Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 11

message: What on earth is the point of adding this tag to the top of a film when in 99% of cases, the first sentence states "released in 2007" - do we expect that most of our readers are unable to work out that a film released in 2007 is recent and that by reading the article they may spoil their enjoyment of the film? I have seen it added to a couple of articles and it adds nothing - so I have removed it as redundant. --Fredrick day 08:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think such would be better discussed at its talk page. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current fiction tag 

message: According to , there are currently three articles that use  in all of Wikipedia. I've been checking for a couple days, and the number's bounced around for a bit, but I don't think it's been more than twenty or so articles. 
What this means is that, despite the existence of a policy allowing spoiler warnings, Wikipedia is a de-facto spoiler warning-free zone. Articles containing major spoilers (The Sixth Sense, for example) have those spoilers unflagged. 
Is it time for some sort of poll or other discussion (another RfC, maybe), the subject of which should be to decide if Wikipedia should include any spoiler tags at all? — PyTom (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already consensus that spoiler warnings may sometimes be appropriate. --Tony Sidaway 05:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I would mention that many spoiler warnings were removed awhile back, and the pro-spoiler warning camp has been waiting for the dust to settle on this conversation before adding any of them back in.  This will artificially decrease the number of spoilers for some time. Postmodern Beatnik 19:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three Spoiler Warnings 

message: This this is becoming a new line of argument with some editors in order to undermine some sections of this guideline, I've initiated a discussion about whether section titles are a form of original research at WT:NOR#Section Titles are Original Research?). Comments are welcome. --Farix (Talk) 18:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WT:NOR#Section Titles are Original Research?]] 

message: It looks like someone came up with a pretty good solution for films where the twists happen early. The tables are turned in the first act, so anyone reading just the first paragraph or two would be spoiled if they didn't know what happens already. (I don't necessarily agree that it's a spoiler in this case, but the special tag may be useful in other articles). --YellowTapedR 03:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some problems with that particular instance, irrespective of whether that technique would be useful elsewhere.  You cited the trailer for that movie the other day, and I just looked at it.  If there were any kind of "plot twist", it's given away by that trailer.  The current main editor still thinks that a spoiler tag is required, and I'm indulging him, but I am sure that in due course consensus will rule that there is no good reason for it. --Tony Sidaway 11:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good example of how viewers' sensitivities will vary. That editor is, of course, correct that if you really want to see the film with no preconceptions, practically the entire plot needs to be concealed, since the twists come very early. But Tony is, of course, correct that the spoilers can't be that important, since the studio was willing to give them away in the trailer. But I know someone who always complains during trailers, "They're giving too much away!" It is difficult in a general-purpose encyclopedia to decide how much you're permitted to disclose without "spoiling" it for someone. Marc Shepherd 12:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern is that, if the "spoilers" are that fundamental to the story, it's a poor lead section that excludes some of the most interesting and important material about the film, namely its inversion of the expected paradigm. Phil Sandifer 14:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: In this instance I'd plump for putting the premise into the lead section.  I've removed a "back of the box"-style summary from the lead on the grounds that it's misleading, and my bald statement "The film is about the confrontation of a sexual predator by a fourteen-year-old girl whom he attempts to ensnare" was removed from the lead on the grounds that it was a spoiler. --Tony Sidaway 15:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hard Candy (film)|Hard Candy]] 

message: I have added a notice about the....conflict....in the usage of the spoiler tag on the project page and on the template doc page. I stand by this action as it let's potential users of the template know that as of right now the template's future is uncertain.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carterhawk (talk • contribs) 05:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice placed in key places 

message: When an issue as apparently contentious as the spoiler one arises, how does someone go about getting input from the many many editors across the entirety of the English wikipedia?
It really doesn't seem like this decision should be left in the hands a tiny tiny fraction of the wikipedia editorship.
--204.100.182.175 22:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Requests for comment and Template:Announcements/Community bulletin board. Either one of those forums (clearly one likely to draw an audience much wider than the other) will open the issue to wider scrutiny. There are also particular places to discuss particular issues, of course, but they occasionally suffer the same disadvantage you've just pointed out. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 22:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue has been elevated to the broader community on more than one occasion. It would make sense to do so again once there is a new guideline draft; otherwise, we would probably just get the same input we've had in the past. Marc Shepherd 22:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It definitely isn't a bad idea to engage the whole community at all times in policy matters. --Tony Sidaway 23:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not have the pro-spoiler and anti-spoiler groups each develop their own replacement for WP:SPOIL, as well as a well written argument for why they are right? Then we can present both sides to the community-at-large and see what they think :) --71.165.132.200 07:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would mean to vote between two positions, which does not reflect the general consensus-building principles of Wikipedia. Kusma (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above proposal does not violate any principle of Wikipedia. In fact, it's a damned good idea. It would be nice, for a change, to see a new proposed guideline, rather than just taking pot-shots at the old one. Most Wikipedia decisions are, in fact, made through a process resembling voting — in essence, "votes with reasons" — which is what the anon. editor was suggesting. Marc Shepherd 13:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We've already been through the process of a redrafting of the guideline.  The current version is not the one introduced in early June.  I agree with Kusma that creating two more versions of the guideline would be very destructive to the consensus-building process.  The current guideline has consensus at present. --Tony Sidaway 04:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am sorry Tony and Kusma, but this is totalitarian language ("destructive to consensus-building"). If the current guideline really has consensus (which I understand as a support by super-majority), there should be no problem to put this to a test. Samohyl Jan 10:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Yeah, I'm not sure why it's a bad thing, outside of the fact that very likely everything will just be restated, AGAIN. I said before, this NEEDS to be discussed by the majority of people who read and edit...and care, or else we WILL just keep going in circles. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Consensus is a continuous process. If someone wants to propose a new guideline that they believe would be better than the one we now have, I welcome it. Kusma, in fact, has already made such a proposal (here), which represents the anti-SW position. Marc Shepherd 14:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  The current guideline was formed by consensual discussion rather than partisan efforts.  An avowedly "pro-" or "con-" guideline is unlikely to achieve more consensus. --Tony Sidaway 17:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensual? I remember someone running through a hundred thousand articles removing spoilers with the criteria "nobody is opposing me, so it is right". -- ReyBrujo 17:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're changing the subject.  The topic I am discussing here is the current version of the guideline, which was drafted, with wide consensus Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler/archive10#Pending_new_draft, by someone who has (so far) escaped being accused of being a wild-eyed spoiler tag deletionist. --Tony Sidaway 18:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asking the larger community?