# Talk:Loch Henry

Hi guys - there are major plot spoilers in the introductory paragraphs of this article. These sorts of details are normally only revealed in the "plot" and "analysis" sections of articles like this. I think these spoilers should therefore be removed entirely from the introductory paragraphs. 31.94.21.55 (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:SPOILERS - once a work has aired to the general public, we do not hide spoilers. Masem (t) 21:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
As Masem has indicated, spoilers are not censored on Wikipedia, or limited to only some sections of an article. Streamberry and the analysis of Pia's death are integral to the episode and the lead would not be a complete summary without mention of it. — Bilorv (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
The spoilers themselves have only aired to the people who have watched the episode though. Furthermore, it seems perfectly feasible to give an adequate summary of the plot and its themes - by way of introduction to the episode - without mentioning such major plot details. To introduce an episode by revealing details that would also negatively affect someone's first time viewing of that episode seems like a very shoddy way of introducing it. 31.94.21.55 (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC) (I've copy-pasted my above response here as this response applies to both comments - I'm not sure how to respond to both at once though.) 31.94.21.55 (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Just the comment once suffices: everyone can see it. The point of the lead is not to "introduce the episode". It is to summarise the episode and contextualise it. Read WP:LEAD. You can't summarise World War II without saying how it ends. You can't summarise this episode without explaining the plot twist and how that leads to the Streamberry themes.
I see Igordebraga has reverted with the comment still,no need for a full plot summary (the closest in Black Mirror is Men Against Fire, and that at most puts and explains the twists), the setup is good enough. — Bilorv (talk) 08:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Just to make it clear, my stance is not against spoilers - otherwise I would cut the mention of the character death in the second paragraph. But as my comment made clear, checking the rest of Black Mirror episodes, as much as the twists always get in the lead because they're crucial in discussing the episode (otherwise there wouldn't be 'werewolf' in Mazey Day, 'simulated reality' in San Junipero, and as I mentioned just about the whole plot paragraph of Men Against Fire), none of the articles go through the whole plot (hell, White Bear cites a twist in the lead but doesn't spell it out). Just seemed like too much detail for an introduction. But I digress, Bilorv as the primary editor still has the priority and I won't complain if he keeps it the way it was. igordebraga ≠ 09:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure how clear the relevance of streaming television and the connection to "Joan Is Awful" is without mention of Streamberry (and thus of the documentary that was produced, not by Davis/Pia), but I won't revert. I feel much more strongly about "Mazey Day" and "San Junipero". — Bilorv (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to give the Second World War as an example to illustrate your point. Historical events don't have spoilers. If I told someone, who'd (somehow) never heard of the Second World War before, that it ended with an Allied victory, they wouldn't respond by going 'oh great, thanks for spoiling it...'.
The Second World War is a historical event, but we're talking about a filmic narrative, where spoilers are very much an unwelcome thing. 31.94.21.55 (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
It makes sense as an example because Wikipedians are explicitly instructed not to take into account whether something is a spoiler. This is something that was litigated and relitigated to death 15 years ago and the community found a consensus not to censor or warn of spoilers. — Bilorv (talk) 05:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
My dude, if you'd just said this at the very beginning then this entire conversation would've never needed to have taken place.
I understand now why the spoilers are going to remain in the article - if that's written into Wikipedia constitution then fair enough, I can't argue with that. I do, however, absolutely stand by my point about the redundancy of citing the Second World War. The notion of historical events have "spoilers" is literally incoherent. 31.94.21.150 (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)