Wikipedia talk:Spoiler

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. This is, on occasion, a very busy discussion page. Newcomers are encouraged to read the copious archives. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Other archives: Archive 0 Archive debate Guidelines Guideline status Guideline status 2 RfC • RfC talk • RfC 2 • RfC 2 talk

Spoiler tag wording

I can't believe the spoiler tags were deleted. I wish I'd been here for that discussion and I think they should be brought back.

If I ask my friend to tell me the plot of a movie, I'm not necessarily asking for a rundown of the entire story from beginning to end. Take this example a step further towards online uses of the word -- movie reviews that claim to describe the plot will of course not reveal spoilers, and people searching for information about a movie will similarly usually not be looking for spoilers.

When people used to complain about the use of spoiler tags, they were often complaining about something that's the result of the tag's wording. The tag used the words "the following reveals significant plot details" (not an exact quote), which when placed in a section entitled "Plot", seemed redundant -- so the tags were usually deleted, and eventually became unused. The problem is, the tag was named SPOILER and not PLOT DETAILS for a freakin' reason! "Plot" does not necessarily mean "Synopsis", and certainly not necessarily "ending" or "surprises". The wording of the tag should never have been "...plot details...". It should have been "...spoliers...". OBVIOUSLY the Plot section will contain Plot details -- but it is anything but obvious that a Plot section of an article will contain spoilers -- unless of course you're familiar with this debate on Wikipedia, which many readers of course are not.

So, change the wording of the tag to what it was meant to say, and problem solved.

Equazcion •✗/C • 02:14, 12/24/2007

Actually, the template was called redundant long before the text was changed. The text was changed in early June as part of an attempted compromise because many editors felt that the term "spoiler" wasn't academic. However, that compromise didn't work. You can see the discussion here. --Farix (Talk) 15:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I see the discussion regarding the change but I see nothing saying that the wording was redundant. I see that some people thought the tags were being overused, but no one said redundant.

Equazcion •✗/C • 20:45, 12/24/2007

Proposed addition

I would propose that we add something along the lines of:

Note that Wikipedia requires that all content is verifiable from reliable independent sources. While content may not be removed because it may constitute a spoiler, material that is not discussed in independent sources may be removed as failing the verifiability policy.

Seems to me that a decent amount fo the content tagged as spoilers in the past was sourced direct from the work of fiction, adhering to content policies and using only that which is discussed in reliable independent secondary sources might actually remove the supposed problem. If, after all, it's in the independent sources, then having it here could hardly be considered much of a spoiler. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I support this proposal, and I have mentioned this many times before. However, films apparently don't need independent secondary sources for plot details. Apparently the film is the only source that's needed for verifiability, even though the policy on verifiability refers to reliable sources and the guideline on reliable sources refers to third-party sources. --Pixelface (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's actually a really interesting idea. The only problem is that the works themselves are primary sources, which are usually considered valid. In order to make this work, the rules for use of primary sources would have to be changed to include an exception for plot synopsis.

Equazcion •✗/C • 23:31, 12/24/2007

I think that content sourced directly from the works, other than the most minor factual matters such as copyright and publishing dates, is almost always a terrible idea. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of book and movei reviews, it's supposed to be an encyclopaedia, a distillation of what expert sources say about a subject. By conducting original research form primary sources, as we undoubtedly do in many articles (the Bionicle series spring to mind) we are, I think, stepping over that dangerous line of placing ourselves in the role of the experts, sifting the primary data and deciding what is significant and relevant. There is no way we allow edits to Christianity based on individuals' readings of the Bible, or the Book of Mormon to cite one recent example, and we should be no more willing to include lengthy discourse on any other subject drawn directly from primary sources by editors who have no evident authority in the subjects. I recently found xkcd; this is sourced almost entirely to the comic itself. I think that is very bad, because it means we're the ones judging what is significant and what's not, and clearly the only people who'll feel qualified to judge are the fans - who are probably the most likely to overestimate the significance of any event in that comic's history. If I read an article about a movie that is sourced to Roger Ebert and Halliwell and Barry Norman or even bloody Jonathan Ross, I know that it's the work of someone who has some recognised authority on the subject, who has analysed it in the context of other films of the genre and has at least some kind of fact checking process behind them. Readers coming along to add factoids directly form books or movies, that is simply not a good idea, in my view, especially when they cause friction. So a return to policy - WP:V, WP:RS, WP:ATT - that has the potential to remove a goodly chunk of the problem. Or so it seems to me, anyway. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I think content directly sourced from the works is usually a bad idea too. But several people at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines endorse it. There's a thread about it here. Apparently if a reader can go rent a DVD through Netflix, it means the Plot section is verifiable. --Pixelface (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That is an issue that really should be held at WP:WAF, WP:RS, and WP:V instead of here. It has very little to do with spoilers and the application of any spoiler warnings. --Farix (Talk) 21:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to say that. --Tony Sidaway 21:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I think the real issue is whether spoilers are encyclopedic. Encarta does not reveal the ending of The Sixth Sense. Britannica does not reveal the ending of The Sixth Sense. Spoilers are not encyclopedic. If editors don't have to cite secondary sources to include spoilers in an article and are free to implicitly cite a film, I see no problem with putting notices in articles to inform readers they are about to read material they would not expect to read in an encyclopedia. --Pixelface (talk) 06:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I think you have a really good point, and I think I agree with it. Still, I don't think this an issue that can be solved here, if it can be solved at all. This would call for a change to other policies regarding the use of primary sources, and those are policies that, I think, have been around for quite some time, and that editors would not be readily open to changing. If you take this effort further please let me know though as I'll definitely be interested in supporting it, wherever you decide to brig it up next. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:31, 12/25/2007

It has relevance to spoilers in as much as, properly applied, the existing sourcing guidelines and policies would seem to em to rule out the kind of content which leads to the most zealous advocacy for spoiler warnings. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It's still not a topic directly about spoilers. It's about plot summaries in general, which should be discussed at one of the links I gave above. --Farix (Talk) 13:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No, if the existing policies support ruling out spoiler material, that is definitely something to be discussed here. We need to figure out how to apply the policies here so that this guideline agrees with them. Other guidelines and policies may require the same attention, which can be taken care of separately at their talk pages; but the way policy should affect this guideline does need to be discussed here and the relevant changes made. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

section break 1

The proposed addition is:

Note that Wikipedia requires that all content is verifiable from reliable independent sources. While content may not be removed because it may constitute a spoiler, material that is not discussed in independent sources may be removed as failing the verifiability policy.

The first sentence and the independent clause of the second sentence don't appear to have anything to do with spoilers. They just duplicate requirements of other policies, but say them less well. The statement that "content may not be removed because it may constitute a spoiler" is already in the guideline.

The reason given is:

Seems to me that a decent amount of the content tagged as spoilers in the past was sourced direct from the work of fiction, adhering to content policies and using only that which is discussed in reliable independent secondary sources might actually remove the supposed problem. If, after all, it's in the independent sources, then having it here could hardly be considered much of a spoiler.

Although this would indeed remove the supposed problem, it would also throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is normal for the article about a fictional work to contain a plot summary sourced from the work itself. There are probably thousands of articles, and not just about films, that have been written this way. We should be cautious about advancing new guidelines that would invalidate large amounts of existing material, especially in articles that have long endured without significant objection. I don't think this is a "problem" that WP:V and WP:RS were ever intended to solve. (It would be most odd for such a widespread practice to have for so long been tolerated without loud choruses of complaint, if it violated the intent of core policies.)

This interpretation would force us to write some highly peculiar articles. For instance, months after the seventh Harry Potter book came out, the article still would not have been permitted to state that Lord Voldemort was dead. For though there were millions of people who knew this, and it was trivially verifiable, there was probably no reliable source for this fact other than the book itself. (Reviewers typically didn't give away the ending, fansites are normally considered unreliable, and the work was too new for other reliable sources to have been written yet.)

So, I don't think this addition to the guideline is a good idea. Marc Shepherd (talk) 08:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The goal with this addition is to only include plot points that other secondary sources reveal, which is all that an encyclopedia should be doing, and all they ever do. The articles would only be forced to be as withholding as any other encyclopedia's articles on the same topics. If you consider that peculiar, then you consider encyclopedias peculiar. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:51, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

But Wikipedia has never interpreted its own mission to preclude editors from referring to a work when writing an encyclopedia article about that work. Do you think that the writer of the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Hamlet is forbidden to consult the text of Hamlet?

The analogy to print encyclopedias is often used to support whatever pet point someone wants to make. If the next issue of Britannica includes an article on Harry Potter, I'm sure the writer of that article will be permitted to consult the actual novels she is writing an article about. Of course, citations generally are required only for facts likely to be challenged, and the statement that Lord Voldemort dies is not such a fact. Marc Shepherd (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but how do you think the Britannica article on Harry Potter gets handled? When it comes to deciding which plot points to reveal, the writers of these articles don't just look through the fictional work themselves and summarize everything. They use secondary sources to determine what should be revealed due to their being common knowledge. If the ending of Hamlet weren't so well-known and revealed in such a wide range of public material, it wouldn't be in any encyclopedia article, except ours. We don't currently make any determination of public knowledge and write articles on works of fiction by using secondary sources, we just read the original work and write an original summary. This is a rather non-encyclopedic way of writing articles. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:23, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a pretty sizable difference between a static encyclopdia and Wikipedia, both in terms of access and frequency of updates. The standard WP way is to include a summary of movies (and novels, etc.) without requiring secondary sources. If we're going to change that it should be an official WP policy. Snowfire51 (talk) 09:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well of course. That's the proposal: to change policy. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:48, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. I was reading the wrong summary on the page, sorry. Anyway, I oppose changing the way WP handles spoilers. I think having WP as an unfettered source of information is not only best for the readers, but also the easiest way to coordinate thousands of editors all working on the same projects. At this point, the responsibility is on the reader to not look up articles they don't want to be informed about, I think that's the safest way to go. Snowfire51 (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well no one ever looks up information on things they don't want to be informed about. Why would they? Just because people want to be informed, though, doesn't mean they want a story spoiled for them. Millions of people look up movie reviews and databases to find things out about them -- but do you think they all want to hear the endings to those movies? What percentage of people who look up a movie do you think are actually looking for the complete synopsis, spoilers included? IMDb is smart enough to know that the percentage is low enough to warrant complete synopses being kept in their own section along with a warning, and reviews that reveal spoilers hidden from view unless the reader decides to unhide them. Under what presumption are we basing the policy to reveal all spoilers? 'Cause it sure isn't based on the question of what people generally expect or want, and we've established that it isn't based on what encyclopedias do in general. So what is it, then? Equazcion •✗/C • 10:07, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

Why would you want to be informed about something, but only a little bit? If you want to know a cast list, you'll go to imdb, that's what they're there for. If you'd like more information, including a synopsis, major cast list, box office performance, and so on, you'd come to WP.

As for "presumptions," that's WP policy reached through consensus. I would assume it's based on compiling as much information as possible about a certain subject, and making it the personal responsibility of people to not search for what they don't want to know. It seems to be working smashingly so far, without a ton of complaints. The previous time this came up for vote, it didn't have much opposition. Snowfire51 (talk) 10:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Why you would want to be informed about something only a little bit is not a question we need to answer, but... Call it human nature, but we know it to be true -- people look up information about movies, even plot descriptions, without expecting or wanting to hear the entire thing, because major outcomes are the essence of why fiction is interesting.

Yes I realize the decision was reached via consensus, but consensus can change, and I'm suggesting that the original reasoning may not have been entirely sound. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:30, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

The two core arguments are a self-invented definition of encyclopedia and exhortations to blame and punish the outgroup. They're both nonsense, but the structure of Wikipedia is unfortunately lenient on semantics and user-blaming.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You don;t mention which side's arguments you're referring to, but the definition in the counter-argument is also self-invented, and the latter claim was never an argument by either side and is an unfounded assumption. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:16, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

It's the anti-spoiler side's views. You are incorrect about the need for a 'counter definition'. If someone insists 'real men don't eat salad!', you need only point to the lack of authoritative backing for this statement, you don't need to find someone saying 'real men do eat salad!' Punishing the outgroup (that is, our users) has been a key component of the anti-spoiler group's aims since day one, when Phil Sandifer said that some people would get 'burned' by the change. Above, we have Snowfire51 demanding 'personal responsibility' from our users.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If you mean anti-spoiler as in anti-spoiler tags, which is what I think you mean, then I suppose I can agree with that; At least the outgroup part. But your language isn't all that straightforward. To clarify, yes, there is a certain contempt for the user apparent in the argument to include spoiler material without warning. It assumes the right to say what users should expect, as opposed to catering to what they do expect, because "we know better" -- and if they disagree then "who cares", and "they deserve what they get (having the plot spoiled when they look something up) because they should've know better". Let me know if I'm getting this right. As for the definition of encyclopedia, though, I think that no matter which side of the argument you're on, you're working off of a presumed idea of what an encyclopedia should be. Everyone has their own take on that. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:02, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

section break 2

If the proposal is that spoilers ought to be tagged—so that those who don't want the ending "spoiled" can easily avoid the material that offends them—then I would suggest starting a new section, because that's not what this section is about.

This section is about Guy's proposal that a fictional work should not be used as a source of information about the work itself, which, if it belongs anywhere, would be a change to WP:V and/or WP:RS. The proposal was offered here on the theory that it would "solve" the spoiler problem. Unfortunately, it doesn't. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It certainly would solve the spoiler problem, and it's not just a "theory". This is as good a place as any to discuss a possible policy change that would solve the spoiler issue. We also don't need to start a new section. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:17, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the ad hominem part of the above.... I used the word "theory" in the sense that it hasn't been put into practice. Would the word "postulated" or "hypothesis" suit you better?

Anyhow, the usual definition of spoiler is a narrative surprise that, if known in advance, would "spoil" a work of fiction for some readers or viewers. Guy's rationale was: "If, after all, it's in the independent sources, then having it here could hardly be considered much of a spoiler." That would be true, only if the typical reader or viewer researches independent sources before reading the novel, seeing the play, or viewing the film in question.

But this is surely not the case. The fact that Rosebud is Kane's old sled, is a spoiler, whether secondary sources have said so or not. It is sophistry to suggest that everyone is aware of the ending of Citizen Kane because secondary sources have written about it. To give a more recent example, I am sure the next generation of children will want to read the Harry Potter novels with the same sense of discovery and suspense that the current generation did. The many narrative surprises in that series are spoilers, regardless of how much they have been written about. Marc Shepherd (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You're making a very nitpicky and strawman argument. To say that we can't possibly know if everyone is aware of the spoilers we are proposing to allow, and therefore, we should just reveal all of them, is just not sound reasoning. You're saying that since the solution isn't absolute, then an attempt shouldn't even be made.

We're not claiming to know which points people know about, and we're certainly not claiming that all people read secondary sources before enjoying a work of fiction. That's just ludicrous, and purely a strawman argument. We're saying that sticking to secondary sources for plot information gives a reasonable enough chance that we won't be spoiling things for people. If a plot point is common enough knowledge, chances are it'll be in a secondary source. If it isn't common knowledge, chances are it won't be.

Just because the solution isn't total doesn't mean it isn't better than the current practice. You've basically given absolutely no reason why this change shouldn't be made, or why it wouldn't be better. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:49, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. It looks to me as if we are being asked to fix two problems here: first, material that is a "spoiler" because it's not widely known (i.e. usually fails RS); and material that is a "spoiler" despite being widely known (in which case the problem is probably not us anyway). Somewhere in the margins there may be a tiny number of cases that are not well known but supported by reliable sources and identified by independent authorities as a spoiler. None on my watchlist, though. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, but I did give a reason. In fact, I gave several. The first is that a very large number of existing articles would be invalidated. The number is probably in the tens of thousands, since there are a ton of articles on fictional subjects, most of those articles contain a plot summary, and that plot summary is usually sourced from the work itself.

The second is that it would make encyclopedic articles about most fictional works difficult to write until a very long time after the work is published. As I noted, it would be very peculiar if the article about the seventh Harry Potter book were not permitted to state that the book ends with Harry's survival and Lord Voldemort's death. That information was added to the article literally within moments of the book's release. Though now known by millions of people, I am not sure that, even today, there is yet a reliable third-party published source with this information. Clearly there will be eventually, given the popularity of that series, but it seems odd to impose an artificial barrier to the inclusion of clearly relevant, obviously factual information that is disputed by no one.

Lastly, we ought to be awfully hesitant to change policy in a way that invalidates a large amount of content, unless there is pretty good evidence that that content is problematic. But no such evidence has been offered. The purported reason is that it "solves" the spoiler problem. Even if it did, is that the purpose of Wikipedia—to avoid disclosing certain types of information? Is that why we're here?

Now, if your real agenda is that plot summaries sourced from the works themselves do not belong in an encyclopedia, then feel free to propose a policy change at WP:PSTS. But that proposal doesn't belong here, because if it were adopted it would apply to all factual statements derived from primary sources, not just spoilers.

But if your agenda is to get as many spoilers as possible out of Wikipedia, then you should say so directly, not via the "back door" of an unrelated policy change. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as the Harry Potter example and how "obviously relevant" it is, and how "peculiar" the article would look without it, that's just a matter of opinion. Again, if it looks peculiar to you to leave that out, and no reliable third-party source included it, then you must therefore find all third-party sources peculiar. You may not be used to that way of writing a sourced article, but there's a reason all those reliable sources do it that way. I frankly trust them more than you -- and that's not meant to be uncivil. I trust them more than I trust anyone here, if they were to tell me, "Well, that would make our articles look peculiar to me."

Regarding evidence of a problem, I'm not sure what kind of evidence you want. I'm presenting an argument. That's what people do on Wikipedia. Aside from bringing everyone who's ever removed a spoiler from an article or agreed during a conversation about spoilers, there's not much I can offer you in the way of evidence. As far as the "purpose" of Wikipedia, you're offering yet another strawman argument. The purpose of Wikipedia can't be to avoid disclosing information. I'm not even going to answer that. Except to say, those "reliable third-party sources" saw fit to refrain from such disclosure regarding Harry Potter, and yet, I don't think they consider their purpose to be the evasion of disclosure either.

My agenda is: I agree with the proposal that plot synopses should be limited to secondary sources. You may reword that however you like. I realize that it would be a major change and that many articles would need revision. It would be a slow change, but in the end a beneficial one, I think. I don't even think the change need apply to old articles; perhaps only new plot synopses should be required to conform. I don't claim to have the details worked out.

Finally, if applied, it would not apply to all facts obtained from primary sources. The proposal is, currently, only for plot synopses of fictional works. No one has proposed the banning of primary sources altogether. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:09, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "relevance" in the Harry Potter context, I am not asking you to trust me, and indeed you shouldn't. The evidence is simply that this is an extremely frequently edited article, maintained by a large number of editors. The information was added practically the instant it was published, and no editor ever challenged its relevance. You can check all of that for yourself. Either that large slew of editors has very poor judgment as to relevance, or you do.

Yes, I know you are presenting an argument, and that's what people on Wikipedia do. But when you propose a fairly substantial policy change, the burden is on you to show that: A) We have a problem here; and that B) Your solution solves it; that C) It's a good solution; and that D) It doesn't introduce other problems that are as bad or worse. I don't have to prove anything.

If your solution does not apply to all facts obtained from primary sources, but only to plot synopses, I would have to ask: Why should there be a different rule for one kind of fact, as opposed to all other kinds? Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of things people add to articles that are removed because they go against policy. People adding something to an article doesn't necessarily mean that the article is best served with that addition, or that the editor is aware of policy. Also, at the time the Harry Potter event occurred, policy agreed with the revelation being there, so there would've been no reason for anyone to have refrained from doing so.

The burden is on me to show that the change would be an improvement, which is what I'm doing. It's not my job to prove it, though, because such a thing can't be proved. It's fine if you disagree that the outcome would be as I suggest. I know many people will disagree with me as this is a controversial subject.

As for your last question: Because doing it that way would solve one problem without creating other problems. If disallowing primary sources helps us in one particular identifiable area, but not in others, then why not just apply the rule in the area where it's helpful? Equazcion •✗/C • 17:55, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

section break 3

←There are lots of things people add to articles that are removed because they go against policy. True, but if your change were implemented, it would have the effect of disallowing a considerable amount of content that editors and readers have historically found useful, and that current policy permits. That is the problem that your proposed change introduces.

So what you need to demonstrate—I agree that prove is too strong a word—is that, notwithstanding the widespread presence of this content, which current policy permits, which is present in large quantities, and which most people seem to find beneficial, Wikipedia is actually worse off for it being here.

About the only reason you've given is that Wikipedia would contain fewer spoilers. That is certainly true. But spoilers are information, and Wikipedia's mission is to provide information, not to supress it. So you need to demonstrate that this site would be improved by including less information. Good luck. Marc Shepherd (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"...disallowing...content that...policy currently permits..." Yes, we've been through that already, I just answered you, just because people add it and policy permits it doesn't mean it best suits the article. Again it's fine if you disagree but just say so and don't circle back around to your original question.

How it would be better can't exactly be demonstrated either. The only difference would be that there there would be no more spoilers. There would hoever be another fringe benefit of tighter standards for reliability and for professionalism. If plot synopses were limited to only secondary-sourced material, they couldn't be written any longer by fans who happen to have DVDs and decide to write an original summary. These synopses would then have to actually be researched and be less original. With the problems Wikipedia has in public image with reliability and quality, I think this would be a step in the right direction.

Not including spoilers would mean that works of fiction wouldn't be spoiled for those who look them up. People don't like having stories spoiled for them, even when they look up information about that work. Again you've asked this before and I've already answered it. You aren't going to get any more of a "demonstration" than that because such a thing isn't possible. This is a suggestion for what readers would like better, more readily expect from an encyclopedia, and in the end, find more useful, reliable, and professional. There's nothing more I can tell you. You either agree of you don't. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:39, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

people would leave

<outdent> If this were to actually happen, that all plot sections were to be stripped of anything that wasn't actually talked about in secondary sources, so many editors would likely leave it'd ruin the encyclopedia. If you think there's a lot of backlash now, you ain't see nothing...just my opinion at least. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't see that happening. I think this will be an argument used by people who don't want the change to occur, but I don't believe it to be true, and I don't think they do either. Anyway this is very much crystal balling. I don't think we should be making decisions based on some unfounded prediction of the future. All we can and should be doing is discussing how this will affect the quality of the encyclopedia -- not making future predictions about how the community will react. Besides, even if you're right and the reaction is that bad, it can always be changed back. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:31, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

Melodia's concern is very valid. We're having a hard enough time dealing with the actions of editors like TTN and the backlash to "anti-fiction deletionists" on WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE, potentially challenging WP:NOTE and WP:PLOT. (This is not the place to challenge those issues). Adding the requirement that plot details must come from secondary sources effectively makes (my estimate) 95% of all fictional articles that otherwise satisfy notability or other policy/guidelines a problem because the plot is not described in secondary sources, at least in significant detail, leaving the context to describe the real-world aspects at a loss. Adopting this solution to allow for "sourced" spoiler warnings will remove the need to even provide spoiler warnings for the bulk of the material. It's a "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" solution.

I'll also note that even if we go by secondary sources to state what is a spoiler is, there will always be people that have a higher standard, and if spoiler warnings were implemented in this way, they will still complain when they spoiled by material outside of such tags. What a spoiler is very much a personal view, a secondary source stating that something is a spoiler is simply one authoritian's view on what a spoiler constitutes, and may be less or more broad than the next person. --MASEM 17:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not exactly one person's view on what constitutes a spoiler, which is why I think this solution has more merit than any other that came before it. This solution would remove that decision from the hands of editors. What constitutes a spoiler would be left up to what secondary sources consider to be a spoiler. Furthermore the proposal isn't exactly for sourced spoiler warnings but rather for the complete omission of spoilers, for the simple reason that other sources omit the very same things. There wouldn't be any question of standards for what constitutes a spoiler -- that's the whole point of this solution and the reason it makes so much sense.

I don't challenge notability and I'm not proposing we do so. Notability always needed to be established via secondary sources anyway, so nothing would change there. The only change would be where primary sources are valid, and yes that probably does challenge WP:PLOT and FICT. However being that this is an idea to solve a problem regarding spoilers, this seems to be a good place to develop that idea. If it's determined in the end that the idea is a good one and that the final formulated proposal would need to challenge a policy, then the discussion will need to be taken elsewhere, I agree. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:40, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

But again, even if multitude of secondary sources omit spoilerish details and thus we write the plot to that, a reader can still find what is left to be a spoiler; some may find even any details of the plot to be too much. Why they come to Wikipedia to learn about that work and not expect to be spoiled, well, I don't know, but that points back to basically that the current approach of "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" approach that at most a person will be spoiled once about a work on Wikipedia and should realize that Wikipedia's pages do contain spoilers. Basically, what constitutes a spoiler is a part of the reader's expectations - not of the editors or the sources they use, even if well sourced by numerous secondary authorities. Handling spoilers should be done at the reader's level - whether this is a tag or template, CSS tricks, or a general disclaimer statement. --MASEM 18:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Melodia, we have policies, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, which mean that writing about anything that is not covered in reliable secondary sources is simply not allowed. It is probably true that a few people would leave if, for example, we removed everything from the various Bionicle articles that is not discussed in secondary sources; whether that would be good or bad for the project is open to debate. This is, after all, supposed to be an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source, not a venue for people to write reviews of fiction based on their own view of what is significant. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources are necessary to establish the notability of a topic - however, they do not limit the use of information gained from primary sources as part of the topic's coverage; a summarized plot summary cited only from primary sources is acceptable as part of a topic dealing with a fictional work, as long as the article also discusses the real-world aspects from secondary sources along with it. (That's the whole gist of WP:PLOT and subsequently WP:FICT --MASEM 19:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Writing about anything that is not covered in reliable secondary sources is simply not allowed. That is simply not true. According to WP:PSTS (a sub-section of WP:NOR), primary sources can be used, as long as certain conditions are met. To date, it has been widely accepted that a plot summary does meet those conditions, as long as the plot is being described, not interpreted or analyzed. It would be pretty surprising if our articles on fictional works were violating WP:NOR all along, and it was only now that we've discovered it, as veteran editors are pretty vigilant about removing original research. Marc Shepherd (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources are valid sources per WP:NOR, however, Guy, you've misread the part on WP:V. We can't have articles based entirely, or have large portions, based on primary sources. However WP:V does not exclude primary sources when they are used descriptively. --Farix (Talk) 21:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought, thank you. And while theoretically that rule could be changed, my thoughts above are why I think it'd be a bad idea. Many people NOW bitch about people removing 'good info that people worked hard on', I can just imagine what would happen if such a rule were enforced. True that's crystal balling, I agree, but it seems silly to think otherwise. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It may be what you thought, but it's wrong. Things that can only be documented from primary sources should not e on Wikipedia because we can't ensure WP:NPOV. I commend to all concerned User:Uncle G/On sources and content, which I think says it better than I can. Guy (Help!) 10:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

From WP:NOTE These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles. A topic cannot be presented using only primary sources in its own article, that we all agree to (as I read it); however, if I'm talking about a movie or book or the like that has development and critical reception info from secondary sources (thus satisfying notability), a plot section that is written strictly from the primary source that meets V/NOR/NPOV within the context of the rest of the article is perfectly acceptable, even by that essay listed above. There's a difference between a topic which receives its own article and a section of an article. --MASEM 11:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sigh* This clearly isn't a discussion for WP:SPOILER as it really isn't about spoilers but about plot summaries; and there does appear to be a conflict between WP:V and WP:NOR. Guy and others state that WP:V only permits the use of secondary sources on Wikipedia, however WP:NOR does allow primary sources to be used when making descriptive statements. Because of this apparent conflict, I have started the topic at WT:V since this really needs to taken to a larger venue, (WT:V#Primary sources) --Farix (Talk) 13:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

people would leave, break 1

←To Masem: You're presenting a reason that readers should eventually expect what they get and be responsible. This is the so-called "outgroup" argument from further up. That still is no reason that we can't cater to what they expect right from the start. You're also saying what's "better", but you're not presenting any reason. I'm proposing not to take it upon ourselves to decide what's better for our readers, but rather to take our cues from what all the other sources already do, and not do any more or less than them. Can you give me a good reason why you're so sure that the way they're doing it is actually worse than the way we're doing it? If no one reliable does what we're currently doing, how can you say that we're reliable? How do you justify this? If the revelation of spoilers really isn't a big deal, how do you explain why everyone else isn't also doing it? Equazcion •✗/C • 02:42, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

We can say we're "reliable" because we have millions of editors working 24/7 on our articles doing quality control. I don't think the point of WP is to compare us to other sites. WP has one policy, other places have another. Readers are well aware of what they'll get when they view each site. I haven't seen any outcry from people demanding WP institute spoilers, or angry because they learned something they didn't want to know. Snowfire51 (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that we have millions of editors working constantly says nothing about our reliability. Lots of people working can still be working to uphold policies that don't produce the most reliable material, not to mention more doesn't equal better. You haven't heard an outcry because people aren't infants who would complain about things like that. Even if everything on Wikipedia sucked horribly you wouldn't hear an "outcry". All you'd hear would be arguments coming from the people who care about Wikipedia and about making it better, which is what you're hearing now. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:07, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I had forgotten what little fun it is to discuss wikipedia policy with you. Okay, I'm done here. I'll sum up, I oppose changing wikipedia's policy on spoilers. I don't think changing it adds anything to WP, other than making it far more difficult to contribute and properly edit. I see no problems from the current setup, and WP has grown considerably under current policy. Snowfire51 (talk) 03:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia has grown enough. I think attracting new users shouldn't be our focus anymore. We've already got an overabundance of manpower. I think we should now shift over to focus on our readers, rather than what's the most fun and easy thing for us to do, as contributors. Nevertheless I understand and respect your opinion. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:44, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

You go shift focus. Knock yourself out. The majority of editors will continue to do what's 'fun'. After all, noone's getting paid, noone has ANY obligation. People will only work on what they find rewarding, even if it goes against what you personally see as important. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If fun and lack of payment were the only motivations here then we wouldn't need policy. But the output of a useful and quality source of information are priorities, which is why we have policies. Proposing that those priorities would be better served with a change shouldn't garner the kind of response you just gave. If you have respect for policy then you're here for the same reason I am. We're all working towards the same goal, and if we occasionally disagree on the best way to get there, that's okay. Let's discuss it civilly. If you disagree to the point that the discussion actually bothers you, then you're welcome to leave it up to others. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:10, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

A few points:

If you're concerned that reliance on primary sources is making Wikipedia less reliable, I hardly think the spoiler guideline is the place to be "fixing" that problem. If you have that concern, then why limit the "fix" only to plot summaries? Why not ban all use of primary sources entirely? And why not make that proposal on the talk page of the policy that currently permits it in the first place?

In any case, can you give a specific example where the reliance on primary sources has compromised reliability? For instance, as I noted above, the article on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows stated the fact that Voldemort died in the book within moments after the book was published. The only source was the book itself. In what sense was that information unreliable?

Lastly: I'm proposing not to take it upon ourselves to decide what's better for our readers, but rather to take our cues from what all the other sources already do. What other sources are you seeking to emulate? Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is a tertiary source, drawn form reliable independent secondary sources. This is the only way we can work, since we have no way of vetting the credentials of our editors, and we have no desire to restrict editing to subject experts. As Uncle G correctly states in his essay, Wikipedia should never be the first place to publish anything. The existence of articles drawn in their entirety from the primary source itself is a problem. Who is the source deciding what is significant and what is not? In virtually every such case, we are deciding the significance ourselves rather than referencing the significance as identified by authorities; this is a bad thing. Always. I can't think of a single instance where use of primary sources is an appropriate fallback for something not being covered at all in secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 14:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Primary sources are absolutely permitted in Wikipedia (but should be used with caution per NOR). This is especially true when writing descriptive plot summaries of works of fiction. As long as the summary is purely discriptive, and does not include analysis or interpretation of the plot, the work itself is in fact the best source for verification. Wikipedia is filled with articles on TV shows, books, movies and other works of fiction and almost all of them cite to the work itself (either directly or tacitly) for verification of the plot summary. That said, I can understand why the issue is a concern. The typical "plot summary" section does not actually summarize the plot at all... far too often it is simply a re-telling of the entire plot. Too many of our articles on fictional works include plot summaries that are overly detailed... to the point where they go into minutia about the plot. A good summary gives a broad view of the work's plot and not a chapter by chapter account of the plot. However, this is a problem with writing, and not a problem with sourcing. Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

people would leave, break 2

I agree with Blueboar. On top of that, Guy's comment really wasn't responsive. When a Wikipedia editor writes a plot summary of a novel, Wikipedia isn't the first place to publish that plot: the novel is. Obviously, the editor is exercising judgment in three ways. First, she is choosing her own words. Second, she is deciding which information is significant. Third, she is deciding how to organize that information. But these things would be true regardless of the source. Even in an article derived entirely from secondary sources, we don't copy the source exactly, and we don't include everything that the source did. There's no getting around it: regardless of the source, editors are writing original words and applying their own judgment as to which information should be presented, and how it should be organized. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither was Blueboar's response. Guy is arguing reasoning and Blueboar responded with policy. We're discussing (possibly) a proposed change to policy though, so answering by saying policy disagrees is rather obvious and pointless. Additionally, Blueboar, the problem you describe as being "a problem with writing" would be solved if only secondary sources were used, because then minutia and other problems couldn't exist in plot summaries. Marc, you're right that the editor's judgment is applied no matter what the source, but the less of that judgment we need to rely on, the better. Again, as Guy points out, we don't investigate the credentials of our editors, so we should be relying as little as possible on their judgment. Allowing original sources for plot summaries means we rely on those judgments more than if original sources were disallowed, for those instances. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:23, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

What you and Guy are suggestion are changes in the interpretations of WP:V, WP:RS, and a direct change to WP:NOR. Such discussion on changes should be done at those policy/guideline pages and not here. This page is a guideline on how Wikipedia deals with spoilers and is not related to the changes in the interpretations of WP:V or WP:RS. --Farix (Talk) 16:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You think this discussion is occurring on the wrong page, yes, we all heard you the first two times. Thank you. The location where the discussion take place is not all that important that we need to spend time arguing about it. The discussion began here and there's no reason to fragment it now. Please contribute if you like, but as for where this takes place, kindly let it go. It's just not that important. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:37, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Don't Agree. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is twofold. First, the proposal requires a policy change, which will not and cannot occur without a discussion on the talk page for the policy itself. (Or, you can just WP:BOLDly change it, and see how far you get.) Second, if the change is made, it clearly will have a much broader ambit than just spoilers. It will affect all plot material that comes from primary sources, whether spoiler or not. Therefore, it needs to be aired before a broader audience than just those editors who are particularly interested in the handling of spoilers. Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

← It's funny how it's the people who are against the proposal who want to waste time with this. Hey, if you feel that much of a need, you may each carry on at the location of your choice. It is, after all, a free Wikipedia. But don't move other peoples' comments. Thanks Equazcion •✗/C • 17:48, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Moving the discussion here [to WP:V] is wrong; it is based on a misrepresentation of the original point I was making, which was that we should not be the only place on the internet where a supposed spoiler exists, therefore a supposed spoiler is either an example of inappropriate primary sourcing, or a problem that is not Wikipedia's to solve. It is really pretty straightforward: per existing policy, interpreted in the way I would normally interpret it, there should be no instance where an important item of plot should be available in so few places that its inclusion in Wikipedia represents a pressing problem. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's also wrong to assume the right to make a move like that when people are arguing against it. You can't just declare yourself to be right and take action. Kindly stop moving other people's comments. It's against policy -- WP:TALK Equazcion •✗/C • 17:56, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

This very much is a policy discussion, particularly its about a change in how a policy is interpreted and very much belong on WT:V. I don't know why are so insist that this take place here when it absolutely doesn't belong here. Are you really afraid that the proposal will be reject as an incorrect interpretation of WP:V that you want to avoid it's talk page? --Farix (Talk) 18:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of your opinion and I disagree, as does the person who started this discussion. Again, if you'd like to argue someplace else, please feel free, but don't take it upon yourself to move other people's comments. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:16, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Re. "we should not be the only place on the internet where a supposed spoiler exists, [...]" - not sure what you're trying to express, but seems like you're drawing conclusions from your own original research.

Re. "[...] a supposed spoiler is either an example of inappropriate primary sourcing, or a problem that is not Wikipedia's to solve." - really, I've lost you, but without doubt not an inevitable consequence of your first half sentence above.

Re. "It is really pretty straightforward: per existing policy, interpreted in the way I would normally interpret it, there should be no instance where an important item of plot should be available in so few places that its inclusion in Wikipedia represents a pressing problem." - No, this doesn't follow from policy.

Regarding your original proposed addition to the spoiler template:

Note that Wikipedia requires that all content is verifiable from reliable independent sources. While content may not be removed because it may constitute a spoiler, material that is not discussed in independent sources may be removed as failing the verifiability policy.

1. I don't see very well how that connects to what you say to be "the original point [you were] making"
2. There are too many shortcuts in the reasoning presented in this proposed addition to WP:SPOILER to make it at all useful. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

people would leave, break 3

This subject does seem to go to the heart of the Verifiability policy, so I think we're making a mistake by holding the policy debate here. --Tony Sidaway 18:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't got the time or the will to read the whole debate above, but I oppose any such addition because it contradicts WP:NOR and is at odds with writing an encyclopedia. Hiding T 12:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Most encyclopedias are bound by a similar restriction. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:31, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Which encyclopedias are you thinking of? The facts, I think, are precisely the opposite. I am sure that the writers of the Encyclopedia Britannica articles on Shakespeare are permitted to refer to the texts of Shakespeare as primary sources. Feel free to try to disprove that. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I said similar. But no, we could probably say exactly, even with this point about Shakespeare. With all the reliable secondhand material available on Shakespearean plays, I doubt any encyclopedia editor would've needed to read an actual play. It all could've come from secondary sources, and probably did. Feel free to disprove that. Hiding said that this would be "at odds with writing an encyclopedia". Well, encyclopedias don't usually contain spoilers, so evidently, it's our present rules that seem to be at odds with writing an encyclopedia. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:37, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)

As the person who is proposing to change long-standing Wikipedia practice, you're the one who needs to provide the evidence; not me. Again, which encyclopedias are you referring to? Which articles in those encyclopedias support your point? I am quite sure your statements are false, but if you will kindly supply references, we can all check for ourselves.

To clarify: I am quite sure that, to the extent traditional encyclopedias cover works of fiction, they do not shy away from plot points that would be considered spoilers. Of course, because traditional encyclopedias are printed on paper, they cover fewer works, and many of the works they do cover have much shorter articles than Wikipedia. But where a work is deemed worthy of a substantial article, I am sure you will find that there is no modesty about disclosing plot-spoiling details.

Your comments reveal a fundamental ignorance about how traditional encyclopedias are written. Unlike Wikipedia, traditional encyclopedias are generally written by specialists. It is inconceivable that the Encyclopedia Britannica articles on Shakespeare are written by someone who has not read Shakespeare. To the extent it is relevant to refer to plot details or to quote from the text, anyone competent would rely on the text itself, not a second-hand report of it. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I can point to two electronic encyclopedias. Encarta does not reveal the ending of The Sixth Sense.[1] Encyclopedia Britannica Online doesn't even have an article on The Sixth Sense. Encarta doesn't have an article on Fight Club. Encyclopedia Britannica Online doesn't have an article on Fight Club. Encarta does not reveal the ending of Thelma & Louise.[2] Encyclopedia Britannica Online doesn't have an article on Thelma & Louise. Encarta doesn't have an article on Million Dollar Baby. Encyclopedia Britannica Online doesn't have an article on Million Dollar Baby. Encarta does not reveal the ending of The Usual Suspects.[3] Encyclopedia Britannica Online doesn't have an article on The Usual Suspects. Spoilers are not encyclopedic. Can you provide evidence they are? --Pixelface (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Traditional encyclopedias are not necessarily written by specialists ([4], read the part that starts with "many encyclopedias...are largely written by graduate students or freelance writers without special knowledge.") Nevertheless this still is not the point. The statement I was answering was Hiding's, which said that this proposal would be "at odds with writing an encyclopedia". The point is this proposal would make Wikipedia more like an actual encyclopedia, and not less, as he seems to be claiming. The actual question is how much like a traditional encyclopedia do we really want to be? Equazcion •✗/C • 14:01, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find that the more reputable the encyclopedia, the more likely it is that the articles are written by someone with specialist knowledge — and I would count graduate students in that category. The most relevant point is that in any serious encyclopedia, no one would write about a work without referring to the work itself. Even freelancers without specialist knowledge, if asked to write an article about a fictional work, will most likely begin with the work itself. You haven't refuted that.

people would leave, break 3.2

← I believe Hiding's point is that no encyclopedia would omit information because it is a spoiler. They might omit the information because they don't have space for it, or because it is not relevant to the kind of reference work they are compiling. But they would not omit it because it spoils the plot. Encyclopedias supply information; they don't suppress it. Marc Shepherd (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing information that doesn't appear in secondary sources is not suppressing information. Information has to come from reliable sources. Anonymous people on the Internet (Wikipedia editors) are not reliable sources. Encarta does not reveal the ending of The Sixth Sense.[5] Does that mean they are suppressing information? Encyclopedias don't supply spoilers. There are other websites for that kind of thing. --Pixelface (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I just supplied you with something that directly contradicted your claim -- if you remember, the one where you claimed I was the one with the "fundamental ignorance". Here's what I think: I think you're at least as fundamentally ignorant on this subject as I am. So let's not misrepresent ourselves. If you "think I will find" something, that really makes no difference. I respect your "thoughts" but as far as the statement of fact is concerned, they appear to be lacking, as I've chosen to trust the link I posted more than your opinion.

You are right in that the reason encyclopedias omit information might not be that it spoils the plot, but just the same, it might be because such information doesn't occur in secondary sources. We don't really know what the reason is that they are the way they are, but we do know how they are.

Which brings us to the real point: It doesn't matter whether or not encyclopedias have some rule that says no primary sources may be used. What matters is that the resulting encyclopedia doesn't contain anything that wouldn't be in secondary sources. How it got that way is anyone's guess -- but they do end up that way. Perhaps there is some informal practice at work in the encyclopedia community. Perhaps encyclopedia publishers tell their authors they can use primary sources but that they can't include anything that secondary sources wouldn't include. Whatever the case, they end up a certain way, which is rather different from the way Wikipedia articles end up.

The only choice we have for achieving the same result would be through a policy, since we don't know what the encyclopedias are doing, and if they do work through an informal practice, that wouldn't be viable here. Of course, this hinges on the assumption that you agree that traditional encyclopedias do indeed end up differently than our articles, specifically in that they would lack certain things such as complete synopsis details of popular cultural works -- but if you disagree there then there's something more fundamental that needs to be addressed, and I'm not going to address it, because I think others will agree with me on at least that basic point. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:14, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)

We already have the policy you desire. I mentioned it above, but will relink to it; WP:NOR. As to whether other encyclopedia include spoilers, I would advise anyone who does not know the ending of Romeo and Juliet to avoid Britannica. And it would make it harder to write an encyclopedia if we are not allowed recourse to primary source. And most major plot points are discussed in numerous places. See your newspapers for discussion of soap operas, films and the like. I don't get what the point of the proposed addition is, and since it contradicts our purpose and our policies I oppose. Hiding T 16:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

We covered the Shakespeare example extensively above. You're not saying anything new. Of course it would make it harder. That is not in dispute. Newspapers discuss films but not spoilers, as was also mentioned above. If you don't get it, and you also don't want to read the debate that's occurred up until now, then I advise you to not try to participate in the discussion. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:46, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, if it is accepted that other encyclopedias use spoilers, why did you assert different in your response to me? If it would make it harder to write the encyclopedia, why did you also state different? Since our purpose is to write an encyclopedia, I reject the addition because it would contradict that purpose. Also, newspapers do include spoilers, I have many times in the past provided examples, the Observer review of the recent Superman movie was one such. Also, read WP:CONSENSUS before telling me my comments are not welcome. Hiding T 09:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not accepted that other encyclopedias use spoilers. Other encyclopedias only print commonly-known plot details that appear in secondary sources. It would make writing plot synopses harder, but would make the end result more resemble a traditional encyclopedia. I never said your comments weren't welcome. I was only offering advice. If you'd like to participate, it would be best to read the rest of the debate. That having been said, you are welcome to comment as much as you want. If there is a reliable newspaper that has published a spoiler, then that would be fair game for inclusion in that film's synopsis. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:47, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Since regular encyclopedia do print information which spoils the plot of a work, why is that being disputed? And where is it decided we are trying to mirror a print encyclopedia? That's never been the stated goal of Wikipedia, per WP:NOT. I suggest you may find one of the many other collaborative online encyclopedia more to your tastes. I think Citzenopedia or whatever is going for a more print based mirrored approach. Also, it's your opinion that if a reliable newspaper that has published a spoiler, then that would be fair game for inclusion in that film's synopsis. That's not policy or guidance and I oppose any attempt to make it so. What you seem to want to do is limit the scope of Wikipedia. For that, you need to discuss it at WP:NOT. Hiding T 17:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please cite an encyclopedia that reveals the endings of films by M. Night Shyamalan. --Pixelface (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And we plucked that one out of the air because? I can point you to an Empire magazine which reveals the ending of the Sixth Sense in rather big letters, including handy hints on how to tell, which would invalidate Guy's proposal, if that is any help. Hiding T 23:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Films by M. Night Shyamalan usually have big plot twists. Encarta does not reveal the twist in The Sixth Sense[6], if you're wondering what other encyclopedias do. I don't mind if The Sixth Sense article on Wikipedia reveals the ending of the film and cites Empire. If a reliable secondary source is cited, that's fine with me. However, if a reliable secondary source uses a spoiler warning or does not reveal the twist, I think they can also be cited. Roger Ebert said "I have to admit I was blind-sided by the ending. The solution to many of the film's puzzlements is right there in plain view, and the movie hasn't cheated, but the very boldness of the storytelling carried me right past the crucial hints and right through to the end of the film, where everything takes on an intriguing new dimension."[7] That's a reliable source that the film contains a surprise. Spoiler warnings are meant to precede a surprise so an article does not spoil a surprise for readers. I see no problem with spoiler warnings that cite reliable sources. I see no problem with putting interpretations from reliable sources in Plot sections before plot details are revealed. --Pixelface (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

←Paper encyclopedia vs. Wikipedia is addressed below, reliable newspaper spoiler being fair game is only in the event that this proposal is accepted, and what i want is not to limit scope per se but to limit original interpretation of primary source material by editors. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:08, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

• Then please accept that WP:NOR already does that and move one. Hiding T 23:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Uh... No. Please accept that NOR alone does not address my concerns, and move on. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:52, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

people would leave, break 3.5

Encarta also has a much shorter article on "The Sixth Sense," consisting of almost no relevant information other than a plot summary that could have come from a press release and a cast list. Wikipedia is a much more complete source. So, we win. Snowfire51 (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Win what? The title of who can claim to be an encyclopedia yet contain the most unencyclopedic material? --Pixelface (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's plot summaries are actually quite encyclopedic by their nature. Their content is checked and rechecked many times over, and I'd wager they're checked more often than other, more "encyclopedic material."

Let's draw a comparison between a subject, say Physics, and an awful, yet enjoyable movie like Road House. To contribute to the physics page, an editor must have a good deal of knowledge about the science and have proper references that will be fact-checked by other knowledgable editors. Quality control is assured by a system of checks and balances.

To contribute to the Road House article's plot summary, you have to have primary knowledge of the subject. Movies are seen by millions of people, so it's safe to say there are more than a few editors out there who will be proofing these articles. Quality control is also taken care of by a much larger number of editors who can compare their first-hand knowledge of the movie.

There may not be a primary source for a plot summary, but it's seen and proofread by quite a few editors, so it's safe to say it's been checked and checked again for content. If I see a physics page with an error, I probably won't catch it. If I see something written on the Road House page that wasn't in the movie, I'd spot it in a heartbeat.

Finally, I don't understand the assertation that information internet sources would informally request a "spoiler" warning for is unencyclopedic. That would seem to be something you'd need to source, otherwise saying spoilers are unencyclopedic would be WP:OR.

Again, good luck with all that. Snowfire51 (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia's plot summaries are not "encyclopedic by their nature." Encarta's plot summaries are typically under 100 words and reveal no spoilers. Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't have many plot summaries for films as far as I can tell. You're wrong when you say "To contribute to the Road House article's plot summary, you have to have primary knowledge of the subject." You don't have to have seen the film, you just have to cite what's been written about the film in reliable sources. Editors cannot cite themselves. The policy on neutral point of view says "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors." It doesn't say "If enough editors agree on how to describe something, it's true." Editors are not reliable sources. That is why editors must cite reliable sources. Saying spoilers are unencylopedic is not original research. I can cite other encyclopedias and I have. You'll have to cite an encyclopedia that reveals spoilers to say spoilers are encyclopedic. --Pixelface (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Saying spoilers are unencylopedic is not original research. I can cite other encyclopedias and I have." This is completely untrue. You've pointed out several encyclopedias that do not reveal certain details about their films, but expanding that to say that no encyclopedia reveals spoilers is completely original research. You're examining encyclopedia entries based on one characteristic, and using their entries to try and validate your point. That's WP:OR.

By the source definitions, to prove encyclopedia have any stance whatsoever on spoilers, you'll have to show in proper reference where it is official policy, not just what you see as the evidence of such. Snowfire51 (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've provided evidence that other encyclopedias don't reveal spoilers for films. I really don't know what the policies of Encarta and Encyclopedia Britannica are. Can you cite an encyclopedia that reveals spoilers for any films? When little Jimmy Wales opened his first World Book in 1969[8], do you think it told him the ending of Citizen Kane? Wikipedia reveals spoilers. Do people expect to read spoilers in Wikipedia? I don't think they do — because other encyclopedias typically don't reveal spoilers. --Pixelface (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You've provided examples, from which you've made WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. There's no official policy on spoilers in encyclopedias, as far as I can tell. If you have a source, please provide it. Snowfire51 (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a talk page. The policy on no original research doesn't apply here. If you can cite an encyclopedia that reveals spoilers, please do so — otherwise I will continue to claim spoilers are unencyclopedic. If anything is original research or synthesis, it's this statement in the guideline: "In Wikipedia, however, it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail. Therefore, Wikipedia carries no spoiler warnings except for the Content disclaimer." --Pixelface (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I should clarify and say there is more leniency about original research on talk pages. WP:TALK says "The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification. This includes asking for help to find sources, comparing contradictory facts from different sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference to support a statement is often better than arguing against it." Can you provide a reference to support the statement "spoilers are encyclopedic"? --Pixelface (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, but by definition an encyclopedia is a collection of comprehensive knowledge. I doubt there's any official policy on spoilers, which only came into usage recently.

And that's why I prefer Wikipedia to other references, it's dynamic, it's comprehensive, and its uncensored. The amount of information available on WP usually exceeds that on other encyclopedias.

Finally, I'm more than a bit confused about the topics on this page. Are we still talking about spoilers, or about using primary sources to summarize plots? Those seem to be crossed over at times. For future reference, I'm against the first, and in favor of the second. Snowfire51 (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

people would leave, 3.7

← This is such a moot point to me. The fact that spoilers don't appear in other encyclopedias is a given as far as I'm concerned, and I don't think that's the main point we need to be discussing. This is an issue of reliability versus WP:NOT#PAPER. Eliminating primary sourced material would make Wikipedia more like a paper encyclopedia. Of that, I'm certain, and I'm not even sure if we're in disagreement there (I have a feeling there's a bit of confusion involved). The question is, how much more like a paper encyclopedia are we willing to become? Transcribing primary sources like DVDs and books is one of the major things ordinary users can do easily without performing a lot of research. While eliminating it would produce more reliable articles, it would also alienate the less-serious editors. Is that a benefit? Do we want to enrich our population or grow it? That's the real issue here, in my opinion. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:53, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Other encyclopedias don't need spoiler warnings because other encyclopedias don't reveal spoilers. It's as simple as that. However, Wikipedia does reveal spoilers. So either Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia or it's moved beyond what other encyclopedias do. Saying spoiler warnings are unencyclopedic is the moot point. I agree that eliminating primary sourced material would make Wikipedia more like a paper encyclopedia (or electronic encyclopedia). And yes, it's easy for new users to watch a film and write a plot summary. Letting new users write plot summaries themselves encourages people to contribute. Saying they can no longer do that would alienate many editors. The spoiler template was the compromise. Editors could watch a film and write a plot summary and write everything that happened. Instead of removing spoilers that did not cite secondary sources, the spoiler template was used to mark them off. In the past I have advocated sourced spoilers (that cite reliable sources, not just the film) and sourced spoiler warnings. But editors at Talk:Million Dollar Baby and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines have said the film is the only source that's needed for plot summaries. Removing all plot summaries that don't cite reliable third-party sources would eliminate most spoilers from Wikipedia I think. That would be extreme, but supported by the guideline on reliable sources. People who didn't like the spoiler template could ignore it or make it invisible in their monobook.css file (and it could even be made invisible by default in MediaWiki:Common.css). Since July 22, 2007, editors have added spoiler warnings to over 2,000 articles. The spoiler template was deleted but editors still add spoiler warnings to articles. And one editor removes them. That is not consensus. --Pixelface (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Other encyclopedias don't need spoiler warnings because other encyclopedias don't reveal spoilers. Which encyclopedias, and which articles in those encyclopedias, did you refer to before reaching that conclusion?

Here is the article on Hamlet in the online Encyclopædia Britannica's Guide to Shakespeare. It is full of revealing plot details (e.g., which characters die, and much more) that one would consider "spoilers".

Now, because Britannica has a much narrower scope than Wikipedia, there are some Wikipedia articles that have no Britannica equivalent, and never will. And because Wikipedia has a far more immediate time scale, there are Wikipedia articles that Britannica may eventually cover, but has not yet done so. But when Britannica does cover a fictional work, it does not shy away from details that would "spoil" the plot. Marc Shepherd (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to Encarta and Encyclopedia Britannica. See my comment I made earlier where I mentioned Thelma & Louise. Okay, you found an encyclopedia article about Hamlet full of revealing plot details. Hamlet was written about 400 years ago. Now cite an encyclopedia that reveals the endings of The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, The Village, Fight Club, and The Usual Suspects. --Pixelface (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that basically what I was saying in the first place, that started this whole long thread? And yet, you seemed to be the major agragator against it, but now are saying that, yes, it WOULD alienate a lot of editors. I sometimes find it hard to figure out if Wikipedia wants to be a place for those who believe in the free side, or a place for those who believe in the "big hunk of knowledge" side, because those two are often at odds...this being a similar case. Most likely the real answer is somewhere in between, but I think a large problem is that many things WERE allowed for a years rather than getting nipped right away -- if images had ALWAYS been tagged right away, if refs had ALWAYS been pushed for, if shorter plot summaries had ALWAYS been needed, then I imagine a lot less people would have been slighted, including many who have left and/or bashed the project over such issues. It's one thing to have a rule that you have to fit into, it's quite another for a major change to be forced on you even if the rule was 'actually' there all along. Just something to think about. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

See I'd go the other way with it: It's one thing to demand strict regulation of contributions in the beginning -- people wouldn't want to even bother trying. But to impose a new regulation on existing users, people who already know Wikipedia, with all its benefits, they're more likely to accept added strictness and keep editing. Our reputation is also know at this point, so even with the change we'll still get plenty of new users willing to give it a shot. And with the sheer enormity of the community at this point, I'm not sure how significant a hit we'd even have to take.

However, the main point is not "would people leave and how many". My point was how the encyclopedia itself would change. Do we want to be more traditional or do we want to be more... crufty? That's the question. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:54, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

In one sense I agree with you. I don't particularly care if some people leave, as long as we're making the encyclopedia better. That's the real issue.

One purported benefit is the removal of spoilers from Wikipedia. But the community consensus (as Wikipedia defines it) has consistently been that this encyclopedia should not suppress information that is otherwise useful, relevant, and reliable, just because it will "spoil" the story for somebody.

If your belief is that the information actually isn't all that useful, relevant, or reliable, then it would be helpful to know upon what evidence that belief is founded. Then we can evaluate that evidence, and reach consensus on whether there is any basis for it.

The one sure thing is that the practice you are proposing to change is widespread. I am not suggesting that widespread practices cannot be changed if they are bad. But I am suggesting that more caution is required in such a case. Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You're asking for evidence again. I'm not even going to respond to that this time. However I'm glad you've found something to agree with me on. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:40, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm just pointing out the lack of it, for the benefit of anyone who may drop in. I already know it's not forthcoming, as otherwise you'd have produced it by now. Marc Shepherd (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you say. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:53, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

people would leave, break 4

The simple answer is yes: I do disagree that traditional encyclopedias are created the way you say they are. However, as noted above, I am not obligated to prove or demonstrate anything, because I am not trying to change the way Wikipedia presently operates. I asked you which encyclopedias and articles were the source of your claim, and you haven't listed any.

Since you don't appear to have done any fact-checking for yourself, I am telling you what "I think you will find." If you believe I am wrong, please feel free to tell us which encyclopedias you are referring to. Otherwise, I have to assume you are just guessing. The link you supplied (a blog reproducing unsourced gossip) would hardly be the foundation for setting Wikipedia policy. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Again I am not making any claims about the way they are created, at least as far as rules for use of primary sources. The link was only to answer your claim that encyclopedias are written by specialists; it has little to do with the actual proposal. The link is furthermore not "unsourced gossip", it is the blog of the CEO of a publishing company that publishes reference books.

I specifically said that I make no claims about how they are created. Only how they end up. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:43, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)

At last we are making some progress. Apparently you don't dispute my claim that a competent person editing an encyclopedia article about a fictional work would normally use the work itself as a primary source. It might be that any facts sourced from the work could indeed be found in other sources. But that's not the process the writer/editor follows. The writer/editor gets the information from the most reliable and obvious source: the work itself.

You are proposing that Wikipedia editors would follow a different process. Rather than permitting them to use the primary source — which is not only more reliable, but is the source that any competent editor would be most naturally inclined to use, and which Wikipedia policy currently permits — you are suggesting that the editor must go elsewhere.

Why are you suggesting this? You have never suggested that it would make Wikipedia more informative or more reliable. Your only argument, and the reason you are discussing it on this page, is that it would result in fewer spoilers being present on Wikipedia. But no encyclopedia has, as its objective, the suppression of otherwise relevant and useful information, merely because it might spoil someone's reading or viewing experience.

If you are going to cite "what other encyclopedias do" as motivation, you cannot selectively point out what they do where it happens to suit your agenda, and ignore it otherwise. Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, no, I'm not agreeing with that at all. I'm just saying it doesn't matter, and has nothing to do with my point.

You're making an assumption by saying primary sources are more reliable. They're not, at least not in practice. In fact, the least reliable information in articles has come from primary sources, because it is being filtered only through the mind of the editor, who has more of a chance of slanting or skewing it than a professional who wrote secondary material. Yes, I am suggesting it would make Wikipedia more reliable, and yes I most certainly have suggested that before. It would also take care of the spoiler situation, killing two birds with one stone. Or at least, killing one, and seriously injuring the other.

Again, other encyclopedias' objectives are irrelevant. How they get written is irrelevant. All we need to know is how they turn out in the end. Bringing Wikipedia's reliability closer to that of a traditional encyclopedia is absolutely one of the things I cite as motivation. I do not cite their objectives. Their objectives are unknown and irrelevant. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:23, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok. If you indeed believe that this change would make Wikipedia more reliable, there is a perfect place to make that argument. It's called Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If you are right (and, for the record, I do not believe you are), your rule would cover all primary sources, not just fictional works; and it would cover all plot information, not just spoilers. So your argument deserves a far broader hearing than it can receive on this page. Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS already says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Editors who view a film and write a plot summary are not reliable sources. --Pixelface (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because I believe this change would have another effect other than the original intent doesn't mean the discussion needs to be brought elsewhere. The proposal would not necessarily cover all use of primary sources, as we've been through many times before, but you're correct that it would cover all plot information. It isn't even clear at this point whether the proposal would warrant a change to policy or just an addition here -- Guy believes policy can already be interpreted this way and only proposes a change to the spoiler guideline.

PS, please, only discuss if you actually have something productive to contribute. The attitude that "either this proposal is wrong or it needs to be moved someplace else" is annoying and won't get anywhere. If you have nothing more to contribute to the discussion then simply don't. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:52, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Apropos almost nothing, I guess, I thought I'd just point out that the past four days, and about 60kb of text, has comprised basically a discussion between two editors. Perhaps the discussion just isn't very interesting to the rest of us. --Tony Sidaway 18:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:35, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)

And at the risk of sounding like a parrot, this discussion seems to me to be about much deeper policy issues than whether we do or do not warn people when we disclose potentially surprising plot details. --Tony Sidaway 18:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Reflections on the end of the spoiler wars

The following email was posted by Phil Sandifer to the WikiEN-l mailing list on November 14, 2007:
--Pixelface (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere around six months ago, I made the relatively obvious point that spoiler warnings were unencyclopedic and silly, and furthermore were being used to screw up article leads and violate NPOV. This led to a series of events that, over the course of about two weeks, had spoiler tags nearly completely deprecated from Wikipedia and the spoiler policy heavily rewritten to no longer encourage their use.

Six months later, the spoiler debate is still carrying on with the same half-dozen or so people vehemently opposing their removal. These arguments have been presented in every forum imagineable - arbcom twice, an RfC, several deletion debates, the mailing list, etc. The number of remaining forums is growing so slim that people were, in all seriousness, suggesting advertising the discussion on the watchlist sitenotice alongside the arbcom elections. This is, obviously, beyond the pale. Hopefully, the debate is now in its final throws as JzG has deleted the spoiler template following a TfD. Obviously it's on DRV at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_November_14 (with a breathtakingly bad-faith assuming nomination), but God willing it will stay deleted and this discussion will finally end.

What interests me, though, is the question of how we can prevent this. I've been fighting with the same people over issues with reliable sourcing for well over a year, for instance, and yet those fights still continue despite, seemingly, a substantial shift in opinion away from the former hardline positions (things that included overbroad statements about blogs "never" being reliable sources). [[2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities]] has been in need of a dynamite enema since, well, 2004, and has been the subject of an arbcom case, but so far nobody has quite managed to kill the blasted thing and its legion of OR sub-articles.

What is surprising in all of these cases is that it has seemed, to me, at least, that consensus formed for a position quite quickly - spoiler tags were stupid, sourcing guidelines needed to have enough flexibility to not break articles, and the 2004 election controversy articles are abominations. Everybody sane who looked at the situations recognized that. But unfortunately, everybody sane also demonstrated a general lack of willingness to participate in the same debates for months on end. And so the actual discussions have been deadlocks as a handful of tenacious proponents of the losing side continue stamping their feet.

This is a major tarpit, and is one of the ways in which dreadfully stupid things are allowed to profligate. It makes policy formation and the engagement of remotely tricky and nuanced situations a horrid timesink that is unsuitable for sane conduct. So what can we do? How can we streamline our policy formation problems to drive away the policy equivalents of lunatic POV pushers? Again, noting that the usual problems - consensus can change, so forcibly closing debates doesn't work, often contributors who are totally insane on one point are wonderful on every other article they edit, etc. So what can we do?

-Phil[9]

You can read the rest of the discussion at this subpage:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler/Mailing_list_November_2007 --Pixelface (talk) 06:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

To answer Phil's question, maybe "being honest about one's intentions" is the best way to deal with those people? Sarcasm aside, this makes me sad, because saying things like these are precisely the reason why people believe in WP:CABAL. Also, I would like to note, there are not the same pro-SW people over and over - there have been more than a handful of people that came here and said they were unaware of spoiler warning removal, and were negatively surprised. Samohyl Jan (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

However, there is only a small handful of people (on both sides of the issue) who actually cared enough about it to continue a prolonged debate. That has always suggested to me that most Wikipedians either agree with how things have turned out, are neutral about the way they turned out, or that they consider the issue not sufficiently important to argue about. Marc Shepherd (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Does every editor who has added a spoiler warning to an article know about this guideline? Shall I notify all of them so they can come here and discuss it? Editors can't argue about a guideline if they don't know it exists. Much of the discussion about the spoiler template has occurred on the WikiEN-l mailing list. I consider the mailing list archives part of this discussion and that's why I have linked to them here. If an editor is not a mailing list subscriber, they are unaware of what's being discussed there. If the spoiler template appeared in 45,000 articles in May and was listed for deletion when it appeared in 45,000 articles and was tagged with a {{tfd-inline}} template so people could see it was up for deletion, I would agree with you about the "small handful of people" and the prolonged debate. Perhaps some people don't think it's sufficiently important to argue about[10], but I think it's more likely that many editors are simply unaware of the whole issue — as Lobojo[11] and Equazcion[12] demonstrated. --Pixelface (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And the point is? That majority doesn't care isn't an argument in favor nor against spoiler warnings. Samohyl Jan (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing he might consider doing is not calling his opposition "lunatic POV pushers". The worst mistake a person can make in a debate is to regard his opponent as opinionated and stupid while seeing himself as neutral and enlightened. "He who realizes he knows nothing has found the path to enlightenment." Progress won't commence until the majority side recognizes that they are not right or neutral simply because they are the majority. Everyone has an opinion on what policy should be, and they are all POVs. We all need to start realizing that. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:07, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I think what Phil really wants is a Committee of Experts who would decide major policy questions, without the burdensome need for a consensus process that tends to bog things down. Personally, I agree with him (and no, I would not be interested in being one of the so-called "experts"; I would happily defer to whatever they decide). But I can't see that happening. Marc Shepherd (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That might be a good solution to a lot of WP's problems, but I imagine it's the antithasis of what the foundation and Jimbo want the project to be. Plus, I can just see people getting annoyed that /their/ issue wasn't addressed, which is why as it even stands now, very little is taken care of "at the top". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, because dictatorship, not democracy, is the way that successful countries are run. Thanks but no, my country was run by committees of experts for 40 years. Samohyl Jan (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And they'd declare their opponents insane too. It's a lot easier than making a logical argument.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm surprised that they were removed (which is the first problem, I think: I don't know when I noticed that I hadn't seen one in a while, but I don't recall ever seeing any notice that any such plan was in the works). Without using the same language as Phil, I don't think there was anything silly about them, nor do I find them particularly unencyclopedic. I think it's sclerotic thinking to say that we can't apply the advantages of the medium in ways that transform our notions of an encyclopedia. This is not your grandma's Britannica: people can stumble on a Wikipedia page from anywhere on the Internet, and to warn them in this way is just a simple courtesy (and one *I* certainly appreciated, as I'm a voracious reader). I'm not on the mailing list either, and had no idea this was happening and knew of no venue where I could voice my concerns. Anyway: I think it's a mistake, and it's news to me. --Rhombus (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actual data on spoiler warning uses by the public

There was a thread with this subject line on the WikiEN-l mailing list in December 2007. You can see the emails on this subpage:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler/Mailing_list_December_2007 --Pixelface (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• So? Which encyclopaedias can you name that include spoiler warnings? And do you honestly think that the xkcd forum is a representative sample of anything other than geekdom? And I thought you had decided to drop this crusade? Guy (Help!) 12:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• I thought he was on your side... Equazcion •✗/C • 12:31, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

• Pixelface wants spoiler warnings back. I don't. But if something is not covered in the secondary sources, I don't think we should have it anyway. Guy (Help!) 13:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• I want the spoiler template back because there was no consensus to delete it. No consensus defaults to keep. Citations to reliable sources that use spoiler warnings can even be provided for many fictional works. If the spoiler template appeared in 45,000 articles in May and was listed for deletion for seven days and there was a consensus to delete it and the discussion was closed by an uninvolved admin, I wouldn't be here. If multiple editors didn't edit war on the Eastern Promises article and if this guideline didn't say in October that spoiler warnings were allowed in certain cases[13], I wouldn't be here. Spoiler warnings are still here. Editors keep adding spoiler warnings to articles every day. I also think if something is not covered in secondary sources we shouldn't have it, but that viewpoint has been shot down when it's been brought up at Talk:Million Dollar Baby and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines and WT:NOR. Whenever I create a new article about a film, I don't watch it myself and write down what I see. I cite what's been published in reliable sources. Part of what I added to this guideline before you protected it for stupid edit warring was "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article about a work of fiction because you think it spoils the plot, but it is acceptable to delete information if it is unsourced (per the policy on verifiability)."[14] --Pixelface (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Which encyclopedias can you name that reveal spoilers? That's the real question. I thought you said this was a dead horse, so what are you doing here? --Pixelface (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Spoiler is not an encyclopaedic concept. Which encyclopaedias can you name that cover items of fiction with disclaimers before the critical plot elements? Does Britannica have an article on Lord of the Rings, for example, and if so does it contain spoiler warnings? Guy (Help!) 13:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Encyclopedias don't reveal critical plot elements, so they would never need disclaimers. Encyclopædia Britannica has an article on J.R.R. Tolkien, but no article on Lord of the Rings. Britannica does not reveal the critical plot elements of Lord of the Rings. --Pixelface (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

In that thread, on December 16, 2007 David Gerard posted an email to the WikiEN-l mailing list and said:
--Pixelface (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would consider spoiler warnings in plot summaries ridiculous. In addition, determining what's a spoiler is basically original research.

In addition, Template:Spoiler is dead as a dead thing. We have Template:Currentfiction, which does a slightly better job of the same thing.

I suspect someone going through to put 45,000 fresh spoiler warnings, in whatever form, on articles is not going to fly.

That is: there's not a credible position to "compromise" with, despite much repetition.

- d.[15]

• And he's right. So move on. For example, address the proposal above for excluding supposed spoiler content not covered in reliable secondary sources. As far as I'm concerned, anything not sourceable to a reliable secondary source should be out. Sure, it might in some cases be more convenient to cite the primary source, particularly for trivial matters of fact, but that does not mean we should write whole articles, or big chunks of them, direct from the primary source; that seems to me to be a flagrant violation of WP:NOR. See also User:Uncle G/On sources and content, an excellent essay. We should never be the first place to publish anything. Guy (Help!) 13:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I've already proposed that. I agree with excluding spoilers not covered in reliable secondary sources. See the TFD for the {{spoiler}} template and Talk:Million Dollar Baby and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines. I agree that we should never be the first place to publish anything, but other editors keep telling me that watching a film and writing a plot summary is not "original research", it's "source-based research". Citing secondary sources that provide analysis of a fictional work is also apparently not allowed in Plot sections. Apparently every Plot section is supposed to be written by people who just watched a film/read a book/played a videogame and citations to reliable secondary sources don't belong there. --Pixelface (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • We should never be the first place to publish anything. But when it is already published, we can summarise it. And like it or not, a book is published. Uncle G's essay is fine, but is limited in the extent to which it can apply. An article must take in some secondary sourcing, I pushed for that very point at WP:V, to the point of writing WP:IS and getting WP:V amended. I also proposed that WP:PLOT be adopted as policy. So I think that the taking together of WP:V and WP:PLOT and WP:NOR is enough to limit what gets added to Wikipedia. However, I don't think we should be stopping people being able to summarise primary source if that summary is not made in a secondary source. For one it goes too far. And for two, you must read the tabloids, you must be aware that the soap operas, the TV shows and so on have their plot discussed in such detail this proposal would not limit anything. Before you know it we'd be having wiki-lawyering over whether a plot summary in a newspaper is secondary or primary source, whether newspaper reports of who is leaving Eastenders and how is okay, it would just become unmanageable and divisive. Let's not forget that we're supposed to reach consensus through editing, and that most everything should be sourced and when sourced from primary source it should be descriptive. Rather than look at making a new proposal to limit this stuff, use the policies we already have. Wikipedia is not meant to be a place for setting rules. It's meant to be a collaborative encyclopedia. Hiding T 17:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are wrong. Wikipedia should not (and according to my reading is not) in the business of being a publisher of original book reviews or synopses. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair play, I haven't said it should be, and I think WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:PLOT limits that. But I think where we have an article which discusses a work, and is grounded in secondary sourcing, if some plot points have not been discussed in secondary sources that doesn't mean we shouldn't cover them. How much of the featured articles at Superman, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy or Starship Troopers to pick three at random do you want to lose? Hiding T 23:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The should not part of your comment is reasonable debatable. But there is no doubt that:

1. Wikipedia currently does include synopses derived from primary sources;
2. This practice is exceedingly widespread and long-standing;
3. Current policy expressly allows it (WP:PSTS)
4. As far as I can tell, hardly anyone has ever objected to this
5. If current policy were changed, vast amounts of content would be instantly invalidated, including far more than just spoilers

No one yet has offered a thoughtful analysis of the many categories of articles that would be affected, how editors would be expected to behave after the change, or why this is even a good idea. Guy keeps saying should not as if this were self-evident. It is not. Marc Shepherd (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure it does. And it should not. Why should fiction be the one area where we allow original research -0 that is, writing directly form our own observations? And it is original research, every bit as much as conducting an experiment and reporting the results. We are positioning ourselves as a publisher of original fiction reviews and plot summaries, and I don't think we should do that. As to nobody objecting, I think you'll find plenty of objections at AfDs for fictional subjects. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I am disinclined to think that a plot summary is sufficiently novel an interpretation of a primary text to meaningfully violate NOR. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And anyway, NOR was always supposed to be our guard against crank theories, not a tool for self-evisceration. If we disallow editors writing their own plot summaries of novels, how can we allow them to use printed biographies as sources on people (many of them are hundreds of pages long, and require to be summarised by the editor using his own judgment, using more or less the same amount of "original research" as in the fiction case). By the way, this conversation is offtopic here, as it also applies to non-spoiling plot elements that haven't been discussed in reliable sources. Please try to discuss it in more relevant places, as even if consensus is reached here, the proposed changes in core policies won't fly unless they are discussed on the talk pages of those policies. Debating changes to WP:RS here is just a waste of time. Kusma (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's debating changes to WP:RS here. WP:RS says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If plot summaries that are not based on reliable, third-party, published sources are removed (per WP:RS), many spoilers would be removed along with them. --Pixelface (talk) 07:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The issues of WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:V that are being debated at the moment are independent of the question of whether the content removed does or does not constitute a spoiler. While we are offtopic, I am more interested in whether I am allowed to summarise secondary sources such as printed biographies --- it seems to me that some people want to stop me from doing this "original research". Kusma (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Guy, WP:NOR specifically says that primary sources are acceptable, as long as we:

• only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
• make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

A plot summary meets this requirement, and has always been regarded as doing so.

There are a few people here who are confusing original research and just plain research. There is nothing original about summarizing a source. All Wikipedia articles are summaries entailing editorial judgment about which facts to include, and how to organize and emphasize those facts.

Writing a plot summary is not just like "conducting an experiment and reporting the results." The latter cannot be verified without specialist knowledge, and both the equipment and conditions to reproduce the experiment. The former can be verified simply by consulting the same source the editor did. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• How do you know which source the editor consulted if there's no citation? The only way to demonstrate you are not performing original research is to cite reliable sources that directly support the information presented. --Pixelface (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• OK, so go look at some of the Bionicle series articles and tell me what other sources have that level of detail. Is it undue weight? I don't know, because there are no secondary sources to guide me. See what I mean? Guy (Help!) 22:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The Bionicle series has many problems — just look at all of the maintenance tags on the articles. I am not sure those articles belong in Wikipedia at all, or if a few dedicated enthusiasts have just built a fansite masquerading as an encyclopedia. There are practicaly no secondary sources, and I am not sure there will ever be. Twenty years from now, it's possible that Bionicle will have sunk without a trace.

In contrast, there are plenty sources and real-world context for Romeo and Juliet. There are 112 footnotes in the article, though none in the plot section. I suspect the editors who wrote the plot summary referred to the play itself. Would Romeo and Juliet become a better article if we forced those editors to go back and rewrite the synopsis, referring only to what third parties had said about the plot? It could be done, clearly. I just don't see that we get a better article by doing so.

Articles on fictional subjects don't belong in Wikipedia unless there are secondary sources providing real-world context. We would all agree with that. But if the subject belongs here at all, the work itself becomes a valid primary source, so long as it is only being consulted for descriptive, rather than analytical purposes (i.e., what WP:NOR says). Marc Shepherd (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Bionicle doesn't differ much from the Babylon 5 articles, except that level of fancruft for Babylon 5 is even greater.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Marc, surely you can verify whatever is in the Bionicle article simply by consulting the same source the editor did. That's what you said, right? --Pixelface (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I could. The difference is that I am not sure the secondary sources exist, which would establish the subject's real-world context. You will note that Wikipedia policy does not prohibit the use of primary sources. But it does prohibit articles where no secondary sources exist at all. Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: move sourcing debate to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability or somewhere else suitable

We presently have a massive 99kb slab of text [16] on this page related to a proposal y JzG to add the following words to the guideline:

Note that Wikipedia requires that all content is verifiable from reliable independent sources. While content may not be removed because it may constitute a spoiler, material that is not discussed in independent sources may be removed as failing the verifiability policy.

I think it's clear that this goes beyond the scope of spoiler tagging. I propose that we move this entire discussion to a more appropriate venue: probably Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. The discussion is nearly 60% of this already groaningly huge page, but seems to have little chance of achieving a change in this guideline unless other policies are changed or clarified. --Tony Sidaway 07:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"Seems", according to you. I disagree. And, no matter how many colorful adjectives you use to describe the size of the discussion, it is of absolutely no consequence. If we move it then we make some other page "groaningly huge". A move is not a "fix" for the "size problem", if it can indeed be considered a problem. Archive some old discussions if the page size bothers you that much. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:56, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I Oppose moving the page. In its current form, no positive change will ever come of this discussion. It's already far too long and fractured to effect change on the spoilers issue, so I say let it stay here where it can't affect (and infect) other pages. If editors want to start a new topic at WP:V that's probably best, starting fresh would seem to be the best way to keep things on topic. Snowfire51 (talk) 09:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I don't think anyone over at WP:V would appreciate us suddenly plopping 100k onto that talk page (most of which no one is ever going to bother reading anyway). Better to just start something new there and refer back to this discussion, if you feel the need. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:09, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

We should just move the discussion to an /Offtopic subpage and interested editors can debate the issues at the appropriate pages. Most comments actually seem to be offtopic these days; are people no longer interested in Wikipedia's spoiler guideline? Kusma (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What's there to be interested in? There is no guideline. It just says they're allowed. That's like complaining that theres no interest in the Wikipedia:Pronouns are allowed guideline. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:25, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

An alternative to moving it elsewhere would be to manually archive it. As I've said it's enormous, occupying the majority of the talk page, but stands absolutely no chance of changing policy while it's on this obscure guideline page. --Tony Sidaway 11:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No chance, according to you. Of course, this comes as no surprise, as that's what the discussion is about. However we don't archive active discussions just because someone doesn't think they "have a chance". Discussions are archived when they get old and no one is contributing to them anymore. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:16, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

To clarify the reason for archiving, it's because the proposal is beyond the scope of this guideline (because it conflicts with official policies) and suggestions that it be moved to a more appropriate venue have been rejected. So what we're left with is a lump of unproductive dialog that the disputants refuse to carry on in the appropriate venue. --Tony Sidaway 12:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I just want to make sure I've got this right. So just to sum this up, your first suggestion is that it be moved. Failing that, it should be archived due to its enormity. You "clarify" enormity by saying it's "beyond the scope of this guideline". I can't wait to hear what's next. If nothing else, your creative persistence is entertaining. Well sir, in answer to this latest shot in the dark, whether or not it's within the scope if this guideline is a matter of opinion and not your decision. Furthermore that would still be no reason to archive a discussion. This is a good-faith discussion that is not breaking any policy, so it will not be archived until such time as any other discussion would normally get archived. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:34, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

You've misread my argument. Starting from my first comment:

I think it's clear that this goes beyond the scope of spoiler tagging. I propose that we move this entire discussion to a more appropriate venue.

Note that the reasoning expressed here is no different from that expressed in my last edit, to wit: the proposal is beyond the scope of this guideline (because it conflicts with official policies)

Of course the size of this unproductive and misplaced discourse is also relevant, because it makes an already very large discussion page more than twice the size it would otherwise be. If it was just a dozen or so lines it wouldn't be such an issue. --Tony Sidaway 15:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, except you were just arguing for archival now, not moving to another venue. Are we back to that now? It's hard to keep track of all the different excuses you're coming up with in which to somehow get this discussion off this page, which for some strange reason appears to be a life-threatening emergency to you. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:37, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

The appearance of arbitrary "excuses" is a result of not following the logic, for whatever reason. Let me try once more to restate it in a way that you'll understand: the discussion on this page cannot possibly change policies decided elsewhere, so if it can't be moved it makes sense to archive it either to the main archive or (as Kusma suggests) to a page for offtopic discussion. --Tony Sidaway 23:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a life-threatening emergency here, but the current signal-to-noise ratio of this page is horrible. Less than 20% seems to be actually ontopic. Kusma (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: redirect this page to Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles

I made a proposal similar to this a month or so ago, and I think in the past month or so the case has become clearer. We no longer have spoiler templates on Wikipedia articles, and this is explained adequately at WP:NDT. It would make sense, therefore, to put this separate guideline page, which used to be an exception. into abeyance and redirect to the more general guideline. --Tony Sidaway 12:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, to the point of simple fact that the redirect itself would make the whole point a lot more clear. We WOULD need to make sure to keep this talk page's archives there, as well, though. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Talk page too? Hiding T 13:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would make sense. I also agree that keeping the archives of this talk page is important. Chaz ^Beckett 13:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The spoiler issue is highly controversial and deserves its own guideline, both to be a prominent and easy-to-find place where users can find out Wikipedia's stance on the issue, and to hold discussion on it. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:39, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that we're not discussing deletion of archives or even, necessarily, redirection of this talk page. --Tony Sidaway 13:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a ridiculous proposal. With how heated the spoiler debate is and how many people care about it, the issue is hardly over and done with, so it's wrong to get rid of it. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:48, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of assuming bad faith, Tony has lobbied incessantly to get the major discussion on this page removed, and I believe that failing that, he's now resorted to trying to get rid of the guideline altogether. I think this is childish and needs to stop. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:50, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point, though, that the policy on spoilers -- no longer an exception of WP:NDT, is now redundant. AT THE MOMENT, it falls there, and placing a redirect to there will show that yes, don't use them because we don't put that TYPE of warning on WP. Of course, many disagree that they are the same, but as I don't, I support moving it there until a point comes (if it comes) that WP uses some sort of spoiler notice again. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If it were no longer an exception and the issue seemed dead, I would have no problem with a merge. However the issue is still debated. Removing this guideline in the midst of that is, again, a ridiculous proposal. Furthermore, consensus should be served, and the decision to close this guideline should, of course, not be left up to just those people who were always on the side of getting rid of spoiler warnings. Such a decision could be seen as a conflict of interest -- a way of permanently quelling the spoiler debate, so that their particular views are in less danger of being opposed. Therefore, if you are serious about this proposal, I suggest posting a merge template both here and at WP:NDT, and posting a formal merge proposal at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, so that consensus can be properly assessed. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:41, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, granted. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The page here does two things: it says, "do not warn about spoilers" (redundant to WP:NDA) and "do not remove content because it is a spoiler" (not covered in WP:NDA). I don't think WP:NDA is the right page for the second part of the guideline. Kusma (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we need to say the latter? I've very seldom seen removals of material on the grounds that it's a spoiler, and I don't think it occurred to me to appeal to this guideline when I restored it. We just don't remove significant material from an encyclopedia because, well, it's an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 16:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There was some trouble at the Pro Wrestling project, with people asking for a spoiler embargo. See e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 35#Spoilers again! Kusma (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I commented in a forthright fashion on that proposal [17] [18] [19] but I certainly didn't rely on this guideline. Really it's a matter of whether something is significant, reliably sourced and expressed in neutral and balanced manner in the context of the article. Spoilers are no more special in the context of policy than any other fact. --Tony Sidaway 18:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. Whether content is a spoiler or not is irrelevant; content policies operate independent of spoiler issues. I don't know whether an extra page to express that is really warranted or not, I just wanted to point out removal of verifiable "spoiling" content has been a contentious issue. Kusma (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a natural tendency, for users who aren't familiar with how Wikipedia works, to see removal of spoiler content as improving articles. It's important to explicitly state what the policy is. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:07, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

The proposed merger is a bad idea, since it hides the discussion under even more layers of flab. Presumably this is the idea, given the determined efforts at censorship throughout this debate. I wouldn't put it past the anti-spoiler admins to quietly get the redirect deleted as well; it would be consistent with their past behavour.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Now now, let's not assume bad faith. I wouldn't go accusing admins of things they haven't even done yet. But I agree with the motivation for this proposal, as I stated as much above. This proposal is a sham, an attempt to quell those on the other side of the debate. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:40, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith; they honestly believe what they're doing is the right thing. It's like a village which has a law which states that one cannot wear a hat on a Tuesday. The village elders would not doubt vigorously defend such a law, perhaps stating that 'all the other villages have the same law' or 'we're a village, not a hatshop'.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The spoiler template was already deleted, and every attempt to resurrect it or recreate it or anything resembling it has been deleted. All avenues of appeal have, for the time being, been exhausted. "The other side of the debate" can certainly state its opinion, but we have to work with reality here. What has actually happened is that spoiler tags have left the building through a process of open debate over several months in which all sides stated their opinions. This is just a proposal (not universally supported by all who were opposed to spoiler tags--see Kusma's comments above) to merge this guideline into the guideline for which it was for a long time the one anomalous exception. --Tony Sidaway 18:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not the original opposers universally support this doesn't say anything about whether or not a select few have chosen to act inappropriately. The avenue of appeal is discussion, and that is still ongoing. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:47, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

No, we went through this before. If someone has acted inappropriately, use the Dispute resolution process. Don't clutter up policy discussions with endless accusations of wrongdoing. --Tony Sidaway 22:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because some have acted inappropriately doesn't mean I feel there's any dispute that needs resolving. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:12, 8 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this sounds like a censorship to me. How can people who manage dispute resolution see if there is a dispute, if people are not allowed to discuss a dispute or voice their opinion? Samohyl Jan (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Censorship is a red flag word, almost always indicating POV-pushing. Please pick something which is less loaded. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect works for me. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, unless it will be clear what will happen with the talk page and it's archives and with the history of this page. The history of this page is referred from the discussion, so it would be bad if it would be lost. Samohyl Jan (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A redirect is made by editing the page so that the new top version contains a redirection directive to the new page. The talk page may either be redirected or left as it is. The history is not lost. --Tony Sidaway 07:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought about it, and disagree with the move. The people may want to discuss SWs in the future, so it's better if the pages are separate. Samohyl Jan (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this redirect proposal because spoiler warnings are not disclaimers. The first sentence in the disclaimer article reads "A disclaimer is generally any statement intended to specify or delimit the scope of rights and obligations that may be exercised and enforced by parties in a legally-recognized relationship." You can see more definitions of "disclaimer" at m-w.com and dictionary.com. You can see the definition of "disclaim" at dictionary.com. And Doc really shouldn't have edited this guideline while it was protected. If we're going to refer to other guidelines, plot details should cite reliable, third-party sources per WP:RS. If an editor thinks something is a spoiler, and it doesn't cite a reliable, third-party source, they can remove it per WP:RS. That removes any reason an editor would put a spoiler warning in an article. --Pixelface (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Doc just added the invitation to discuss this issue on talk to the guideline page after a request here. Would you prefer to hide the existence of this merge proposal? Kusma (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that I missed that request for the template above. I know that Tony Sidaway has boldly turned this guideline into a redirect in the past. And I am wary of people using {{merge}} tags to turn articles into redirects. The {{merge}} tag is not a {{proposed redirect}} tag. The {{merge}} tag is for proposing merges, not redirects. I oppose a redirect, and I oppose merging the current wording of this guideline into WP:NDA. --Pixelface (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I should mention that editors still add spoiler warnings to articles even though the spoiler template was deleted. Tony is responsible for removing most of them, so I find this proposal frankly ridiculous. --Pixelface (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for edit to tag a proposed merger

{{editprotected}}. Please add the tag {{merge|No disclaimers in articles}} to the project page of this guideline, which is currently protected. --Tony Sidaway 15:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Doc already did it. Kusma (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Plot summary => Full plot summary

Instead of the ambiguous situation whereby readers are required to either guess or avoid all plot summaries, why not have a distinction in the subtitle between full plot summaries and incomplete ones (i.e. back of the box material only). This is avoids any aesthetic concerns about templates, adds to the descriptive value and has no real downside.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia. The lead sentence of our article on the subject says that this means "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge". The term "comprehensively" here implies completeness. --Tony Sidaway 18:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't see this helping too much. This proposal simply makes the word "Full" a spoiler warning of sorts. There would be endless arguments over whether a summary was full or incomplete or whether "back of the box" material was actually a spoiler (quite common actually). Chaz ^Beckett 18:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so far we have semantics and an argument to personal incredulity. Would you agree, Chaz, that 99% of the time, there would be no argument?--Nydas^(Talk) 18:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Now I think of it, this does smack of disclaimer-thinking. See WP:NDT. We don't duplicate the site disclaimers in articles. --Tony Sidaway 18:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that answer was purely semantics. This would be helpful and carries none of the redundancy or disclaimer problems of the spoiler tag. It's simply a better description of what the section contains. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:50, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Many (most?) of the arguments on Wikipedia are over semantics. The word "Full" adds little or nothing to the description, but opens up plenty of new avenues for arguments. Chaz ^Beckett 19:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I actually think arguments would be rather common. I'm not going to put a specific percentage on it, but I'd estimate far higher than 1% of the time. For example, editor A considers a summary to be partial since it's only two paragraphs, while editor B considers it to be full since it reveals too much of the plot (in his opinion). It seems quite likely that this would turn into yet another battlefield for the spoiler warning wars. Chaz ^Beckett 19:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

By that logic, we should see plentiful arguments over the composition of 'early life' subsections in biography articles, since editor A believes that early life ends at 20, whilst editor B believes that early life ends at 30.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a better analogy would be the eternal argument over when life actually begins. Chaz ^Beckett 19:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

We should rather mark incomplete plot summaries as defective (via templates?) than invite overly long plotcruft by asking for "full plot summaries". Kusma (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That also concerns me: that the term "full plot summary" might seem to invite editors to pad out plot summaries, when many of our summaries are probably in need of a good trimming. --Tony Sidaway 19:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's another point for the "cost" side of the cost/benefit analysis. Chaz ^Beckett 19:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

We should rather mark incomplete plot summaries as defective -- this seems like the best solution here. The more we show that, yes WP is supposed to have more than just 'back of the box' descriptions, the better. But also keeping them toned down is needed, so full is potentially bad in that respect. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This is going backwards. Plot summaries should only hit the highlights of the plot and not be a blow-by-blow retelling, which is what "Full plot summery" implies. Let me give the example of Maburaho#Plot synopsis. It simply gives an abbreviated version of the entire story as told in the 26 episode anime series. It includes a major plot twist in the middle and just briefly describes the ending of the series and how it differs from the light novels. However, many details leading to the plot twist and the ending have been completely left out for brevity and because it can be better covered by the episode list article. So it would be completely inappropriate to label the section "Full plot summery" or insist that all details be included in that section. --Farix (Talk) 19:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

All good points. I do think the word "full" might have the effect of inviting an unsavory level of meticulousness. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:38, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Here's another example of why such a distinction doesn't make sense. Consider a four sentence description of The Empire Strikes Back. The last sentence reveals that Vader is Luke's father. Such a short summary could hardly be called a "Full Summary", yet it reveals one of the biggest plot twists in movie history. If this is labeled as a "Full Summary", it would effectively make it a spoiler warning. If it's not labeled "Full Summary" this defeats the whole purpose of eliminating the need for readers to "...either guess or avoid all plot summaries." Chaz ^Beckett 19:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got some examples of tagging incomplete plot summaries: [20] [21] [22].

In the first, the plot summary was obviously a "back of the DVD box"-style summary (although it didn't look like a copyright infringement, else I'd have removed it). The second and third had been described as incomplete and I simply replaced this with a uniform tag. --Tony Sidaway 22:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to suggest "Detailed plot summary" instead of "full". If I see a heading called "detailed plot summary", I'm going to assume it has spoilers. "Full", on the other hand, suggests a scene-by-scene description, which in most cases is not something an encyclopedia should need.--Father Goose (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you think a four-line description of a film plot is "detailed" when it includes all major spoilers? Kusma (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It's no more arbitary than any other subheading.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"Detailed summary" is somewhat self-contradictory and doesn't seem like a good heading. Anyway, this discussion seems to be about creating Wikipediaspeak versions of the deprecated headers "==Plot (including spoilers)==" and "==Plot (not including spoilers)==" - it won't be obvious for non-insiders which adjective describes the "spoiler" content. Kusma (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, we should adopt a style convention of not including major spoilers in short plot summaries (as opposed to detailed ones). Until that happens, one must learn the hard way to never read any Wikipedia article about a work of fiction one hasn't seen/read yet.--Father Goose (talk) 08:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would actually opposes such a convention. While plot summaries should be much shorter then they normally are, they should include all necessary details for the reader to understand the overall plot of the work of fiction. That includes "major spoilers", plot twists, and the ending. There is also the issue of objectively defining when a plot detail as a spoiler. --Farix (Talk) 12:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why it's called a 'summary' and not a 'premise' or some such word. The whole story needs to be there, not just 'what it's about'. The major details are important, the nitty gritty isn't. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Detailed" has the same issues that "Full" does, mainly because the two are treated as synonyms in this instance. I again point to the plot summery of Maburaho. With a mere five paragraphs, there is no way in hell it can give a full or detailed explanation of the plot for a series that is 26 episodes long and with an accompanying 18 volume light novel series. Actually, I like pointing to Maburaho's plot section as an excellent example of brevity, which is often lacking on Wikipedia. There is still plenty of details that some would consider "spoilers", but it doesn't get into the minutia of retelling the entire story. --Farix (Talk) 23:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "Full Plot Summary" describes what we are looking for. Spoilers could very well be present in a very brief plot summary that omits many details. Indeed, this is likely, as plot twists are often the most memorable parts of a story. Even a three sentence summary of Romeo and Juliet probably could not sensibly omit the fact that the lovers die at the end, but no one would call it a "Full Plot Summary". I also agree that this label would give the false impression that we are looking for plot summaries with no details of any kind omitted. Lastly, isn't "Full...Summary" an oxymoron? Marc Shepherd (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't like this idea for reasons already stated. Using full would encourage padding when we already want to limit plot summary per WP:NOT. Hiding T 22:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't require every visitor to read the disclaimer

It's a "spoiler" if it detracts from the user's experience and/or enjoyment. Arguments I've seen for the current "no-notice" policy are mostly that spoilers are covered in the disclaimer. Be real. You can't require visitors to read the disclaimer. What's needed is some way to tell the visitor what a piece is about, without revealing how it happens. rowley (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There are many reasons for the spoiler policy, and this isn't the main one, or even the best one. The main reason is that encyclopedias are in the business of imparting information, not concealing it. The consensus (as Wikipedia defines that term, but not to everyone's satisfaction) was that helping readers avoid information wasn't our mission, and that the attempt to do so was an unsuccessful distraction.

Personally, I felt that it was extremely difficult to define how much of the story a reader would want to know, before considering it "spoiled". Because of that, there wasn't much rhyme or reason to the way the spoiler warnings were placed, and this inconsistency would have hindered their usefulness—even by those readers who were inclined to find them useful.

Even when the warnings were widespread, a reader had no way of knowing (until it was too late) whether a particular article had employed the warnings the way that reader would have liked. If the warnings were absent, a reader had no way of knowing if the article contained no spoilers, or if the warning was just not there for some reason. The current policy at least has the virtue that you can only be "spoiled" once before realizing that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and does not strive to warn its readers when to stop reading. Marc Shepherd (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please show me an encyclopedia that reveals the ending of the The Sixth Sense. --Pixelface (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you like hitting your head against the wall too? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If people are going to keep saying encyclopedias do this and encyclopedias do that, I'm going to keep asking people to show me an encyclopedia that reveals spoilers for fictional works — and not just fictional works that are over 400 years old. --Pixelface (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

How about Encarta, which states in its Empire Strikes Back article: "...the story of Luke’s father, Anakin Skywalker, who will become Vader." That's a huge spoiler for a contemporary film in a prominent encyclopedia. Satisfied? Chaz ^Beckett 14:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My first question to Pixelface would be: Which encyclopedias cover The Sixth Sense at all? If there are none, then the question is moot. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Encarta has an article on The Sixth Sense. I don't see any spoiler warnings. But I don't see any spoilers either. --Pixelface (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Chaz, I spotted that one too. That's the only spoiler I've found in Encarta. So does that mean that websurfers expect to read spoilers in encyclopedias? --Pixelface (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Some will, some won't. You asked for spoilers for a (contemporary) fictional work in another encylopedia and I gave you one. From past experience, I have a feeling that even if I were to provide you with a bunch more, you'd still claim that websurfers don't expect to read spoilers in encyclopedias. So I'm not going to waste my time. Chaz ^Beckett 15:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well we could leave a spoiler warning out of the Empire Strikes Back article and remove spoilers from The Sixth Sense article if we were to follow Encarta on this. --Pixelface (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone /expects/ everyone to read the disclaimer, but noone expects only 18+ year olds will look at porn, or that most people will read through the EULA of a program. But it's there, just as a Terms of Service is there when you sign up for something, and it's really not the fault of the provider if the end user doesn't bother to read it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The anti-spoiler people appear to believe that instead of being an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a sort of personality detox service. According to their doctrines, spoiler warnings cause insanity, demons, personal irresponsibility, lack of rule-following and other maladies. These can be cured by having fiction spoiled, or in their lingo, being 'burned'.--Nydas^(Talk) 00:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You get more incivil every time I check this page. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Nydas should really keep those kinds of comments to the mailing list or IRC. --Pixelface (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that comment really came out of nowhere. I'm not sure how outlandish rhetoric is going to accomplish anything. Unless you really believe that stuff... Chaz ^Beckett 01:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Phil and Chaz, big words do not a coherent position make. Civility is appreciated. Snowfire51 (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm only restating what has been repeatedly stated by the anti-spoiler people, here and elsewhere.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If you believe it, defend it and please try and be civil. If you don't believe it, please don't say it. Comments like that are not productive. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If my comment was too harsh, I apologise. However, I reiterate it is not Wikipedia's place to improve people.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nydas said, "The anti-spoiler people appear to believe that instead of being an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a sort of personality detox service. According to their doctrines, spoiler warnings cause insanity, demons, personal irresponsibility, lack of rule-following and other maladies."

I am not aware of any anti-spoiler [warning] person who has said that, or anything close to that. I therefore have to conclude that this tirade of insults is merely uncivil. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Tony's demons:

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

If they want to read about the work, let them read the article. If they don't, let them refrain. It's not Wikipedia's business to tell people what to read, but it isn't Wikipedia's business to put redundant warnings into articles. These people have to wrestle with their own demons, and good luck to them.

That's one. There are others about, some still on this page.

Now, what has been achieved? Wikipedia has presumably been improved, according to the self-contained logic of the anti-spoiler people. As far as I can tell, the fundraising also failed to achieve its goal. There's no point pretending that spoiler warnings are very important in the grand scheme of things, but the removal of them is part of a wider problem of user-bashing.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone besides Tony? If it was him, then point at him, and not everyone. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that particular statement was made 8 months ago. Chaz ^Beckett 16:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I stand by what I said. It is not user-bashing to make a decision that places the onus of deciding what to read and what not to read on the reader himself. But we've been through all the arguments pro- and con- and I see little value in a rerun. It's over. --Tony Sidaway 16:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You're saying people are deciding to read spoilers when they start reading an article. The thing is, they don't know Wikipedia contains spoilers when they get here. I honestly don't think the majority of people expect to read spoilers (without warnings) on Wikipedia. Do section headings mollycoddle readers? --Pixelface (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What a wonderfully sanctimonious reply from Tony. It is not "molly coddling" to label things appropriately so that users can make an informed decision. As cooler heads have repeatedly said many times, it is NOT obvious that a "plot section" would give away a surprise ending. Not at all. It is very conventional to read reviews that hint at the plot without giving away details. That is why spoiler warnings on our articles remain the best approach to informing our reader. Johntex\^talk 16:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It's over, they're gone. Engaging in personal attacks won't bring them back. --Tony Sidaway 16:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The {{spoiler}} template is gone. Spoiler warnings, however, continue to be added to articles by editors. --Pixelface (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Which articles have spoiler warnings? Chaz ^Beckett 13:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't making a personal attack, just commenting on your sanctimonious statement and the obvious factual deficiencies in your argument. Johntex\^talk 16:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> As cooler heads have repeatedly said many times, it is NOT obvious that a "plot section" would give away a surprise ending. Not at all. It is very conventional to read reviews that hint at the plot without giving away details. We could keep going in circles here, saying the same thing again and again. But still, since when is WP supposed to be a review site? Last time I checked, it wasn't. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again

Once again, I leave this discussion until such time as a sane archiving policy is restored. --Tony Sidaway 20:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no archiving policy. But I respect your decision. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:23, 10 Jan 2008 (UTC)

The bot is set to archive a thread if there has been no comment for 14 days. What would you prefer instead? --Pixelface (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding spoiler issues by providing encyclopaedic plot summaries

I've just discovered WP:SPOILER, after reading the discussion on Talk:The Mousetrap.

I agree with the policy: for Wikipedia to be comprehensive, it can't avoid revealing plot twists. I accept the arguments against spoiler tags. However, I feel that this shouldn't be taken as justification for ignoring the needs of the Wikipedia user who wants a little background on a story without ruining the ending. (eg. 'Is this the sort of film I might want to watch?').

I don't think this is difficult to achieve. Look at The Sixth Sense - a casual reader has every opportunity to avoid reading the twist, which is buried in a comprehensive plot summary.

It isn't 'encyclopaedic' for an article to just list the spoiler, without giving much information about the narrative. Nor is it helpful to unfairly draws a casual reader's attention to the spoiler - for example, by giving it away in the synopsis.

So, I believe it might help reduce the amount of noise if WP:SPOILER were changed to say something along these lines:

It is acceptable to alter the wording of an article so that it is easier for a casual reader to avoid accidentally reading the spoiler. AndrewBolt (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If we have two versions of an article, one which makes it easy for a casual reader to avoid reading a spoiler and one which doesn't, we should choose the version that is more encyclopedic in tone and has the more appropriate lead section. In other words, the question of spoilers should not influence our decision. Kusma (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Really Andrew, you're pretty much saying what's already supposed to happen in the first place. It's always nice to see someone new coming here and agreeing with the (current) guideline, though. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What plot details may be spoilers should not be taken into consideration when writing an article, particularly the plot summary. Plot summaries should be as concise as possible while still covering the main plot points of the work of fiction. Also, Wikipedia's articles are not suppose to help the reader determine whether he or she would want to read the work of fiction. That is treating Wikipedia as a review site instead of an encyclopedia. --Farix (Talk) 21:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Farix. Wikipedia is for information, not reviews. And who is to decide what goes into a spoiler, and how long it stays up? When you're dealing with the analysis that goes into our articles, who would decide what must be left out? Tyler Durden? Luke Skywalker's dad? Rosebud? Snowfire51 (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, Melodia. I don't disagree with any of the above comments, and may be my suggested wording is not ideal. My observation (from a limited sample of articles) is that well-written, encyclopedia-quality plot synopses don't need to warn that they will reveal the spoiler. The pages that produce debate are the ones where the plot summary fails to 'cover the main plot points', and exists mainly to reveal the spoiler. It often seems that people treat WP:SPOILER as justification for the latter, rather than as an incentive to improve the overall quality of the article. I feel that suitable wording of the policy would help shorten these debates, leaving more time for people to contribute new material! AndrewBolt (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)