Wikipedia talk:Spoiler

Informed Choice (or Having Your Cake and Eat It Too)

While the argument that a section titled plot should be expected to include possible spoilers may be proper, it is also contrary to general use on the Internet and subverts the expectation of many readers. It seems to me one need not compromise either: create a template which splits a plot section into "premise" (or "blurb") and "synopsis" (or "details" or "plot"). The premise would be a brief outline of the subject without revealing spoilers, the synopsis delves into detail. Premise might contain unobtrusive green cues and synopsis red ones. This avoids censorship, improves readability and meets general reader expectation.--195.240.199.250 (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

However, Wikipedia is not intended to be like most other websites. After all, Wikipedia doesn't have spoiler warnings in the first place. The goal of Wikipedia is to give information that is as complete as possible, no matter how offending it may be (well, except for BLPs, we have high standards for their articles, but that's another story). Separating the sections could potentially cause technical problems, but also is a form of censorship in itself, and Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia isn't IMDb either. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Reference works (e.g. CliffsNotes) on fiction don't contain spoilers either - David Gerard (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

They aren't encyclopedias. An encyclopedia like Wikipedia is all about complete information. For more information on this guideline, read the section "Why spoiler warnings are not used". Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course there is a rationale to the current policy. That doesn't mean it is beyond examination. What I am proposing isn't an attempt at censorship, but an approach to accommodate the various arguments into a coherent model. Dividing plot into premise and synopsis does not pre-empt authorship, but guides it into established expectations. If the opposing argument rests upon proper adherence to the conventions, it follows the same applies to divide plot into premise and synopsis with their assigned function. 195.240.199.250 (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Beyond the philosophical arguments, excluding "spoilers" is absurdly complicated. There are numerous topics which cannot be discussed independent of their conclusions. The broad impact of, for instance, the Christian gospels depends, in large part, on the final act. Not thrilled with the example? Fine, how about The Crying Game? Isn't "Nothing happens. Twice." a spoiler for Waiting for Godot? Discuss the plots of Star Wars V and VI without "spoiling" IV? Can't be done. Discuss "Gilligan's Island" without giving away that they don't get off the island in episodes 1, 2, 3, 4... Doesn't Truman Capote "spoil" Capote (film)? How much knowledge of a plot "spoils" it? While there are some plots that hinge on one element for the meaningful ending, more complex stories have numerous elements that exist throughout the story. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The fundamental issue is conflicts between conventions of Wikipedia and usage on the Internet in general. Most are barely noted, with "spoilers" an oft discussed exception. The topics you raise fall outside this category, as the scope of a section on discussion and analysis are generally understood. It is mostly in plot, though there are others, in which usage diverges. Plot can be formatted to align conventions, but, you are right, it does not address other conflicts.195.240.199.250 (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The majority of the Internet is not. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The discussion is indeed about the difference. 195.240.199.250 (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The fundamental assumption of this proposal is that spoiling may be prevented by presenting the information in (sub)sections with titles which mean the same on Wikipedia as elsewhere. While the original proposal was limited to dividing plot into premise and synopsis, the same aproach may limit spoiling for articles as a whole. That said, while an examination of jargon as a solution is an interesting idea to me, I doubt whether articles could be (sub)sectioned unambiguously either in theory or in practice.

While I will not pursue this proposal further, I would like to note the defense of the existing policy on grounds of non-censorship, or unlimited information. As you value freedom of expression, you should value the informed choice of the audience. The proper thing would be a visible but forgetable icon along the top. Perhaps a red jigsaw with an exclamation mark in the Wikipedia globe, linking to the a summery of its policy. 195.240.199.250 (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

To readers, the issues of spoilers is the case of "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Once they understand that information at WP is unbridled, they shouldn't go there on works that have been released to try to learn more if they are completely trying to be spoiler free. Too many people come here trying to consider WP as a replacement for Google when it is never our intent. There are tons better sites for most of these works to learn about the topic that are dedicate to those types of works and can avoid spoilers. --MASEM (t) 18:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This page is filled with what this site is and is not, but little explanation as to what the downside is to pointing out the difference to readers who are unaware of it or its implications. 195.240.199.250 (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is that by quoting this page people seem to justify spoilers all over a page, I will use the House of Cards (U.S. TV series) as example: where are we "serving encyclopedic purpose" by putting major spoilers in a section, the cast one, that is usually as neutral as possible? The encyclpodic purpose of some section should be to give just some basic information, especially if it's marked with an innocent title like "cast". Sunitsa (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I do see your point, of just wanting to look up the cast list and having the show spoilt, and how annoying that is. It's hard to avoid that, given an important function of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is to be a Cliff's Notes - something that really has to precis for you everything relevant that there is to know about a given work. One way to look at it that may be useful: it's an encyclopedia - a complete compendium of everything - so treat it like it's Hamlet - what would you expect to see in the article if House of Cards was 500 years old? Write it up in those terms - David Gerard (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I also dislike when people use the Spoiler guideline to try to justify putting spoilers any and everywhere. Like the guideline states, "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." It can be encyclopedic not to include spoilers just for the sake of including them, especially in the case of works where the brilliance of that work hangs on it not being spoiled; The Sixth Sense immediately comes to my mind in such a case (and its Wikipedia article is currently careful not to spoil the ending, except for in the Plot section and Production section), and some aspects of the The Walking Dead series quickly come to my mind as well in such a case. Time and again, we get readers who complain about Wikipedia having ruined a story for them because of spoilers; often times, these people are not only spoiled by the Plot section, where they should expect spoilers, but needlessly by the lead or a random place in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Editorial "courtesy"

I'm perfectly OK with no spoiler warning, but I do wonder if there's some recommendations to avoid "giving away more information than needed", at least in the opening section. Basically, using "John Fender is a character from McExample who appears as a supporting character introduced in the second season..." instead of "John Fender is a is a character from McExample who is the previously unknown father of Protagonia", "...who appears in seasons two to three and returns in the ninth", or "... who kills Madame Evil in the finale". There are some cases where the spoilers are inevitable in explaining the importance of the character (such as the lead of a movie whose first rule prohibits me from discussing it). On the other hand, discussing John McClane doesn't need a mention of the Gruber brothers unless when discussing their specific films.

Of course, such recommendations are not to be taken with a grain of salt, as there are several "nonstrictly plot-related" sections where spoilers may be necessary (for example, discussing the actors who portray a character, critic commentary, etc.).

Summary: it's OK to include spoilers when discussing fiction, but a bit of consideration should be put into where they're appropriate.

And yeah, I do realize a well-written page implicitly structures itself as this. But a note won't hurt anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.190.31.64 (talk) 03:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

IP, I'm generally against spoilers in the lead, and I noted so in the #Informed Choice (or Having Your Cake and Eat It Too) section above. I generally don't see any benefit to it at all, unless it's minimal spoiler information...such as a general summary that does not give away major spoilers (especially any plot twists), or unless the major spoiler is such a defining moment for the character that it should be mentioned in the lead. Having worked on various television and film articles, with some of them being WP:Good or WP:Featured articles, I have never, or perhaps hardly (to be more precise), seen the benefit of including a major spoiler in the lead. Including that material only serves to anger our readers; I've seen such anger time and time again. And we should be thinking about our readers on such matters, not ourselves. So I completely understand where you are coming from on your above post, and I believe that the WP:Spoiler guideline should state something along the lines that care should be taken when deciding on whether or not to include a major spoiler in the lead. But with as little traffic as this WP:Spoiler talk page gets, the only way to get sufficient change regarding the "Yes, yes, to spoilers. Don't delete information simply because it's spoilerish." crowd is to start a WP:RfC here on this talk page, preferably a wide-scale WP:RfC. As stated in the aforementioned section above, people including spoilers everywhere in a Wikipedia article and pointing to the WP:Spoiler guideline as justification for that is ridiculous. Anyway, I decided to pop back up at this talk page after a recent comment I made in this section at Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series). For the character articles of that series, editors (me included) have generally been keeping the "this character died" aspect out of the lead, and I think that's the right thing to do. Flyer22 (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Spoiler Alert/Warning for WP readers (not Editors)

Here its stated that "Please do not read the following plot summary if you have not seen the film as it has major spoilers, especially since the film is a crime thriller."

Spolier Alert is given here also.

As We know movies come in different genre , so every movie genre should have different rules.Some editors told me that WP actively rejected spoiler warning claims . I think WP should reconsider. I am not against writing full movie plots , But some warning must be given to the readers . Every movie page don't need warning for spoilers . But there must be a scope for the editors to reach a consensus whether spoiler warning is required for a particular movie or not.My first question on Tea House was about movie spoilers , and i was told to come here .

If I read the plot of The Lord of the Rings (film series) andRaiders of the Lost Ark , then it won't affect the pleasure of watching the movie :: but if I read the wiki plot of The Sixth Sense , The Devotion of Suspect X , it gives away the entire movie itself and spoils the fun of watching the movie . And movies like Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film) and Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film) can be grouped in the middle where knowing the story can spoil half the entertainment (as they are Sci-Fi or fantasy genre).I know why "Why spoiler warnings are no longer used". But I am asking only for those movies belonging to Mystery Genre and which has some twist in the story (Mostly importantly a new movie )

i am not asking for spoiler alert in case of classic thrillers like Rebecca (1940 film) or for Sherlock Holmes novels.CosmicEmperor (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia and meant to comprehensively cover a topic. That includes the plot and revealing the ending even if is commonly considered a spoiler. You shouldn't be using an encyclopedia to learn about a work if you are trying to stay away from spoilers about the work itself. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

All Wiki readers are not editors . 99% of those who read WP don't edit. In a zeal they might read the full plot in case of new releases and later on regret . I am talking about teens or kids also . Internet access is easy . Teenagers don't have patience . Why should we spoil their fun. If we google search a movie name , first the IMDb page appears at the top followed by Wiki page or the Wiki page comes at the top followed by IMDB page.I am mentioning this once again that I am not against writing of full plot including twist ending but some warning must be given for the readers if the story is full of twist and turns. I don't want spoiler warning for Jurassik Park type movies CosmicEmperor (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The warning is implicit that they are on a comprehensive encyclopedia which is going to go into all details about the work. They should be aware that there will be spoilers here without any warnings, and thus if they only want to learn a brief summary, to go to another site. Further, what is a spoiler to one may not be a spoiler to another, so it is a very subjective thing, hence why we got rid of them. --MASEM (t) 19:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Proclaiming any specific plot detail as a spoiler is, frankly, original research. We also have a strict guideline of not including disclaimers in articles, of which a "spoiler warning" would be such a disclaimer. —Farix (t | c) 19:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

So —Farix (t | c) , if it becomes original research , then if anyone can find a reliable source that which part of the movie is plot spoiler it can be included . --MASEM (t) , it's a subjective thing but that's what i wrote at the beginning and gave examples of movies. I started this discussion only for those movies whose genre is Mystery and Suspense according to Rotten Tomatoes. If we visit the Rottentomatoes page of a movie and find Mystery and Suspense is included as a genre then either we should give a spoiler warning or there must be restriction on editors to write the plot for at least six months after the release date. As after that the movie won't be running in theatres.CosmicEmperor (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

If several reliable source discuss a specific plot point being a "spoiler", that is something that may be included in the reception section, but it is not something that will justify a disclaimer in the plot section (which is a descriptive summary only) or in the lead. It doesn't matter what genre the work is. —Farix (t | c) 02:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Farix I don't think it would be disruptive editing if we include it in the sub-heading like this :

Plot {Warning- Contain spoilers} .

If we can find reliable reference about which part of the movie has twist in the story.CosmicEmperor (talk) 08:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It would still be contrary to Wikipedia's "no disclaimer in articles" guideline. Also, you have yet to provided a justification as to why a disclaimer will improve or help maintain Wikipedia. We don't provide disclaimers on articles with medical information. We don't provide disclaimers on article with content some may find offensive. Those would be more useful a disclaimer about spoilers. On top of that, we cannot be selective of which articles gets spoilers. Mystery and suspense are no more "special" genres than fantasy, science fiction, comedy, drama, etc. No top of that, the only known study done on spoilers how affect people enjoyment of a story has shown that they do not lessen someone's enjoyment, instead they have the exact opposite affect. And finally, if you are reading a section titled "Plot", it is because you want to know what the plot is, including its spoiler. A disclaimer isn't going to be of any help except be a sign yelling "READ ME" (which is the whole point of why media uses spoiler disclaimers in the first place). —Farix (t | c) 11:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is what I would suggest. Go near the top of the page to the 'archive' box. Go and read. There's a lot to choose from but most of it will tell you why Wikipedia is the way it is and has been for many years now. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk)Most people who visit WP don't know what it is(Encyclopedia) and most don't know about five pillars of WP . Lets say a 12 year old boy reads the plot of The Sixth Sense before watching the movie . And when he will watch the movie , he won't find any thrill as he already knows the plot twist. CosmicEmperor (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

CosmicEmperor, I know how you feel. I noted in the #Informed Choice (or Having Your Cake and Eat It Too) and #Editorial "courtesy" sections above that Wikipedia should do better about not spoiling its readers, especially as far as the lead goes and with works that have twists that will significantly affect the readers' experience if spoiled on them. Flyer22 (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

So then maybe what we need to do is post at the top of every article a description of what an encyclopedia is, rather than a spoiler alert? Look, I get your arguments, @CosmicEmperor:, but they're entirely emotional. Wikipedia is not a babysitter. Promoting ignorance is the exact opposite of what an encyclopedia does. If a parent took objection that our article on Santa Claus spoilt his daughter's Christmas, would you argue that any content about Santa being a myth should be removed or disclaimed? There is a greater academic purpose that is intended here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb I am not asking for every page . Only for those movies which come under "Mystery and Suspense" according to Rotten Tomatoes (or any other reliable source where the genre is Mystery). In Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film) only at the end it was revealed who is the half blood prince. Let kids and teens read the full plot. Before reading the plot they should be aware that they will read the plot twist .Even after that warning if they read the full plot then I don't have objection.CosmicEmperor (talk) 08:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I think Farix came with a logical conclusion that spoiler warning might force people to read the spoiler . But in that case I suggest ,we should not write the full plot summary of Fiction Novels/Stories for six months after the publication of the novel :: And the same goes for all movies (excluding documentary movies). Only small plot synopsis should be allowed . After six months of the book/movie release , one can write the full plot summary . This is not the right place to disquss that , I have to move somewhere elseCosmicEmperor (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This may be surprising, but there are students in the world who might benefit from understanding the entire plot of a recent work. Students of film, television and literature, for example. And even people working in these industries would benefit from the knowledge, as it is presumably difficult to see every new movie, watch every new TV series, read every new book. Understanding the rough structure of the work would be critical for them. Wikipedia is not an entertainment site, it's an encyclopedia. It's where people go for information, not for the lack of it. And your six month argument isn't going to help anything. TV shows, for example, are often released at different times across the world. Though you might "save" one demographic, you'll "spoil" another. I've seen lots of spoiler removals at Broadchurch because people who just got the series in their countries feel that some of the content spoils their experience. It's been more than six months since the series was released. What's the difference? Waste of time, this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

What about just moving possible Spoilers at the Very End for Recent Released Movies?

I understand Wikipedia policy on being as "complete" as possible and that is understandable.

But, putting spoilers at the very top of articles for recently released Movies in my opinion would not benefit some users.

All I am asking is to just move all spoilers to the very end of the article, no special sections or warnings needed.

Most people read a webpage from top to bottom.

Once they have all of the information they need would normally stop.

So in these cases if a user does not want to know any spoilers they would stop reading once they have all of the information they needed.

Maybe for Movies list first information that a "Movie" goer would want to know before seeing the movie.

Like cast members, over all plot and things that were contain in trailers and etc.

Then after a "Before Seeing" the movie information, include additional information afterwards.

Keeping spoilers at the very end and that is it.

Nothing special or additional steps for editors :)

We need to provide usefulness for all different users intent.

1. Information to decide whither to see the movie or not. 2. Information about the entire movie

Both intents can be provided useful information with out "Censorship" just by having "Before seeing Movie" information listed first at the top and then additional information about the movie listed below towards the bottom.

Don't see why that is so hard to do?

Can anyone else explain any issues with this?

Kbdavis07 (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

No, once something is available for a reasonable size of the public, its material that should be covered in the article. We're not here to help people decide to see a movie or not (that's not the purpose of an encyclopdia), we're here to discuss a movie in comprehensive nature, so we don't use spoilers for this. --MASEM (t) 05:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Masem,

I understand your point.

I guess my question would be more specific to movies then.

Take a look at this:

Spectre 2015 Movie

In the cast section is it correct to include events that happen in the movie in the cast section?

Monica Bellucci as Lucia Sciarra, the widow of an assassin killed by Bond.

Should that be in another section then?

Being "killed" is an event, that happens during the movie and not specifically describes who that person is?

Who a person is: "Alessandro Cremona as Marco Sciarra,[12] an assassin and husband of Lucia Sciarra."

Thanks,

Brian Davis

Kbdavis07 (talk) 05:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

If someone doesn't want to know the plot, then they should be reading the plot section, which is always clearly labeled. If they don't want to know details about the characters, they shouldn't be reading the character/cast section either. We don't change the organization of an article because of so-called "spoilers". Instead, we should write articles without concerning ourselves about what is and is not a "spoiler". As for the specific detail you are complaining about, it isn't even a spoiler. It is a description about a specific character is in the film. —Farix (t | c) 09:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Spoilers are Needed

I encourage you to follow this simple line of logic:

• 1. Spoilers can ruin a media experience.
• 2. Wikipedia's goal is to inform about media.
• 3. Wikipedia cannot inform about media if it spoils media.
• 4. Wikipedia spoils some media in its articles.
• 5. Spoiler warnings would prevent spoiling of media, and therefore allow Wikipedia to inform about media.
• 6. Therefore, spoiler warnings should be used.

A simple small font warning is a very simple solution to this problem. The community did not have a problem with what the admins perceived as "too many spoiler warnings." A poll would show this.

As of now, Wikipedia spoils multiple media, and continues to do so as long as there are no spoiler warnings. I was made aware of this silly debate after I myself was spoiled by an article.

This is a problem, and it needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.90.194 (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with the following above Kbdavis07 (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

74.100.90.194 Your logic is flawed for many reasons. Point #3 is an unsupported assertion based on a garbage premise that an encyclopedia exists to preserve enjoyment. An encyclopedia exists to provide the academic service of delivering information about a topic, not to obscure it or to hide this information. A much simpler line of logic involves one step: 1) If you don't want your enjoyment spoiled, don't go to an encyclopedia to learn about the subject. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Using that logic, perhaps I should follow your advice and not access Wikipedia to see how good a movie is, how much it got at the box office, who the actors are, what the budget was, where the film is made, or any of the other hundreds of pieces of information, because "I don't want my enjoyment spoiled" as you said.

That's hilariously incorrect. People have a right to see relevant movie information without having the movie ruined for them. It's the same reason Quentin Tarantino tore up his script and started over when it leaked online. It's the same reason why no one wants you to talk about the storyline of a movie if they haven't seen it. And it's the same reason every movie company on Earth forces all employees to sign waivers to not discuss anything about what they are working on.

Whoever decided against spoilers made a poor decision, one that constantly affects hundreds each day. Spoilers are necessary to have on Wikipedia. Period. They should be implemented as soon as possible.74.100.90.194 (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, first of all, you're all over the map. You're arguing for the inclusion of spoilers, but what you actually mean is that you don't want spoilers, or that you want "spoiler alerts". You should probably get your own position clear if you're going to try lecturing people about logic. Secondly, the logic is only hilarious if you know nothing about logic. You snuck in a statement that is a Begging the question logical fallacy, because one of your arguments is basically just another form of your conclusion. Your argument is "We need spoiler alerts because Wikipedia cannot inform about media if it spoils media." But when was it established as a fact that that Wikipedia cannot convey information about media if it spoils media? You need to first support the "Wikipedia can't do X if it spoils media" part of your argument before you build your entire argument around it. Not even sure what your point is about Tarantino's script. That was stolen before it even became a movie. That's not even close to the same thing as writing a general plot summary for a published work that's already out for consumption. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, no one is suggesting that we should be stealing unpublished scrips and placing them on Wikipedia so the Tarantino issue is irrelevant. I also don't see how placing spoilers means that we can't inform about media since that would literally be a case of informing people about certain aspects of media.--67.68.209.200 (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Disagree Wikipedia isn't censored, if you want to avoid spoilers why are you looking up a article about the topic? all the spoilers will typically be in a section for "plot" or "Synopsis" and if you're too dumb to avoid that you're likely able to suspend your disbelief no matter what and any movie will entertain you :P I don't mean to sound rude but I don't see a need for spoilers at all. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It appears as though Wikipedia is not, as I had initially anticipated, a true source of unbiased and properly structured information. If the policy truly is that no one should look up ANY information about ANY topic whatsoever if they simply do not want to have that topic spoiled, even if the information being looked up is something as innocuous as how well the movie did so as to determine whether or not one should SEE the movie, and if such a policy cannot be changed through clear logic due to a few members' fear of change (adding a tiny warning or simply not including possible spoilers), Wikipedia is not suitable as an information source. I hope that this is wrong and that a higher-rank moderator observes the obvious need for such a simple system and is able to make such a change. But so far, even with multiple users in agreement, nothing has happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.90.194 (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

We're not here as a consumer guide, which is what you're trying to get at; our goal on movie articles, for example, is not to give information for a reader to determine if they should see a movie or not. Instead, our goal is to established contextually what the relative importance of that movie is within the entertainment industry and to the rest of the world, if it should have that type of impact. That's what being a comprehensive educational resource is all about. You're asking for something far different than WP's main purpose. --MASEM (t) 00:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@74.100.90.194: You continue to make unrealistic, overly-simplified emotional arguments, your previous claims of "logic" have been fundamentally flawed. Obviously you haven't processed any of that, since you haven't acknowledged any of it. Bias has nothing to do with including plot summaries in articles. Nobody has said that you shouldn't look up ANY information, and anybody with a shred of sense knows that an encyclopedia is not the place to go if you don't want information. That's like opening a phone book and getting upset that there are phone numbers in it. Encyclopedias are where you go when you do want information. If you're on a quest to suppress spoilers, ask your local libraries if they're willing to post spoiler warnings so that people who haven't yet learned how the US Civil War turned out, or that Tupac and Eazy are dead, won't have their experience "spoiled". Maybe this is indicative of problems in the Internet age--people of your age have never seen a paper encyclopedia? I don't know. Lastly, you've been at this for 2 weeks. Either participate more regularly in the discussion, or drop the stick. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, and we're not here to help you perpetuate a months-long complaint. This topic should be quickly closed if you don't have anything more constructive to add than a complaint you've already espoused several times. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The specific "spoiler" that the IP was originally trying to remove form Wikipedia was such a minor plot detail, most reasonable people wouldn't even call it a spoiler.[1][2] In fact, the IP was even going so far as to change the context of a quote in order to remove the specific plot detail. Which exemplifies the problem with labeling plot details as spoiler. Each person's view of what plot details "spoil" the work is different, and to cover all bases, all plot details would have to be considered spoiler. But that is just as silly on its face, like labeling all people who drink alcohol are drunkard or alcoholics. On top of that, the one study conducted on spoiler demonstrated that knowing key plot details ahead of time does not actually decrees the enjoyment of the work. On the contrary, it had the exact opposite effect as the participants payed more attention to clues and foreshadowing. —Farix (t | c) 11:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow. That is not a "spoiler". That is the premise; her sneezes cause problems. That's like not mentioning in the article on Gilligan's Island that the crew was shipwrecked on a desert isle. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

A whole new level of WP:LAME. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Spoilers are only necessary on racing cars. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

TheFarix, I was about to ask you what study you are referring to, but I see that you mentioned it in the #Spoiler Alert/Warning for WP readers (not Editors) section above. Still, I don't think that we should be going on that one study to assert that spoilers don't upset people. That source you cited even notes the words suggests and can with regard to spoilers increasing enjoyment; it is not definitive. And are we sure that this study is the only known study on spoilers? Like I noted in the #Informed Choice (or Having Your Cake and Eat It Too) and #Editorial "courtesy" sections above, spoilers clearly do upset people, and we should be careful to make sure that we are not unnecessarily spoiling readers. It is seen all the time on Wikipedia, and all over the Internet, that spoilers upset people, especially in the case of surprise endings being revealed. And there are WP:Reliable sources noting that spoilers upset people. That stated, some people love spoilers and love spoiling others (which is why I've seen some people recklessly spoil our readers), and I understand what you mean about the Frozen Fever case not generally being considered a spoiler. Flyer22 (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

This is my final attempt to ensure Wikipedia's policies do not fall into disrepair. This forum is designed (or appears to be designed) to allow each person to speak equally. If not even this can change things, I don't know what else will. I will go over every single point. Please take the time to understand what I am saying, as I am attempting to be very clear here.

We're not here as a consumer guide, which is what you're trying to get at; our goal on movie articles, for example, is not to give information for a reader to determine if they should see a movie or not. Instead, our goal is to established contextually what the relative importance of that movie is within the entertainment industry and to the rest of the world, if it should have that type of impact. That's what being a comprehensive educational resource is all about. You're asking for something far different than WP's main purpose. --MASEM (t) 00:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

A comprehensive educational resource is a great goal, Masem, however there are limits to everything. You have certain contraints in place. Quotes are avoided if there are frequent swear words. Gory details are withheld or only briefly summarized, when they would otherwise provide more information to the topic. By doing these things Wikipedia is indeed catering to a specific audience. Perhaps if I was asking for something incredibly specific that only affected a very small minority, I would need a much stronger argument to change the status quo, but spoilers affect everyone.

@74.100.90.194: You continue to make unrealistic, overly-simplified emotional arguments, your previous claims of "logic" have been fundamentally flawed. Obviously you haven't processed any of that, since you haven't acknowledged any of it. Bias has nothing to do with including plot summaries in articles. Nobody has said that you shouldn't look up ANY information, and anybody with a shred of sense knows that an encyclopedia is not the place to go if you don't want information. That's like opening a phone book and getting upset that there are phone numbers in it. Encyclopedias are where you go when you do want information. If you're on a quest to suppress spoilers, ask your local libraries if they're willing to post spoiler warnings so that people who haven't yet learned how the US Civil War turned out, or that Tupac and Eazy are dead, won't have their experience "spoiled". Maybe this is indicative of problems in the Internet age--people of your age have never seen a paper encyclopedia? I don't know. Lastly, you've been at this for 2 weeks. Either participate more regularly in the discussion, or drop the stick. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, and we're not here to help you perpetuate a months-long complaint. This topic should be quickly closed if you don't have anything more constructive to add than a complaint you've already espoused several times. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I will look past the intense aggression and negativity to answer the small argument you have made. You have still not addressed my refutal of your argument if no one should look up any information, then to naturally avoid spoilers (as anyone would want to do before watching something) they should restrict themselves access to all of Wikipedia, not just the Plot sections (which would obviously have spoilers). Think about what this means. You’re saying they shouldn’t look up the “Reception” section on Wikipedia because they don’t want to be spoiled. Why else would they look at the Reception section but to see whether or not the media is good enough to enjoy? Spoilers are fine in Plot because they are obviously going to be present, but in a section someone would read before watching media, spoilers are wrong.

The specific "spoiler" that the IP was originally trying to remove form Wikipedia was such a minor plot detail, most reasonable people wouldn't even call it a spoiler.[1][2] In fact, the IP was even going so far as to change the context of a quote in order to remove the specific plot detail. Which exemplifies the problem with labeling plot details as spoiler. Each person's view of what plot details "spoil" the work is different, and to cover all bases, all plot details would have to be considered spoiler. But that is just as silly on its face, like labeling all people who drink alcohol are drunkard or alcoholics. On top of that, the one study conducted on spoiler demonstrated that knowing key plot details ahead of time does not actually decrees the enjoyment of the work. On the contrary, it had the exact opposite effect as the participants payed more attention to clues and foreshadowing. —Farix (t | c) 11:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

A study does not mean that spoilers should be pushed into people’s faces. That indeed breaks the rules of Wikipedia’s concept of neutrality. Additionally, my edits are not part of the discussion. In terms of what can be thought of as a spoiler, it is a simple “Would it ruin a viewer’s experience knowing this information before watching it?”

Wow. That is not a "spoiler". That is the premise; her sneezes cause problems. That's like not mentioning in the article on Gilligan's Island that the crew was shipwrecked on a desert isle. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

A whole new level of WP:LAME. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Spoilers are only necessary on racing cars. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Your argument is directly attacking me, not refuting the argument. Please review my previous texts. I would have liked to continue this argument, however I cannot put more time into what may just be an exercise in futility.

I’m not sure how much clearer I can state this. Spoilers are bad. Almost everyone would agree with that. That is a fact. If you somehow don’t believe that, look it up for yourself. Wikipedia has spoilers and, given the current policy and arguments, it is completely acceptable that you should never look at a movie, book, or other media page if you do not want to have your experience ruined, even if it something as innocent as the release date (“an encyclopedia is not the place to go if you don't want information”). If you are truly too uneasy to do a poll that would reveal that the majority of users do not want Wikipedia spoilers WHERE THEY WOULD NOT BE REASONABLY EXPECTED (that is, not in the Plot section etc.), perhaps you do indeed realize that I am speaking the truth. In which case, are you merely unwilling to accept change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.90.194 (talk • contribs)

I can understand why you're feeling attacked, though I'm doing my best to focus on your arguments. I'm sure you're a swell person, but I don't see any merit to anything you've argued so far. Here's my simple response:

• Your first post was a list of "logic" steps that wasn't a logical progression at all, because your third point was based on a false assumption.
• You have an opinion that spoilers are bad, we get it. That doesn't make it a fact, and that doesn't mean that everything is a spoiler, or that Wikipedia must preserve your enjoyment of any fictional work.
• Your opinion is not consistent with consensus. And consensus isn't determined through voting, so your poll suggestion isn't really relevant.
• Your last comment suggests you don't even understand the spoiler guidelines. You wrote "the majority of users do not want Wikipedia spoilers WHERE THEY WOULD NOT BE REASONABLY EXPECTED (that is, not in the Plot section etc.)" But the Plot section is absolutely the place where you'd expect spoilers. And potentially in the character section too. Maybe this was a simple case of you accidentally using a double-negative? I don't know, but if you think spoilers don't belong in Plot sections, that is the exact opposite of what is expected.
• You haven't provided any specific examples of content you found to be spoilers, thus TheFarix provided some diffs. In those examples, you were absolutely wrong to remove information that a character's sneezes cause a complication in the storyline. That's not a spoiler, that's a key plot point, and should reasonably appear in a review of the film as well as a plot description, provided it wasn't a trivial joke. That's like criticizing a movie trailer for "spoiling" a battle between The Avengers and the Chitauri by showing action-packed scenes. It's absolutely not the same thing as saying in a review, "Audiences will be surprised to learn that the kid in The Sixth Sense can see dead people" or "Audiences will be surprised to learn that Darth Vader is Luke's father".
• If you have a problem with this content appearing in reviews of the film, take it up with the reviewers who generated the content. Why should it somehow be the Wikipedia community's concern that you don't like how Ket Smith revealed a plot point in a review of the movie? And under what existing guideline or policy should the content be removed, in your opinion?

Again, unless you have a more substantive argument to present, this topic should probably be closed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Spoilers in the first line of the article

It's fine and dandy to argue about whether spoilers should or should not be on Wikipedia pages. I'm fine with them there, without any need for disclosure or warnings. Sure, I've read a few things I wish I hadn't, but I've learned that this is part and parcel of being on Wikipedia. I can simply choose not to visit Wikipedia if I'm worried about being spoiled on a particular work.

However, that doesn't work when the spoiler is in the very first line of the article. If I type in the name of the work to a search engine, Wikipedia is quite likely the very first hit, and the Google except will display the spoiler. For example, the long-running sci-fi book series by David Weber, Honor Harrington, begins by talking not about the series but the titular character. In it, it names Honor by her married name. She doesn't marry until the 8th or 9th book, and to a character that's a bit of a surprise if you're still early in the series. So when I had finished the third book and went online to look for the book order by typing "Honor Harrington" into Google, the very first thing I saw was "Honor Stephanie Alexander-Harrington (née Honor Stephanie Harrington) is a..." Considering this is a series that works off of slowly building up to events and then surprising you with sudden twists, reading this spoiler had a tremendously negative impact on my experience with the books.

Wikipedia may owe it to its users to be honest and forthcoming about all content, and therefore include spoilers, but as one of the top ten websites on the internet, it also owes it to the rest of the world to not include those spoilers in the absolute opening of their articles where people who have no interest in seeing them will. It's like a shop that sells pornographic materials putting those items in a window display along their busy storefront. Azuarc (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how knowing a character will be married later in a series can, in any way, "ruin" the enjoyment of a work. And that, frankly, is part of the problem of labeling plot details as "spoilers". What is a "spoiler" is entirely in the eye of the reader. However, Wikipedia works on information that is verifiable without injecting the editors' (or readers') personal interpretations. To keep such a plot detail out of a lead simply because it may be a "spoiler" is, in fact, inject a personal interpretation of the significance of the plot detail and how it would affect the enjoyment of others. —Farix (t | c) 21:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not the fact that she marries. The series goes on for a great many books. The spoiler is who she marries, since anyone who's read the first five or six books would react by going "she married HIM!? Why the...how the...really?" It's like reading a story with a love triangle and finding out that in the end the girl thumbs her nose at both guys and picks somebody else entirely. There's no question about whether or not it's a spoiler. And as Flyer22 alludes to beneath me, there is absolutely no benefit to giving her married name in the lead. 02:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.52.87.210 (talk)

[ WP:Edit conflict ]: Azuarc (talk · contribs), see what I stated in the #Informed Choice (or Having Your Cake and Eat It Too) and #Editorial "courtesy" sections above. As seen there, I clearly agree that there is usually no need for huge spoilers in the lead. Note my use of "usually." Sometimes, a huge spoiler can be validly argued as being there; but in the vast majority of cases, I have not seen the benefit. Like I recently stated in this discussion about the lead of the Shane Walsh (The Walking Dead) article, "Most importantly, it is bad form to unnecessarily include major spoilers in the lead. Our readers generally do not like that, which is exactly why that IP removed your huge spoiler. [...] Like I stated [before], we have generally been leaving huge spoilers out of the lead of The Walking Dead character articles. We only include them if they seem like something that should be in the WP:Lead, as an improvement. And as seen in [ this discussion ], we removed unnecessary spoiling from the lead of the Kingsman: The Secret Service article. Imagine if you were a reader coming to Wikipedia to simply read the lead to learn a little about the topic and were hugely spoiled. Unless you like spoilers, you would find that unacceptable. And our readers repeatedly find it unacceptable." Sock, since you felt similarly about the Kingsman: The Secret Service matter, do have any opinions for this discussion about spoiling in the lead? Flyer22 (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

In fact, since my fellow editors at WP:Film have varying opinions about film matters, I might query them to weigh in on this discussion. Same goes for editors at WP:TV. Sock is one of my fellow film editors. Flyer22 (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Update: Azuarc, I hadn't read your comment in its entirety before I replied to it. This is because I was busy with other matters. But seeing now that you are complaining about the married name being in the lead, I'm noting here that I did address problems with including the married names in the leads of fictional character articles; see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 3#Married names in the lead of fictional character articles. That's an archived discussion, so don't comment there. As seen there, I never got around to proposing wording for a guideline on that matter, but I eventually will. Flyer22 (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

New person here. I just want to chime in --- Characters marrying and Wikipedia showing the updated name is a issue I'd like to see fixed. As example, the main page of Desperate Housewives lists character Susan as 'Susan Delfino', spoiling the fact she marries Mike later in the series. That tupe of stuff should only be listed in specific episode articles or in the case of books, in the article of the chapter in which the spoiler appears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.175.113 (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

That problem's more WP:OR and WP:SYNTH - unless these characters are named this in the show itself, it's someone cobbling something together - David Gerard (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The characters are named as such, but it's women getting married and changing their last names as time goes on. I've seen it in many articles. I just think it would be best not to list "updated character names" until we get to the specific season article in which the marriage happens. I can see, however, that this is a big situation that isn't going to be solved any time soon. Who is in charge of the policies? I agree when I read that wikipedia should be forthcoming with all knowledge on a work, but a person shouldn't have to complete an entire television series or a series of books to do any reading on something they like. That's my opinion anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daleylife (talk • contribs) 11:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I changed the Susan Delfino wording; I will eventually get around to removing the name from the lead of her Wikipedia article. Flyer22 (talk) 06:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Flyer22. Daleylife (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if this an issue relating to writing about fiction. In my opinion, articles about fictional characters should probably start with the name they are known by at the start of the work, not at the end (or in the latest episode). I would say that soap operas could be an exception, but people still watch them on a delay (especially if watching in countries than the original broadcast, or with catch-up services). Off topic, but they especially shouldn't include the word "née", since it's widely established that fictional characters are not born, but are created by writers. AnemoneProjectors 11:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

My opinion on Spoilers

I believe where television shows are concerned, spoilers should be marked and only mentioned in episode summaries where said spoiler appears. I think most people try to not spoil content within reason. And, a person should be able to read up on their favorite show, even if they haven't watched every episode (thus, potentially getting spoiled.) For example, I was reading up on How To Get Away with Murder and on the main page, in the CAST section was a spoiler for one of the characters. There's no need for a spoiler to be in the Cast info! I'm just amazed Wikipedia has this notion that spoilers don't need to be hidden. It's ridiculous in my opinion. They can be in articles, but have them marked and hidden like Reddit does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.175.113 (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

No, that arguments been presented before. We're comprehensive, and if you're coming to WP to expect not to read up on the current events of a show, you're coming to the wrong site for that. And then the question of how "new" a show we do that for? Walking Dead? Breaking Bad? Dallas? It just doesn't work out well in the long run. --MASEM (t) 21:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

No? I disagree. I do not understand why this sort of thing isn't even being considered. How "new" a show is wouldn't matter if said spoiler is only mentioned within specific episode articles. It makes perfect sense. And, I'm sorry, but spoiling a major plot point in the CAST SECTION of a show is insane! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.175.113 (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

At the end of the day, we're an encyclopedia, and plot elements are meant to support encyclopedic content; we are not a fan guide or the like to help you catch up on your shows or the like. We need to be comprehensive to serve the first purpose and trying to accomodate spoiler warnings gets in the way, to the point that people insisted we had to spoil things like Grimm's Fairy Tales. And of course, what is a spoiler to one person may not be to another, such as the addition of a new cast member to start with. So it's best to ignore spoilers to write our best about such works. --MASEM (t) 22:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

A "spoiler" is entirely in the eye of the beholder. Claiming that knowing plot detail ahead of time will "ruin" the enjoyment of a work of fiction is an interpretation. This is a violation of both Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. —Farix (t | c)

I guarantee if we polled a large sum of people, the majority would say that when it comes to works of fiction, knowing future plot details would ruin the media for them. I'm just completely shocked that this is even a debate on the site. And to Masem, I don't use this as a "fan guide", I am interested in the creation and such of many media. Wiki is a vast source yes, and I believe spoilers can be included, but they should be marked, at the very least. I do not see what the big deal is. By your logic, if I'm interested in a show that has 9 seasons, I need to watch all nine seasons before I can do any reading on a show I'm enjoying? I can envision a wikipedia that 'spoils' every little detail of a work of fiction, but spoilers are marked or only contained in specific articles of certain episodes or book chapters. I'm not here to bite anyone's head off, really. I just came across this article and decided to contribute after I saw a huge spoiler for a show in the CAST SECTION of a show. I didn't understand in why a short little character bio, we needed the whole mystery to the first season spoiled. I even edited the article, but the edit was undone and got a message about it. The entire season one mystery is spoiled up high and on the very first page and that angers me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daleylife (talk • contribs) 10:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

This policy lists "plot summaries, episode lists, character descriptions, etc" as places where the reader would expect to find plot details. If that wasn't the case, where would we draw the line - would character descriptions have to limit themselves to however that character was presented in their first appearance only? (If Bob is a pizza-delivery guy for one episode and later revealed to be an undercover government agent for the rest of the series, would we just list him as "Bob, the pizza-delivery guy"?) If a character bio is including spoilery details which serve no "encyclopedic purpose" then they could be cut, but in some cases spoilers are unavoidable if we're trying to provide a list of who-was-what in a TV series. --McGeddon (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Daleylife, re: I guarantee if we polled a large sum of people, the majority would say that when it comes to works of fiction, knowing future plot details would ruin the media for them. Ha, well, if you phrase your poll question in such a biased way, you're bound to get the answer you want. Your premise, however is flawed, since encyclopedias do not exist to promote enjoyment of fictional works the way an entertainment blog, a fan site, or a discussion forum might. Encyclopedias exist to provide crucial information about the fiction work from concept to conclusion. That's it. I got on the Breaking Bad train a season or two late, and had to catch up, and the last place I went for information was Wikipedia because I didn't want any of it to be spoiled for me. I didn't want to read about any characters, (especially ones who hadn't been revealed, or who hadn't died yet), I didn't want to know anything about season arcs. I didn't want to know if any actors had died while the show was being produced... To me, it defies logic that someone would go to Wikipedia and not expect to happen upon spoilers. This is one case where I feel it is perfectly justifiable to blame the victims. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem with identifying "spoilers" is that everyone's opinion of what a spoiler is different. For example, unlike Cyphoidbomb I would not consider cast changes, either as a result of a contract dispute or an actor's death, to be anything close to resembling a spoiler. Because spoilers are a very opinion based, it is irreconcilable with Wikipeida's core content policies, such as WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research, and WP:Neutral point of view. Wikipedia also has a guideline about not including disclaimers into articles. A "spoiler warning" is a disclaimer, and there is no justification to allow them when other disclaimers, such as for nudity, offensive material, medical, and other risk disclaimers that would actually be more useful are excluded. —Farix (t | c) 19:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for documenting information. It is not a fan site. It is not a news site. It is not meant to hold your hand. It is an encyclopedia, and as such, is meant to have academic-style prose on everything that is considered notable. Sometimes this means including info that would be considered a 'spoiler'. It's really very simple, beyond any of what people above said -- if you don't want to maybe get spoiled about things that are verified and known, then don't read it. Age is irrelevant. Popularity is irrelevant. You control what you read. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

None of you understand what I'm trying to say. Or, maybe you aren't paying attention. Cyphoidbomb teases me as if I 'don't want to know about season arcs.' No, no, no. Read what I've been trying to say, AGAIN: Spoilers can be easily marked, within specific articles. For example, let's make up a tv show, "Utopia Lane." It's a primetime soap with lots of twists and turns. Spoilers like who the murderer is, who dies in the car crash and who has the set of twins, can be "spoiled" in the SEASON ONE EPISODE ARTICLES. Like any real article where you click on "season one episodes" and it explains the episodes in details. Spoilers can appear there fine. But, on the main page of "Utopia Lane", plot details wouldn't be spoiled. What I'm trying to communicate is that a person should be able to come here and read up on a show or book or whatever they enjoy and say Utopia Lane has 9 seasons. I should be able to come here after only having seen one season without fear of spoiling anything else, with the knowledge spoilers will be marked in specific episode articles. Main pages of shows and books should be brief like the back of the book and not spoil anything, unless marked. And, in reference to McGeddon's comment--- this page is about CHALLENGING the current policy. That's what I'm attempting to do. I am advocating for spoilers to be marked and for MAIN PAGES of media to not reveal plot spoiled details unless they are marked. Per your example, if Bob is really an undercover cop, but in his first apperance he is a pizza dilvery guy, his description could hint to something more ie "Bob, a pizza delivery guy, with a dark past" or, you could simply mark the spoiler that the user would have to uncover. Or, we could have "basic character details" and then a separate article for in depth character descriptions. It really isn't that difficult. Wikipedia is one of the largest places for information, and I shouldn't have to watch nine years worth of programming before I can read any articles about it here. This is very frustrating. I just don't get what's so difficult to understand. Response by: Daleylife (talk) 05:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Daleylife, I assure you that we know what you are saying. We've heard these arguments numerous times across many talk pages. We are very much aware of what a spoiler alert is. Rather, if you were listening, you'd understand that we've already explained that Wikipedia does not disclaim, it does not warn, it does not euphemize, it does not promote vagueness, it does not censor, and one man's "spoiler" is another man's "information he needs in order to get his degree". Respectfully, your argument is emotional, not rational. You're saying, "but, I really want this and it's totally easy," but we're saying, "easy or not, it is not consistent with broadly held community values." It goes beyond consensus, it contravenes our principals. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Daleylife has a point - it's probably worth clarifying the spoiler guideline to say which kinds of sections include spoilers and which shouldn't, to reflect how articles are generally being written. The article for The Sixth Sense does not give away its twist ending in the lede, or even directly state that there is one, but has no qualms about mentioning the ending in the Production section, since it's useful to the interested reader to share information about how the filmmakers approached it. The Breaking Bad articles approach character descriptions exactly as Daleylife suggests - the overview cast list treads lightly and doesn't go much further than saying which seasons characters appeared in, while the full List of Breaking Bad characters article goes into great detail about each character's story arc, as this is the kind of thing somebody researching the show would want to know.

Clearly there's some informal consensus that when writing articles that it's inappropriate to spoil plot elements in places where they aren't entirely necessary and might surprise the reader ("make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served" is perhaps trying to say that), and I think this guideline could do with pinning that down. --McGeddon (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep; see my comment in the #Informed Choice (or Having Your Cake and Eat It Too) section and in the sections following it (including the #Spoilers in the first line of the article section); I certainly keep certain spoilers out of the lead, and out of sections where readers wouldn't normally expect them. There are obvious things that should not be spoiled in the lead or without good cause, such as the twist ending to the The Sixth Sense. Even though the lead of the The Sixth Sense article does not spoil the plot, which is obviously due to the very significant fact that the story hinges on that spoiler, it does note that there is a "twist conclusion." The fact is that many of our readers, including those who have never heard of Wikipedia, come to Wikipedia for just a summary without expecting to be unnecessarily spoiled. We even have some editors who unnecessarily spoil just to be WP:Dicks. When we spoil, it should be within good reason. And I'm not talking about trivial things that most reasonable people wouldn't consider a spoiler, such as a synopsis. I'm also mainly speaking of major spoilers when it comes to not spoiling, considering that some aspects of the plot are going to be spoiled, either in the lead or lower in the article. Readers should expect to be spoiled somewhat when reading up on the plot of a television show, film, or play, or if they search heavily on such matters. Flyer22 (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank God McGeddon and Flyer22 get what I'm saying. I originally came to this article when a critical piece of plot info was spoiled for a show in its CAST SECTION, a place where I feel character descriptions should be brief. But what I saw was: "Actor John Doe plays Detective Bob... who is the murderer!" That's all I'm getting at... Spoilers don't need to be in the most basic of sections, where an unsuspecting reader might come across it by mistake. I am all about having Wikipedia spoil the crap out of things, but we need to think of the "just wants a summary" reader. Daleylife (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Proposal to make unnecessary spoiling clearer in the guideline

Many editors and readers, including a number on this talk page, have expressed concerned that there is much unnecessary spoiling allowed on Wikipedia, and that this guideline is used as justification for spoiling any and everywhere; this is also despite the fact that the guideline currently states, "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." Like McGeddon noted, "it's probably worth clarifying the spoiler guideline to say which kinds of sections include spoilers and which shouldn't, to reflect how articles are generally being written. The article for The Sixth Sense does not give away its twist ending in the lede, or even directly state that there is one, but has no qualms about mentioning the ending in the Production section, since it's useful to the interested reader to share information about how the filmmakers approached it. The Breaking Bad [...] character descriptions [in the] overview cast list treads lightly and doesn't go much further than saying which seasons characters appeared in, while the full List of Breaking Bad characters article goes into great detail about each character's story arc, as this is the kind of thing somebody researching the show would want to know. Clearly there's some informal consensus that when writing articles that it's inappropriate to spoil plot elements in places where they aren't entirely necessary and might surprise the reader ( 'make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served' is perhaps trying to say that), and I think this guideline could do with pinning that down."

I concur with McGeddon, and propose that the "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." wording be changed to the following wording from WP:How to write a plot summary#Spoilers: When summarizing a plot and choosing what details to include, editors should use discretion. The advantages of exhaustive coverage of the work are in dynamic tension with the desire to preserve the artistic qualities of the work for readers. Wikipedia should contain potentially 'spoiling' detail where it substantially enhances the reader's understanding of the work and its impact but be omitted when it merely ruins the experience of the work of fiction for our readers. Or that we just use the second sentence. Or that we change the wording to something else that is clearer than the current guideline's wording, to indicate that it is not okay to spoil for spoiling's sake. A Proposals section is below for those who want to suggest alternative wording. And a Discussion section is below for whatever else. I will alert WP:TV, WP:Film, WP:Manual of Style and WP:Village pump (policy) to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

____