia print edition involve pulling good lead summaries. So the twist actually has to be in the intro or the article, and hence the encyclopedia, is being deliberately hobbled. The Crying Game is the canonical example, but that's a reason for that to be the rule, not the exception. Oh, and Tyler Durden is Jack's other personality - David Gerard 22:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    Such "canonical examples" can be dealt with on a case by case basis. Not every cultural product relies on a major twist like this. In most cases, the goals of providing reliable information and not spoiling the reader or viewer's experience need not conflict. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    I can think, without serious effort, of dozens of things where the ending belongs in the lead, ranging from The Crying Game to Romeo and Juliet. In every one of these cases, this policy mandates writing a bad article. Phil Sandifer 22:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    And in those cases the goal of writing a complete article should supercede the desire to preserve spoilers. But we should not throw them out in every single article because of these cases. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep without prejudice, and perhaps modify to prevent NPOV issues? I always found the spolier warning tags useful. (Ok , so I typically read the spoiler warning sections first, but there are indeed people who hate getting spoilered ^^;;) --Kim Bruning 22:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    I think if the page is kept, we should modify the {{spoiler}} template to say "Warning! Information that you might not know yet follows below!" and put it on every single page. Kusma (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per David Gerard. Philippe 22:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or restrict to media released within the last (say) month or so. Putting spoiler warnings on films and books that just got released is annoying but understandable. Putting spoiler warnings on Citizen Kane and Hamlet, though, is just silly - their "statute of spoiler limitations" is long over. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Like good grammar, pleasing layout, consistent use of national varieties of English and other measures we take with reading in mind, this is a courtesy to the reader. Of course, there are exceptions, but luckily we are not a bureaucracy and need not be hidebound by our guidelines--the identification of an article that should be kept despite not meeting guidelines for notability doesn't mean we throw away deletion policy. The fact is that an encyclopedic article about a work of art is not primarily a list of stuff that happens it. Demi T/C 22:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with your last point, but I'm puzzled by your overall argument. To my mind, the focus on spoilers and when/where to reveal them encourages summary bloat of exactly the sort you're talking about. Valen and Sue Dibny both suffer badly from this. Phil Sandifer 22:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I think fans' fascination with the object of their admiration does this without help of spoiler tags. I think I understand what you're saying, that providing a structure for content encourages that content to exist. But I really don't think overly-detailed plot synopses would go away if we removed this page and/or the associated template (which is neither here nor there as it's not the reason suggested to delete it). Anyway, my point was more about the pedagogical necessity of mentioning plot points in with an article on the work--I think the necessity is the exception rather than the rule. Demi T/C 23:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete — an encyclopedia's first duty is to be informative. Spoiler warnings are the opposite of informative. Hiding information from users who come seeking it is not courteous; it is rude. ➥the Epopt 22:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
If you don't want to know information about a subject - don't look it up in an encyclopedia. If you don't want to know how the plot goes - don't read under s heading of 'plot synopsis' - it really is quite simple.--Docg 23:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
And who's to decide "what users do not wish to have revealed"? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 23:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The same people who decide the content of the article. Editors. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There are plenty of perfectly valid reasons why you might want to look something up and not have it spoiled. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete — I've said it before and I'll say it again: "'Wikipedia is not censored.' Spoiler warnings break apart the prose and screw up formatting. It's ambiguous at what point in a game events must occur to not be a spoiler. A spoiler for one game isn't a spoiler for its sequel. Encyclopedic information is complete. It's ambiguous how long after a game is released that information becomes widely known and no longer a spoiler. Etc..." Bottom line is, if you're dumb enough to read an encyclopedia article about a game when you don't want it spoiled, then that's your mistake and not the encyclopedia's. You are your own censor, simply don't read it. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 23:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no reason why we can't apply some common sense to this instead of going one way or the other. Including a spolier warning is not "censorship". You can chose to read further if you wish, the information is there and uncensored. There are plenty of valid, non-stupid reasons you might wish to read an encyclopedia article about a book or movie and not have the ending spoiled, and the encylopedia should respect those users. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
And yet, hiding a picture (with a show button) is the same as "you can choose to read furthur", yet there's no hidden pictures on penis, nor almost any other article (I know there are a few, but they are by far the exception). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 23:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Apples and oranges. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I still do not understand why we should have warnings and disclaimers for information that does trivial harm but none whatsoever fro information that is so offensive as to cause riots. Phil Sandifer 23:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Probably due to our systemic bias. I personally would support more extensive tagging and markup, and allow users to set preferences to decide what and how to view--I think actually supports Nicholai's point that "You are your own censor, simply don't read it." Whereas, if no such tagging takes place, this is just glibness, since the entire point is that if you read it to see if you want to read it you've already read that it's people. Demi T/C 23:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
You keep saying "apples and oranges" as if your logic would magically explain itself. In this case, hiding of pictures and hiding of information are perfectly comparable (ie, the opposite of "apples and oranges"); they both involve hiding something, a definition of censorship. A person who searches for something on an encyclopedia would obviously be trying to find out more about it. If the content exists (which it should, being an encyclopedia), then a spoiler warning isn't going to stop that person from reading and learning about it. The only thing that can legitimately stop a person from learning is himself and we as editors have no place to intrude on that. Axem Titanium 23:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Absurd, btw Snape killed Dumbledore. — MichaelLinnear 23:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; it's unprofessional. Its use is only valid if we stop calling the project "the free encyclopaedia" and start calling it "Jimbo's bag of trivia and review site" or somesuch instead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zoney (talk • contribs) 23:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Strong delete per comments by Phil and David. If people don't have enough self control to pick and choose the articles they read and edit, then they probably shouldn't be here. —Viriditas | Talk 23:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Phil. bogdan 23:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep; since when is MFD a vehicle to change guidelines? And even if MFD has become a vehicle to change guidelines, this is a good guideline that we've had for many years, and, as Gamalie pointed out, in almost all articles it isn't a problem and in the few that it might be, other policies obviously trump it. And can we please stop tagging on immature comments like "oh yeah and X did Y in Z"? — The Storm Surfer 23:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments 1. This seems to be discussing the deletion (or perhaps retirement) of a guideline. However, many of the posts above seem to be strongly advocating the removal of the spoiler tag/template. It would be useful to clarify this point. Is it not the case that deletion of this guideline will leave the tag simply not covered by any guideline, and therefore open to use by editors without the guidance a guideline might offer? 2. If, indeed, the proposal is to do away with "spoiler" completely, then there will be many interested editors who are in blissful ignorance of this discussion. If the proposal is to delete the tag, it may be appropriate to, in the short term, pollute the article space with a small reference to this discussion, within the included template, so as to encourage the maximum amount of participation in the discussion. Notinasnaid 23:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
"Pollute the article space?" Absolutely not.--Docg 23:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I should perhaps clarify what I mean. Not a general notice, but an extra line within the expansion of the tag, so it appears with the spoiler warning. If the tag is such a terrible thing, then telling people a discussion of its deletion is under way is surely not a bad thing, and won't make articles a whole lot worse. I think I have seen such things before. Notinasnaid 23:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete templates and guideline. Guidelines aren't policy and this guideline is adding on needless formatting saying what should be implicit in our mission as encyclopedists. Plus, I agree it does violate policy. --Gwern (contribs) 23:50 15 May 2007 (GMT)
  • Comment Neutral-ish. I have three conflicting opinions: one strong one for delete and two weak ones for keep. For delete, it is utterly unencyclopedic to have such a warning. You wouldn't see them in film books which often not only completely tell the plot to the movie in question but also add spoilers to other films if they are relevant to analysis. My reasons for keeping are that this does provide a practical yet amateurish service but it's the fact that I am not sure that MfD should be used to change guidelines. While this isn't a vote it's still not the best way to gain consensus on a new policy. So, there goes. ||| I've decided to make this a comment instead. I've realized there is no way to draw a line about what should have a spoiler tag because it depends so much on the individual. And this is just embarassing... to put a spoiler on an article like that. I do think we need to build consensus on what to do with spoiler templates since just making a guideline historical won't help. gren グレン 23:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can someone explain how the proper usage o spoiler warnings is naught but a large dump atop the policy of NPOV? Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    Um, everything above? The nomination? They blatantly encourage articles to be written with a view to working around spoilers rather than with a view to neutrality. From your comments and those of your fellow project members on my talk page - up to and including advocating edit warring to preserve spoilers everywhere - it would appear that the film wikiproject considers working around spoilers to be of the greater importance. That this policy encourages such a view is directly damaging to the encyclopedia - David Gerard 00:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    Arcayne (and other members) speak for themselves, not the Film project. I voted strong delete and I'm an active member of the project. —Viriditas | Talk 01:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    So, if I am to understadn yoiu correctly, you are suggesting removing the idea of warning people using spoilers because some clowns try to do an end-run around the need for spoilers. Are you arguing that spoilers are ineffective in accomplishing their task, or that they are somehow encouraging folk to find a way around the policy? And please, can we forego the weasel words, please? Calling something blatant maybe your way of effecting a point, but a more matter-of-fact way to explain the issue might be more helpful. Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what the "end-run around the need for spoilers" you're talking about is. But, again, here's the basic issue - as before, using The Crying Game, but there are other good examples to be found. One of the most important things about The Crying Game is the transgender reaction to it. Because article leads are supposed to give an overview of all the important parts of the article, WP:NPOV demands this perspective get mentioned there. The spoiler policy demands otherwise. Phil Sandifer 00:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    To begin with, let's stop using the Crying Game as an example; it's a bad article by any definition (which begs the question as to why someone didn't simply fix the article instead of pointing it out as some sort of bastard child of Ee-vil). The Lead shouldn't be including spoiler info about the plot, and spoilers allow the user to choose for themselves whether they want to learn about the story that they would rather avoid. I disagree with your interpretation of the Spoiler policy being at odds with the NPOV policy. Certainly, a better policing of articles to make sure they remain neutral whilst ensuring that plot information isn't revealed are not diametric opposites.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs)
    Well, no. The spoiler does belong in the lead because the lead has to work as a standalone short article - else the article is badly written and not up to scratch. So it's spoilers or encyclopedic style. Which will win? - David Gerard 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think The Crying Game has a decent lead, albeit a pretty lousy article after that. The lead needs some clean-up to remove some wanky praise (sensitive portrayals? I know a lot of transgender activists who'd beg to differ), but it does the basic job of telling you the highlights of the article. The problem is that it does this by spoiling the movie, and there's no way to do this without spoiling the movie. But if you want another example, Sue Dibny absolutely has to mention Sue Dibny's role as a flashpoint in discussions of women in comics in the lead to be NPOV. That involves revealing that she was raped and murdered. Phil Sandifer 00:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it has a better Lead now, avoiding the specific information about the transgender character (apparenbtly Phil and David took my advice toheart and fixed it up some). The Lead is asummarized overview of the artilce - it isn't the place to reveal who Keyser Soze is, which is why spoilers need to be in the Plot/Synopsis, and nowhere else. A well, Sue Dibney is an artic le you recently re-worked to make a point (an OR point w/out sources, unfortunately). The Lead as a summary doesn't introduce new statements unsupported by the article. The info about the "flashpoint" is not so much that but a symptom of the Women in Refrigerators argument. Hardly a flashpoint.

However, that is a topic for another time. We are currently discussing removing spoiler tags because they apparently inspire allsorts of - as yet unexplained - NPOV violations by their simple presence. That is akin to suggesting that we should do away with baby's diapers because it only inspires babies to crap in them. In both situations, crap is going to occur. Best not to blame the diaper, but rather to instead address the core issue. Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how best to respond to this, if only because it seems to contain the implication that editing articles to comply with our policy on article leads violates WP:POINT. In any case, I've added three sources to the Dibny claim now. But the point here remains - both Sue Dibny and The Crying Game, in order to be good, NPOV articles, need to mention things that are spoilers. Otherwise major aspects of the topic have to get exiled from the lead. I'm not advocating putting the endings to every book, movie, and character in the lead. But sometimes it is the best possible way to do it. The Chairs is another example - that article needs to discuss the play's ending in the lead. (And I'll go fix it as soon as I post this.) Phil Sandifer 01:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • An article which fails to reveal information or organizes it in such a way that a certain position is marginalized is by definition POV. Axem Titanium 00:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This guideline is not in line with several policies and is an unnecessary exception of Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. All those ugly, unencyclopedic templates should go too. Prolog 00:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • That page has an exception for spoilers, which I've removed. Some people may disagree. I don't particularly care for "no disclaimer", but it's there. Any exceptions to it should not be for such frivolous reasons as spoilers. Eclecticology 01:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There is no POV issue. It's a red herring. This is an attempt by certain editors to impose their will on the readers of wikipedia as to how they "should be" using wikipedia. It amounts to nannyism in the extreme. Wahkeenah 00:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • How, exactly, is the forced exclusion of discussions of transgender issues from the lead of The Crying Game compatible with WP:NPOV? Phil Sandifer 00:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Why is your desire to discuss that topic outside the spoiler tag more important than respecting the readers of wikipedia who maybe don't want to have the ending ruined for them? Wahkeenah 00:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Your question amounts to "how is writing a comprehensive introduction to an encyclopedia article in a manner compatible with our fundamental content policies more important than not revealing the ending of a movie that is best known for its twist ending?" If you cannot answer that one yourself, I cannot possibly help you. Phil Sandifer 00:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Spoiler warnings themselves are a way for other editors to nanny readers into the everyforum.com culture where it really shouldn't be. Personally, I don't see how this is a red herring at all. Your argument seems to be a "straw man" by turning this into a debate about certain editors rather than actually addressing the issue of Wikipedia policy (NPOV) and the rights of the readers. Axem Titanium 00:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
        • User talk:David Gerard#Braveheart_Edits is my personal example of the sort of editing this guideline and template leads to - David Gerard 00:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
          • What that means, I have no idea. And it is about the editors, because suddenly today a few of them decided that they don't like spoiler warnings because it inconveniences them somehow. The spoiler warning is a courtesy to the reader and does no harm otherwise. How about putting the interests of readers ahead of your own? Wahkeenah 00:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
            • I should think that one of the most fundamental interests of a reader that we, as an encyclopedia, care about is their interest in reading well-written, comprehensive articles. Part of that is well-written, comprehensive lead sections. The spoiler policy actively says that we should conceal information in lead sections rather than discussing it. This is contrary to our fundamental policies. Phil Sandifer 00:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
              • (edit conflict, responding to Wahkeenah)What interests? I'm trying to build an encyclopedia here, I don't know about you. Spoiler warnings violate the NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW by concealing important information from readers. It should be understood that a reader will get spoilers when he reads an article. The reader is harmed when he cannot get the whole story because it was blocked by a spoiler warning. Axem Titanium 00:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
                • That is absolutely false. Spoiler tags conceal nothing. They simply let the reader know that plot giveaways are ahead, and he/she can read them if they want to. If you read Leonard Maltin's movie guide, for example, he gives all the info in a paragraph and does not give away any spoilers. Nor is it necessary here. It's simply imposing your will upon the reader, taking away the reader's choice by not warning him/her. Wahkeenah 00:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • (Heading left because I can't count that many bullets)Maltin's guide is a collection of reviews, though. The lead of a movie review needs to do two things - tell me if the reviewer dug the movie, and tell me what sort of movie it is so I know if it sounds interesting. That's very different from what an encyclopedia does, which is tell me all the pertinent information about the movie. For some movies, like The Crying Game, the encyclopedic information includes discussions of the ending. Phil Sandifer 00:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
      • What is a spoiler then? The climax? The first hour of a movie? The first 15 minutes? The first minute? It's all a matter of perspective. To someone who's seen a movie, 30 minutes in seems like it wouldn't be a spoiler but to someone who hasn't any early revelations would count as spoilers. There is no objective way to define a spoiler so it's impossible to keep this guideline. Axem Titanium 00:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. We really don't need to act like a fan site or a movie guide. We're an encyclopedia so there is no need to give out a warning to the reader that by reading our articles they might actually discover something they didn't know. --Tony Sidaway 00:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Mark as historical - effectively delete, but don't really delete it. Then restart discussion at TfD. BTW, a good use of the spoiler template was to track down articles that needed rewriting due to "writing about fiction" issues. People will still add spoiler warnings manually, even if the guideline and template family are deprecated. I for one don't want to have the last Harry Potter book spoiled. Carcharoth 00:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin: This is a guideline page. We do not delete guidelines, we merely mark them as historical. This is to (literally) prevent history from repeating itself. Therefore if consensus here is to delete, mark as historical instead. Under no circumstances must you actually delete.
  • Note on MFD: Note that it's actually not a good idea to vote on policy like MFD so conveniently seems to allow. Use the talk page instead. Discussion on the talk page of a guideline can easily overturn a decision made on MFD.

--Kim Bruning 23:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Note on notes on mfd's. Deletion Review usually comes after the close. Steve block Talk 22:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per nomination. Mr Rochester has a wife yet living. Mackensen (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per numerous excellent arguments above. Spoiler tags need to die, in much the same fashion as Trinity dies at the end of The Matrix. --Stormie 00:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - please STOP trotting out spoilers as a joke. People reading encyclopedic articles should expect spoilers. People participating in MfD debates on the general principle of spoilers might not expect real examples of spoilers to be used. It is a standard joke to add a spoiler tag to discussions like this, but there is a reason for it. This is not an encyclopedia article. This is more like a bulletin board or discussion thread, and that is what spoilers were originally used for (on Usenet) to allow people to navigate fractured, rambling, threaded discussions without coming across spoilers. Topics shift and change in forums like this, so spoiler tags are needed on Wikipedia, but on talk pages and project discussion pages, but not in article space. Trinity and Rochester indeed. Hmmph! Carcharoth 01:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Can't understand what the harm is in keeping it. If it helps some readers, why not? Making Wikipedia reader-friendly seems to me a good thing. But what do I know? -Ebyabe 00:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide a neutral point of view to readers. Hiding information does not seem too reader-friendly to me. Axem Titanium 01:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Where are you getting this from? A spoiler tag hides nothing, it censors nothing. It simply gives the reader a choice of whether to read about the giveaway plot details. Wahkeenah 01:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
        • But the policy page says "It is also recommended that editors avoid placing spoilers in edit summaries or section headers (unless the spoiler warning is before the table of contents) and avoid linking from another article to a section inside the spoiler area." And while there's a saving throw a paragraph down about article quality, the fact remains - the page advocates organizing articles around spoilers, not around information. Phil Sandifer 01:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Please read up on your definition of censorship. If information is organized in such a way that a certain position is marginalized or eliminated, that is still considered censorship (albeit more subtle and insidious). Axem Titanium 01:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
            • No, censorship is hiding information. There is nothing hidden with that tag. You can write the intro a la Leonard Maltin, with no key plot giveaways, and you can put the spoiler tag, and spill all the movie's guts, and the reader has the choice of whether they want to read about the details or not. Wahkeenah 01:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
      • There is a difference between movie reviews and encyclopedia articles. In the former, you decide whether or not to see the movie. In the latter, you are researching everything about the movie. If I were to talk about, say, evolution and I wanted to advance the position that evolution doesn't exist, I could easily rearrange the article on evolution to discredit Darwinists. None of the information was left out, but the editor (me) was able to spin it towards his own POV. The same can be done with works of fiction. By organizing the article around a spoiler warning, it creates a POV. You also have not responded to my "definition of a spoiler" argument above. Axem Titanium 01:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Again, you're imposing your own view on the reader about how he "should be" using wikipedia, rather than letting him decide. Wahkeenah 01:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
          • You seem to know a lot about me. Tell me, what is "my view"? As far as I know, I'm using the classical definition of an encyclopedia and applying it to Wikipedia which claims to be "The Free Encyclopedia". If it's not my place to decide that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, then who's is it? I suppose I should turn Wikipedia into a soapbox for my own ideas. That way, I can actually impose my ideas on readers instead of protecting him from reading the encyclopedia. Seriously, what else do you do with Wikipedia besides use it as an encyclopedia? Axem Titanium 02:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
            • All I know about you and the other anti-spoiler-taggers on here is that your priorities are out of whack. Courtesy for the reader should come first. Show me another "classic encyclopedia" that reveals the endings of movies. Wahkeenah 02:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Week delete. Not really doing any harm, but along with issues raised above, there's simply no need for an entire guideline on how to use spoiler tags--nor should the use of spoiler tags really be encouraged more than it already is. That said, I'm really quite ambivolent about it and, thus, fail to see how such a trivial matter could spark such a lengthy discussion. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I hope that y'all mean "keep, reject and esperanzify" as opposed to "delete", no? Spoiler warnings, for better or worse, have been with us for a long time... --Iamunknown 01:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or at least mark historical. If these tags were confined to works released in the last 5 years or so, then it would be acceptable, but there has been a drive to keep them on any literary work, ever; we've seen them on Shakespeare plays and even a book of the Bible. This is unencyclopedic and absurd. *** Crotalus *** 01:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Flat delete, do not mark historical, do not Esperanzify. Spoiler warnings are silly things to put into encylopedia articles, which by definition have to discuss endings, plot twists, etc. The time taken up by sterile disputes about spoiler tags is ridiculous--I've even had arguments about whether Odyssey or Medea should have spoiler tags, and those works of literature are 2500 years old. We don't need a guideline about an unnecessary template; we don't even need to mark it historical, just get rid of it. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Discard per nom. Even if we don't want to get rid of spoiler templates, we definitely don't want to mandate them as part of the Manual of Style.--ragesoss 02:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see how removing the guideline while keeping the template improves matters. That would increase, rather than reduce, the time-wasting arguments over spoilers. This already includes one important piece of guidance -- don't distort the structure of the article for the sake of spoiler warnings -- and can be further improved. Better a guideline page where we can reach a sensible compromise than a free-for-all. —Celithemis 02:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Forces information out of the lead paragraph. Also tags are abused often and overused (put in "plot" sections). Might be appropriate only for unreleased media. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 16:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep The censorship stuff is laughable, it's just about basic readability and common sense. Tayquan hollaMy work 20:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting the feeling

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

Request for protected page edit

{{editprotected}}

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

done. Kusma (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Closed again to move to an RFC.. heh. -- Ned Scott 18:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

With the TfD closed...

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

Spoiler warnings and netiquette

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

Wikipedia is an attempt to write an encyclopedia.
...
It is traditional netiquette for this discussion to be surrounded with warnings of "spoilers".

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

An intelligent analysis. Very nice, and I agree. — Deckiller 18:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia is not quite the same as every other encyclopedia, is it? We cover a great many more subjects, of a different character, than others, and present information in a different way. The idea that because other encyclopedias don't have spoiler warnings, we shouldn't either, doesn't hold water. Maybe we shouldn't cover subjects trivial or unimportant enough to include in a real encyclopedia, either? Or include dynamic media, which doesn't appear in a print encyclopedia? Demi T/C 20:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
My concern was with new users who often will exclude or remove spoilers when they are appropriate. But, to be honest, it's not a major concern. -- Ned Scott 18:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler/Archive_13&oldid=131383995"