Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Spoiler

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 99.38.96.87 (talk) at 14:45, 18 July 2010 (→‎TV show episode guides: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
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:

Spoilers should be allowed

I think spoiler warnings are a good idea, and I remember them

I would also propose these spoiler alerts to be clickable; when you click on it, it would take you just after the end of the spoiler so that the viewer could avoid seeing it.

98.221.181.197 (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is a spoiler? When does a spoiler stop spoiling? The term is too fuzzy and would lead to too many edit wars over plot details that it is easier to give everything and say caveat emptor. The word 'Plot' is clue as to what will be there. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Darren's right. A great example is in Futurama: Fry is his own grandpa because he travelled back in time and did... um... something naughty with his grandma. This was the climax in the episode and some may believe this should be hidden. If is was hidden, other episodes make no sense whatsoever. Fry is chosen to do various tasks (fighting flying brains) by Nibbler, who turns out to be (secretly) the most intelligent creature in the universe (oops, now you know). He is chosen because he is some kind of mutant and lacks a vital brainwave because he is inbred. The entire article is a spoiler to both past and future episodes. Also the end of this episode is a spoiler to the begining. How would the article look it it was: SPOILER, the most SPOILER SPOILER in the universe, chooses SPOILER to attach the flying brains because SPOILER. This is because SPOILER had SPOILER'd his SPOILER.
You also have a point too. Dr Evil, born Douglas "Douggie" Powers, is kind of a giveaway, yet if he fought together with Austin in the second movie, Austin Powers 4 would just be titled SPOILER!!! --Michael SumanIpfreely555 10:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My. Don't we have a high opinion of ourselves

"Since it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail. . . " So, we are to assume that everyone on the planet is so thoroughly familiar with this site that they just know we'll have spoilers in articles about films and such. Too many editors forget that we are not writing for other Wikieditors, but for the general public. --Nricardo (talk) 03:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are for those who wish to read an encyclopedia. If the 'general public' doesn't understand what that means, it's not our fault. If that makes us have 'a high opinion of ourselves' then so be it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They'll know it after they've been burned enough times. But it's not like we can or should omit spoilers: a film's ending, plot twist, or whatever can be pretty important, in terms of being able to talk about the film encyclopedically.
I do wish however we were more willing to structure our articles in a way that allowed us to serve both those who want a non-spoily introduction to a work before seeing it, and those who want every gory detail. I'm sure it would be possible for Wikipedia to serve both audiences well, but I've suggested doing as much in the past, it met with a fair amount of ideological resistance.--Father Goose (talk) 05:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both the original author and Father Goose. Wikipedia is becoming ubiquitous as a reference and when someone would like to learn some new information. While the user recognizes that they are at their own discretion, professionals and esteemed scholars still check in with Wikipedia. A spoiler can be quite costly. Perhaps an excited person who just learned about something would like to learn about it. They may be always alert for spoilers. (i.e. I just read about Final Fantasy 13. I was interested in learning about the setting and the story set-up. I didn't realize that "Story" would have the ending in it.)
As for "Plot" or "Story" being enough, I don't think that is fair. I don't see what cost there is to adding one line, perhaps underlined or bolded, as a subtitle to "Plot" or "Story". It seems like an easy addition. Why the communal averseness? (Anonymous)171.66.82.53 (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not have disclaimers. A "spoiler warning" is no different from any other disclaimer-type text. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A valid and understandable point considering the fuzzy boundaries issue. Thank you. One more difficult question this leads me to is the way stories are written. In the article that prompted me to get into this issue, under the subsection "Story", it contains three paragraphs. The first two do seem to lend to any spoilers, but seem to develop some of the background. By this time, a reader could be invested in finishing this section. In the third and final paragraph, the beginning still has tinges of background and suddenly, in the final two sentences reveal the whole plot. Perhaps this is a dangerous form of writing? Thank you for your time. 171.66.82.53 (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it a "dangerous" form of writing, however it is an example of a poor plot summary. The issue is not so much that it has the ending is that is lacking the middle. To have the beginning, then jump to the ending, not only does it not tell the plot properly, but that would seem to be revealing the ending to just reveal it. I suspect if the plot section were redone properly, with the beginning, major plot points, then the ending, that anyone reading the section who was unfamiliar with Wikipedia would quickly realize that "oh, this is the plot not just a teaser" and stop reading if they don't want to know more. (note, I have not actually read the summary in question, as I do not want to be spoiled to that game myself). I would suggest that rather than asking for some kind of disclaimer, it might be better to encourage the proper completion of the plot section to add the missing meat. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you determine that a particular plot detail is a spoiler? It's not something that can be verified through reliable sources. And using our own opinions is a violation of Wikipedia's policies of no original research and maintaining a neutral point of view. Also, many so-called spoilers have a lifespan where they are no longer considered spoilers (ex. Snape kills Dumbledore, and Darth Vader is Luke's father). But in the end, each person's opinion of what is and is not a spoiler is their own and no two people will have the same opinion.
As I've mentioned previously, spoiler warnings are a product of a knee-jerk paranoia that has equated any and all plot details as "spoiler". Using this paranoia, several editors have attempted to justify why spoiler warnings should be an exception to Wikipedia's guidelines to not include disclaimers in articles, even when we doesn't make exceptions for more serious issues that could benefit from a disclaimer. Hiding plot details creates usability issues as well as issues with WP:NOTCENSORED. Hiding content, no matter what the justification, is just bad form and not very encyclopedic.
And finally, knowing a plot detail before reading, watching, or playing a fictional story doesn't do any real harm. So let's stop treating it as if were some grave danger that could bring down civilization if people unexpectedly learn about it. —Farix (t | c) 02:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Warning: This discussion of spoilers contains plot spoilers. Varlaam (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would any reader expect to read about under the heading "Plot"? How do you discuss an article such as The Empire Strikes Back without discussing the major plot twist of Darth Vader being Luke's father (though this twist applies less after Revenge of the Sith)? You make the assumption that editors are not readers, though it is true that reader may not be editors. I started editing because I was a frequent reader, and as far as fiction articles go the plot is the part that most readers are looking for. Film reviewers have to be coy and say "this film has a twist", we cannot be coy, and the reader will learn quickly that 'encyclopaedic' means 'everything is here'. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's one thing not being coy and another thing being a dick .And I've seen some editors placement of certain information about some books,films in certain places especially in edit summaries as examples of them showing they are dicks and being able to get away with it .Garda40 (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to my agreement with Father Goose and the original poster, while I recognize that we not treating reader's like children, I'm advocating for a warning because people may be in a hurry, they may be only looking for the plot set-up or story set-up, or etc. Wikipedia's quite ubiquitous and spoiler's hurt and dampen excitement. To me, it doesn't seem like a costly addition. (Anonymous) 171.66.82.53 (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See reply above to same general statement. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally don't see the problem with having plot sections divided into summary / details, or using show/hide boxes for plots, but on the other hand it really is silly to say, "I came to Wikipedia for information, and my complaint is that I got too much information". There's plenty of other sites that do spoiler-free reviews and summaries. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the original author. I have just come across an article about the recently concluded BBC drama series Ashes to Ashes which gives very little information about the plot other than to describe the denouement in the series finale, thus effectively spoiling the two-year series for a casual visitor who hasn't already seen this episode. I think that providing this level of detail without warning is unjustified and destructive of people's enjoyment, but the editorial policy prevents me exercising my judgement. Also, in my view, some of the comments above taking the opposing view are dismissive to the point of arrogance. As Nricardo says, "Too many editors forget that we are not writing for other Wikieditors, but for the general public." Rubywine (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I think it would make more sense to write a more comprensehive plot summary that covers to series overall than to add a spoiler warning. It would be more useful as well. As mentioed earlier in the discussion this seems to be more of a problem of bad writting than a case for spoiler warnings.--76.66.181.30 (talk) 05:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not every editor is in a position to provide a comprehensive plot summary. However, any editor could quickly and easily place plot details inside a simple collapsible table under the heading (wait for it) Plot Details. Rubywine (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsible tables have a usability problem, (i.e. they don't always work and mess up the layout of the article). And hiding content is considered a form of censorship by the wider Wikipedia community. —Farix (t | c) 20:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scope?

Were spoiler warnings abolished officially throughout all projects of WP, or just in English?

I just found this spoiler warning in French Wikipedia plain as day:
Ce qui suit dévoile des moments clés de l’intrigue.

Varlaam (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, it is an English Wikipedia policy. Each of the language policies have their own policies and guidelines that are often not in line with each other. Most do not have anywhere near the sourcing and verification requirements we have either. That said, according to fr:Wikipédia:Dévoile l'intrigue du récit (the French spoiler guideline) which states that spoiler warnings should be used and they have spoiler templates. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable compromise

Can we not come to a policy that suits a broad a majority as we can. I appreciate wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and needs to fully cover the subject in an article. I also appreciate the use of disclaimers would become somewhat of a minefield. But we are also here to serve wikipedia users, and narkiness for the sake of it really is ruining people's enjoyment of things. Could we at least try to keep out critical information that happens deep into books/movies/tv shows from the lead section and infoboxes? I don't see why this can't keep (almost) everyone happy: The information is there if it's wanted, there's no disclaimers, but we don't shove spoilers in peoples faces. 23:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.89.55 (talk)

Please examine the extensive discussion of this very point in the archives. --TS 23:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point me to where this discussion is - the archives are very large. Wikipedia is an ongoing effort, and I don't think its reasonable that because people come late to a discussion, it should never be allowed to be re-opened. 93.97.89.55 (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of threads in the archive index with titles referring to adding spoiler warnings. The settled consensus is that we cannot judge what a spoiler is, not how long it would be considered a spoiler, nor when to stop spoiling so the simple policy of reader beware is the easiest to enforce. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my view this is analogous to saying that since we haven't the resources to remove all landmines safely, we should not bother to clear any landmines at all, but instead we should continue to strew them about the landscape. Rubywine (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A false analogy, because the incorporation of spoilers is an essential component of our encyclopedic goal, while landmines are widely regarded as evil. We have no intention of ever 'clearing spoilers from our landscape', because they are in many cases constructive to our goals. The question is simply whether they should be universally marked, which raises all the usual questions of what qualifies as being worthy of being marked. Happy‑melon 19:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Happy-melon pointed out, we actually don't want to avoid plot details without our articles, and discussion plot details as part of the overall. Plot details are not landmines and nothing is harmed by learning about them. The problem with so-called spoilers is, how does one determine that a plot detail is a spoiler without engaging in original research or advocating a particular point of view. For some people any plot detail is a spoiler. So we have to apply the most general disclaimer possible to all plot details. And if you have to resort to that, then the disclaimer is worthless and it's best not to have any disclaimer at all. Second, using spoiler disclaimers would violate the disclaimer policy. There are several more important issues than plot details that would benefit from an in-article disclaimer (medical, legal, adult content, etc.), however, it was decided that disclaimers do not have a place in an encyclopedia article. In large part because you don't see disclaimers in any traditional encyclopedia articles. —Farix (t | c) 19:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I was referring to unmarked and unmasked spoilers. If there's a great big arrow saying "This way to the landmines" then people won't walk on them, will they. There is a very simple solution: just place all plot details inside a simple collapsible table. All this takes is the good will not to ruin other people's enjoyment. It really is not one thousandth as complicated as you are making out. But of course, now that I have read your replies and looked at the semantically confused and misconceived implementation of the disclaimer policy I can see there is no further point in discussing this. Rubywine (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. It's changed forever and no amount of reasonable discourse is going to get it changed back. This is how Wikipedia operates. 71.131.198.92 (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding spoilers?

A lot of articles on fiction omit the ending or write it in a "suspense-building" trailer-like style, e.g. "it's now up to [character] to do something...", "things are not what they seem..." These tend to be articles on films or books that are not that well known and the article is written that way based on a misconception that there should be no spoilers. Such a tone is not encyclopedic, and often knowing the ending is useful in cases where it is difficult to obtain the actual movie or book. Most websites will also not include spoilers thus it is hard to find a source for the plot ending. Is there any concerted attempt to remove this style of writing from articles and attempt to get the full plot summarized? 219.73.48.124 (talk) 09:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It usually means that someone has not got around to writing the plot. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove this from the MOS

On going discussion about removing this page from the MOS. See here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Ain.27t_got_no_style Gnevin (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-released works and WP:V and Spoilers

There's been some discussion at Toy Story 3 (yet unreleased as I type this) where one editor, possibly with a screening/movie review cut of the film has been able to fully describe the film's ending. Because there's no other source to compare against, it is generally been said that the parts of the plot summary that cannot be inferred from trailers, pre-release articles, and other facets, should not be included not because they are spoilers, but because they fail WP:V; no reader can easily verify that information because the work has not been publicly and legally released. This needs to be noted as different from hiding spoilers.

We should have a warning that SPOILER only applies when the work has been publicly released. If the work has yet to be realized in what most would consider an acceptably wide format (eg: despite only being in a limited # of theaters, The Hurt Locker was released even if it wasn't a universally wide release), then any material as part of the plot summary or the like must be easily inferred from existing published materials about it and cited statements elsewhere; this may seem like SPOILER protection, but in actually is mandating our commitment to verifiability of information. --MASEM (t) 12:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem; the accuracy or the spoilers? If the plot is accurate then removing it to avoid spoiling would not be acceptable. However if the editor adding the plot cannot prove the accuracy then wait until it goes into wide release. Either way, any spoiling would not be the issue. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's the accuracy: the only claim that can be made to parts not yet revealed in reliable sources or the work itself (trailers) is based on the viewing of one editor that acquired a copy by questionable means. I realize what I'm commenting about doesn't require any change to any language because it does fall out of that, but I think better advice as to the concepts of unverifiability of future works which have yet to been published are not the same as spoilers though certainly mimics the idea of spoilers. --MASEM (t) 18:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the edit it was so badly written that it could be removed as jibberish. I would be inclined to remove it until the film has been on general release, technically all plots are unverifiable until the DVD release. We only keep the plots in film with cinema releases because enough people agree on the basics of the plot. As it is if any editor restores it behind claims of censor (which is the large part spoiler falls under) then ask them to prove they have seen the film, if they can't then remove it. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A film is "published" when it has been released publicly in the theaters. However, I have not seen anyone attempt to get around WP:V by citing WP:SPOILER before. So I really don't see think it is necessary to make such a clarification.
The plot summary should only contain the information that has been published so far. For a pre-release summary, it needs to be cited. However, a post-release summary does not need a citation as it is assumed to be cited by the film itself. After release, anyone who wants to verify the accuracy of the plot summary can watch the movie themselves, either while it is in the theaters or on DVD. —Farix (t | c) 01:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While we are on the subject of preview summaries, I personally despise them as they do have verifiability problems that are almost never addressed. The are also obviously incomplete and their inclusion in articles, especially on episode lists, often discourages editors from writing a fuller summary. In such cases, I would prefer no summary at all over a preview summary. —Farix (t | c) 02:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really an issue for this page, rather one for the TV, Film and Book projects. Most pre-release summaries come from press releases, and are more verifiable than plot summaries (until a DVD comes out). For episode lists they are usually taken from TV.com, but as I said, nothing to so with this page, one for the respective projects. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TV show episode guides

Usually on episode lists, the ending and full plot details are not given due to the nature of the article (i.e. basic summaries, not in depth descriptions). I ran across a spoiler of an ending in the episode list of Flashpoint, where no other episode description contained such a spoiler, so I deleted the particular sentence. However, it was reverted and this article was cited. I understand that completeness is a goal of this site, but episode listings almost never include end spoilers. Is there some way this can be addressed in the spoilers article? --99.38.96.87 (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler&oldid=374143561"