Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Spoiler. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

What's wrong with this picture?

File:Plot warning.png

A disclaimer saying a plot section contains spoilers is like a disclaimer saying an ocean contains water. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite (nor a promotional synopsis database). Readers who understand this should know that any part of an article may contain important plot details. Obviously, disruptive spoilers aimed at deliberately revealing endings to unsuspecting readers shouldn't be included, but they are almost always simple vandalism and do not raise any policy questions. Noclip 15:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again:

While all spoilers are plot elements, not all plot elements are spoilers. The idea that a plot section necessarily contains a spoiler isn't true. All oceans, by definition, contain water; all plot sections do not contain spoilers--the definition is in the other direction.
Spoiler warnings can be placed in particular locations, thus giving more information than "there is a spoiler somewhere in this section.". A spoiler warning in the *middle* of a plot section not only says that there's a spoiler there, but also explains where the spoiler is located--information that the reader cannot deduce from just the fact that it's a plot section.
Even if plot sections always contained spoilers, putting warnings on them would be good from a user-interface point of view. It makes more sense to put warnings on every spoiler than to omit some of the warnings because readers can already figure it out from the title of the section. Warnings on every one are consistent, warnings on only the ones that can't be deduced are not consistent, and a poor usability choice. Most human communication contains redundancy.

Ken Arromdee 16:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

But when the overwhelming majority of plot sections do contains spoilers, putting up warnings becomes pointless. Also, when editors plaster spoiler warnings around any kind of plot detail, which was how the warnings where been used before May, it devalues the warnings to the point it being completely useless.

Of course identifying particular spoilers have a whole host of problems with WP:NPOV and WP:V and is one of the reasons why most editors didn't do it. Instead they placed warnings around any kind of plot detail in a CYA feel good measure that didn't actually do anything. --Farix (Talk) 16:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If you see such text, removing it. --Farix (Talk) 16:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If a plot section in Wikipedia does not contain all significant plot details, it's incomplete and inadequate. Presumably the word "spoiler" applies to "significant plot detail" at least at higher levels of significance. --Tony Sidaway 17:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That's why "significant plot details" is a bad euphemism for "spoiler". Kuronue 17:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You might argue that it's a poor match (is it?) but it's hardly a euphemism. Anybody who can read English knows what "significant plot details" means. The meaning of "spoiler" seems to be somewhat fluid. --Tony Sidaway 17:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone up above said, "While all spoilers are plot elements, not all plot elements are spoilers." I have to disagree. As Tony noted, the meaning of "spoiler" is rather fluid. Perhaps the term once referred only to the "big surprise" at the end of a thriller (e.g., "Snape kills Dumbledore"). These days, practically any plot detail whatsoever is considered a spoiler by somebody.

For example, the title of Michiko Kakutani's New York Times review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was: "An Epic Showdown as Harry Potter Is Initiated Into Adulthood." Many Harry Potter fans thought that this title, in and of itself, was a spoiler, because it pretty much gave away the fact that Harry Potter survives the final confrontation with Lord Voldemort.

Even after the Times was confronted with Potter fans' ire, the paper insisted that Kakutani's review had given away no important plot details. And yet, the review did explain what the "Deathly Hallows" of the title meant. Rowling herself had been asked about this and declined to answer, saying that it gave too much away. Given that this information isn't disclosed until about halfway through the book, it is at least arguable that some readers would have preferred not to know this.

I think you'd have a tough time defining what constitutes an "insignificant" detail that wouldn't "spoil" it for somebody. A heading labeled "Plot" is always guaranteed to give away details that "spoiler-sensitive" readers would prefer not to know. Can any of the spoiler-proponents can give even a single example of a section labeled "Plot" in which the details that are disclosed aren't "significant"? Marc Shepherd 13:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

One example of the fluidity of the term "spoiler" has been the debate over Halo: Combat Evolved. The very existence of The Flood is held by some editors to be a "spoiler", although Phil Sandifer has pointed out that the first Halo spinoff paperback, which became a bestseller, mentions them in the blurb on the cover, and the second Halo novel is actually called "Halo: The Flood", and is an official a tie-in with "Combat Evolved". That novel also became a bestseller. Morever The Flood features prominently in marketing material for Halo 3.

That being the case, there's a very good argument for just going with our standard site disclaimer which warns that articles contain spoilers. If any and every plot feature is going to be regarded as a major plot spoiler by some readers, there's no point having these extra tags. --Tony Sidaway 14:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

A bestseller in how many countries of the world?--Nydas^(Talk) 18:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a forest in amongst those trees, you know. Phil Sandifer 13:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a world outside fansites. Most people have never heard of Halo, let alone the spin-off novels.---Nydas^(Talk) 14:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anyone in my generation that hasn't. However, I'm sure there are tons of us who have never heard of the novels. A lot of gamers don't read and a lot of avid readers don't game. Kuronue 15:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What about people in your generation from Asia or Africa? The Halo series has sold about 12 million copies... one for every 550 people.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you sincerely arguing that we need to have a spoiler warning on Halo:Combat Evolved for the sake of children in Africa who haven't heard about Halo? Phil Sandifer 15:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Not just for them, for the 85% of humanity which doesn't know. If you think developing countries don't count, there are still plenty of people in the developed world that won't know.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just trying to wrap my head around why somebody in a developing country without access to an XBox or Halo is going to care about the spoiler. Phil Sandifer 15:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Or someone in a non-English-speaking country. Such as all countries of Europe, Western, Northern, you name it, except for Great Britain and Ireland. Few books on the whole are translated, and it takes an exceptional level of language skill and/or hardheadedness to read several hundred pages of text in a foreign language. You'll notice that Nydas said nothing whatsoever about people in developing countries until you brought them up, and then explicitly excluded them. It does his argument and him a great disservice to reduce it to something it's not and then dismiss it on that basis.

We have previously established that the English Wikipedia is truly international instead of being the regional encyclopedia for US/Canada/Britain/Australia - the majority of its traffic comes from non-English-speaking countries - and I say that means that we cannot base our assumptions of accessibility or availability on what's available in the States and in the UK. --Kizor 17:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well said. The French translation of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows isn't out until October, for example.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just enforce the secondary source requirement about plot revelation? It seems that plot summaries taht are created by Wikipedia editors are Original Research compiled from primary sources. Revealing the plot elements that were revealed by the New York Times or an established gamers magazine would eliminate much of the problem. --Tbeatty 14:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Mainly because it isn't very practical to do so. Reviewers aren't reliable sources precisely because they do obfuscate plot, and sometimes even connive with the writer to intentionally mislead the reader. This is a rare case where, in the absence of scholarly secondary sources (not even a Cliff Notes for instance) we're often better off with a synthesis from primary sources. --Tony Sidaway 15:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your assessment of the sources. But I do disagre with the "we're better off" with a synthesis from primary sources. Who exactly is allowed to synthesize material? Lacking a secondary source, I think it should not be in the article. For cases where the secondary source obfuscates, it should simply not be cited. I oppose primary source synthesis of fictional plot elements on ethical and encyclopedic grounds. The reason for secondary sourcing is that Wikipedia lacks formal editorial oversight. Without that, there is a question of the ethics involved in publishing the creative works of another person. There is a reason why secondary sources don't reveal the entire plot. Ethics is one. --Tbeatty 15:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing "original research" and "research." Wikipedia cannot quote most of its sources verbatim: that would be a copyright violation. Therefore, practically every section of every article is a summary or synthesis of material published elsewhere. Plot summaries are merely one example of this.

Plot summaries, of course, cannot exist without an editor making judgments about which details are relevant. But no Wikipedia article on any subject can exist without such judgments. Anyone who has ever added content to an article (we've all done that, haven't we?) is making judgments at every turn about what details are important to present, and the manner in which they should be presented. If that violates WP:NOR, then there can be no Wikipedia. Marc Shepherd 16:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Time to call it quits?

The anti-spoiler team definitely wins. That's because they're more hell-bent on the issue than the pro-spoiler people. Why else would they take the effort to do this:

"I've got a pre-release version of TonyBot running and compiling lists of articles unexpectedly containing the word "spoiler", which it writes to the above page. It uses an exceptions list to exclude articles I've already checked, so this page should be worth watching rather than searching manually for the word "spoiler". I'll get the bot to run at least once a day and update if it sees a change. --Tony Sidaway 20:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)"

So, you're right, it's probably not worth arguing anymore. --YellowTapedR 15:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That is pretty much the kind of purpose for which I proposed TonyBot in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TonyBot in early May, a couple of weeks before this spoiler tag thing showed up. Eventually it will be available for any user to use to perform general queries on the wiki contents. Writing the spoiler query was the first true test of its capabilities. --Tony Sidaway 15:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I am reluctantly forced to agree. Anti-spoiler hardliners have dug into positions where use of any spoiler tags whatsoever requires their approval, and I can think of nothing we can say or do that would dislodge them. It's quite impressive. --Kizor 16:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Beware of the cabal... Girolamo Savonarola 16:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You are a relative newcomer to this two-months-old farce, are you not? Then you probably weren't around when maybe half a dozen users purged all 45 thousand spoiler tags in use on Wikipedia. That wasn't even contested when the case was presented to ArbCom. What am I supposed to call such a group? --Kizor 17:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A "group", I suppose. A group that apparently was interpreted to have consensus, I suppose. Can you supply some ArbCom links? I'd be curious to have a look at the history, which you correctly surmise me to be ignorant of. Girolamo Savonarola 17:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but you didn't mention the spoiler part when you sought approval. --YellowTapedR 16:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody had mentioned spoilers in early May when I sought approval. That came two weeks later. I thought I had made it plain in the above that the bot is a highly programmable general purpose query tool and looking for the word "spoiler" in articles is only a small part of what it can do. --Tony Sidaway 16:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

But what you're *actually doing with it* is using it to delete spoiler tags. Which matters more: what you could use it for, or what you are using it for? Ken Arromdee 15:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

All I'm actually doing with it is performing a normal Wikipedia search (the same one you could do by pressing the "Search" button) on the word "spoiler", compiling a list of the article names, removing from the list those article names that are already in a file I keep on my laptop, and then writing the resulting list to a Wikipedia page in my user space, User:Tony Sidaway/spoilers.

If you would prefer, I could get the bot to refrain from writing the list to the wiki page. It would be easy enough to write the list to my console and then I could paste it into the page by hand. That would mean that absolutely nothing I was doing required any bot approval at all. Anybody can issue the http requests I issue, they wouldn't even need to register an account. And it's up to them what they do with the information on their own computer as long as they conform to the GFDL.

I absolutely am not using the bot to edit articles. It does not have permission to edit articles. --Tony Sidaway 16:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing discussions archived?

I feel like a couple of ongoing discussions were archived recently, possibly for no other reason than because they were near the top of the page. I was certainly in the process of responding to some comments that were made only a few days ago and yet were quickly archived. Does anyone else feel the same way? Postmodern Beatnik 18:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are permitted to "restore" ongoing discussions if you have further comments and they have not lapsed for too long. Girolamo Savonarola 18:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think the conversations were ongoing; there had been no comments in several days. The talk page was 100KB long, so ongoing archiving is needed. User;Nydas removed the code to use automatic archiving, so we have to do it by hand instead. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There would be no harm adding it back. It would certainly save all the tedium of doing it by hand, and the bot is specifically designed not to archive ongoing debates. --Tony Sidaway 01:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A week or so back, someone said the page was too long and reset the archiving bot from 8 to 6 days. I noticed the page soon got too short.

"There would be no harm adding it back" There is a problem. If the discussion really is winding down then auto-archiving could eventually result in a blank page, unless the archiving time is made progressively longer to match the wind-down, ultimately returning to manual archiving. Milo 05:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's right that archiving needs to slow when discussion slows. But the page was 100KB when I archived it last. I don't know what you consider "too short" - you shouldn't estimate length by counting sections in the TOC, but by editing the page and looking for the "oversize page" message. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If there's no more ongoing discussion, a blank page is the desired state, The archives are perfectly accessible for someone who wants to read the old discussions.

I really take strong issue with Milomedes' claim that this page ever got too short due to auto-archiving. A brief scan of the page history will show you that MiszaBot II has never left this page smaller than 116kb. It is currently half that size, solely due to manual archiving. --Tony Sidaway 10:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Why spoiler warnings should not exist

The fact of the matter is that the Wikipedia, like all encyclopedias of any gravity, is an academic book. It is an attempt to synthesize all of the scholarship about all knowledge into suitably-sized summary articles, with sufficient additional articles for subtopics.

As I'm sure any who has read much critical literature in college knows, the form of academic writing includes unflinching writing about all matters, with rigorous sourcing. Most academic writing about literature overtly spoils not only the main topic of discussion, but also peripheral works which are often brought in to compare or bring into context. I think that in my four years of liberal arts education, I was exposed to hundreds of spoilers in the course of reading critical papers necessary for study in my classes.

While most of us editors are not academics, we are expected to hold our articles to academic standard, whatever the topic. Serious writing does not include spoiler warnings - and furthermore, for most artistic pursuits it is preferable that the articles contain extensive discussion regarding critical comparisons to other works. This will inevitably cause cross-spoiler..ing.

If you're reading an encyclopedia and don't expect to be told everything, then I find little blame other than towards the reader. We're expected to be comprehensive and thorough, and our job is not to protect "virgin eyes" or the profit margins of publishers and studios. Girolamo Savonarola 04:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The academic standards are expected by whom? I would say there are different types of users on Wikipedia (or better, people use it differently depending on their specialization). In articles about fiction, some of the users are maybe academics, but most of them are probably amateurs and fans, who may appreciate spoiler warnings. You really shouldn't prefer one group of users to another. For another example, I find the current out-universe fiction writing style on Wikipedia to be very tedious for reading, because usually, I want to know about some part of the fictional universe, and I am little interested about canonicity and in what exactly episode the subject was revealed (I would prefer footnotes and references for that). I understand that professionals making research on the subject will appreciate that, but for me, it is often more tedious than in-universe style. Note that I don't think that the needs of these user classes are mutually exclusive, but both classes should respect the needs of the other. So, IMHO, academics on Wikipedia should respect "normal" users which may want spoiler warnings (or they can use another source of information, if they consider them offensive). Samohyl Jan 05:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that there are different types of users - but we cannot apply a miscellany of writing styles across different topics simply because we expect more X-type users will read that sort of article. What I am saying is that the form of writing needs to fit the function of the site. Our function is to provide an encyclopedic reference, under the general principles of academic writing. There's nothing obscure about that - it means, among other things, transparent sourcing and the assumption that someone reading an article about a subject will receive a thorough treatment of it, written in the belief that they want to read it in its entirety. Girolamo Savonarola 05:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't ask to have different writing styles across different topics, I believe all the user cases can be integrated into one style, but obviously, all users have to compromise a little. To tolerate spoiler warnings is one of such compromises. I am certainly not against transparent sources (my objection above was about form, not their existence). But I disagree with assumption that people always want to read the article in its entirety, it is simply wrong assumption. Spoilers are one example, here is another: In many mathematical articles, there exist several levels to approach a given topic. For example, a limit can be approached from topology or from mathematical analysis perspective. The topology perspective is more abstract and less known among non-mathematicians, but certainly important for mathematicians. The analysis perspective is less abstract and more practical one (used on engineering schools), and therefore, some not so mathematically versed readers may want only this information. Obviously, the article has to be cleverly written to encompass both approaches, because both of them are important, even if the audience is different. Actually, if mathematical articles were written to rigorous academic standards (for mathematics), no engineer would be able to read them (see Bourbaki). So if it is possible (out of necessity) to handle different user cases on mathematical (or other highly specialized) topics, I believe it is possible in fiction article. Samohyl Jan 07:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

To put things a different way, it's not the fault nor the responsibility of the editors if some people come and want to use WP different from its intended purpose. You wouldn't add guitar tabs to a sheet music site, just because some people MIGHT by guitarists who can't read notated music. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That strikes me as an arrogant position, Melodia. Anyone who worked in communications (advertising, journalism, PR, etc) long enough knows that the intended use of a mediated work is irrelevant if it doesn't take into consideration the actual wishes of the audience. Your example especially doesn't fit, because WP is a general-purpose encyclopedia for a general audience, and seeing tab notation does not cause potential harm to a reader, unlike spoilers. hateless 21:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not arrogant, it's factually inaccurate. Properly notated tabs are sheet music. And many (if not most) sites include them. Postmodern Beatnik 18:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Time to throw in a highly relevant point that no one ever seems to notice: It doesn't matter what "IMHO" you think Wikipedia should be and what its audience is. Wikipedia has guidelines and policies, the core of which will probably not change for a long while. You follow those; if you think they're stupid, leave. David Fuchs^(talk) 22:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you did not notice the remarkable speed which WP:BLP became a bedrock principle of the encyclopedia. The one principle of Wikipedia that probably will never change is that policy comes from community concensus, which mean IMHO's matter. Shutting up and following the rules is a key component of bureaucracy, which in principal WP is not. hateless 23:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP only worked because it follows strictly from neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability. Otherwise it wouldn't have worked at all. Similarly, the collapse of spoilers was because someone flagged just how badly they were trashing neutral point of view and encyclopedic content - David Gerard 00:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Removals made via mass editing tools and backed by admin threats are always going to stick. It's soley down to that.

The removal of spoiler warnings has detracted from a neutral point of view, since it was aimed at excluding the 'wrong' kind of people. People who get new fiction later than 'fans', people who live in late release regions, anyone who wasn't alive when it was released the first time, people who don't carry release dates around in their head, non-native English speakers, people who might look at an article on a fictional character that they're not familiar with, etc.

The one thing these people have in common is that they're not likely to be fans, or in the case of non-native English speakers, sufficiently different to not care about. Wikipedia is well-known for a bias towards fannishness, and the removal of spoiler tags is an expression of this.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am not an admin — and never have wished to be — but I thought it was a sign of great maturity that Wikipedia finally reached consensus to remove spoiler warnings. Their deletion was not aimed at "excluding" anybody. No one has demonstrated that this change caused anyone to be excluded from Wikipedia. Marc Shepherd 12:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether it is a sign of maturity that Wikipedia reached consensus to remove spoiler warnings or not, that's not what happened. It's just not. What happened revealed that Wikipedia is deeply divided on the issue, which naturally suggests that a compromise is in order, allowing spoiler warnings in some situations, but not in others. That is, ideally, what we're attempting to negotiate here, not rehash the whole general issue of whether spoilers have a place or should be banned _entirely_ (a RfC would seem to be the best place to open that can of worms again, but given we've just gone through it I suspect a lot of people would be too worn out for a new debate). However, despite that deep division and need for compromise, a few people decided, on their own initiative, to remove all spoilers, do it in a way that suggested it was already policy, and to enforce that removal by monitoring every use of the template, and jumping in to vote against it - taking advantage of a technical imbalance in the ease of monitoring to remove vs the difficulty of properly placing one. This should not be mistaken for a consensus, and it certainly doesn't indicate maturity on the part of the people doing it, I'm afraid. There are many of the anti-spoiler-warning side who I've grown to respect, even where I disagree, but there are also clearly some of them abusing adventages to push their point of view through and who do not seem to wish to compromise. Wandering Ghost 13:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That's an extremely biased (and by now well worn) account. The RfC certainly didn't suggest sufficient consensus for the tens of thousands of spoiler tags that had been placed on Wikipedia articles, in particular for those that had been placed at the beginning of a clearly marked plot-related section. This was sufficient to justify bold experiments with removal, which were so overwhelmingly successful that the removals continued until they were nearly all gone.

You refer to editors removing spoilers, and as usual you do so in the most disgraceful, offensive and unwikipedian terms, hinting and sometimes outright accusing them of misbehavior, whereas the only editors who have engaged in blockable behavior to date over the spoiler tag issue have been a few individuals who edit warred to retain tags against as many as six other editors removing the same tag. Stop engaging in these unacceptable and baseless personal attacks on editors with whom you disagree.

You say that editors removing the spoiler tags are "taking advantage of a technical imbalance in the ease of monitoring to remove vs the difficulty of properly placing one." This is a very odd way of conceding that when a spoiler tag is placed it is easy enough to tell whether it has been placed appropriately, whereas across the whole of Wikipedia, with many tens of thousands of articles on fiction to choose from, few legitimate placings of spoiler tags have yet been identified by consensus. --Tony Sidaway 14:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Accusing others of making personal attacks is a personal attack in itself. Put up or cease your suggestions that personal attacks have taken place. You have repeatedly called people who like spoiler tags 'stupid and perverse' and other things besides.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh don't be such a silly sausage. I'll point out when editors are falsely accusing others of misbehaving, and that's no personal attack but instead a call for the other editor to mend his ways. I have indeed characterized the motivations behind placing spoiler tags in an encyclopedia "stupid", "perverse", and a lot worse, and I stand by that characterization. --Tony Sidaway 01:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to justify your actions as 'characterising motivations' does not change the fact that they are personal attacks aimed at insulting and disparaging people. I have no doubt that if I were to 'characterise the motivations' of the anti-spoiler brigade with the same language you use, I would get a warning or outright ban.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, the current edits at Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows are extremely instructive about the difficulties spoiler warnings present. Editors keep moving the spoiler tags, as they can't agree about precisely where in the article the "significant" plot details begin and end. Of course, the very first thing in the article is a {{current fiction}} tag.Anyone who read that would be very foolish to read on, and then be surprised that the article discloses significant plot details. Spoiler warnings beyond that, wherever they are placed, merely amount to saying the same thing twice. Marc Shepherd 16:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Why spoiler warnings are necessary

I might be late about this discussion, but I strongly disagree about the "Spoiler warnings are usually redundant when used to cover an entire "Plot" or "Synopsis" heading, or fictional "History" headings of any sort in articles whose subject is fictional, since spoilers are to be expected in a plot summary." phrase. As a wikipedia user, I find spoilers quite obnoxious and do not wish to be revealed crucial plot issues, wether it be in an encyclopedia or anywhere else. I am not against the ending of works of fiction to be revealed on wikipedia but I really think that every detailed plot should be preceded by a spoiler warning. It is a simple matter of politeness to the users. Wedineinheck 17:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I blame the victims

Ayuh. I'm over at the Deathly Page, reading the twenty-odd archives, almost every one of which contains at least one post expressing shock and outrage about the fact that plot summaries contain plot details. All policy questions aside, I have to say that I just don't understand this attitude. It really appears that people want the internet (and wikipedia) to magically allow them to coast to the exact edge of their own, personal, sense of the plot being spoiled, but not disappoint them. It is as if we are being asked to ensure that everyone's christmas presents will make a little bit of noise if you shake them, but won't have the name on the box in a visible location if someone tries to peek under the wrapping.

I don't even understand how someone can effectively use a spoiler tag within an article like Deathly Hallows. I, for one, would not trust my own optical processing to ignore paragaph B while I was reading paragraph A. But what I really do not understand is how anyone can think of these barriers as culturally neutral, NPOV distinctions. All I am left with--in perfect sincerity--is the notion that the people who are outraged over being 'spoiled' are in some sense seeking out the righteous indignation of not-having-been-protected-from-themselves. That's probably uncharitable and oversimplified, but at the moment I don't see another explanation. Ethan Mitchell 19:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

At this stage I think it would be unwise to err on the side of charitability. The "oh no I didn't realise the plot summary would give the plot away" argument is about as good as it gets. --Tony Sidaway 19:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Colloquially understood, the "good as it gets" gets ungood due to the routine encounter of plot summaries both with and without spoilers. As many times as this has been pointed out as simple fact, and an unrefuted fact AFAIK, refusal to acknowledge that fact appears to be either psychological denial or Soviet-style propaganda.

One way to deal with these repetitious illogical fallacies would be to label, count, and tag them, like "Plot summary isn't necessarily spoiler fallacy, serial number xx" and "Spoiler notice is not a warning fallacy, serial number yy". Milo 15:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting that many of the shocked people at the Deathly Hallows talk page didn't actually learn the ending on Wikipedia. They're just indignant as a matter of principle. Marc Shepherd 03:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony, it is never unwise to err on the side of charitability. Reasoned discourse rests on the principle of charity, which is why it is (implicitly) enshrined in WP:AGF. Or are you finally deciding to be what the pro-spoiler camp says you are (a troll, a vandal, etc.)?

Besides, the whole "Warning: Wikipedia may contain information" rant you have been going on since day one of this campaign is nothing more than rhetorical flourish. No one is arguing that we should remove spoilers (and if they are, they are misguided). Instead, some are arguing that spoilers should be labeled. Add to that the fact that the soundness of your own arguments against spoilers is sorely suspect and the above accusations sound increasingly hollow. Postmodern Beatnik 13:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it so much as a rhetorical flourish as a truism. It makes the pointless nature of the rest of the debate apparent by highlighting the absurdity of putting warnings into an encyclopedia that the poor defenseless reader may learn something. And that, surely, is the point. And do mind your ad hominems. --Tony Sidaway 18:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Mind your dictionary before unlearnedly declaring a truism. There is no danger, so there is no warning. I'll correctly substitute in your sentence for you:

Corrected: It makes the pointless nature of the rest of the debate apparent by highlighting the absurdity of putting notices into an encyclopedia that the poor defenseless reader may learn something.

When that red herring false "warning" is pulled out of your argument, it rolls, but like a flat tire. If your statement is made dictionary correct, then by logical inference you appear to be opposed to Table of Contents notices and disambiguation notices, since they also notify that the poor defenseless reader may learn something. Milo 15:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Both Table of Contents notices and disambiguation notices are there to help readers find content. Spoiler warnings, in contrast, are designed to help readers avoid content. That's a rather significant difference. Encyclopedia articles generally don't carry notices advising readers to stop reading. And it's particularly silly where you have heading called "Plot," and then warn the reader that the plot is about to be given away. Marc Shepherd 21:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Though I fail to see anything ad hominem anywhere in my comment above, I do apologize if you were offended in any way. I would also like to reiterate that my primary point earlier was that it is never unwise to err on the side of charitability. Finally, the reason I find your reductive slogan to be flourish is that it obscures the real issues. Clearly, anyone coming to Wikipedia wants to learn something, but that does not mean they want to learn everything. This alone overturns your rhetoric. We can, however, go a step further. Many of the anti-spoiler arguments have been set up in such a way as to suggest that current Wikipedia policy suggests that we should remove the tags. However, the mythical ideal user (who I discussed in an earlier comment) would come to Wikipedia, read the disclaimers, and come away with the impression that (1) there will be spoilers, but (2) there will also be warnings. So while readers have been duly warned, they have also had their fears assuaged. They expect to learn, but they also expect to be able to control what they learn. (For what it's worth, this also highlights the fact that what the anti-spoiler campaign is seeking is a substantive change in Wikipedia policy, not merely a stricter adherence to already existing policy. The obfuscation of this fact has, in my opinion, been to the detriment of this debate.) Postmodern Beatnik 20:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it's always good to see someone titling their opinion with the name of a fallacy (i.e. blaming the victims). It really makes the work of debunking much easier. If you can't trust yourself to avoid paragraph B while reading paragraph A then no, spoiler tags won't help. But perhaps you should get your eyes checked. Postmodern Beatnik 13:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm less annoyed than Beatnik right now, but I have to note that you say what you think your eyes would do. Personally, I have used the tags, well and often, and found them highly effective. Polls both on-wiki and off tend to agree with this sentiment - two-thirds said in the RfC that they do use spoiler tags, they do work for them. This isn't worth a summary dismissal as ineffective. --Kizor 17:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There were several polls at different times in the RFC. Which one are you referring to? - David Gerard 13:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

RFA

I've submitted the RFA again. Ken Arromdee 17:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It was deferred due to the ongoing mediation, which has since ended. --Kizor 17:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

So far, four arbitrators have rejected it--two obviously didn't even read it (IRC conspiracies? What?) and the other two gave no explanation at all. I'm beginning to wonder if there *is* an IRC conspiracy; it's like a politician making a speech and adding "and no matter what you think, this has nothing to do with my Haliburton contracts" when nobody's mentioned Haliburton before him. Ken Arromdee 15:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The "IRC conspiracies" reference is unfortunate, because it had nothing to do with your complaint, but it isn't that puzzling really. You would need to know something about the particular supporters of your complaint and their agendas, and also about the recent history of arbitration.

Ghirlandajo has a history of making statements insinuating some kind of off-site conspiracy, and here said: "I hope that the ArbCom will review the behaviour of all participants and will hand out a ruling on the propriety of deleting 40,000 warnings without having on-wiki consensus. "Because there is a consensus on IRC" or "because we have a clue" or "we know better" do not qualify as valid arguments, in my opinion."

In your previous arbitration request, he said "As so often happens these days, there seems to have been some sort of consensus on IRC, there is certainly no consensus on-wiki, and there is some activity to enforce IRC consensus in the face of lack of on-wiki consensus."

As I said, he has a history of banging the same old drum, and some of the arbitrators may perhaps show a little tetchiness at this behavior. As an example of previous (fairly recent) accusations, see 4 June (last comment in a group of three in one edit) and 31 May, each time in separate arbitration cases.

It's unfortunate that it got dragged in here, but not entirely unusual. --Tony Sidaway 18:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

*reads diffs and boggles slightly* Wow, that looks like a really great arbitration I missed. I must vanity-grep more often, when I have way too much time on my hands - David Gerard 21:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears the RFA is about to fail. Five arbitrators have now voted to decline to hear the case.

At this point, the spoiler-warning proponents need to get over the 45,000 edits that they claim were made in bad faith, without consensus. Whether this is true or not, it's clear that the ArbCom isn't going to take up the issue. No amount of complaining is going to bring those 45,000 articles back to their former state. A more productive activity for the spoiler-warning proponents—assuming they don't want to give up—is to make a new proposal, and try to get consenus.

At this point, I still don't know what the spoiler-warning proponents want, other than to turn back time and undo those 45,000 edits. That clearly isn't going to happen, so they need a new approach. Marc Shepherd 14:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The weakness of the arbitration request was that it was that the charges were so vague, that it could be viewed as a witch-hunt. The entire pretext of the request was that in order to achieve this "consensus", there had to be a policy violation. So far ArbCom had decided to not touch it with a stick nor do I think they want to get involved in the minutia of how a consensus on a policy or guideline is archived. Perhaps if Ken had actually provided evidence of actual policy violations by specific editors, then ArbCom would have been more willing to accept the case. --Farix (Talk) 15:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It does seem to be about to fail. A case needs four more acceptances than rejections to be accepted, and unless one or more of the five rejections switches to accept you'd now need nine straight accepts to start the case.

A specific user conduct case against a specific editor or editors might have a better chance of acceptance. Typically you would have to show a history of clear and serious policy violations such as to suggest that he's likely to continue. This would not have much impact on the spoiler debate, however. --Tony Sidaway 15:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that there are only 13 active member of ArbCom, that's unlikely to happen. The remaining eight will have to accept the case and get one of the current rejects to switch to accept for the case to be approved. The only other way is for one of the non-active members to become active and accept the request as well. --Farix (Talk) 15:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we could recommend that Ken Arromdee and anybody else interested could try a user conduct RFC on the removal of the spoiler tags. I don't think any of his other stuff will cut the mustard:

The alleged circular reasoning is a matter of thought processes and communication rather than conduct.
The edit warring allegations he complains about were based in actual instances of edit warring against consensus.
The alleged logistical lopsidedness isn't a matter of conduct, and Ken's complaints about the wording of the spoiler template can be resolved by reaching consensus on Template talk:Spoiler.

On other comments in the application for arbitration:

Amarkov agrees with Ken's complaint almost word for word.
A Man in Black seems to complain that the problem is that the spoiler tags were removed too effectively and such opposition as existed was stymied unfairly. I don't see a legitimate complaint, here. If there had been much opposition to the spoiler tag removals, the tags would have been restored in massive numbers, and it isn't David Gerard's fault, my fault, Kusma's fault or anybody else's fault that they weren't.
Ghirlandajo seems to be pushing some kind of wiki-IRC dichotomy that doesn't exist in this case.
Kizor agrees with A Man in Black.
Kaypoh's description of what has been happening seems to be somewhat adrift.
AGK raises the mass removals as the primary concern.

I think there is probably sufficient agreement among them to justify a conduct RfC on the mass removals. I would be interested to see that. --Tony Sidaway 18:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Taxonomy of the spoiler debate

As I have said before, I think too many of the pro-warning proponents are too heavily fixated on the past removal of spoiler warnings—which they believe was too heavy-handed—rather than on what, if anything, should be done now.

If we focus for a moment on content, the debate seems to have these dimensions:

1. Which articles get spoiler warnings?

All articles discussing works with fictional content, from nursery rhymes to the latest episode of Lost
Only some of those articles

If the latter, which ones?

2. Where does the warning go? Once it is decided which articles get the warning, where does it go?

On the entire article?
Only on the portion(s) of the article that editors deem to have "spoiler" potential

If the latter, what exactly is considered a "spoiler"? Is it the whole plot, or only a portion of it?

3. What does the warning look like? Regardless of where it goes, what does the warning look like?

Is it big and bold, or more subtle?
Does it explicitly use the word "spoiler", or some kind of alternative wording conveying the same idea (e.g., "Significant plot details follow")

It might make sense if those in favor of the warnings try to answer these questions. Marc Shepherd 19:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Your taxonomy is fatally flawed in all three questions. They are not warnings, they are spoiler notices, because there is no danger. Check M-W.com dictionary under "warning". The dictionary misuse promptly sidetracks serious discussion with a red herring debate on disclaimer policy. Since there is no warning, there is no disclaimer. Spoiler notices are content notices like the table of contents box and the (non-contents) disambig notices.

Well...I consider myself slapped with a wet noodle. A quick search shows that both proponents and opponents often call them "warnings." Marc Shepherd 11:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll correctly substitute the w-word in your questions.

"1. Which articles get spoiler notices?" All articles about structured entertainment with designed surprises, including but not limited to all fictional works, infotainment documentaries, toys with stories, amusement rides, and planned outdoor adventures. The particular articles eligible and which are the particular spoilers should be decided by the art jury of local consensus. The spoiler guide should supply five real examples covering the range of what is to what isn't a spoiler according to guide consensus. Demanding to exclude all fairy tales and all Shakespeare is micromanagement. Every article should be art-juried on its own merits. Limiting spoiler tags to recent fiction simply ignores that old fiction is new to millions of students every year. This is a transparent ploy to reduce spoiler tag use to tokenisms.

Are "art juries" used anywhere else on Wikipedia? Maybe they're a good idea, but if this is the only Wikipedia guideline that depends on the concept, I think it'll confuse a lot of people. Marc Shepherd 12:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your "designed surprise" nomenclature tracks with the original meaning of spoiler. But there are many people these days who think that any plot detail—even if it happens on page 2 of a 500-page novel—is a spoiler. J. K. Rowling complained bitterly about purported spoilers in two book reviews of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows that were published before the official release date. Yet, those reviews did not disclose any more than you would expect in a standard newspaper book review. Marc Shepherd 13:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"2. Where does the notice go?" Anyplace that a spoiler may follow. The art jury consensus decides that, too, and it may include tags preceding a "Plot Summary" heading. Despite the constantly repeated fallacy, plot summaries may or may not contain spoilers, readers cannot correctly assume otherwise, so spoiler tags may or may not be appropriate.

"3. What does the notice look like?" To readers who don't activate them, hidden spoiler tags don't appear, leaving tag complainers with their hidden agendas exposed. (See them below.)

There are many Wikipedia guidelines about which there is pronounced disagreement. Why should this one, and only this one, be the guideline that require "hiding" software because of "hidden agendas"? Marc Shepherd 12:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

When activated for viewing, my spoiler tag design suggestion is:

Note: spoiler details follow

which in text code looks like <center>''Note: spoiler details follow''</center>

The word "spoiler" is in the tag because that's the name of it, everybody knows it, it's used in BBC news reporting, and after some months of neologism notions, it was found it in the American Heritage dictionary.

I think nearly all of the current tags are too large and noisy because of the "warning" fallacy. This is a purposefully minimalist design because spoiler tag activating readers will see a lot of them.

If we're going to have them, I think your design suggestion is a good one—except for the optional "hiding" feature. Marc Shepherd 12:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's done, but pardon, IIRC, you are new to this discussion and a lot of this is plowed ground.

Good job of alleging that everyone but me knows this. A quick perusal of the past discussion shows that the ground isn't quite as "plowed" as you say. Marc Shepherd 11:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A taxonomy view is interesting, but it won't help much with a forward-looking spoiler Wikiguide, because the technical problems are easily fixed. Compromise hidden tag implementations have been on the table for months. The real problem is not pro-spoiler-tag fixation on past removal of spoiler warnings, rather it is a simple refusal by the clique to compromise to any satisfactory degree on the central issues. The top-level connected clique decided that the tags should be removed because Britannica doesn't use them.

The Britannica model is increasingly obsolete; Wikipedia's academic and public reputation was globally devalued circa March 22, 2007, because of its unpredictably unreliable information model; the reader profile paradigm shift is moving Wikipedia into uncharted internet territory; yet the clique are desperately holding on to their grander illusions of the past.

I think most Wikipedians would agree that Britannica is obsolescent. But many Wikipedia guidelines and policies are derived from print analogues. For instance, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS are very close to comparable policies for print reference works. Wikipedia policies need to be tethered to some kind of reality, so it is helpful to examine what other media, in similar situations, have done. Marc Shepherd 12:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Speculatively, the clique may have been further motivated by up to 60% of editors with a laundry list of dislikes for children, teenagers, presumed-immature adults with childlike interests in fiction, fiction-loving adults who somehow aren't facing reality during a time of war, adults who make Hollywood profits by provoking fans to 'cry wolf' and demand falsely hyperbolic "warnings" of spoilers — all compounded by a centuries-old western theological condemnation of acting and theater as a lifestyle of lies.

Frankly, I think your proposal would be far better off if you addressed the merits of it, rather than wasting your time speculating about the purported dislikes of 60% of editors. Marc Shepherd 12:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The clique's open and hidden agenda reasons for not compromising on hidden spoiler tags deconstruct to include elitism and WP:Ownership of all Wikipedia fiction articles.

The elitism includes a vague fear that the hidden spoiler tags will attract 'the wrong kind of readers', i.e., young people who have grown up with some ill-defined socialization known to the clique as "internet culture". They can't really define it, so rather than analogizing to racism, it's more like McCarthyism frightened of commies under the bed.

Their spoiler tag WP:Ownership caricaturizes to two rules: 1. We the clique, control Wikipedia fiction articles because we can; 2. If you disagree, see rule #1, and then log out. Milo 06:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Stunning. Completely absurd, but stunning. For me personally, I'm against spoilers because an encyclopedia exists to inform on all relevant aspects of a subject, impartially. Simple as that. I believe that most people understand that. For those that don't, we have a content disclaimer. But I must say - I wish I had the power of this hyperbolic cabal/clique - we wouldn't be having this conversation then. Girolamo Savonarola 07:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wonder. Does Bigfoot edit Wikipedia? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

We see David Gerard only slightly more often than Bigfoot.--Nydas^(Talk) 12:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

As I have said before, I think too many of the pro-warning proponents are too heavily fixated on the past removal of spoiler warnings—which they believe was too heavy-handed—rather than on what, if anything, should be done now.

I actually agree on this, though it may surprise people. Even though I do heartily agree it was heavily handed, I think too many people are fixated on it. However, I think there is a very related case here on the 'what should be done now'. And that is the problem where a few people on the anti-spoiler side (again, not alleging a conspiracy here - it literally doesn't matter if they work together or not, so long as there are multiple people doing it) can _watch_ the placement of every single spoiler tag, and then, if they desire, jump in to either negate it or vote against it, making it difficult to get consensus on it on any page where there aren't a huge number of people editing it. By contrast, it's impossible for the pro-spoiler tag to keep a watch on pages where spoiler tags are removed to try and place them again. It's analogous to them having a tank while we have guns, and that may be a fine way to win a war, but Wikipedia isn't about warring and using the most effective weapons you can find to defeat the enemy, it's about consensus building. And the fact of the matter is, when this is done, it obscures consensus, because this small number of people can override hundreds of different people on the general policy of spoilers, because a situation exists where they can win almost every battle regardless of how many people are on each 'side' of the spoiler debate, because they can devote their full manpower to every battle, where the other side has to scramble to find out where the battle is taking place (when someone's mentioned that often there's a lone dissenter edit-warring against six or seven other editors, he usually neglects to mention that it seems to be the SAME six or seven people every time, versus a _different_ lone dissenter). Would, overall, the consensus skew to removing spoiler tags, or to having them? I honestly don't know for sure, and I don't think we ever will so long as this sort of activity goes on. _This_ is part of what should be done now, and still needs to be considered.

I think most people could be satisfied with 'local consensus decides the issue in borderline cases', but this is not what's happening, and it seems to be what a few people on the anti-warning side seem to desperately fight against.

Almost all Wikipedia guidelines operate that way. But for starters, you need to have a guideline that addresses the "heartland cases," so that local consensus will have a baseline to work from. Marc Shepherd 13:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I missed replying to this yesterday when I first read it, but you've actually got a point here, one I've tried to make before. For a while, things were going relatively smoothly with the debate and discussion, and it seemed we were making progress. As that happened, it looked like the area of compromise was trending towards something along the lines of (in a nutshell, and omitting the noncontroversial parts of it): 1) spoiler warnings in 'plot' type sections are presumptively not allowed (because it should be assumed). Like all cases, it might be overruled by local consensus if it's felt necessary on a case by case basis. Very recent fiction (whatever winds up being used to defined that) can often be considered an exception. 2) spoilers in other areas on fiction-related articles, if they exist, should be 'presumptively allowed' - if the information actually is a spoiler, a warning should be allowed, and the _removal_ of the warning would have to be justified.

This would provide a basis of handling the cases, and to some degree cut out on the problems with the 'spoiler patrol', those who search for all uses of the spoiler tag and are devoted to removing it. The guideline would help back up anyone who tries to restore spoiler warnings in these other areas, by the people who charge in to try and remove just about every one. It's not a perfect solution, mind you - they can still gang up and try to push it through (maybe a further option would be a 'disputed spoiler warning' tag, so that pro-warning people can search on that and, if they feel the need, add their voice to cancel out the automatic no votes, but I'm getting off topic), but eventually if we have enough 'presumed allowed' spoiler tags actually in place, it will be harder for them to patrol for every new use to make sure it conforms to their own personal standards as they do now, and local consensus can once again start to form.

This compromise got _close_ to materializing, and would do what you mention: define the heartland cases and leave the rest to (ideally) local consensus. It wouldn't have been my ideal compromise, but it would have been satisfactory to me. Of course, it didn't materialize. The current policy now seems to read: 1) There is usually no need for a spoiler warning in plot sections, or in articles about fictional people, objects, places', and 2) It can occur in other areas, _if_ local consensus deems it necessary.

Which to me seems, 'outright hostile to spoiler warnings' in plot sections, and 'presumptively no spoiler warning allowed' in other sections (along with the fact, not immediately clear to the reader, that any halfway determined set of people who are against spoiler warning can make sure that, if nothing else consensus can't form to include a spoiler warning, because there will be 5-6 automatic votes 'against'). I think this is how we've gotten to the state where we used to have thousands of spoiler warnings, and now, in what should be a state of compromise, we tend to have less than 10 at any given time. That can't be what most people consider a compromise.

So, by all means, let's edit the guideline to address the heartland cases in a way that's truly a compromise in both intention and effect. Wandering Ghost 16:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've asked them individually to stop the behaviour. I've attempted various compromises, such as suggesting the inclusion of a "only X number of spoiler related edits per day per person allowed under this guideline" (whether removing spoilers or adding them), or a 'no crusading' rule, but it's always been a no go.

To me, we either have to push through some sort of rule to combat this, or we have to open up the guideline itself to explicitly permit spoilers in some areas. Otherwise, this can not end in a satisfactory way.

Perhaps, if we worked together, both the pro-warning crowd and the reasonable members of the anti-warning crowd, we can push through something like this and make the rest of the debate go by much more easily.

When you start with a presumption that the word "reasonable" applies only to some members of the anti-warning crowd, you're off on the wrong foot. Both sides have their share of reasonable and unreasonable adherents. Marc Shepherd 13:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume you meant to say 'unreasonable' in that first statement, because otherwise you just said the same thing in your last sentence. See my reply to Melodia below (since I wrote it first) for specifics, but that's not what I'm presuming at all, though I concede it must have looked that way due to poor wording - What I meant by saying that the pro-warning group and the reasonable members of the anti-warning group could reach a compromise was more along the lines of... sure, the unreasonable members of the pro-warning crowd would probably join this coalition, because it brings it closer to their side. Just as the unreasonable members of the anti-warning crowd join the agreements that the reasonable members of both make, that reduces the number of spoiler warnings. Everyone still gets a voice, even the unreasonable people. I'm certainly not against anyone having that voice heard. But IMHO the goal for the group as a whole should be a compromise that reflects what people want or can agree on, without allowing the extremists on either side to overwhelm things, either with their policies or their actions.

It still comes down to one issue, always, for me. Consensus. Do you honestly believe consensus exists to remove and keep off pretty well all spoiler warnings? If so, well, I disagree, but it can be a gentlemen's disagreement, and would like to see some evidence of this argument, to debate that end. If you and the majority of the anti-warning group think that there is no place for spoilers on wikipedia even IF consensus says there should be (or if consensus is divided enough that the natural, to me, answer is to find a compromise somewhere in the middle), because it's against the general policies of Wikipedia, then it's clear what needs to be done. All this arguing is irrelevant and a waste of time - both sides need to go to arbitration together to get a ruling on that. Wandering Ghost 12:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

My policy has always been that if you have consensus on an issue like this, you don't need a group of people who is dedicated to enforcing it - it will enforce itself, on a local level. If you don't have consensus, the rule shouldn't exist. And I'm perfectly willing to lose on consensus - if, on a level playing field, it seems to me the majority of people felt spoilers had no place here, I wouldn't have a problem with it - this is in fact why I didn't do anything against the mass spoiler warning removal, because I naively assumed it must have reflected a new consensus. It was only when I actually got into the debate I realized it was nothing of the sort. Wandering Ghost 11:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"My policy has always been that if you have consensus on an issue like this, you don't need a group of people who is dedicated to enforcing it - it will enforce itself, on a local level."

— Wandering Ghost

What an ideal consensus policy statement. I recommend it for enshrinement on a WP essay page. Milo 04:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, if we worked together, both the pro-warning crowd and the reasonable members of the anti-warning crowd --- are you really suggesting that ALL of the pro-warning 'crowd' are reasonable, but only some of the anti-warning ones are? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Presumably a "reasonable" anti-spoiler editor is one who doesn't just remove unnecessary spoiler tags but limits himself to "X number of spoiler related edits per day". Of course, anyone who went to the effort of writing a bot just so that he could do things like search for home-made spoiler warnings, must be utterly beyond reason! <grin> --Tony Sidaway 13:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, of course not, Melodia. There are people on both sides of the debate (hell, probably every debate) who are unreasonable. To use one example, I think anybody who demands the restoration of all 45,000 deleted spoiler tags is being unreasonable (despite the fact that I agree they were removed wrongly). Also, since we're here to compromise, anyone who wants a spoiler warning on every fiction entry, whether ancient fairy tale or newest movie, is unreasonable, and anyone who wants a blanket spoiler warning for all plot sections (even though I personally would be okay with those situations, it's clearly not what consensus wants, so to demand it is unreasonable). However, I do believe that the nature of the unbalanced situation that's occurs is more likely to push away the unreasonable members of the pro-warning group, because they can't get any traction, and can't get any compromise and so are more likely to get frustrated and move away from the debate, while the unreasonable members of the anti-warning group have a lot of success with their methods and thus can continue in the debate with full confidence, and can push even harder. Wandering Ghost 12:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Template talk page

In case interested parties don't have the template talk page on their watchlist, an editor has added a comment here that already has a couple responses. --Parsifal _Hello 19:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Good article writing with hidable spoiler tags compromise

(Copied from #Taxonomy of the spoiler debate part 2 above)

"My objection to hidable spoiler tags is one that has been raised before - it's a technical solution that exacerbates the fundamental problem that it is childish to be concerned with this in the first place. That's the core of the problem - concern about spoilers is inexorably linked to an immature, fannish, and bad style of writing that pollutes the article space with junk that should not be there. If you are editing an article from a perspective that is concerned with guarding the purity of the aesthetic experience that the text offers, you are editing an article from a perspective that leads to bad writing. Phil Sandifer 05:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)"

"concern about spoilers is inexorably linked to an immature, fannish, and bad style of writing"

I've had substantial experience with volunteer organization rulecrafting. That experience makes me less cynical than you seem to be about the realistic possibility of combining good writing and optionally hidden spoiler tags. In short, I don't take the extreme position that they are inexorably separated. I believe in the power of education.

When I said I supported your good writing standards for fiction articles, I was completely sincere. Though I don't expect perfection, I believe that can be done well enough for Wikipedia. I think it's mostly a question of writing adequate instructions about the philosophy to achieve, suggesting priorities, things to avoid, providing real examples, and recommending the concept of balance among all competing factors.

Simultaneously, I believe that equally good instructions can be written for the art jury function of the local consensus, as required to place the optionally hidden spoiler tags. If the tags are hidden, they can be about as freely placed as the fans want them, making the spoiler tag placement consensus an easy task.

As yet, there is no pressing need for compromise to make this happen. However, depending on how things play out in the external world as I've reported above, that many web sites may be condemned by the publishing and movie industries as "spoiler sites" (a bad thing), then the 40+% of disappointed tag-seeking readers here might lay that tar brush on Wikipedia. If that happens, if donations fall, then I think a compromise will be needed, and I think one is available. Milo 07:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It may be theoretically possible for {{spoiler}} not to indicate a badly-crafted article, it just doesn't seem to happen - David Gerard 10:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Phil's views. Spoiler warnings are inextricably linked to a neutral, worldwide point of view. The removal of spoiler tags has been justified with biased, fannish beliefs like 'released in the US means released in the world', 'only fans will look at this article' and 'everyone knows this'. It's a fansite mentality. It's not surprising that people who 'don't know' (i.e. are non-fans) have been disparaged so much during this debate.

That the tags lead to bad writing is incorrect; we have had many featured articles with spoiler tags.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Inextricably???? Evidence for this, please? Inextricable basically means "impossible to separate." To disprove this, only one counter-example would be required, and there clearly are many. Marc Shepherd 21:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If you think inextricably is too strong, then just 'strongly linked' will do. Phil thinks certain articles are fans-only and non-Americans should learn to cope. How is that a neutral point of view?--Nydas^(Talk) 08:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"Spoiler warnings are inextricably linked to a neutral, worldwide point of view." What on earth? So any alleged spoiler we can't find a reliable third-party source for that says it's a spoiler shouldn't be tagged, then? - David Gerard 12:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a stylistic issue, like having 'early life' sections in biography articles.--Nydas^(Talk) 13:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Now you're just being silly. The argument is not that "everybody knows this," it's that any even remotely diligent attempt to research the subject is going to reveal this. Now, mind you, we do have articles that only fans will ever look at - Valen, for example. That's just not a topic that's mainstream enough to be looked at by someone who isn't already somewhat committed to Babylon 5. And "released in the US means released in the world" is clearly not true - though the fact of the matter is that being on the Internet and not in the US does basically mean that you learn to be careful and avoidant of spoilers without tags. But to reduce these instincts to fannishness amounts to proclaiming that Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. We can write articles with an eye towards providing a thorough, encyclopedic overview of a topic. Or we can write articles with an eye towards preserving the sanctity of the aesthetic experience as designed by the author. We can't do both. Phil Sandifer 14:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Once you have start applying bizarre metrics like 'any even remotely diligent attempt' or 'fans only', then you have rendered yourself incapable of producing a general-purpose encyclopedia. It is not our place to guess what sort of people are going to read an article. Expecting non-Americans to learn the ways of the Internet is easier said than done. So much for stopping 'encroaching Internet culture'.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure we can do both. Nothing about spoiler tags prevents a thorough, encyclopedic overview of the topic. Nothing. All it does is offend a few people who think they're unnecessary and insulting, but unfortunately, being offended or insulted is not grounds for removing something from Wiki. And, guess what? You're missing a hidden trap in your own argument. Spoiler Tags PROMOTE thorough overviews of a topic. Why? Because, although people can (and do) monitor whenever people place in a spoiler tag, and remove it if it offends their sensibilities, you CAN'T easily monitor when people edit an article to subtly obscure or remove a spoiler in the text itself. You have to be monitoring the particular article in which it happens. So, on all those articles that have only a few watchers, that may have been once thorough and encyclopedic and contained spoilery informations with a warning, could change after anti-warning people removed the warning. And then they move on. But if one of the few people watching doesn't replace the warning, but instead removes the spoiler itself, they'll probably never know. And they've made the article _less_ thorough.

Baseless speculation? Perhaps. But I don't watch too many articles, and I've already seen it happen once. Runaways (comics) used to have a character list that included spoilers, about characters who died, and so on. It was warned. There was a brief tussle over it, but the warning was removed (I was infact warned against 'edit warring' because two of those people who remove all spoiler warnings reverted my edits). Shortly after that, that section was rewritten, and a note (not visible in the article itself, only the editting section) that people shouldn't mention the deaths in the character listing, because it's spoiler territory. This is despite the mantra of many anti-spoiler people (and, for that matter, many pro-spoiler people) that concern about spoilers should never impact the STRUCTURE of an article. But when you remove the spoiler warnings, you remove options, and some articles will take the options that reduce the amount of information. I certainly didn't try to change it back, because I felt that with spoiler warnings being constantly quashed this was a better way to handle the problem.

So, let's re-evaluate your closing thoughts: We can write policies with an eye towards providing a thorough, encyclopedic overview of topics. Or we can write policies with an eye towards making sure a single little tag is absent from all articles. We can't do both.

(Oh, and btw, it's not necessarily true that only a B5 fan will read a Valen page... a lot of people browse. Someone might get interested in a work of art for the first time by stumbling on a page related to it.) Wandering Ghost 12:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

And again, the argument fails on the basis of, why ONLY spoileresque content? I've seen people remove pictures (both photos and drawings) from articles like clitoris, presumably because they find them disgusting/offensive/OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN, etc. Does that mean they shouldn't still be there? No of course not. Similarly, we shouldn't allow spoiler warnings because some editor MIGHT make incorrect edits in an article. That note at Runaways is silly, and should be removed (not that I will, as I don't feel like doing it just to get reverted). People claim bad circular reasoning supported the mass removal of the tags -- I put forth this reasoning for adding them is pretty much just as faulty and circular. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

And, more to the point, this kind of hideable content has been pretty explicitly rejected in far more serious cases than spoilers. Phil Sandifer 15:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, despite the heading of the topic I'm posting in, I'm actually against 'hideable spoiler tags', or at least, I'm not particularly in favour of it, at least if the default is hidden. I'm speaking more about spoilers in general. And I've gone through my reasonings on why spoiler warnings are different from other content notices in response to you several times. You've never responded, to my recollection, but I can only assume you disagree, and that's fine, but I really don't feel like typing it all out again, since although it's convincing enough to me, there's nothing new in it that would convince you this time if it hasn't before. However, there is one key part of it that bears repeating: It's different from other notices because people WANT it. Consensus is not to remove spoiler warnings, no matter how much you might want it to be. I can only assume consensus is with the other content notices, although I haven't investigated the issue because frankly, I don't care. But on this subject, I know consensus is divided, and so at the very least, we should have a policy that allows some spoiler warnings, so your "but spoiler warnings are all bad we don't have other content warnings" argument is fine for stating your view, but otherwise doesn't advance the debate anywhere.

Again, if the position of most of the anti-warning group is that it doesn't matter what consensus is, that we should be removing all spoiler warnings because it's fundamentally anti-wiki, then please, let's all go to arbitration, together and without rancor, and get a ruling on that once and for all. Otherwise, can we please stop repeating the general "Oh no, spoiler warnings are bad!" vs "Spoilers warnings are good!" debate here, and try to deal with how best to do the compromise?

I also continue to maintain that a policy that ignores how people actually behave within it is a bad policy. That's why a policy that causes people to add less information is a sub-optimal one. The people who add information to fiction articles are often fans, and fans are often more spoiler conscious because they want others to enjoy the work, so without a means to mark spoilers, many will not include really spoilery information - I know I'm much less likely to. I (unlike some) might not protest and remove it if someone else does, but I'll let someone else do the work. Combine that with the fact that probably a fair number of fiction articles are only maintained by a small number of people, those which are maintained by the spoiler-shy will likely remain with less information for longer periods. Net loss of information results from banning spoiler tags, even ignoring the information the tags themselves provide. Conversely, people who add to articles that might contain nudity or graphic sexual depictions and such are usually people for whom nudity and frank sexual depictions don't particularly matter, so there's less likely to be information loss, and maybe there'll even be information gain where people feel free to discuss things frankly. By the same token, a policy that looks like a compromise on paper, but allows one side to dominate in fact (say, because of a super-easy ability to gang up on new spoilers, and an inability to easily track their removal), is a bad policy in my book. Maybe that's a minority opinion that you have to look at the effects of a policy to judge how good it is, but it informs how I look at things, anyway. Wandering Ghost 13:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That's probably the most sensible argument for the warnings I've seen. And how long did it take? Two and a half months? Your points have merit, but there's always WP:DEADLINE to consider. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 14:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to argue for a worldwide point of view, you will need to argue that people in other parts of the world actually expect spoiler tags. I see no reason why someone who doesn't already frequent Internet fan sites will expect to have plot details specially marked, or will be upset if they learn the plot here.

People who don't know aren't disparaged - we write articles to help them learn. What is disparaged are people who don't want to learn the plot details but nevertheless decide to read, for example, a section called "Plot". — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia's perspective, there aren't 'other' parts of the world. English-language coverage of the Harry Potter launch in developing countries should be enough to show that spoilers are a worldwide concept. Spoiler warnings are not only used on fansites [1] [2].

It is not obvious that a plot section will contain spoilers. It is to you, but not to people who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia.--Nydas^(Talk) 13:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Many things are not obvious to people who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia - for instance, why an article sometimes just says "PENIS!" or why we don't let you make an article about yourself. The assumption here is that readers are capable of learning. Phil Sandifer 14:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The difference being that people won't come in search engines looking for those things.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, someone coming in from a search engine could EASILY run across a recently vandlaized page right off the bat. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. We get about a dozen complaints a day on OTRS of "Page X was vandalized" from people who don't seem to get that they can go and fix this in less time than it takes them to tell us about it (and by the time we read it, it will have already been fixed.) This has not led to any attempt to make pages harder to vandalize. We're a top 10 website at this point - we have the power to declare that people should know what we are. Or at least, we have the right to decide not to cater to people who dont. Phil Sandifer 16:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Who's this 'we' you're referring to? I don't believe that there was ever any consensus to remove spoiler warnings. In any case, popularity should never give 'power to declare' things.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I second the comment from Nydas there was never any consensus to remove spoiler warnings. After following this discussion for months, I still don't understand what the problem is with notifying readers that a spoiler is up ahead. It seems like a total non-issue to me. There is no evidence that users all over Wikipedia were tearing their hair out about those horrible spoiler notices, thinking to themelves "If I see one more spoiler notice, I'm going to buy a $60 subscription to Britannica so I don't have to look at those unencyclopedic travesties any more." --Parsifal _Hello 09:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I cannot think of another example in Wikipedia where the text of an article is "optionally hidable," so that those who object to the text don't have to see it. The closest analog is hidable table-of-contents and navigation boxes. But in those cases the material isn't totally hidden; it's just shown in a compact form. But I can't think of a case on Wikipedia where text just totally disappears for some readers.

Now, in the first place, I don't think this issue is important enough to be the first example where Wikipedia optionally hides text from readers who would rather not see it. I can think of a lot of things on Wikipedia that some readers would probably rather not see, if they had their druthers. It really does open a can of worms. And in the second place, like every other contested issue on Wikipedia, I think the answer is to come up with a middle-ground solution, and get consensus. There are lots of editorial decisions I disagree with, but I don't go around insisting that the software be modified to give me a personal version that hides the content I wish wasn't there. Marc Shepherd 22:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, is there any other instance where the MOS encourages articles to have dedicated tags within the text? Usually the whole point of inserting tags into the text is to point out sections that have serious problems and need attention. I can't think of any exception to this aside from the spoiler tag. It seems rather poor form to insist upon the permanent installation of an impinging tag. Girolamo Savonarola 22:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've brought this up before. Outside of interwiki links (like "commons has content on X") and a couple things at the top (disambig, redirect, etc), all meta-info is temporary...except for spoiler warnings (as they used to be, at least). It doesn't make sense why this ONE issue should be an exception. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 23:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is an exception. Why does that mean it should be avoided?

Another way of looking at an exception is: Innovation. A new idea, like Wikipedia itself.

Wasn't it an ~~exception~~ innovation each time Wikipedia has done anything in a new way? Doesn't that pretty much apply to just about everything on Wikipedia?

Is Wikipedia already so old and set-in-its-ways that we only follow tradition and do things the way they were done before? Too late for any new innovative solutions ever again? --Parsifal _Hello 09:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The set of things Wikipedia has never done is infinite. Hidable spoiler warnings, therefore, are like infinity other things that Wikipedia doesn't have. Obviously Wikipedia is not immune to change. It is changing all the time. But given the size of the site, first-of-a-kind interface changes require more careful consideration.

You also have to recognize that after there's a first-of-its-kind, there will surely be a second, and a third, and a fourth. So you have to ask, not merely whether hidable spoiler warnings are a good idea, but in general whether different readers should see different text, depending on what pleases/offends them. That's a pretty fundamental shift. And that kind of shift doesn't happen very often. Marc Shepherd 10:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, those are good points, and I doubt it will be done in this situation. My response was only to indicate that "there are no other instances" or it's an "exception" are not a good reasons not to consider the solution. For example, if we had a consensus here (obviously we're not even close, but if we did), then we could ask the developers if it would be easy or hard. Who knows, maybe it could even be done with a CSS skin or something simple (not saying that's so, just that we don't know). Then we could take that information and float a trial balloon about it in a wider forum, such as WP:AN to see if there are objections to requesting the feature and if anyone sees a deeper policy issue. So we're along way from actually doing it, of course, and it's not likely to happen. But "exception" is not a good argument about something new that's technical - and it's also not a good argument for something that might require a change to the MoS, because that can be changed as well if needed. --Parsifal _Hello 18:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't follow the last previous technical discussion closely, but IIRC, the final poster said it's already doable in CSS, and that the tags would be unhidable in only a few ancient browsers.

I think the point a lot of posters have missed is that I've started here a topic on compromise mandated from the top down. If that happens, technical cooperation is already a done deal, and therefore need not be further considered here.

Likewise, a mandated compromise immediately throws overboard simple preferences of the 'I don't like it' class. Also quickly discarded are precedent concerns, such as 'it hasn't been done before'. In this topic, all that needs to be considered is practical operational and philosophical issues.

Milo, whom do you think is going to "mandate" it? Marc Shepherd 13:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Operational concerns would be for example, can the hide/unhide interface functionally work in practice for press release reading reporters. (Never mind will some/many/no people use it later - that's not important for restoring the donations flow, because technically Wikipedia would no longer be a "spoiler site").

Philosophical concerns would include Phil's worry/belief that any tags and good writing are mutually incompatible. (That concern can be tested with demos, and collected statistics.)

One value of a mandated compromise discussion is that having identified what's really important to the donations flow, it then becomes not easy, but easier, to discuss a bottom up compromise intended to prevent the "spoiler site" label from ever becoming a donations issue. Milo 20:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Out of interest, when is this donations crisis due to start? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 21:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Milo, you are not a member of the Wikimedia Foundation - please stop speaking as if you are doing so on their behalf. As far as I'm concerned, unless this concern is directly discussed by them, your continued reference to this matter is a straw-man affair. Girolamo Savonarola 21:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

My judgment is that we are not communicating from a common frame of reference; therefore, debate between us is, to use Phil's term, ill-advised. Milo 05:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, somewhere between 1 year and never. A lot depends on how much big publishing estimates this current wave of spoiling is going to cost them in sales. I think it's reasonable to assume that the bigger the spoiling loss, if any, is to big publishing, the larger and sooner the reaction will come. I say big publishing, because what lessons are learned from the Deathly Hallows spoiling, will be applied to the rest of the industry.

If they estimate that they've lost a lot, they'll spend a lot to hire big PR to crush the spoiler sites, and Wikipedia might get caught in the backdraft. (If you aren't familiar with big PR, check out PRWatch.com.) If JKR's claim that people will buy the Deathly Hallows book anyway is correct, then maybe nothing but periodic whining will emit from the publishers' in-house PR offices.

Given that Deathly Hallows set a sales record, it's pretty safe to guess that JKR was indeed correct that the alleged "spoilers" didn't hurt sales. Marc Shepherd 13:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

How important are the spoilers, might have an impact on the losses, if any.

Death is mentioned in the title of the Harry Potter book. For TV series, the rerun value is hurt when major characters die, so TV producers avoid this. By contrast movies seem not death-averse.

I have a questionable personal example of how spoiling might affect sales when major movie characters die. I'm a fan of the Mission Impossible TV series, so I originally had considerable interest in seeing the movie. After I heard the spoilers, I decided I not only was not going to see or rent that movie, I was going to turn it off if I found it playing on TV. OTOH, it was a movie based on a TV series, so maybe my reaction was TV-series-like rather than movie-like.

So, are Harry Potter books more like TV series or movies in the fans' reactions to spoiled deaths? Milo 05:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Which Harry Potter books do you mean? The ones that have enabled J K Rowling to fill up several banks, or the ones that have sunk without a trace due to their having been spoiled? Forgive me for saying this, but I reckon a suitably cynical individual might read your thesis on this page and come to the conclusion that you've conveniently identified a problem for which your preferred stance on spoiler tags happens to be the solution, via a methodology described in the mathematics trade as "making it up as you go along". --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 08:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"Which Harry Potter books do you mean?" "Books" plural only refers to my question about the fans' expectations associated with character deaths in a book series, TV versus a typical one-off movie. The financial aspects of spoiling are reported to be about Deathly Hallows. Here's a diff to the unexpected news links on which I've based my commentary: SF Chronicle aka "Editorial: Spoiling is immoral" & "JK slams spoiler sites ahead of book launch"

"conveniently identified a problem" As they say in the news trade, "don't shoot the messenger". I call 'em as I see 'em, and I've fairly laid out the broad range of possibilities. It turns out that the clique bet mass spoiler removals against a publishing/Hollywood establishment that makes big profit from avoiding spoilers. Betting against establishment profits is widely considered unwise, but Wikipedia could still slip under the radar. However, if you can't see what's known as "exposure" in the risk-based industries, then just laugh it off and exit the mandated compromise discussion that is not intended for you. Milo 14:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither of these stories is evidence that the publishing industry considers spoilers to be impediments to making profit. Indeed, neither even dares to suggest that industry finances might be threatened in such a manner. So, it's still not clear that this is an issue that exists exterior to your imagination. Which does rather beg the question of whence this mandate arises. (Oh, and thanks for your advice on whether I have sufficient understanding of risk-based industries to continue in this discussion. I shall give it all the consideration it deserves.) --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 14:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"evidence that the publishing industry considers spoilers to be impediments to making profit" JKR mentioned sales and that's good enough for me to read between the lines. Likewise, it did not escape my notice that the SF Chronicle's taking the principled position that spoiling is immoral, conveniently aligns with big profit.

You've made your point that you don't agree with my interpretation of the available facts, so I prefer to leave it at that. Milo 15:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What constitutes a spoiler?

Milo, I think we'd all prefer to leave it at that. Hence why no other pro-alert editors seem to be joining your side in this regard. While I obviously disagree with the stance, I can at least respect their positions as being reasoned and consistent. This aspect you keep on hammering on about seems an attempt akin to emotional blackmail. Well, for better or worse, it is not illegal for an encyclopedia to spoil a work. It is not our job to attempt to divine what PR agents want us to do - were that to happen it would be necessary to incur hidden tags for good portions of the biographies of politicians.

Which also raises the issue - what constitutes a spoiler? Is it merely the ending to a plot? Is it the entire plot? What if I'm working on a PhD in English literature and don't want to be spoiled about the critical commentary? And hey, if we're going to protect people from reading things that they don't want to, simply because of a vocal contingent, need we stop at spoilers? Perhaps if the Christian Right is vocal enough, we could hide large portions of human sexuality, to say nothing of penis, vagina, and so on. Because what the hell, I mean, they can always choose to unhide it, right? But why should information be hidden, segregated and demarcated, prepackaged in a manner easily censored should one later choose to? It is not our job to make such distinctions. As far as the encyclopedia is concerned, there are only two types of information that are important and need be identified publicly - sourced and unsourced. Girolamo Savonarola 16:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"we'd all prefer " I'm sure you meant to exclude the Wikimedia Foundation. :)

I could think that we'd all prefer to avoid the multi-rerun topic of what constitutes a spoiler, but I'd probably be wrong. Milo 17:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

We do hide large portions of human sexuality. Most (all?) of our articles about sex have no photographs, relying on line drawings or ancient pottery.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(<--)Nydas, have you ever thought that the reason for this might be for reasons other than self-censorship? Would you be willing to photograph yourself naked or whatnot and post it on Wikipedia? If you did to clearly illustrate something, I doubt most sane people would stop you. But that, along with copyright issues (which is why we dont have porn stars for sex positions, natch) is what I would say is the largest reason for the 'self censorship' you always bring up. David Fuchs^(talk) 16:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

We are able to find pictures for the sexual organ articles, so it can't be that difficult.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Then, by all means, take it upon yourself to do so! — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Fuchs (talk • contribs)

There is a difference between a lack of content and a willful obstruction of it. What it sounds like you're saying is akin to complaining that most articles aren't FA-quality. Is there any evidence that there are sections of the sex articles which are hidden and require clicking a button? Or even just have warning signs? Please. Girolamo Savonarola 17:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My point is that Wikipedia is not censored is a sporadically enforced policy. We don't use unsafe content tags because there is hardly any unsafe content. For example, indecent exposure has had its images removed. The claim about spoilers being a gateway to censorship of sex articles is a red herring because the censorship is already there.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, my claim had nothing to do with spoilers and sex articles directly - it had to do with the idea that if we hide content to cater to one group, why shouldn't the principle infect other sets of articles. Second, the idea that our policies are an all-or-nothing package in which they should either be obeyed with perfection or disregarded entirely is quite clearly a fallacy. Were our policies perfectly implemented at all times, we clearly would barely have need of the Wikipedia talk namespace. So let's not argue the matter on the basis of the existence of imperfection in the mechanism of enforcement; that's a logical fallacy. Girolamo Savonarola 18:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The fallacy is that censorship has anything at all to do with spoiler notices. It does not.

Is a spoiler notice a form of censorship? Certainly not, because it does not stop someone from seeing or reading anything, it gives them a choice and does not control their access to the information.

Is Wikipedia censored? Certainly it is, even though the policy says it is not. Sexual pictures are removed, certain religious images are modifed or removed, information about living people is tightly controlled, legal threats are strictly forbidden on talkpages. Those are all forms of censorship. I'm not making a judgment about whether those limitations are a good idea or not, I'm just pointing out that they are applied regularly. Sometimes referring to a policy like "WP is not censored" can be a shorthand for something that is not truly understood or explored, resulting in a discussion being based on a faulty foundation.

Spoiler notices are not censorship. And, Wikipedia is censored anyway. Therefore: The idea of censorship is not a valid basis for contesting spoiler notices. Censorship should not be used in this discussion as a support for the position of prohibiting or even minimizing spoiler notices. --Parsifal _Hello 19:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the whole censorship issue is a red herring, because no one is arguing that the content should be removed. The issue is whether the user should be warned in advance about potentially objectionable content, when we don't have that type of warning for any other content.

The people who say Wikipedia is censored need to look up the definition of censorship. There are plenty of reasons why material is not present on Wikipedia—so many that I probably couldn't list them all. But censorship is not one of those reasons. Marc Shepherd 19:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My point is if you are hiding the information, it is an obstruction to it being clearly available. Additonally, it can break the formatting in certain forms of browsing (such as some mobile phone platforms) and prevent any accessibility even with intention. And no, Wikipedia is NOT censored, nor should it be. The purpose of BLP is specifically to prevent libel, not fact-dissemination. I find it incredible that you are claiming otherwise. Just because a wiki exists does not mean that anyone can do anything to it. Does banning someone from uploading images of child pornography constitute censorship? Does deleting nonsense articles constitute censorship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girolamo Savonarola (talk • contribs)

This is, as Marc Shepherd noted, a red herring, but to put it to rest, I have to say that yes, both BLP and preventing child-porn are indeed forms of censorship. They just happen to be forms of censorship that I agree should be used, but they are censorship nonetheless. Deleting nonesense articles is different, that's just the community deciding that it's not interested in something, not censorship. The policy issues and the procedures are different than for BLP or child-porn, so that's a red herring of a red herring.

On the other hand, here is an element of this question that can bring it out of red-herringdom and back into spoiler-noticedom. I don't happen to agree with the censorship of sexual imagery that is not child-porn, and that does also occur on a regular basis on Wikipedia even though it's not policy. But that's a more complex question because it's different where only adults are reading the material, than if children are reading Wikipedia. I don't have a bright line to apply, so I would prefer to leave that to the parents of children using Wikipedia. To deal with that, I think it would be great to have a technical solution - ie, the ability to set the preferences of an account, using a parental password, to show or reveal certain elements that the Wikipedia local-article-editor consensus determines is material that should be available only to adults. This is similar to the hidden-spoiler-notice question, except it would be controlled by the parent, not by the reader themselves. The technology would be the same and could effectively protect young eyes from seeing things that only us jaded spoiler-talk-page editors should see. --Parsifal _Hello 03:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Parental controls are already an accepted feature of TV and other web media. Censorship as it does actually exist, should be in the home and under the control of users and parents to the extent possible. These are matters of balance, gray areas, imperfect solutions, and existing laws, but where there is an actual choice available in practice, users should decide for themselves. Right-wingers can choose to turn off all the body parts for themselves only, and I'll turn off all the things I don't want to see or read, but only for myself. If Wikipedia plans this customization in an organized way for everyone, it should preempt the right-wing's give-inch, take-mile tendencies.

I have already alluded to user optional spoiler hiding as being one of a class of user customizations for the 'next encyclopedia'; which fork may or may not be Wikipedia, depending on whether editors here stand in the way of what reasonable numbers of reasonable users want customized. Milo 04:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Taxonomy of the spoiler debate part 2

1. Which articles get spoiler warnings?

*Only some of those articles

If the latter, which ones?

I'd think we can cut out fairy tales, and, in general, Shakespeare and classic literature, things over, say, 100 years old, although there should be still room for exception in certain cases.

2. Where does the warning go? Once it is decided which articles get the warning, where does it go?

*Only on the portion(s) of the article that editors deem to have "spoiler" potential

If the latter, what exactly is considered a "spoiler"? Is it the whole plot, or only a portion of it?

One of the key things about the spoiler debate is that a spoiler warning _is_ useless and redundant if it's just at the top of the article. That's why the 'current fiction' template isn't really useful either, because I might want to read an article on current fiction to learn something about it, but I don't want to read the spoilers. So the warning doesn't help me at all. Also, people routinely forget that people do use the spoiler warnings _actively_... that is, people read pages and scroll to the spoiler section, because they want to read about the twist. This is what separated spoiler warnings from other disclaimer templates, that many people will use them to _find_ specific content. It's not something that works in a table of contents, but it's a useful tool nonetheless, and for that tool to remain functional, it the more targetted the spoilers, the better.

Although some people consider any part of the plot a spoiler, they seem to be a minority. Most people seem to think the spoiler is things like the ending, or a surprise twist to the plot. (Most people seem to _like_ knowing _something_ about the plot before they watch it, and those who don't like to know anything are unlikely to read a page about it before they do).

3. What does the warning look like? Regardless of where it goes, what does the warning look like?

It should be bold enough that it can be seen while scrolling, it should contain the word 'spoiler' (because 'plot details' is vague, and not all plot details are spoilers), but otherwise it should be relatively unobtrusive. No need for a huge space or big flashing lights. Wandering Ghost 12:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The correct answer to question 1 (no article should have spoiler warnings) implies that it is not necessary to even think about 2 and 3. Kusma (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Begging the question gets you nowhere, Kusma. But thanks for playing. Postmodern Beatnik 17:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just pointing out my view which was not yet included in the description of the debate above. Kusma (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Kusma, I'll give you an ESL pass on the construction of your statement. I might have used a personal position stated thusly:

(example:) I take the position that no article should have spoiler warnings in question 1; that assumed, it is logically unnecessary for me to answer questions 2 and 3.

I hope this helps. Milo 20:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That's basically what I was looking for out of Kusma—a more qualified statement that did not presuppose the correctness of his position. I am not in the habit of checking to see if one is speaking English as a foreign (or "second") language, nor am I convinced it should entirely matter; but in the interests of comraderie I will also give an ESL pass on the statement's construction. Postmodern Beatnik 18:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wandering Ghost...I have to ask. Which fairy tales can we cut out? Cinderella? The Kokiji? The recent novel Wicked? And why is it 100 years exactly? Is the disappointment of someone who gets spoiled about the plot of Bleak House irrelevant to us, while someone who gets spoiled on Catcher in the Rye has a serious concern? I hate to push this into absurdity, but I think that the idea of these distinctions is, at best, absurd. At worst, it is patently a way of enshrining one particular cultural / subcultural POV into the way articles are indexed and warned. And yes, I use the word 'warned' advisedly. A table of contents does not pander to the emotional concerns of the reader. A spoiler tag does. Ethan Mitchell 00:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"idea of these distinctions is, at best, absurd" I agree. Only central-control micromanagers have these concerns. Leaving these distinctions to the existing art jury function of local consensus makes all these issues go away.

"I use the word 'warned' advisedly" Does that mean you intend to dictionary-misuse "warning", because profit-driven falsely-hyperbolic spoiler-avoidance publicity has successfully duped almost everyone? (Including me until I did the dictionary research.) I don't think it would have mattered, except that in a search for encyclopedic correctness at Wikipedia, editors began making a chain of incorrect arguments rooted in the false "warning", such as invoking the red herring false WP disclaimer, created because of the false WP warning, created because of the false external warnings, created though formally incorrect in the absence of bone fide danger. Mixed metaphorically, the buc stops here — somebody has to tell the emperor he has no clothes.

Your apparent refusal of dictionary correction seems to be a promotion of neologism OR in the spoiler guide. Unfortunately, it makes hypocritical WP:KETTLE of your other POV claims here. Perhaps you should rethink your positions.

"table of contents does not pander to the emotional concerns of the reader" Neither do spoiler tags pander. Again, heed the dictionary:

COED pander, v. reads: "gratify or indulge (an immoral or distasteful desire or habit)."

Btw, this is mostly a rerun debate, so how about searching the archives for the set of keywords here so you can at least try to think of some new arguments? (If you have only a primitive browser search tool, and if no other topic heading or single keyword works better, I suggest an archive-page browser search for "Milo".) Milo 04:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't have put it better myself. Girolamo Savonarola 00:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

As I take it, Wandering Ghost was making a sincere attempt to find a compromise. He is one of only about 2 people on Wikipedia who seem to be interested in finding a middle ground.

Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia and a reference source. It is therefore to useful to inquire what other encyclopedias and reference sources—both online and offline—have done. Well, I did a quick online check, and other websites that discuss Bleak House overwhelmingly do not have spoiler warnings. This makes me wonder:

A) If other references sources didn't seem to think Bleak House needed spoiler warnings, then why do we?

B) If we include them anyway, just how effective are they likely to be? They will work (assuming the reader even cared about this) only for those who happen to look at this site, and no other reference source.

Where Bleak House is concerned, those arguing for spoiler warnings have a tall hill to climb, given that others who were faced with the same task never thought they were necessary. Exactly where one draws the line is open to debate. But the conclusion that Bleak House is firmly on the "no warning" side of that line seems unavoidable.

On the other hand, where Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is concerned, the spoiler-warning proponents may have a legitimate concern, since websites of all stripes have reached the same conclusion: the warnings are useful.

So, if any compromise is going to be achieved, it lies somewhere between Bleak House and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Those who categorically oppose compromise are free to keep bashing their heads against the wall. Marc Shepherd 01:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The 'other encyclopedias don't do it' argument is akin to arguing for tank crews to wear cavalry spurs. There is no inherent property of encyclopedias that 'forbids' spoiler tags.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a poor analogy, because there's no longer a cavalry, but there are other modern, current, contemporaneously published encyclopedias and reference works. Your analogy would make sense if we were attempting to compare Wikipedia to the 1911 Britannica. But that's not the comparison we are making.

A more relevant example is if someone is building a new army, and is arguing strentuously for something no other contemporary army does. Maybe you're a visionary, and someday this viewpoint will be adopted by everyone else. But that's always a tough case to make. Most of the time, armies that ignore settled wisdom get slaughtered.

You will find that many Wikipedia policies and guidelines are derived from what other encyclopedias have historically done. After all, Wikipedia didn't invent the word "encyclopedia," so people come here with some ideas about what the word means. Wikipedia has a no original research policy because encyclopedias in general don't present original research. Wikipedia has a verifiability policy, because encyclopedias in general confine themselves to what is verifiable. And so forth. Marc Shepherd 17:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Tanks were contemporary with cavalry for many years, and it was suggested as late as the 1930s that tank crews in the British Army should wear spurs. Wikipedia is contemporary with old-fashioned encyclopedias, but is different enough to make generalisations about minor features like spoiler tags unconvincing.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is contemporary with a lot of reference sources. Are you suggesting that every last one of them—except for Wikipedia—is old-fashioned? Wikipedia isn't the only modern thing out there. Surely there is some other lodestar that you would accept as relevant in some sense.

Anyhow, I am not the one who has any convincing to do. As of this moment there are 14 articles in the main namespace with spoiler tags, compared to thousands without. Regardless of how we got there, that is the status quo. The burden or persuasion is with those who want to change it. I humbly suggested that it might be helpful to look for guidance at what other reliable modern sources have done. Perhaps you're ignoring them because they don't produce the answer you want. But in that case, you need to come up with some other reasoning.

If you prefer to suggest that all other sources are irrelevant, go right ahead. I was just trying to suggest a way forward. Marc Shepherd 19:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Paper encyclopedias, specialised reference works, fan wikis are examples of what Wikipedia is not. There are a few that do use spoiler tags; why are they ignorable? Is it a case of them being in the minority?--Nydas^(Talk) 09:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well...um, yes. I do think that if most sources don't use them in a particular situation, it tends to suggest that they are unnecessary. You keep mentioning what Wikipedia is not. But if you are ever going to make a case, it needs to have a positive reason, not merely an "absence of negatives." Marc Shepherd 21:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't categorically oppose compromise - I think we have a compromise in place, in fact - one that allows for spoiler warnings to cover genuinely surprising information about recent works that is not found where a reader would expect it. Beyond that, I oppose arbitrary bright line guidelines that suggest that there is some calendrical date at which point, magically, a work stops being something that we worry about spoilers for. Phil Sandifer 01:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What's in place here is the more or less unilateral compromise of tokenism. Spoiler tag tokenism is being enforced by a quiver of schemes, ploys, denials, and circular logics, some of which are so anti-intellectual that I hope you privately cringe with academic embarrassment at being a clique fellow traveler.

You got what you most importantly wanted — I was a relatively early (or the first?) compromise supporter of your requested writing standards — but did you support my equally valid compromise request for hidden tags? No, you didn't, and you should have. Good writing and hidden tags of many useful kinds will make excellent partners for the coming interactive encyclopedia. If you and others continue helping the clique to stand in the way, Wikipedia may not be an active fork of that 'next encyclopedia'.

Bright lines go away when the art jury function of local consensus is allowed to operate without centralized micromeddling or editorial enforcement squads. Milo 12:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

And people wonder why I'm skeptical about this whole "compromise" thing being offered. Phil Sandifer 16:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, could you be more specific? What philosophical objection do you have to the win-win compromise of optionally hidden spoiler tags? I can't believe an academic like yourself would buy into vague fears of attracting undefinable "internet culture" readers. Milo 00:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Because I tend to find comrpomises with people who are so openly vitriolic to be ill-advised at best. There's a metaphor here about sheep, wolves, and couture that is apropos. Phil Sandifer 00:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a process objection, but I know it all too well.

In the absence of your comment on the win-win philosophy of good writing combined with optionally hidden spoiler tags, I'll assume that you are standing aside for now to see whether that compromise principle can gather consensus.

Just as there was talk here that this debate was about over, it turns out that the clique's timing for the tag removals this year could not have been worse. Since globally popular billionaire J.K. Rowling and the media-tech influential SF Chronicle have externally raised the $poiler-avoidance $takes, Wikipedia is now potentially a target of public criticism for its mass spoiler tag removals.

The top level of Wikipedia now has financial reason to encourage a mutually satisfactory spoiler tag compromise to keep the donations flowing in. Milo 01:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

My objection to hidable spoiler tags is one that has been raised before - it's a technical solution that exacerbates the fundamental problem that it is childish to be concerned with this in the first place. That's the core of the problem - concern about spoilers is inexorably linked to an immature, fannish, and bad style of writing that pollutes the article space with junk that should not be there. If you are editing an article from a perspective that is concerned with guarding the purity of the aesthetic experience that the text offers, you are editing an article from a perspective that leads to bad writing. Phil Sandifer 05:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to wonder. Did I REALLY just read those words above me, or am I imagining them. I can't fathom how anyone could actually believe what was written there, to say nothing of writing it in serious. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Really, I was as astonished as you are, at news more unexpected than fiction.

Here's the SF Chronicle by-lined editorial: Want to know if Harry Potter lives? Then keep it to yourself (SFC internal link name is "Editorial: Spoiling is immoral"). Here's J.K. Rowling's don't-spoil plea as reported by Scotsman.com: JK slams spoiler sites ahead of book launch. JKR says it's not that "...spoilers are part of the hype and that I am trying to protect sales rather than my readership." Sure, I believe her, but her publishers have a fiduciary responsibility to think otherwise. This is record-setting sales event, and the collateral precedents set will spill over into the rest of the industry.

The 40+% of readers of Wikipedia who want spoilers tags could post "WP is a spoiler site" opinions at fan sites throughout the world. If Wikipedia gets labeled as a "spoiler site" then donations could suffer.

What would you do if you were one of the Wikimedia foundation honchos in charge of talking nicely to big donors, and you kept hearing, 'My friends in the publishing and movie industries keep muttering about Wikipedia being a 'spoiler site'. Can you tell me what this is about?'

I'd guess that Mr./Ms. Honcho would suggest that Jimbo communicate some friendly suggestions to the clique about consensing a mutually satisfactory spoiler tag compromise for the good of the project. Milo 06:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Milo, There is only a cabal if you want there to be one. Girolamo Savonarola 16:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[deleted repartee]

My early research suggested this operation was the work of a top-level connected political/power "clique" (mostly admins/ex-admins/ex-arbcom and other WP long-timers), as found in most volunteer organizations. This affair has been way too clumsy for an organized secret cabal to have been pulling the strings. However, based on the earlier smell of several process abuses, I suggested the demonstration that a fix was in at #Clique fix is in: Formal AWB complaint dismissed as "rancor". While the exact nature of the AWB denial-of-justice will have to await some future revelation, it looks like either a hierarchy bias or old-boy/old-girl mutual CYA operation.

Based on external site reports by anonymous admin insiders, there is a lot of mutual-backscratching chatter on IRC. It's reasonable to postulate that ex-arbcom David Gerrard asked for non-specific assistance in repelling the AWB misuse charges against him. But more likely it is that an admin sees a big name like Gerrard's in the dock, and gives him a hierarchy-privilege pass. I lean toward that explanation in the AWB case. The "rancor" pass was so hastily concocted, it lacked the slightest fig leaf pretense of a due-process investigation. Milo 00:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC) re-edited 06:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

While I may not have entered into the discussion until recently, that is irrelevant - I have been a member of Wikipedia for over four years and I've been following the spoiler discussion for a good while longer than my participation within it. Even had I not, the archives are available for perusal and consultation at all times. But I do take issue with your attitude, regardless of if you claim to like me.

You are making lots of wild accusations regarding secret groups and deals. Whether or not they are dictionary-definition cabals, the point of my comment was germane. Our processes here are to be as transparent as possible - that does not mean that people are legally bound not to "talk out of school"; it's inevitable. However, since all discussions on Wikipedia regarding the matter are open and publicly accessible, they are the only discussions which can be used by either side to carry any weight (short of a diktat by J Wales).

While I also would like to have seen ArbCom take on the issue, I completely understand why they did not, and I feel that their points were valid. Now if you think that their refusal of certiorari was wikilawyering, that's one thing - but if you are accusing them of favoritism, then please stand and level those accusations in the proper forum on this site and leave your own name on the line there instead of alluding to them here. Most of us are here to discuss specific issues of policy/guidelines, not specific people. Girolamo Savonarola 01:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Last time I counted, there was half a million bytes of Talk:Spoiler archive, and it may be well over a million by now. Do you claim to have read it all??

Pardon, but despite your statement that you've been reading here a "good while longer", you archly connected me with a "cabal" concept that I have previously mentioned only once as a repartee joke on 6/27. That made you appear to be too new to the discussion to know my actual positions about the clique, who are a fairly well-defined inner group of about six editors, and a more loosely defined outer group who help or associate with the positions of the inner group. If you weren't sure what I intended to imply by "clique", I think you should have asked.

"You are making lots of wild accusations regarding secret groups and deals." No, I didn't. Please be fair. If you read carefully what I actually wrote, I concluded that was not the most likely explanation in the AWB case.

"Arbcom" "accusing them of favoritism" What? I most certainly did not do so — that would be your own freely-embroidered interpretation about a group I didn't even discuss.

If you wish me to consider you as strongly aligned with the clique's positions, then naturally we will disagree on some of the issues you mentioned. The long-established pro-tag position is that editor conduct is directly related to the core spoiler tag issues and will be discussed here.

I assume that other editors who give me cheeky personal advice expect to tolerate some in return. If that's not repartee in which you wish to engage, please refrain from initiating it, and we will have a mutually respectful personal relationship. Milo 06:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You know this "if any compromise is going to be achieved, it lies somewhere between Bleak House and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" approach ignores one singular fact: that there is no spoiler tag on the latter article. I myself have twice [3] [4] added a {{spoiler}} tag to the article Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows but both times it was removed. I think the problem with the pro-spoiler tag arguments is this: that they simply fail to recognise the strength of opposition to the use of spoiler tags. --Tony Sidaway 01:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Harry Potter spoiler notices that were removed, neither of those edits supports a contention that there is consensus at Harry Potter not to have spoiler notices. The first example was removed here - by someone who also removed the entire plot because they did not think the spoiler notice was strong enough, not because they didn't agree with the notice being present. The second example was removed here by someone who used this talk page discussion as the basis for removal. Those are both interesting events, but they don't support the argument that there is consensus that spoiler notices are not wanted or useful. --Parsifal _Hello 03:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you're trying to say. Someone said that compromise "lies somewhere between Bleak House and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" and I pointed out that the Harry Potter article doesn't contain a spoiler tag despite my adding one on at least two occasions. If compromise lies in that direction, it seems to me that we already have that compromise. --Tony Sidaway 09:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well...the current situation is that there are practically no spoiler warnings on Wikipedia. As of moments ago, {{spoiler}} was transcluded on just 22 pages, and I believe at one time it was thousands. Obviously the mass-removal a few months ago worked, and there are now a sufficient number of editors who will remove every spoiler warning they find. There is no denying that this sea change came rather suddenly. A few months ago, thousands of pages had warnings, and there was a persistent faction dedicated to maintaining them.

Now, although I am far closer to the anti-warning camp than the pro-warning camp, I am not so foolish as to think there there was a sudden shift in public opinion. Rather, after the mass-removal of the roughly 45,000 existing warnings, editors realized there had been a tectonic shift, and are enforcing a de facto ban.

It's rather interesting to peruse the 22 pages (as of this writing) that have the spoiler template here). There's obviously no standard for which pages get the warning. But when they do get it, overwhelmingly editors choose to put it on the entire plot, not just the portion of it that gives away a "surprise ending." Marc Shepherd 11:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Now down to 10 .Garda40 18:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

<-- actually, only one now.1 on Sōsuke Aizen, actually, in the lead (which was discussed by an editor (Phil Sandifer) wishing to remove it, who backed off as soon as a special circumstance rationale was given (the show has aired in Japan, not the US yet). I myself removed one today, on Liar Liar, as it was in the plot section. David Fuchs^(talk) 03:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

2nd RFAr rejection

[5] I eagerly await the next venue - David Gerard 19:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, David, I know the truth! That you used your admin mooshoo to trick the weak-minded! ...Well, maybe people will let the perceived cabal to go to seed and concentrate on the guideline, if that is possible. David Fuchs^(talk) 02:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been giving this some thought.

IIRC, two Arbcom members wanted to take the case. (Maybe more but Tony deleted the local record I created for this purpose.) Fred Bauder last time, and Raul654 this time, suggesting they thought there are editor conduct elements. Two more of Arbcom, Mackensen and FloNight said the community should decide policy issues.

If these Arbcom votes are combined to conceptualize mass spoilers removal as being half conduct and half policy issues and the community should decide, it suggests that the spoilers removal case should taken to the Community Noticeboard. Looking through the rules there, I think it's reasonable to formally submit the case as a request for a topic ban on all spoilers-related editing for the involved editors.

David, as I've said to you before, for me anyway, this isn't personal, it's a way to get a decision on whether six+ editors can turn Wikipedia 180 degrees on a dime. If the outcome is by default or decision that everyone can do this, many other editing cliques can concoct big plans for turning Wikipedia on many dimes. I think that's a unwise future, but if those are the decided rules I'll play by them. The key is that they need to be decided rules.

Hopefully, the Community Noticeboard will enact the spoiler topic ban on one or more of the clique, as decided because no one should do such mass removals. Hopefully, that will force Arbcom to take the case on appeal. Hopefully Arbcom will uphold the general decision that no one should do mass removals anymore, but lift the personal ban on you and the others, and ruling that you and the others should now follow the new rules along with everyone else.

If it works out like that, I think that would get the case decided, and also be personally fair to involved editors. Milo 03:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The Community Noticeboard can't hand out bans, and thinking it could nearly got it MFDed last time. Your line of thought appears to be "we're making all this smoke, there must be someone who'll believe us saying there's a fire" - David Gerard 07:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"a decision on whether six+ editors can turn Wikipedia 180 degrees on a dime." I can answer this one for you: no. What they can do is note that it is the right time for it to have done so. Note that this started from a nomination of Template:Spoiler for deletion altogether because it was clearly being used very badly indeed. Then, when you take it out of "Plot summary" sections where it's clearly stupidly redundant, there aren't a lot of examples of it left.

Consensus does change, but it's got to be at the right time. I suggested using {{unreferenced}} through 2004. Early 2005, anyone started accepting it as not a horrible idea. Even then people argued "it shouldn't go on articles, it'll make us look unfinished!" Now you can't get away from notes pointing out our precise failings. Because it was the right time. - David Gerard 12:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"a decision on whether six+ editors can turn Wikipedia 180 degrees on a dime." ... "no. What they can do is note that it is the right time for it to have done so." That's a good defense, but it still needs to be ratified, along with related issues.

Also such changes need to be regulated because the changes you made proved to be unrevertible. I want to see consultation and enforceable limits set on the means, scope, and speed used to make unrevertible changes. For the aspect of powerful tools use like AWB, the analogy I use is to the U.S. Supreme Court 'speech plus' case, in which they decided that government could regulate the use of bullhorns at free speech demonstrations.

"The Community Noticeboard can't hand out bans" I'm referring to the Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard. Your experience of Wikipedia venues and procedures exceeds mine, yet you seem to have presumed a done deal where there remains an unresolved controversy: "a WP:CS{N} 'ban' is big medicine..." 14:49, 25 July 2007 Chairboy There are quote marks around 'ban' so maybe there is some technical distinction to which you are referring.

"and thinking it could nearly got it MFDed last time" That discussion is here but the result of the May 3, 2007 discussion was No consensus, and it is still functioning, doing whatever it does, which looks a lot like ban handing.

The main WP:CSN page contains a number of statements that can be interpreted for venue suitability either way along strict construction and broad interpretation lines. I select the following statements:

"Requesting a ban against an editor is not a step to be taken lightly or without trying other means to resolve the situation first." A million-some bytes worth of trying is probably enough to qualify.
"If it is judged that your case is not a straightforward case for a community restriction, you will be guided toward a more appropriate venue." Ok, let them guide.
"Complex or ambiguous cases should go to dispute resolution." That's been completed. Two Arbcom members have now said the community must decide, so I see the Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard as having an Arbcom mandate if they choose to accept it.
"community ban requests should be a last resort" Ok, it is. WP:CSN seems to be the only remaining pathway to get Arbcom to take the case on appeal. Milo 15:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, Milo. Knock yourself out. Carry your grivance around for the rest of your days, if you'd like. But I am not expecting any different answer from the Community than you got from ArbCom. All the time spent looking in your rear-view mirror, is time not spent moving forward with any kind of new proposal. Marc Shepherd 15:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Knock yourself out - David Gerard 16:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's the 'right time' for it?--Nydas^(Talk) 17:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You know you want to complete the set - David Gerard 21:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"Maybe it's the 'right time' for it?" If not now within weeks, then probably not at all. The spoiler mass removals case might be submitted to WP:CSN soon following August recess, but probably not past September.

There are three advantages to submitting the case even if it's not accepted:

Pundits will later claim it should have been done, because of background things not presently obvious.
It creates a precedent for asking WP:CSN to handle bigger issues that seem to need handling.
It further publicizes the issues in a case where publicity is useful for past events and the future outcomes.

It's the next opportunity in a long campaign I originally estimated at one to two years. I estimated that time based on clique interference with the spoiler tag consensus process, and a personal sense of how slowly WP mass consensus emerges without a well-organized venue for the determination of consensus. My estimate could be wrong, but consider it a target estimate for others to improve on.

If this case isn't submitted or accepted at WP:CSN, it's probably time to wait — for this clique or their emboldened rivals to make some other controversial big WP change, or for Wikipedia to get caught up in "spoiler site" trashing. Either of these two possibilities could cause Jimbo to step in on his own, limiting all big changes in the first case, and requesting spoiler tag compromise in the second. And both could happen. Or neither. A lot depends on industry research into whether spoilers are a significant financial harm or just a nuisance.

Externally begins an 'other shoe drop' wait for big publishing/Hollywood to decide if the Deathly Hallows profits could have been even more record-breaking without interference from spoiler sites. Since there is no limit to organized greed, if the bigs conclude that spoilers are cutting profits, it's just a rate-of-return question as to how much could be expensed to cripple spoilers sites' ability to function.

"Carry your grievance around" I'm surprised by the amount of personal advice I've gotten recently. In return, I could offer you advice on how to manage a long-term public issues campaign; unfortunately, I have limited amount of time. Pay attention and who knows, you might pick up a few pointers. :)

"Knock yourself out" I'd like to help, but I'm soon scheduled for Wikivacation, so this decision will need to be made by others.

Milo 00:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Mandatory

I think that every page that spoils all important details or most of them should have a manditory Spoiler Warining on it. If it doesn't new people to Wikipedia can have things ruined for them. Don't say people will see plot summary and think it gives away things, because not everybody would think that. Sometimes they think it is like the summary on the front or back of a book. Adding the spoiler warining would take like 5 seconds and that helps many people. I hope some or all of you agree. Rembrant12 22:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Every single page on Wikipedia contains a link marked "Disclaimers", which warns you that:

WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE

Adding more is really just pandering to rampant stupidity. --Tony Sidaway 23:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You killed your own argument in word 8. The pages contain a link that says wikipedia contains spoilers. However the spoilers are right there on the page, sometimes even above the cut. Readers are not steeped in wiki culture, but reach wiki pages through google, msn, whatever. There is a difference -between being "rampantly stupid" and simply "not a part of Tony Sidaway's world view".

What argument is there for having a full synopsis of every fictional work on Wikipedia? Do regular encyclopedias do that? No they do not. The effect of replicating fictional works in painstaking joyless detail is not to further the knowledge of mankind but to devalue the works themselves and destroy the pleasure of uncovering the plot points in the order intended by the author. Surely a much more socially responsible approach is to include information concerning why the work is viewed as meritorious or controversial. A synopsis in the detail I've seen on wikipedia is tantamount to simply repeating the work itself. Sweavo 15:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Additional: you have to SCROLL PAST the spoilers to get to the (tiny) disclaimers link. Tony, do you read every web page from the bottom up, starting with the smallest fonts and clicking all links before getting to the thing you came to the page to read about? If so, then I retract my argument.

This all just sounds like special pleading to me. If you admit that "the spoilers are right there on the page, sometimes even above the cut", then the disclaimer is correct, and it doesn't matter whether anyone can be bothered to read it or not.

If you have an issue with the location of the disclaimer note on the default skin, then edit the default skin so that users will see the disclaimer link at the top (an example of how to do this is given in the Cologneblue skin, where the disclaimer is at the top). If you don't think our articles on fictional subjects should have a full synopsis, argue for this on the relevant page (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)). I agree with you that some plot summaries are far too detailed, and they often also have an inappropriate in-universe perspective.

But while readers may not be "steeped in wiki culture", they're certainly capable of using their commonsense. Those few to whom it is not immediately obvious that an article will discuss its subject in reasonable detail, soon learn. --Tony Sidaway 16:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the illuminating info. Though I also disagree about users being certainly capable of using their commonsense :-) . I was not previously even aware that the skin was up for modification. I think further discussion on the style guide is the correct next step from my perspective. Sweavo 10:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony, you asked me to refactor my comments on here. I removed the inserted text from above. However, I have no oustanding issues here, so I'm happy for you to go ahead and delete everything I've written on this page if it suits you, no objections from me. Sweavo 12:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't really consider it a good faith mistake when the most simplistic straw man arguments are used. These and other related straw man arguments I doubt are honestly believed--they suggest that the proponents of them don't care at all if any fiction they are going to read/view is in any way spoiled, ever (which is what you get when you're suggesting it's silly to have spoiler warnings at all). The issue has nothing to do with Wikipedia articles discussing things in detail nor any lack of knowledge that they do that. The issue is WHERE in the article those 'spoiling details' are discussed. Readers are not _psychic_; they can't predict where, for example, a plot twist will be described with no warning.

If you've ever read a news paper plot summary or seen a plot summary given on a tv review/promo, you'd know that plot summaries are frequently designed to exclude spoiling details and stick to just the overall premise. Very often people want to read something like this and other times may want to read tertiary or factual details about a work of fiction.

I'd love to see a straw poll asking: "who honestly doesn't care if any work of fiction they will read/view will ever be spoiled for them (e.g. plot twists or the ending given away) before they read/view it?" The problem with people on the "anti-" side talking about compromise is that a) the numerous edits were made removing the warnings wholesale and b) the proponents of the warnings are much more willing to compromise, but it seems anything short of a guarantee that only 0.000000001% of articles will include warnings is bad.

One last thing regarding the cabal statements. Whenever someone points out well known social hierarchies on Wikipedia working together (and various many sheep following suit when they see certain names), the name 'cabal' is brought out as a thought-terminating cliche, when really no one is suggesting that this is secret in any real sense. Even the IRC channels are public. (And yes, I've seen logs and various other things in the past of higher up members essentially asking for meat puppetry in not so many words, so it's not unbelievable). -Nathan J. Yoder 09:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it's seriously THAT HUGE and THAT OBVIOUS. Who the hell clicks the "disclaimer" link? Kuronue 23:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Who the hell clicks on the legal disclaimer? Doesn't make it any more or less valid or important. Girolamo Savonarola 01:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an excellent point. However, I would note that the content disclaimer itself links to WP:SPOILER, which states that we do use spoiler warnings. So anyone doing their homework (the mythical "ideal reader") will see (1) there are spoilers, but (2) there will be warnings. This is just yet another argument that should be laid in its grave. Postmodern Beatnik 18:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Tony, the fact that the disclaimer page (which I admit I'd never visited) uses the word "spoiler" settles the issue of whether the term "spoiler" is appropriate for WP. It is. It's there on the disclaimer. Internet culture is here. Case closed. But I agree with you, since a top level disclaimer on the project has the warning, then additional disclaimers are probably not necessary except in significant cases. (Like the hugely popular Harry Potter series, in which kiddies and adults who don't click the small type disclaimer ;) might not know that the plot will reveal, well, the plot. :} David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 13:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to confuse use of the term on an editorial level (mandated since so many people have complained using the term) and on a textual level (bad because it's a neologism that doesn't appear in the OED or Merriam-Webster). That is to say, the word can form a part of policy discussions on Wikipedia and a part of the resultant policy, as this page shows. But it ought not appear in the articlespace. Phil Sandifer 13:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you're mistaking the issue under discussion. No one disputes that "spoiler" is the word in common currency to describe the situation where someone "spoils" a fictional work by giving away key plot details. The word has probably moved beyond the "neologism" phase; it now appears regularly in newspaper articles without a definition—suggesting that professional editors believe the meaning is well known, and doesn't need to be explained. The issue here is not the use of the word per se, but whether (if ever) articles require an additional warning—beyond the standard disclaimers—that such details are about to be disclosed. Marc Shepherd 14:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If we're engaging in this level of nitpicking, it looks like the great spoiler debate is effectively over. --Tony Sidaway 14:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Guys. I have a brain. I am not Albert Einstein but that does not mean that I am not smart. I would never do more homework than I had to. Instead of linking people here, which brings them there which finally tells them something in technical talk that only very honed minds can figure out, why don't we just say "SPOILER WARNING, gives away details and information"? It simplifies matters and is much easier to understand. Rembrant12 19:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Does it take "a very honed mind" to figure out that a heading labeled "Plot" discloses the plot?

One compromise I could support would be to modify the {{current fiction}} template to include the explicit word "spoiler." The wording of that template already says that the article may contain "detailed information on the characters, plot, and ending of the work of fiction it describes." It doesn't take Einstein to figure out what that means. However, as "spoiler" is the word in common currency, we might as well use it, and remove all doubt for those who don't seem to understand what "detailed information" means.

This compromise works for me, because {{current fiction}} is an already accepted disclaimer. It appears at the top of articles, and doesn't disrupt the flow the way {{spoiler}} does. Also, it doesn't involve judgments about precisely which parts of the article are "spoiling" it for somebody. And lastly, there's a tacit understanding that {{current fiction}} doesn't last forever. For instance, it is on the latest Harry Potter book, released under a week ago, but it's not on the other six books. At some point, Darth Vader's "No, I am your father" becomes part of the popular culture, and it's just tough luck of someone stumbles across it by accident.

Under no circumstances could I support spoiler warnings on everything ranging from ancient works of literature to nursery rhymes, as was the case before. Marc Shepherd 16:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course you then run into the problem of what is {{current fiction}}.Just the other day I came across a book that according to it's copyright notice was first published in 1995 in the US but only in 2007 in the UK. American editors could rightly say it's not {{current fiction}} but it is to British readers. So who's correct if the tag is used on an article about the book .Garda40 20:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Most spoilers will never become part of 'popular culture'. Which nation's popular culture is the standard?--Nydas^(Talk) 17:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As you know, I don't think spoiler warnings are needed. This view is culturally neutral, and doesn't presume which works are "popular." It so happens that articles on "popular" works seem to generate the most debate, but I have never suggested a different standard for those works. Marc Shepherd 18:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not culturally neutral, it's an expression of Wikipedia's institutional bias towards English-speaking developed countries and hardcore fiction fans. Fiction articles will get updated when the fiction is released, inevitably favouring regions where fiction gets released first. It also favours people who know release dates off by heart and see fiction very shortly after it is released, i.e. fans.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of bias. The article on Terri Schiavo is longer than the article on Mother Theresa. There are more Wikipedia articles on the Harry Potter universe than on the entire output of William Shakespeare. The bias, both towards English-language subjects and recent subjects, pervades the encyclopedia. It's nothing to be proud of, but I don't see how the spoiler policy will fix it. Actually, I don't see any correlation between the two. Marc Shepherd 20:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't see how it is biased to declare 'everyone knows this' or 'it's been out for a week' as a grounds for spoiler tag removal?--Nydas^(Talk) 20:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I never suggested that "everyone knows this," which would be absurd. But let's say we adopted the approach of putting spoiler warnings on every article that discloses plot details of fictional works. I have to ask, "Where is there a parallel for that?" Find me a reputable source on Shakespeare or Dickens that has spoiler warnings. They just don't do it.

So when people advocate widespread use of spoiler warnings, as it appears you do, I have to ask: Why is that right for Wikipedia, when most other sources don't seem to have found it necessary? I also have to ask: How effective could it possibly be, when other comparable sources don't do the same? I mean, we could kid ourselves into thinking that we're the go-to source on Shakespeare, but it just isn't so. And no one else who writes about Shakespeare seems to think it necessary to warn people before mentioning that Hamlet dies at the end. (Ooops, I just gave it away...sorry.)

There does seem to be a commonly observed exception for brand new works. Many media sources are actually using the word "spoiler" before giving anything away about the new Harry Potter book. But typically it's only for that book, not for any of the earlier ones, and it's only temporary. It's not as if, 5 years from now, they're still going to be putting "spoiler" out there whenever they mention that Harry Potter defeated Voldemort. (Ooops, I just gave another one away...sorry.) Marc Shepherd 20:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You're side-stepping my point about the geographic and fannish bias implicit in the removal of spoiler tags. If it's out in the US, it's considered out in the world. If fansites and blogs have been talking about some plot point, then it's considered common knowledge.

I have advocated a spoiler guideline that mirrors WP:ENGVAR, stressing that spoilers are neither good or bad. It's not likely that spoiler tags would return to Shakespeare, Dickens, fairy tales or any of the other common 'examples' under such a guideline. Regarding your points about reputable sources, I am not aware that Wikipedia was in competition with anyone. As for your claim that people don't come to Wikipedia first for Shakespeare, it is just that, a claim. Tailoring articles so they're aimed at people who are already familiar with the fiction is another example of our fannish bias.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia isn't in competition with anyone, but clearly it aspires to be an encyclopedia. When people ask, "What should an online encyclopedia be?" they take their guide from other encyclopedias. The comparison is particularly relevant with respect to spoiler warnings, because they only work if they're widely used.

I had taken you to be advocating spoiler warnings on all types of narrative fiction, including Shakespeare, Dickens, and fairy tales. If that's not your position, then it might be helpful if you start a new section and crisply state your proposal. At this point, I know what you're against, but I don't know what you are for. Marc Shepherd 12:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If people scrupulously copied everything done before, we'd still be living in caves. Wikipedia has five pillars, and none of those prohibits spoiler tags. 'Encyclopedia = no spoiler warnings' is like 'swan = white feathers', it's not a logical argument. Something can easily pass all the criteria necessary for being an encyclopedia and still have spoiler warnings. Probably the main reason why other encyclopedias don't usually have spoiler warnings is technical limitations. I think they're appropriate because they help dispel the 'fans only' or 'everyone knows' biases.

The claim that people want spoiler tags on fairy tales etc is a longstanding strawman. I want an open spoiler policy that does not depend the whims of a tiny number of editors adhering to a de facto 'no more than six' policy. If the anti-spoiler brigade had any confidence in their own claims of 'consensus' they'd lay off and see how things develop.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As an more philosophical aside, I'd like to just remark that if spoilers "ruin" a work, then how easy it would be to quickly dispense with the need to actually digest media! I wouldn't need to read all of Shakespeare - I could just read all the "Plot" sections of the wiki articles! Of course, we know that this isn't true. So why prize the plot as being more "precious" and "fragile"? Could you not say that the cultural context and metaphor of The Crucible is actually more important (and worthy of something-equivalent to spoiler warning) than the plot of the play, for instance? Spoiler-obsession is to value to the plot at the expense of the mood, style, and subtext. Which, quite frankly, are the more defining characteristics of the work and its skill. Anyone can write a murder mystery - it's how its told that is more important and defines the work. Plot is one small element in this process. To venerate it so much speaks poorly of ones ability to absorb media critically. Girolamo Savonarola 21:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia be reworked so that it flatters the aesthetic beliefs of people who find narrative suspense distasteful?--Nydas^(Talk) 09:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Who says I find it distasteful? I said I find it disproportionally valued. But suspense is not the job of an informative encyclopedia article - quite the opposite - the purpose is to lay out the information neutrally and evenly. I'm saying that discussion of a work needs to be more evenly-rounded. Girolamo Savonarola 12:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That you find plot 'disproportionately valued' is irrelevant. If you wish to 'improve' people's aesthetic tastes, get a website or a blog. Spoiler warnings do not interfere with the informative and neutral layout of articles, nor do they discourage discussion about mood and tone.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree wi/ all. Razorclaw (talk · contribs) 21:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with adding the words "SPOILER WARNING" to the template. And the template's font should be larger and some pages have it in bad spots or not at all. (Harry Potter 7) Rembrant12 23:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with returning the word "spoiler" to the tag. That's what it is. But spoiler tags are a content notice, not a warning — there is no danger. Large fonts and all caps increase the 'cry wolf' aspect of the false warning. (Also, not a warning means it's not a disclaimer.) Milo 14:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, Girmolo. We are not talking about "ruining" a work. It is just upsetting to have the ending given away for it does take away some of the enjoyment. Rembrant12 23:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Which is why I choose carefully before venturing into the plot section of a film or book that I might be interested in. I've spoiled myself silly in the past, but I did consciously choose to. Why is that so difficult to swallow? Girolamo Savonarola 00:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely oppose using the term "spoiler" in any Wikipedia template. Simply because what is a spoiler is too vague and left up to each person's interpretation. For some, only those plot details that absolutely ruin a movie, book, or TV episode for everybody would be considered spoilers. For others, every plot detail, no mater how insignificant, is considered a spoiler. And then you have everything in between. It's better to avoid such a vague term altogether. --Farix (Talk) 00:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"For others, every plot detail, no matter how insignificant, is considered a spoiler." Pardon, but that's extremist nonsense. Such fans could not read teasers in order to access the book or movie.

"what is a spoiler is too vague" A spoiler is not vague, it's clearly defined. Rather, it is indefinite per case and by fan. Like porn, fans statistically know what is a spoiler when they encounter it.

I frequently encounter this inexperienced notion that statistical subjectivity somehow makes rulecrafting for specific cases impossible. Not at all — this kind of judgment has been made for governments and public exhibitions by art juries for about a hundred years. Wikipedia's art jury is already functioning, it is the local consensus. Milo 14:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"Such fans could not read teasers in order to access the book or movie." And yet, I've still seen people repeatedly call these "teasers" spoilers and insist on a spoiler warning.

"A spoiler is not vague, it's clearly defined." Actual practice does not conform to your statement. That is because individual's definition of what is a spoiler varies from person to person.

"Like porn, fans statistically know what is a spoiler when they encounter it." Which is a very poor test for Wikipedia to determine when a plot detail is a spoiler because it is rife with POV issues. Wikipedia editors should not be determining what is or is not a spoiler. --Farix (Talk) 15:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Farix, I do not think you are treating the argument fairly. Just because some fans say every last detail is a spoiler doesn't mean they are correct. Whether we want to think of them as extremists or not, we are still free to reject their (perhaps idiosyncratic) definition of the word "spoiler" in favor of one more amenable to Wikipedia. Moreover, it is not implausible that a definition could be crafted that was suitably specific and yet not overly narrow. And if we did so, most POV issues would evaporate. Will there still be some judgment calls? Perhaps. Probably, even. But that's why this encyclopedia is being built by people, and not information-gathering automatons. So much of the anti-spoiler campaign seems to be an effort to shy away from a task simply because it is difficult (and only difficult insofar as it is not always clear cut). Such editors, in my opinion, only hurt Wikipedia by shirking their duties in favor of laziness. Editing an encyclopedia isn't easy; it is fraught with ambiguities and difficult choices. We might as well accept that fact. Postmodern Beatnik 18:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

In short I will settle for adding just SPOILER WARNING to the template. That, I beleive, will clear up any doubt about the subject. Rembrant12 02:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that almost every use of {{spoiler}} gets reverted. As of this moment, there are only two transclusions of it in all of English Wikipedia. Any new appearance is quickly removed. Until people agree about the circumstances in which it can be used, the wording doesn't much matter, because it will hardly ever be seen. Marc Shepherd 02:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

comment by Wedineinheck

I see no need in reading all of this rather long-winded debate : it is quite obvious that the spoilers question is extremely annoying to a lot of people. Why can't we reach a consensus and simply decide that a spoiler tag should be added to every page revealing crucial plot details and resolution ? It won't hurt anybody and it will appease the anti-spoilers. Moreover, I see absolutely no reason why an encyclopedia should be "expected" to reveal the endings of works of fiction. Wedineinheck 12:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"I see no need in reading all of this rather long-winded debate" - see, that's your problem right there: not taking the time to distinguish a live issue from a thin film of horse cells on the asphalt - David Gerard 21:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to know why not, you will need to read some of the archives. In any case, it is quite unlikely we will return to a situation where every page that has plot details carries a spoiler tag. The remaining question is to delineate the set of circumstances in which the tag is appropriate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the spoiler tag is unnecessary when ending and crucial plot details aren't given away. Otherwise, not giving any warning to users is just plain rude. I've been using wikipedia for some time and find it quite odd that it shouldn't warn its readers anymore.Wedineinheck 17:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If a section of an article about a fictional work is titled "Plot summary", is it necessary to warn people it contains details of the plot? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 17:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

To Wedineinheck: please read the archives. This argument has been argued ad nauseum. also see the wikipedia content disclaimer... as to digby: though some of course disagree, the general consensus is that spoilers were generally redundant in sections expressly labeled plot summary, etc. In fact, the vast majority of spoiler tags were used in such as sense until the RfC in May. David Fuchs^(talk) 17:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The mass removals were started two days into the discussion. There was no consensus.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Nydas, drop the mass removals for now. They do not factor into the fact that while people disagreed on whether spoilers should be had at all, or the usefulness, in several cases (fairy tales, plot sections) they were determined to be redundant. I know you and several other editors disagree about this, but I'm going with what was stated. David Fuchs^(talk) 19:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going by what actually happened. No consensus existed after two days of discussion, nothing was determined. That's why the nonsensical 'there is no significant resistance' line was adopted.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No amount of debate can restore the articles to their condition prior to that discussion. Whether the correct process was followed or not, the mass-deletion of spoiler notices is history. It's over now. Finito. The choice is to move on, or to continue focusing on the rear-view mirror. Marc Shepherd 20:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"No amount of debate can restore the articles to their condition prior to that discussion." And why is that so ?Wedineinheck 06:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You can see for yourself that the backward-focused debate participants, like Milo and Nydas, are making no progress whatsoever. If you think the re-hashing the events of May will result in positive changes to Wikipedia, by all means continue to re-hash them. The "rear-view mirror" crowd has already made multiple attempts at obtaining "Wiki-sanctions," and failed at all of them. If you still think that's a fruitful strategy, there's nothing I can do to stop you. Go ahead. Knock yourself out.

In my view, the only conceivable way forward is to accept that the 45,000 edits are over with, and no one is going to adjudicate that they were improper. Right or wrong, it's a fact of history. We have a new baseline. The only debate that has a chance of progress is the debate about what the articles should look like, not the debate about how they got that way. Marc Shepherd 13:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Any proposal will be rejected out of hand by the anti-spoiler brigade. Even very tame ones, like spoiler tags on recent works not being removed on sight, are shot down.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Wedineinheck has actually hit the nail on the head. Wedineinheck believes that he or she is entitled to be warned (oooh, it's the W word, which is anti-dictionarial or something. I'll say hail Marys, really...) about plot spoilers. He or she is not even interested in considering any arguments to the contrary. Does this demand raise cultural bias issues? Screw 'em. Does it contradict existing wikipedia policies, however badly those policies might be enforced? Hey, them's the breaks. Not only is Wedineinheck unmoved by these concerns, Wedineinheck is not even interested in reading about these concerns. The pro-spoiler position is self-evidently true and righteous, and does not need to be discussed. Ethan Mitchell 22:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Much as the pro-fair-use-on-anything-that-looks-nice position is inarguable ... and for that one, the answer is "No." If that's the only answer in this case as well, oh well, so much for senses of entitlement - David Gerard 07:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What 'cultural bias issues' and 'wikipedia policies'? We've had a senior admin stating that certain pages are fans-only and non-Americans should lump it, so WP:NPOV is being chucked out the window.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood somebody. Kusma (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Do a text search for 'Valen' on this page.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, you misunderstood me all right. At least on the "non-Americans should lump it" statement, which is more accurately "non-Americans who care already have to learn basic spoiler avoidance on the Internet, and are among the least likely people to get inadvertantly spoiled by something in the plot section." As for Valen, I do maintain that very few people who are not already knowledgeable about the subject are going to go look at an article on a character who appears in exactly one scene of the entire television show. Or, at least, if they are, it is because they have decided that they want to spoil themselves. Phil Sandifer 19:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's have a guideline

Nydas, here's a radical thought: do you actually have any ideas about spoiler warnings? You have plenty of ideas about archiving, NPOV, censorship, "cabals," and edits that took place three months ago. But I have yet to see a proposal from you about the actual topic of this page. Do you have one? Marc Shepherd 12:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I advocate a guideline similar to WP:ENGVAR, stating when it's OK, and when it's not OK. That would take care of unrepresentative examples like fairy tales, the Crying Game etc, whilst leaving it up to editor discretion otherwise. If there's a consensus against spoiler tags, then they won't reappear. If (as I believe) most Wikipedians support them, then they'll return in some capacity.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

We already have a guideline on spoiler tags. This is it. Spoiler tags don't seem to be making a comeback. --Tony Sidaway 14:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Nydas, you're amazing. Seriously. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 15:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought that is what this guideline already does. I don't want to leave it entirely to the editor discretion as leads to too many NPOV issues as to what is a spoiler and what is not. I would support adding a set of objective criteria on how to determine when plot information is a spoiler and when a warning can be added, much like how we have the notability criteria. And if there are alternatives to using spoiler warnings, then those alternatives should be used first. But we shouldn't give editors a blank check on applying spoiler warnings.

In other words, no "I think this is a spoiler and there should be a warning" line of reasoning should be allowed to stand. EVER! --Farix (Talk) 15:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I made edits that said spoiler tags *might be* OK on recently released fiction, but those were reverted as being 'bright lines'.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, I don't think we should give the anti-spoiler-warning editors a blank cheque on deciding _every_ spoiler. I'm fine with agreeing on places where spoilers are okay or not okay, but as it stands a few people can still overwhelm the debate, by WP:OWNing the spoiler template itself, following it even to articles they don't read. We can rewrite the guideline to indicate a preference for _local_ consensus, and make it clear that, in this case, due to the controversial nature, it should be decided by editors who are already working on the article, or we can define firm guidelines where it is okay and where it is not okay. Otherwise, we don't have a compromise in effect, we have one side winning without consensus.

As is stands now, the guideline is, "Spoiler warnings are usually inappropriate in areas X, Y, and Z, unless a strong consensus exists, and usually in these areas its better to title section headings more properly. Spoiler warnings MIGHT be okay in other areas like A, B, and C, if there is _consensus that it is needed_, but there won't be because consensus people who track all spoiler additions will follow the addition of it and demand the removal." Not a compromise, so we need to work on it. It might be one if there weren't anyone who felt the need to enforce their POV on a global level, but since there are, it can't be. Wandering Ghost 11:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The idea of fostering local consensus, as you have just described, is problematic. It violates the wiki principle "anyone can edit any article" and conflicts with WP:OWN. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Local consensus doesn't conflict with WP:OWN. Wikipedia already functions this way. I've participated in several WikiProjects. In every case, the active editors reach consensus on a common format for related articles (e.g., common headings, infoboxes, navigation templates, and so forth). It doesn't mean that those editors WP:OWN the articles. It just means that the consensus process is operating at a level that spans multiple articles at a time.

For instance, the active editors in WikiProject Opera decided long ago that spoiler warnings were never appropriate for operas. If a new editor came along and put a spoiler warning in Aida, it was quickly reverted, based on the project standard. If this action were construed as violating WP:OWN, then it would never be possible for related articles to have any modicum of consistency.

Note that the suitability of this approach has nothing to do with the fact that the WikiProject Opera editors happen to have decided against spoiler warnings. Had the consensus turned out the other way, they would have been equally justified in putting such warnings in every opera article, and continuing to monitor that the consensus was adhered to. Marc Shepherd 15:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Most wikiproject style guide have de facto global consensus in the sense that everyone agrees to follow their recommendations. Often enough, a wikiproject does something that actually does violate the broader consensus, and the project has to change their plans. In this situation, if WikiProject Opera were to decide today that every opera article should have a spoiler tag, they would need to reconcile that with this guideline, and most likely they would be forced to change their decision.

But the "local" consensus that Wandering Ghost seemed to intend is not a wikiproject but a smaller group of editors who have already edited a particular article. I think his idea is that if someone removes a spoiler tag without first editing the article for some period of time before that, the removal is unjustified. That sort of local consensus is what I was referring to as a violation of the wiki method and of WP:OWN. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that a WikiProject can't enact a "local" standard that contradicts broader Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Therefore, given the current wording of the spoiler guideline, WikiProject Opera could not adopt a standard that all opera articles require spoiler tags. However, at the time that WikiProject Opera adopted their no-warning stance, the spoiler guideline was silent about when such warnings are appropriate.

I do think that the concept of local consensus exists even at the individual article level. The description at Wikipedia:Consensus seems to contemplate this very idea. Marc Shepherd 21:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. But if several editors remove a spoiler tag from some article, that's evidence that there is no longer "local consensus" for the tag. Established editors don't get a pass to ignore new editors' opinions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would depend how many active editors are watching the page. Established editors don't get a pass to ignore new editors' opinions. But new editors don't get a pass to overrule long-standing consensus, if a large number of existing editors still consider the consensus to be valid. Marc Shepherd 22:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not _quite_ true. I don't _want_ 'only particular editors who have a history of editing the page' to be able to decide spoiler warnings. What I _want_ is that people don't decide to search for the addition of the spoiler template, and then, in every single case, decide on it (in the negative, generally, because the pro-warning people can't search for warnings that have been removed to go around and decide to add all of them). These people are clearly biased, and when we don't have a consensus, are doing a disservice to wiki, even if they may be technically following the rules (and I do think WP:OWN applies here in spirit, because these people are monitoring the useage of the tag, they're overruling a wide variety of individual editors, and essentially deciding that they know how to where the spoiler tag should and shouldn't be. The only difference is that instead of camping out on one article and staking it out as their territory, they're camping out on one template and searching out its use on other pages. If the spoiler guideline had consensus, it would be enforce itself without these dedicated true believers.

Despite the fact that it's the one jumped on by people here, I suggested 'local consensus' of people who have a history with that page only as one of several possible remedies to _that_ problem - yes, it's against some of wiki's principles, but it's better than the alternative, at least IMHO. But it's not the _only_ suggested remedy I've made. I've also suggested a guideline on per-day, per-person numerical limits on the number of spoiler-related edits as a possibility, for example.

There's also potentially the idea of saying, as part of the guideline (in, of course, better language) "You know what... don't make the spoiler the only thing you're editing. If you happen to be correcting spelling, or adding a section of text, fact-correcting, etc, and you think a spoiler warning is needed or not needed, then you can do that in the process, but if your only interest in an article is whether there's a spoiler warning in it or not, don't bother" (though I imagine that would be abused by a couple of the robot-like removers), or specifically making spoiler-crusading (either to add or remove them) against the policy.

Or, again, another way to address it is the idea of specifically making the guideline more spoiler friendly in areas other than the Plot heading, with a default "allowed in these caes", and maybe "should be removed only if there is clear consensus against it". None of these options are perfect. Ideally, the people who go on spoiler patrol would just recognize that they're not helping the debate and just stop, and only edit the spoilers of pages they happen to be reading, rather than going on a crusade against them in total. But even the ones who are directly involved here don't seem to want to give that up, and that's saying nothing about those who don't read the debate at all. So these ideas are all better to me than the current situation, again IMHO. If I had to choose one, "local consensus overrules drive by editors" probably wouldn't be my top choice, even though it's the one keyed on by everybody. But I would choose it over doing nothing constructive. Wandering Ghost 12:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

(←) They can't overrule the consensus, but they can break the consensus so that a new consensus has to be formed. The new consensus might end up being the same as the old one, or it might not. The discussion may be widely advertised and participated, or not. But any editor can break the previous consensus on a page by just editing it. That's the wiki method. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And there it is folks, the whole problem with the theory of consensus right there. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That's one of the big ones. It goes in repeated, counter-productive circles with everyone saying they know what the true consensus is even when often they don't really know because it's just so unscientific (I anticipate someone replying with "Wikipedia doesn't use science" after the "Wikipedia doesn't operate on logic" statement lol). -Nathan J. Yoder 06:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's have a look at Talk:Wicca, shall we? British spelling, preference of terms, and warnings not to edit certain bits of the article. That's a local consensus on an individual article level, asking that people abide by it. But say I have 20 friends, and we show up and say that "Magic" is an incorrect term, we should be using "Magick". Begrudgingly, the other editors concede that this must be a new consensus, and change it. Then my friends all run off to do other things, knowing nothing at all about wicca and never having intended to edit the article in the first place, just show up because they don't like the term "magic" used for wiccan rituals. Is that how you think wikipedia should work? There's something wrong with this model, I think, though it's technically perfectly feasible (oh, sure, I can't advertise for the friends someplace, but if they all just, you know, happen to show up, maybe we were editing a guideline to stage magic or something and someone mentioned "oh, they use 'magic' over at the wicca article, so we shouldn't use it..." or something, then they all just happened to go search for every use of the term "magic" and petition to have it changed...) Kuronue 23:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If some editors want to change it to "magick" and the previous editors agree to the change then I fail to see what the problem is. If the other editors don't agree to the change, they can discuss it on the talk page, perhaps start an RFC, etc. Like the box on Talk:Wicca says, consensus can change.

I think you are concerned about what prevents a small group of editors from making changes against a wider community consensus. That was illustrated by WP:ATT, which was shuttled by a significant community outcry against it replacing WP:V. The lack of any such significant outcry regarding spoiler tags is, despite occasional claims to the contrary, evidence that the changes regarding spoiler tags are accepted by the broader community. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually WP:ATT was shut down by Jimbo, basically. Which is even less likely here. Phil Sandifer 00:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion about WP:ATT is not a fair analogy, because there was an invitation to participate on the discussion posted on the top of the watchlist of every user during that debate. Everyone knew the debate was happening. Most of the community is unaware that there is a spoiler notice debate. I'm not saying this debate is of the same weight as WP:ATT, but it would have been very interesting indeed to post a notice on every user's watchlist and ask them to join this discussion. If we had, I bet we'd still have 45,000 spoiler notices. --Parsifal _Hello 01:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There was not complete agreement that the watchlist message should have been used for that. This spoiler discussion has been very broadly advertised, I believe, including a well attended RFC and a long discussion on the mailing list. Also, 45,000 edits can't fail to draw some attention. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was mentioned next to every spoiler warning, IIRC before the mass deletion at that. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 03:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The link to the RfC was in place for two days, 20-22 May, after the mass removals had begun. It was removed with the edit summary 'get on with your lives'.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If there was a warning next to every spoiler warning, I never saw it. I never knew about this until I heard second hand that all the spoiler warnings were removed. It really wasn't that well publicized and keep in mind having what is more than average for an RFC doesn't mean it's well publicized. Wikipedia should strive to come as close as they realistically can to a scientific measure of consensus, but the problem is that more often than not you get a relatively large (e.g. 100+) people commenting on a given issue that aren't actually a representative cross-section, but rather are simply the "vocal/most energetic minority" on that issue. This is also why so many editors give up in removing blatant POV in various articles (especially pseudo-science), because the energetic/vocal minority simply spends more time on it. They'd never do it, but a formal voting system that advertises all votes on a specific page would be the best way to get a cross-sectional view. It doesn't have to be binding, but it definitely should be seriously considered when the vote weighs heavily one direction over another--it's unlikely except in a close vote that you're dealing with a "swing vote" type of issue. Nathan J. Yoder 06:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is, say the wiccan editors feel strongly it should be magic, but they agree to live by the law of wikipedia, which says that consensus trumps your own personal beliefs, and, seeing the flood of stage magicians who say they should use magick, sigh and let them change it. Then the stage magicians leave. What's left is a whole bunch of editors that feel strongly it should be magic - a consensus - but can't change it because random strangers with nothing to do with the article decided for them that it should be magick. So because the wiccan editors agree not to stir up trouble, they end up being forced to live with a decision they have consensus against, because it's been "established" that the "consensus" is against them and if they were to take a re-vote, the stage magicians would probably just come back the minute they noticed it'd changed back. Kuronue 01:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Presumably the wicca editors would draw broader attention to the matter, maybe with an RFC. If they still can't find broad support across the project for their position, then they don't actually have consensus for it. It's no different than the (not uncommon) situation where a small group of editors decides that WP:OR doesn't apply to their articles, or write articles that violate WP:NPOV. Others learn about the situation, fix the articles, and then leave them alone unless the problem returns. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

In the case of "no consensus," which way would you side though? With no consensus, you couldn't side either with "magic" or "magick" because doing either would ignore the lack of consensus for the one you used. The same applies to spoilers vs. no spoilers. That said, I wouldn't say there was no consensus, just that we don't know the consensus (at least from the RFC alone). To say it's a consensus is to imply that we had an accurate cross-section represented in the RFC, which I seriously doubt because of the whole vocal m minority/bandwagon phenomenon that is so common to Wikipedia and online fora in genral. I wouldn't equate this with violation OR or NPOV, because those really aren't the issue here. Some try arguing a stretch though, that spoilers somehow violate NPOV because it requires some kind of perspective to decide where to put spoilers, but that's calling into question the organization of any article (where to place headers/sections), but people do acknowledge there is a neutral way with the latter because really it's about them not personally liking spoiler warnings not about any other issue. If you want to get started on stuff like that, I could go on a massive rampage to remove all original/Wikipedian made images because they inherently constitute original research. I'll remove all examples and analogies made by Wikipedians too. I'll bet you I could get away with the latter if I do it very carefully. -Nathan J. Yoder 06:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

In the case of "no consensus," the outcome is that the status quo prevails. If there is no consensus that an alternative is superior, one might as well leave the article the way it is. Wikipedian-made images "have enjoyed a broad exception from [WP:NOR], in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." (See WP:NOR). Marc Shepherd 14:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The "status quo" is determined by consensus, so what you just said is "if you don't know the consensus, then determine it using the consensus." As I've repeatedly stated, Wikipedia is highly susceptible to a vocal/energetic minority phenomenon and therefore "the way it is" does not necessarily represent the consensus (or the status quo) except perhaps in the sense that people give up after fighting people with more time/energy than they have. If you really want to labor that point, I could paste a dictionary definition showing you exactly that. I still see nothing exempting analogies, examples, hand-made calculations. Better get rid of technical articles, especially ones involving mathematics, hard sciences and computer science. -Nathan J. Yoder 21:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The "status quo" is "what it is now"—regardless of how it got that way. I totally agree with you that there are many flaws with how purported consensus is arrived at on Wikipedia. I am merely submitting that the problem—to the extent it is a problem—is something we can't fix on this page. Marc Shepherd 00:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

We're off-topic again. Nydas and Melodia Chaconne are still feeling their pain about the 45,000 edits, and most others are lamenting the flaws in Wikipedia's consensus process. Yes, folks, it is a flawed process. But if you're going to edit on Wikipedia, it's the only process we have, until a better one is adopted.

This page is Wikipedia talk:Spoiler, not Wikipedia talk:Consensus. There is a difference between the two. If you would like to propose a new way that the consensus process should work, please comment at Wikipedia talk:Consensus. If you would like to propose changes to Wikipedia's spoiler guideline, please comment here. Marc Shepherd 11:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, you might want to read the sorts of comments I've made before. I've been very much against the warnings for quite a long time before the mass deletions. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, sorry. My mistake. Marc Shepherd 11:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you stop having a go at me for having opinions? What am I supposed to do when the 'official line' is peddled as fact to newcomers? Nathan J. Yoder's points are excellent, why not address them rather than trying to steer the debate?--Nydas^(Talk) 12:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've said several times, "Go ahead. Knock yourself out." I am merely suggesting that reliving your pain over 45,000 edits that were completed months ago isn't going to get you anywhere. If you think it will get you somewhere, by all means keep trying. As far as I can tell, Nathan J. Yoder is also engaged in the futile exercise of trying to persuade people that the process that led to the May edits was somehow faulty. Whether it was faulty or not, it's over with.

Nathan J. Yoder is also suggesting that "Wikipedia should strive to come as close as they realistically can to a scientific measure of consensus." Whether good or bad, this idea goes far beyond the scope of the current page. A bold editor would be justified in removing it as entirely off-topic. Instead, I am merely trying to suggest that any conceivable progress needs to be: A) About spoiler warnings; and B) Forward-focused, rather than backward-looking. The question is what needs to be done now, not whether what was done in the past was correct. Marc Shepherd 14:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And by "forward-focused" you mean agree with you? If we still disagree with you and want spoilers to be added back, how is it not forward focused to discuss it? Yes, you've said that and then you've repeatedly come back and reasserted this--"what, this conversation is still going on? Stop trying to convince people of the opposing POV!" We get it. Sorry, but removing people's talk is strictly forbidden except in extreme circumstances and what might be, at worst, veering slightly offtopic hardly qualifies. The issue here IS what the consensus is and there is a fundamental question raised of what qualifies as consensus and the argument is being made that the lack of people coming back en force (sp?) to fight back the many changes qualifies as consensus. Hence "what is consensus" is a fundamental part of the issue here.

I think we can all agree that you can't really determine whether or not there should be spoilers without also determining whether or not there is consensus. So I don't see how it can be argued that epistemological analysis of consensus isn't a part of this discussion. The proponents of spoiler warnings want to first establish what the consensus is before engaging in a large article-changing frenzy to the contrary. This avoids what would be an inevitable war-of-the-most-energetic from both sides each trying what would be the most extreme (also semi-automated) revert war. I think we can agree that would be counter-productive. -Nathan J. Yoder 21:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

By "forward focused," I am suggesting the debate should be about what the spoiler guideline "ought to be," not "how it got that way." For the record, I do not personally agree with the status quo. I just think that backward-looking debates—those that try to argue that past edits were illegitimate—are going nowhere. Those who think otherwise are, of course, free to keep arguing that way. But they shouldn't be surprised when nothing comes of it.

The fact is that spoiler warnings are, today, practically absent from Wikipedia. Maybe they should be widespread. But they aren't. You can keep banging your head on the idea that the status quo was secured by illegitimate means. This mode of arguing has repeatedly produced no results for its proponents, but if you want to keep trying, be my guest. Or, you can try a new approach. Marc Shepherd 00:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There's some confusion here. The problem I see is that those responsible for the mass-removal and some of their wiki-friends are coming on here and rather aggressively arguing that spoiler warnings shouldn't exist at all. I don't have a problem with revising it, but it's pretty clear that is that Consensus-Against-All-Warnings (CAAW?) camp (which includes reverting all warning insertions on sight with reference back to this page stating or implying there is a consensus).

My arguments on this talk page have been under the assumption that people were arguing that and I am attempting to say there is no consensus for that to stop that in its tracks. Then I see some other people like you coming in and seemingly show support for them (some saying you agree), but you seem to be from a less extreme view that some warnings need to be removed and the old guideline needs revision. Also, many people on the RfC indicate they're somewhere in their too.

So I'm wondering, how many people are actually against all warnings entirely and really believe the consensus reflects that? From those people, I hadn't actually seen any substantive arguments supporting their view beyond "there's a consensus so it sticks," rather than making an argument as to why that's the ideal choice. So my suggestion is for people to make a new section with their new guideline proposal and support of it. -Nathan J. Yoder 07:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If you think we are going to return to the early May version of the guideline, then you are sorely mistaken. While a handful of editors that claim that the current version of the guideline does not have consensus support, the MfD and the subsequent RfC clearly demonstrated that there was no consensus support for the early May version. So there is no reason to go back to that version of the guideline.

There is still room to make some alterations to the current guideline. That is why I suggested a compromise by creating an objective and verifiable criteria to determine when a plot detail is a spoiler and when a warning can be put in place. However, that suggestion has so far fallen on deaf ears. --Farix (Talk) 01:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I largely concur with Farix. I think there are situations where spoiler notices would be appropriate, though it would be far less than the 45,000 articles that formerly had them. The guideline—like most WP guidelines—should provide concrete examples of both appropriate and inappropriate use. Local consensus would govern in specific cases, as long as the spirit of the guideline is adhered to.

I suspect a majority of Wikipedians would find spoiler notices acceptable in some circumstances. That certainly does not mean that everyone agrees precisely what constitutes a spoiler, and when readers ought to be warned about it. A guideline revision that allows spoiler notices in fairly limited circumstances is more likely to gain agreement than one that throws the door wide open.

My objection to most of the foregoing dialogue, is that very little of it actually addresses what the guideline ought to say. Most of the comments on this page are about the process that took place in May, archiving policy, and so forth. Marc Shepherd 12:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Marc. The 45K incident is not going to change; MedCab, et al have declined, it's then end line of that. We should be focusing more on the present and the guideline. David Fuchs^(talk) 12:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

A Problem with local consensus

I have found the perfect example of why creating a walled garden of local consensus is bad: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Harry Potter-related articles). Some Harry Potter fans evidently took it upon themselves to come up with a "guideline" for Potter articles, which is full of some incorrect information, and is especially grievous when it comes to spoiler warnings. Wether or not you think that they should have spoilers, the guideline authors have decided that content must be strictly divided into spoiler and non-spoiler sections- which has been agreed upon as the wrong thing to do. Sigh... I'm hoping this is not the reason for so much HP cruft, at least. David Fuchs^(talk) 01:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it to a Style guidelines subsection of Harry Potter WikiProject, which is where this should have remained at all times - a useful guide that simply applies the wiki-wide MOS to the context of the project. (Also added a proposed template before the move; should that be deleted now?) Girolamo Savonarola 02:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Local consensus is not the same thing as a Wikipedia:Walled garden. There's nothing wrong with local consensus in Wikipedia, because if anyone non-local wants to get involved in the discussion, they then become local and can affect the consensus. Further, I see no problem with a Wikiproject-level style guide (not considered a formal Wikipedia guidline) that does not conflict with policy. Policy trumps guideline. WP:CONSENSUS is policy. WP:SPOILER is a guideline, and a disputed one at that. If the Harry Potter Wikiproject chooses to include spoiler notices or any other form of informing readers that spoilers may be present, that will be up to the consensus. Certainly, if they do include spoiler notices, their local consensus will not remain local for long, because the editors who are scanning for spoiler notices will be aware of them in no time and remove them, referring to WP:SPOILER as justification. The ensuing debate will certainly be interesting. One can imagine that there may be some very devoted Harry Potter fans who want to prevent the story from being ruined, or shall we say "spoiled", for others who have not read all the books yet. I'm not a Harry Potter fan (though I enjoyed the movies), but I will be interested in how this proceeds on their project page.Back to the initial topic here though, I see no problem at all with local consensus on style issues, as long as they do not interfere with policies. This may be a good time to point out that Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is "policy", and not only that, it is one of the Wikipedia:Five pillars. WP:SPOILER is a guideline. Quoting from the guideline infobox, we see:

generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

...and in the formal guideline infobox, the words "occasional exception" are wikilinked directly to the policy of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. --Parsifal _Hello 03:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is not a trump card. A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. Girolamo Savonarola 03:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you about that. I was not suggesting anything else. The most important thing is to follow WP:CONSENSUS and all other Wikipedia policies. On the other hand, editors are not required to simply follow every guideline without questioning it, and that is included even in the definition of a guideline. I'm not advocating anarchy, I'm advocating the respect of consensus in every process, not only at the guideline level, but at the project and article level as well. --Parsifal _Hello 04:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, that Harry Potter style guide is a bit dated (it still refers to the 7th book as a future event). In more ways than one, many Harry Potter editors don't seem to be observing it, or indeed, to be even aware of it. Marc Shepherd 12:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Parsifal. I am not saying that just because they disagree with the current guideline, they are evil and whatnot. However as has come up in RfAs many, many times, WP:IAR is one of those policies which are better used sparingly. In any case, I'm worried less about the existence of the page and more that the creators of the page arbitrarily stamped a "this is a guideline" template over it. David Fuchs^(talk) 13:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand that would be inappropriate of them to make it a guideline without process and unilaterally add it into the MoS. By the time I saw it, it was already moved to a project page and MoS/Guideline template was gone. --Parsifal _Hello 17:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I see you posted a note on the topic I started over at the page in question. What I have issue there with is that rather than just using spoiler templates, they advocate segregating info and then adding spoiler temps. That was argued against strongly, and if anything is one of the few points that was taken constructively in this whole guideline fiasco. David Fuchs^(talk) 13:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem there, I don't have any issue with that part of the guideline either. My response to this was more about the general idea of local consensus being a walled garden, which it's not, because new editors can always join any topic. I have concern that often article editors are not knowledgeable about guidelines or larger processes in general, so when they see someone quoting a guideline, even it they have a clear local consensus otherwise, they may immediately back off from their prior consensus without even wondering about it. I agree that WP:IAR should be used sparingly, but I also feel that WP:CONSENSUS is one of our most important policies, and that guidelines exist in service to Wikipedia, to make it better, but not to make a barrier to the policies.

In the note I entered over on that other page, I did not advocate for them to follow WP:IAR, I only mentioned that the WP:SPOILER guideline is not set in stone and gave a link to this discussion. Maybe you're right and that page is dead and so it won't make any difference but I figured they should have the option to participate if they have the interest. --Parsifal _Hello 17:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This is just purely MHO and can be taken as what one will, but my POV on local consensus vs. policies and guidelines is something akin to a federalist system. You have "constitutional" policies, which are more or less inviolable and difficult to change, "federal"-level guidelines, which apply to all articles (or all relevant articles) and should be held fairly tightly, but are more open to easy change at the guideline level (but should generally be respected at the article level), and then you have "local" consensus on pages for issues which aren't covered by the policies and guidelines above. So if it's a question of something that's specific to the article, then it can be handled locally. But decisions that fundamentally have already been decided and their application delineated on policy or guideline pages need to be respected. I regard the IAR policy as an escape hatch in the event that policy and guidelines paint one into a corner regarding common sense application - it generally is begging for trouble to use it too broadly, indiscriminately, or controversially. IAR can also be viewed as a stop-gap until the approval and implementation of a guideline or policy to supplant the problem which caused IAR to be raised.

But these are just my thoughts, obviously. Girolamo Savonarola 22:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually there's no problem here. Any "local" consensus can and should be bulldozed, wiped out and nullified if it contradicts policy.

In the example David Fuchs gives above, "the guideline authors have decided that content must be strictly divided into spoiler and non-spoiler sections", isn't a big deal because of course we will boldly bend, fold, spindle, mutilate, trample, bulldoze, smash, crush, comminute and thoroughly ignore it because it's complete rubbish, directly contrary to our Neutral point of view policy which requires that we give all facts pertaining to the subject of an article due weight. It would be unacceptable to write an article about a recently released Harry Potter novel, for instance, that omitted important facts, or directed readers away from those facts through notices implying either that those facts were peripheral or that an encyclopedic assessment of the subject were possible if the writers directed the reader to ignore those facts. --Tony Sidaway 22:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with local consensus on the Harry Potter articles. The members of that WikiProject probably are more in touch with the likely readers of those articles than any other group of people on Wikipedia. They should be given some latitude to make a good set of articles. Johntex\^talk 04:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A note on the use of the word 'Warning'

I would like to have a horrible little semantic moment. Since June, Milo has added to our larger debate a very strenuous argument that the term “warning” is misused in reference to spoiler tags, and that those of us who persist in referring to spoiler “warnings” are attempting a kind of double-speak. Those aren’t his exact words, but they’re pretty close.

Milo’s exact words include the use of the phrase “spoiler warning” and “spoiler warning tags,” (May 31), so perhaps he too is attempting this doublespeak. Or—more likely—he simply slipped into the common usage, for the fact is that practically everyone in this discussion uses the phrase “spoiler warning.” Moreover, the common usage is clearly in alignment with the dictionary definition.

Per the OED, “warning” is: (1) a statement or event that indicates a possible or impending danger or problem. (2) cautionary advice. (3) advance notice.

Clearly everyone’s usage of “spoiler warning” fulfills (2) and (3). Presumably Milo’s concern is that, in regards to (1), a spoiler is neither a “danger” nor a “problem.” But this is a subjective claim, and it is at odds with the way people use the terms. There are, for instance, repeated uses of the admonition: “Danger: Spoilers!” or variants on the internet. At House Targaryen, someone writes “Wikipedia articles for Song should be useful...not dangerous.” At One Piece, posting spoilers outside certain parameters is called “crossing a dangerous line.” At Cheeky Angel, someone is forced “to cut the spoilers part because it's just TOO dangerous for first-time viewers of Tenshi na Konamaiki.” And on and on and on. Everyone I am quoting is pro-spoiler-tag. Everyone I am quoting believes that spoilers are dangerous. Ergo, everyone that I am quoting believes that spoiler tags are "warnings." Ethan Mitchell 22:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, basically the following two statements are true:

spoiler tags and other notices are intended to put the reader on his guard
there is a lot of precautionary wank on fan-sites because fans tend to be very young and naive, and overestimate the importance of the originality of storylines (although just about anybody over 30 will happily set them right on that score by reeling off a whole slew of earlier occurrences of the same plot, often going back thousands of years).

We can and should fart in the general direction of such nonsense. --Tony Sidaway 00:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the word "warning," though "notice" and "tag" are fine too. The main debate is whether that thingy—whatever you call it—ought to be present on some of our articles, and if so, which ones? Compared to that, the label attached to it is comparatively unimportant.

It's true that many plots have been around thousands of years. Nevertheless, when you're reading or viewing something the first time, you don't know which of those plots a particular story is going to turn out to be. I fully accept that there are readers/viewers who would not like to have the surprise spoiled. I just think that, in most cases, we don't need to pander to that small minority of people who cannot figure out that a heading labeled "plot" gives away the plot. Marc Shepherd 14:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Since it is impossible to work out from first principles whether a plot section will contain spoilers, the only minority being pandered to is hardcore fans.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a little trouble parsing your sentence. If you think the world is divided into "hardcore fans" and "everybody else," that's awfully simplistic. Marc Shepherd 21:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

We should assume that most viewers of an article will not be hardcore fans, unless you (wrongly) believe that some articles are fans-only.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that most readers won't be hardcore fans. Indeed, that's a Wikipedia guideline. Articles are for the general reader, not the specialist or fan. But the implication is actually the opposite of what you've suggested. It's actually the hardcore fan that wants spoiler warnings the most, and it's also the hardcore fan that is most sensitive to what constitutes a spoiler.

For instance, when the New York Times reviewed Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows two days early, the headline of the review was: "An Epic Showdown as Harry Potter Is Initiated Into Adulthood." Many HP fans regarded that headline—in and of itself—as a spoiler, since it disclosed the fact that Harry survived (i.e., made it to adulthood). As far as I know, it was only the hardcore fans who objected. (Obviously, those who went on to read the text were even more incensed, even though the review, like any normal book review, did not disclose very much of the plot.)

It is generally the hardcore fan who will argue that any plot point, however, minor, is a spoiler. That's why the only warning that will satisfy the people who care about them most, must go on the entire plot. Marc Shepherd 13:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're dead wrong here. Spoiler tags interfere with hardcore fans' sense of article ownership and their unrealistic assumptions about their fiction's popularity. They support non-hardcore consumption of fiction like waiting for the paperback or the DVD, which hardcore fans may resent.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Luckily, you need not take my word for it. The whole Harry Potter pre-release contretemps is quite recent, and easily google-able. You can research it for yourself, and see that it's precisely as I've said. Marc Shepherd 14:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The spoilers were mainstream news, with the author and various columnists expressing their opinions. It is hard to think of a less hardcore example.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

But the outrage came chiefly from the hardcore fans, which is the point. Marc Shepherd 16:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"the hardcore fan who will argue that any plot point, however, minor, is a spoiler." Hardcore fans would be the extremists at the opposite end from the clique. Pander to neither.

"That's why the only warning that will satisfy the people who care about them most, must go on the entire plot." You are stating an extreme position. Extremists need not be, and indeed cannot be satisfied.

"But the outrage came chiefly from the hardcore fans, which is the point." Ok. Your point is inclusively that they are extremists. It's best to ignore them and move on. Milo 07:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the 'outrage' chiefly came from hardcore fans. News reports of the controversy focused on Rowling, her publishers, and various commentators over the views of HP fansites.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"those of us who persist in referring to spoiler "warnings" are attempting a kind of double-speak" That's not my explanation. Originally we were all unconsciously hyped. Persisting that usage after the definitional logic has been exposed is a more group-conformist and/or habitual phenomenon.

"Those aren't his exact words, but they're pretty close" Wrong - not even in the vicinity of my words. You also seem to be confusing an interpretation with a quote.

"Or—more likely—he simply slipped into the common usage," That's inadequate research. May 31 was about a week before I discovered that I and everyone else had been hyped, and that it mattered due to the constant red herring sidetrack of the disclaimer policy.

"practically everyone in this discussion uses the phrase "spoiler warning." Which is evidence of conformity, not correctness. It's also the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum.

"the common usage is clearly in alignment with the dictionary definition." No. Since two dictionaries disagree (in the 3rd definition and the latter half of the 1st definition), it is not clear. Your overstated position is merely a disputable argument.

"usage of "spoiler warning" fulfills (2) [cautionary advice]" It's a poor fit, relating firstly to "danger" at COED [6] and "warning" M-W.com, but anyway moot, since no one is likely to call it a "spoiler caution".†

"spoiler is neither a "danger" nor a "problem." Half wrong. It is a problem, or fans wouldn't complain.

(many references to colloquial usages of "spoiler warning") ... "everyone that I am quoting believes that spoiler tags are "warnings." So what? All of them have been successfully hyped. See bandwagon effect. Even if they don't know it, all of them are speaking colloquially. And most importantly, all of them are encyclopedically incorrect.

"usage of "spoiler warning" fulfills (3) [advance notice]" This is your only valid debate point. As weak as it is, I'd shrug it off and accept this false-hype colloqial usage - except that other editors persist with the disclaimer false argument against spoiler notices. They use emotionally charged yet incorrect comparisons to porn, obscenity, and emotional triggering disclaimers. Therefore, I insist on formal encyclopedic correctness to which Wikipedia claims to adhere by default, and thereby to purge the populist, hyped notion of a spoiler 'danger' that does not exist. Milo 11:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Re-edited 07:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

†Later I Googled 827 instances of "spoiler caution" (0.05%), possibly a UK-influenced usage. (I recall that the U.S. "Miranda warning" is UK equivalently known as "the caution".)

By comparison there are 765,000 of "spoiler warning" (49%), a suprising 762,000 of "spoiler alert" (49%), and 14,000 of "spoiler notice" (0.9%).

Parsifal found that "alert" has a defined reference to danger [7] [8], and is therefore about as unsuitable as the primary meaning of "warning". I'd like to think that the "spoiler notice" phrases were posted by rhetorically careful writers. Milo 07:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the 'danger does not exist' compared to other warnings. Just yesterday someone's mood was HIGHLY affected by learning of the ending to a new game (outside WP). Basically it seems to me what you're saying is that the spoiler notices should be there because people want them and it's the courteous thing to do...while at the same time, it doesn't matter because they don't affect anything. How does that make sense? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"someone's mood was HIGHLY affected by learning of the ending to a new game" Danger from a mood?? Did they cut themselves or threaten worse? Did they fear they were going to have therapy bills from the emotional trauma of being spoilered? Let's see that link to identify what specific harm this person claimed or at least experienced.

"spoiler notices should be there because people want them..." For me that's a necessary but not sufficient condition.

"it's the courteous thing to do" That's not my position. My position is 'it's a useful thing to do' like the table of contents and permanent disambiguation non-content notices. One could get information without content notices, but they are more useful to have than not have.

"while at the same time, it doesn't matter because they don't affect anything. How does that make sense?" Maybe you are exploring a point I think I mentioned months ago, that the arguments against spoiler tagging are based on exaggerated positions (motivated by external "warning" hype), while spoiler notices are actually a feature of middling importance with a moderate effect. For example — spoiler tags aren't so important as to rise to the level of general disclaimer policy (see my hidden warning tag test), yet they aren't decidedly unimportant, since 40+% of readers/editors want them (#Poll 1). So, in terms of your question, my position is that spoiler content notices are a middle case feature that usefully affects some things, some people, somewhat. Milo 21:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hans Brinker

Interesting that we have both independently obtained some stats on the dimensions of the spoiler tagging and reverting operations.

There is "leak" averaging 5 spoiler tags per day. There is a "head" of mostly IP-generated tags behind the leak in the en.wikipedia.org boundary. The head pressure doesn't seem high, so this would analogize to a large but shallow lake behind the leak.

Outside the boundary, I've found over 1.5 million web references to spoiler warnings, alerts, and notices. Considering these numbers and 2007's ramp-up in external don't-spoil sentiment, I think it's reasonable to suggest that the 6+ members of the Wikipedia hierarchy clique, are now opposed in principle by a million people, for classic reasons of convenience, and now, morals.

You are looking a lot like the nameless fictional character popularly known as Hans Brinker. How long can you hold your finger in the spoiler tag dike?

If you become indisposed or take a two-week vacation, 70 tags may pile up in your absence. Year in, year out, you need to do up to 1,825 tag reversions. As the seasons roll by, the first 1,825 may not be so hard. But by the end of 3,650 reversions two summers hence, the task may become progressively more tedious, thankless, and meaningless.

If my analysis is correct, spoiler tag opposition is an intergenerational conflict like 20th century opposition to dime novels, jazz, comic books, and rock 'n roll. The next generation usually wins in matters of popular culture, especially when big profit supports them. I forecast that in the end, in the time-uncertain arrival and coalescence of pro-tagging factors I've previously described, your thousands of spoiler tag reversion edits will mostly, or all, be for nothing. Milo 23:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Re-edited to install the final draft. 05:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You are assuming that only 6 people are removing spoiler warnings. That isn't true, and as word gets around that they are deprecated when redundant it will become less and less true. Eventually the recent changes patrol will deal with them. I saw numerous editors removing spoiler warnings from the Harry Potter article when the book came out. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I assumed only Tony would be doing the removing, since that currently seems to be his undertaking with the bot. If you are correct then he needs to do fewer tedious reversions than I suggested.

Since judgments and knowledge of the subject are required, I doubt that Recent Changes can handle spoiler tag reversions in the way vandalism is handled.

I came here months ago because an "enforcer" editor removed my spoiler tag, so that behavior might or not already be maximum. Milo 05:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No one is arguing that spoilers do not exist in that context (yes, wow, journals and newspapers use the word "spoiler". can we move on?). However if it's true that we are "fighting the flood", then, why do you care? Let us be obstinate old-timers. However arguing from google searches that we are "morally [...] opposed" by a "million" people seems a tad presumptuous. David Fuchs^(talk) 23:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"morally [...] opposed" by a "million" I've replaced my earlier draft with a refinement of the "morals" point. (An escaped draft has happened to me twice without losing the edit window — I wonder if there's a software problem?)

I think currently most of the million would be opposed for classic convenience reasons. However, the San Francisco Chronicle has raised the stakes to a moral level, so it's not my presumption. (SF Chronicle internal link name is "Editorial: Spoiling is immoral") In the U.S. anyway, claiming a moral issue could mean political trouble for the anti-taggers, if that claim gains traction.

"why do you care?" I ask myself that periodically. I can't help but notice that both Nydas and I have been greatly influenced by Orwell. See my post #Wikipedia Farm.

Also if you haven't read much about the history of law, it's difficult to adequately convey how important due process is to the orderly and fair functioning of civilization, as well as the individual pursuit of happiness. See Code of Hammurabi. I've previously mentioned that had the clique gotten what they wanted without the process abuses (and I think they could have), I wouldn't be posting here.

Beyond that, there's the news spectacle of 'Internet Clique Bets Against Hollywood Profits'. This little story of an internal cultural dispute has mushroomed with elements of education, current events, big business, philosophy, and Greek tragedy with a theme of hubris. But ok, the final Harry Potter book is launched. What more big news could possibly happen that has anything to do with spoilers? Milo 05:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Milo, your straw man arguments are becoming more fatuous the further you continue to spin them. First it was that we should avoid spoilers because that might possibly cause non-profitability which could cause Wikipedia to be sued. Now it's that the number of reverts would be so high that we'd all collapse under the strain. Or that future generations will hate us. Or something. Instead of providing vague hair-brained threats of "or else" and making up statistics in a flagrant misuse of a Google test, maybe you could try discussing the issues at hand today? I'm not convinced by your numbers, but were they even correct, would it matter? Do we give up on reverting vandalism because there is so much? Our job is to create an encyclopedia filled with articles that meet a standard for that purpose. That's not an easy task period. But betraying the project mission for certain "exceptional" articles for the sake of fanboys is unacceptable on all terms. For reasons that have to do with being an encyclopedia, no more or less. Girolamo Savonarola 00:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You have again assumed I wrote things that I didn't write, and pejoratively misunderstood even more; so, I find your posts unacceptable for debate. Furthermore, when you get your facts wrong and you are pushing WP:CIV to the limit, you are coming across in a way that I respectfully suggest is not good for your reputation. Milo 05:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

But betraying the project mission

So spoiler warnings are akin to treason .If you are going to have a go at someone for "going over the top" with their arguments it's best not to do it yourself .Garda40 00:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Poorly worded, I admit, but I think my point is clear - favoring certain actions for extra-wiki reasons which go expressly against our purpose and policies - is completely counter to our entire purpose. Girolamo Savonarola 00:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If they're true - and I don't mean to imply that they're not, don't misunderstand me, I simply didn't follow the sources on a quick skim - then it would be highly relevant, since 6 vs a million is hardly wiki-wide consensus. IP editors are still editors. Kuronue | Talk 00:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

In the final draft I wrote "opposed in principle by a million people". Surely the vast majority of the million don't actually edit here as IPs. My point is that even if the clique does have Wikipedia consensus (which I claim will take at least a year to determine), they probably lack external consensus and it may be getting worse. I think external society will exact some cost for the clique's anti-spoiler-tag position. If, and only if, that cost is high enough, I expect the Wikipedia honchos will quietly revert the clique. Milo 05:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy; policy and guidelines are not ratified through a vote. Although some editors have historically argued that policies and guidelines should be adopted by vote or majority opinion, Wikipedia policy clearly contradicts this opinion. It should also be noted that while seniority and high edit counts don't confer more weight to particular users, anonymous IPs and new or light users generally are considered to have less weight on decisions unless they are part of the discussion and discuss with regard to policy and guidelines. (AfD, for example, states that Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted.) Clearly the question is what are reasonably informed editors doing. Which is also the reason why we do not give up the war on vandalism despite the preponderance of occurrence. Our concern is not what ill-informed editors are doing - it's what the average editor does. Girolamo Savonarola 01:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There is "leak" averaging 5 spoiler tags per day.

A good way to assess this information is to compare spoiler tags to other kinds of "leaks." For instance, yesterday there were 129 articles proposed for deletion. A bit of research will show that, overwhelmingly, most of those articles are going to be deleted. So, in rough numbers, articles requiring deletion overwhelm "spoiler tag leakage" by about 20 to 1. I don't have a good way of counting vandalism edits, but I'll bet there are a helluva lot more than 5 of them per day.

So, if there are only 5 spoiler tag additions per day, that strikes me as a very low number, compared to all of the other kinds of guideline/policy-violating edits that are routinely reverted. Marc Shepherd 12:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You got it, Marc. Whilst it's true that only I am engaged in systematic searches for home-made spoiler warnings, the reason for that is more about the availability of the technology. Using my bot search-script, I've also engaged in similar regular cleanups for misnomers for The Times and inappropriate references to "Harry Potter" (such as this one). There are all very minor stylistic edits but I think they improve the overall quality of Wikipedia.

The investment of time at first is quite considerable: there are about 1,200 articles that legitimately contain the word "spoiler", mostly in connection with automotive aerodynamics or air flight, and these articles had to be identified and added to an exception list. There are some 2,500 articles that legitimately (or at least, not in a context that is grossly inappropriate) refer to Harry Potter, and these also had to be checked individually. Once this large task has been performed, however, it doesn't ever have to be done again.

I am currently engaged in software development work that should make the bot, and its technology, available to all Wikipedia editors. --Tony Sidaway 12:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not five tags a day, it's five homemade ones. It'd be pretty hard to really find how many of the templates are added, as they are constantly being reverted. I imagine it's more than five, but considering how few in number there tend to be at any given time, it's probably still not that much. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is a matter we can do something about. I've written a script that checks the list of article transcluding template:spoiler every fifteen minutes, and updates the page User:Tony Sidaway/transclusions/spoiler if it has changed in any way in the intervening time. This wouldn't detect tags that are added and then immediately removed, but it will probably enable us, by watching the history of that page, to keep a fairly close watch on the rate at which spoiler tags are added and removed. --Tony Sidaway 13:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I can only wonder how much energy are you willing to spend on fighting, rather than on ways to find the consensus with people who want and use spoiler warnings (they are significant minority). I even proposed compromise that spoiler warnings would be hidden by default, but most anti-spoiler fanatics here seem to oppose even that (obviously such solution would harm no one). Lately, there has been proliferation of people for which the formal policies are more important than common sense (see for example [9]). I wish that Wikipedia would truly be democracy, so that all those elitists and "deletionists because of such and such policy" would left. The Wikipedia was built on assumption that people (as a community, not individuals) know better, and don't need to have complex formal rules imposed by high authorities. Samohyl Jan 18:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Your appeal to "common sense" presumes that the current practice is non-sensical. Perhaps it is...but this hasn't been demonstrated. You appear to be equating "deletionism" and "elitism." But deletionism is a legitimate position, just like its polar opposite, inclusionism. Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and hasn't been for at least as long as I've been around. Wikipedia has always had rules. You cannot hope to create an encyclopedia of any value without rules. Marc Shepherd 19:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

To ignore what people actually want just for the sake of some formal rules is non-sensical. People here opposed spoiler warnings for various formal reasons like "it's redundant with the plot heading", "it should be expected" or "it contradicts no disclaimers". But if people in general want such exception, why not? In law, people are able to cope with reasonable exceptions, the rules don't have to be completely orthogonal. Although it's irelevant for this debate, I don't equate deletionism and elitism, I just equally despise both. And I actually mean a special case of deletionism, the one that leads people to AFD obviously notable articles that just lack sources, the one that Transhumanist mentions on that link, or the one that leads people to remove all spoiler warnings just because some of them are misused. What happened to the original "it's bad, maybe someone will come along and improve it"? Now we have "it's bad, let's delete it so no one can see it". And you seem to equate democracy with anarchy. Democracy has rules too, in fact, democracy is so good because it has a simple easy-to-check rule - voting. You don't need to have higher authority that decides who is right in democracy. And I wouldn't mind if only people who care enough (are registered and have enough edits, perhaps) are allowed to vote, that wouldn't be undemocratic at all. The point of democracy is that the rule is simple and obvious - no way for admins or other people to manipulate the outcome by saying - well, you may have the majority, but Wikipedia is not a democracy, so you are screwed. I don't think pro-spoilerists have majority, but this fixed rule would make such admins think twice about the minorities too, and they would be more willing to find compromise in general (because they may happen to be the minority next time). Samohyl Jan 20:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Reasonable exceptions exist on Wikipedia. It's pretty much how Wikipedia works. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place for a metaphysical discussion about Wikipedia's flaws—and it certainly has plenty. If you have a concrete proposal for improving the spoiler guideline, by all means make it (starting a new section heading would be a good start). Your proposal—whatever it may be—will still have to run the gauntlet of Wikipedia's "consensus" process. Flawed though it is, that process is the only one we have. Marc Shepherd 21:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Major themes of this debate for months before you arrived are:

Process has been abused beyond mere flaws to unavailability.
Through illogical fig leaves like circular reasoning, consensus is what the clique says it is.
Compromises and proposals have been repeatedly blocked or sidetracked by artifices and agendas stretching beyond operational reason.
Perceived attempts to suppress debate are inclusively an issue.

The problems here span a wide spectrum, meaning that spoiler-tag issues traceable to user conduct, WP's metaphysical flaws, or external big business pressures are on the table for discussion. I don't think you are actually attempting to suppress debate per se, but by declaring things to not discuss you are making yourself sound like a tool of whoever is suspected of doing that.

I'm in favor of concrete proposals, please proceed. But believe it or not, I can walk on concrete and simultaneously chew metaphysical gum. I think a number of other editors here are equally capable. Milo 04:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

My first concrete proposal is to actually go back to consensus. Saying "It is consensus when nobody manually reverts all of the thousands of changes we make using automation tools" is not consensus (especially when people who try anyway get told that they can't make the changes because consensus is already settled, which is circular reasoning.) Ken Arromdee 21:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I proposed two compromise solutions a while back, they can be found in the archives. They were completely ignored by the anti-spoilerists, so I take it they don't want to negotiate. The proposals were:

1. No guideline where to place spoiler warnings, just the local consensus on per article level. And no bots patrolling articles to remove spoiler warnings if someone adds them. Basically, revert the guideline to as it was before May 2007, and leave the 45000 removed SWs removed. If there really is consensus that SWs are inapropriate, they won't appear on the articles pages, or will be outed by the other editors. [ Samohyl Jan 22:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC) continues below ]

There are many bots that search for potential violations of various guidelines and policies. There is still human judgment as to whether an edit is called for. It would be better if you pointed out a number of specific edits that you believe shouldn't have been made, rather than to state categorically that there shouldn't be bot patrols. Marc Shepherd 00:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

2. Technical compromise. Spoiler warnings are hidden by default, but can be enabled by method similar to the method that was used to hide them, as was described on this page before May 2007. Anyone can add them to article as they see fit (within reasonable bounds). [ Samohyl Jan 22:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC) continues below ]

There's lots of content on Wikipedia that some editors wish wasn't there. It's a little hard to believe that this is the first time Wikipedia needs to hide content because some editors would rather not see it. Marc Shepherd 00:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

These are 2 different compromises, and none of them is acceptable (I guess) to hardcore anti-spoilerists. Because this is not about consensus or not seeing spoiler warnings, this is about "it will be our way and you shut up". Samohyl Jan 22:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"hard to believe that this is the first time Wikipedia needs to hide content because some editors would rather not see it." It isn't the first time, but what matters is that it is the workable compromise this time.

Please avoid intraposting. It's a little more work to interpost with thoughtfully indented quote-and-response, but it keeps the threads together for easier reading — otherwise a new intraposted thread splits a post further and further apart. Interposting also doesn't obscure the coherence of ordered-point proposals like Jan's. Milo 04:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What I mean by "no patrolling bots" - this is to prevent situation like, if some editor adds a spoiler warning to the article, and it gets removed in 15 minutes without any discussion by another editor, because article appears on some personal watchlist. Or even cases when he discusses addition/removal of the SW on the talk page, and a bunch of people who have never made any edit to that article just come in saying "we don't want it", and it gets removed. Just because it triggered a scanner for the word "spoiler". This is not what I consider to be a local consensus. The order should be: Someone is bold and makes the edit (ie. adds the SW), then if other people (who are perhaps regular maintainers of the article) disagree, they say so on the talk page. The issue waits a week or so, and after a week it's probably obvious what the local consensus is. Samohyl Jan 06:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of any fighting. --Tony Sidaway 18:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Misza13 has also drawn my attention to the following record: [10]. --Tony Sidaway 19:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. There is a spoiler guideline, but whenever it's followed, editors like Tony Sidaway and David Gerard instantly go into attack mode as if they're the Spoiler Police. It's condescending editors like that who turn people off to this site. --YellowTapedR 22:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, for all practical purposes they are acting as if the guideline reads 'no spoiler tags under any circumstance' when in fact there is demonstrably no consensus for such a position. (see recent edits for Match Point for an example) Tomgreeny 23:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

We're following the guideline. If there is an objection to our edits we seek consensus on the talk page. No condescension, no "attack mode", no "Spoiler Police", no "'no spoiler tags under any circumstance'", but simple, patient discussion. This is how Wikipedia works. --Tony Sidaway 23:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If Talk: Halo: Combat Evolved is any example, then we will see: (a) threats (b) shifting the definition of consensus to mean 80% agreement (c) insults (d) changing the guideline to win the debate (e) "everyone knows" (f) "If we don't agree then it isn't consensus" veto-mode.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

When people seek consensus on the talk page, it's impossible to get any headway because you, Gerard, Carl and one or two others monitor everything and always have some smartass comment to make yourself feel superior. I read an interview with one of the founders of Wikipedia saying the "cliques," consisting of longtime and houlier-than-thou editors, are turning this site to crap. That's you. You're gonna tell me this isn't condescending?: "(((current fiction)) (duh!))" Maybe that's not the best example, but I didn't feel like spending more than a minute going through your history. --YellowTapedR 23:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you please cite a specific interview in which you claim that a Wikipedia founder says that I, or other editors performing maintenance edits, are acting in a "holier than thou" manner and/or "turning this site into crap"? Could you please explain why my self-correction from "template:recent fiction" (which doesn't exist) to "template:current fiction" (which does) accompanied by the self-deprecating comment "duh!" is in any way condescending? It was, I assure you, intended to be self-deprecatory. I made a mistake and then corrected it. --Tony Sidaway 00:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There you go again. He didn't say that you specifically or editors performing maintenance edits are ruining the site, but that longtime editors who form cliques make it unwelcome. I'd consider the anti-spoiler gang an example of that. I'll track down the link for you when I get a chance. It's the guy who is forming the new site for only experts to contribute to who said it.

I'm sorry, I was being quick and I took your quote out of context. --YellowTapedR 04:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of terms like "gang", "clique", etc, to describe people who share similar opinions (especially when those opinions enjoy wiki-wide consensus) is unhelpful. Please clean up your act. --Tony Sidaway 19:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I need your advice, but thanks. Claiming to have "wiki-wide consensus" when you have no such evidence is also unhelpful.

The use of the terms "gang" and "clique" is accurate in this case. Look at ANY talk page where a spoiler tag is being discussed, and you'll see the usual suspects. So, it is impossible to get anywhere with the same -- I'm saying it -- gang on talk pages because of the circular reasoning and bully-like behavior. In most cases, consensus would clearly be for adding spoilers if it weren't for the gang, who monitors any spoiler-related activity closely, showing up everywhere. --YellowTapedR 22:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's all tone it down a notch and discuss our issues with guidelines, not editors. Girolamo Savonarola 22:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)