Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC

message: One possible solution to this issue that has been presented is the notion of spoiler tags' default status being that they are turned off. In other words, someone accessing the encyclopedia would be approaching a default version in which there were no spoiler tags. They would, however, have the option (whether logged in or not) to turn them on.
===Support (hiding tags by default)===
# Ryu Kaze — If they're going to be here, then they shouldn't be on the default setting of the site, turning it into a hypocritical mass of fan-dedicated muck. Principles come before courtesies in creating an encyclopedia every single time.
# Randall Brackett 17:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hiding spoiler tags by default

message: # Ryu Kaze — If they're going to be here, then they shouldn't be on the default setting of the site, turning it into a hypocritical mass of fan-dedicated muck. Principles come before courtesies in creating an encyclopedia every single time.
# Randall Brackett 17:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support (hiding tags by default)

message: # badlydrawnjeff talk 12:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose (hiding tags by default)

message: # Spoiler warnings are not appropriate in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia contains information. That's what encyclopedias do, and warning about it is silly. The standard disclaimer at the bottom of every page is enough, and we should do like the Germans did and simply ban them. Shanes 14:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support (deleting spoiler templates)

message: # badlydrawnjeff talk 12:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose (deleting spoiler templates)

message: Keep spoiler tags with options to revise guidelines to see when it is appropriate to use the tag or not.
===Support (keeping spoiler tags)===
# badlydrawnjeff talk 12:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be me. I don't think I actually changed the meaning of this proposal, but added that if they were kept then the appearance could even be looked at. Which is something one would normally assume, since on Wikipedia nothing is set in stone, but I thought it might be good to make it clear. Here's the edit. If you feel that I have changed the meaning of this proposal then by all means change the wording back. -- Ned Scott 05:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I took out the little blurb about the tag apperance. The last thing I want from all this is for someone to say that the results are somehow invalid because of something small like this.. :) -- Ned Scott 07:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep spoiler tags

message: # badlydrawnjeff talk 12:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support (keeping spoiler tags)

message: # As per my support to their removal. Shanes 14:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose (keeping spoiler tags)

message: someone just changed this definition AFTER people had signed.plange 02:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be me. I don't think I actually changed the meaning of this proposal, but added that if they were kept then the appearance could even be looked at. Which is something one would normally assume, since on Wikipedia nothing is set in stone, but I thought it might be good to make it clear. Here's the edit. If you feel that I have changed the meaning of this proposal then by all means change the wording back. -- Ned Scott 05:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I took out the little blurb about the tag apperance. The last thing I want from all this is for someone to say that the results are somehow invalid because of something small like this.. :) -- Ned Scott 07:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment (keeping spoiler tags)

message: To clarify, this concept can go hand in hand with the idea of the guideline. "No guideline is absolute, and whenever there's a gray area things can be taken to the talk page of that article." vs "guideline trumps all". -- Ned Scott 02:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Some of the opinions below were added before the above clarification.--GunnarRene 04:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I wonder if we should scratch this section or not, due to the possible confusion. It is something we can decide after we know if spoiler tags will be included or not and/or if there will be a guideline status. -- Ned Scott 03:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Case by case in that people can't say "Look, Wikipedia:Spoiler warning is a guideline and so clearly states that I can insert this spoiler template into this article on the crucification, because it's spoilage."  My view is that we should offer a style guide on how to use spoiler templates, but that where they should be used should be settled on a case by case basis, with guidance on what constitutes a spoiler kept brief to avoid wikilawyering. Note that we have people opposing this, stating that spoiler templates should always be used.  I hope we all agree that comment needs clarifying. Hiding Talk 11:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the guidline says anyhing about when to use spoiler tags we would avoid the problem mentioned above. As I said, let editors work it out within the outer limits of the guideline. If we say "for fictional works" the editors can work out how to apply this to the Vedas, etc. If we really need elaboration on this it could be: "Real events (historical or current), as well as mythical or religious texts that claim to be non-fiction, don't need spoiler tags. Examples of works not needing spoiler warnings: The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail , The Bible. Examples of works needing spoiler tags: The Da Vinci Code".  --GunnarRene 12:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I see we basically have the same opinion on this point. :-) --GunnarRene 13:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Allow spoiler tag usage to be decided case by case

message: # badlydrawnjeff talk 12:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support (case-by-case spoilers)

message: # Always have spoiler tags. DyslexicEditor 18:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose (case-by-case spoilers)

message: * As per my op. below, I think we need a guideline on how they're used, as well as reasonable limits for when to use them, with editors making the case by case decision fitting the subject of each individual article but based on the guidelines. --GunnarRene 00:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if we should scratch this section or not, due to the possible confusion. It is something we can decide after we know if spoiler tags will be included or not and/or if there will be a guideline status. -- Ned Scott 03:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Case by case in that people can't say "Look, Wikipedia:Spoiler warning is a guideline and so clearly states that I can insert this spoiler template into this article on the crucification, because it's spoilage."  My view is that we should offer a style guide on how to use spoiler templates, but that where they should be used should be settled on a case by case basis, with guidance on what constitutes a spoiler kept brief to avoid wikilawyering. Note that we have people opposing this, stating that spoiler templates should always be used.  I hope we all agree that comment needs clarifying. Hiding Talk 11:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the guidline says anyhing about when to use spoiler tags we would avoid the problem mentioned above. As I said, let editors work it out within the outer limits of the guideline. If we say "for fictional works" the editors can work out how to apply this to the Vedas, etc. If we really need elaboration on this it could be: "Real events (historical or current), as well as mythical or religious texts that claim to be non-fiction, don't need spoiler tags. Examples of works not needing spoiler warnings: The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail , The Bible. Examples of works needing spoiler tags: The Da Vinci Code".  --GunnarRene 12:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I see we basically have the same opinion on this point. :-) --GunnarRene 13:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment (case-by-case spoilers)

message: Spoiler templates were previously listed as a guideline, but it has been proposed that they be downgraded to essay status — a document that expresses the opinions and ideas of some Wikipedians, but that doesn't necessarily reflect Wikipedia's policies or actual consensus — or rejected as a proposal that failed to gain consensus.
Editors may also wish to read WP:PAG#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc. this link added 17:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Guideline, essay or rejected status

message: #Ryu Kaze — If they remain, then they most definitely shouldn't be a guideline, which gives the impression that a comprehensive body of information supports censorship and shielding of knowledge.
#At the very least 'spoiler' concerns should be downgraded to something which some people feel should be used in extreme circumstances. Currently we have separate articles on Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker, despite them being the same person, in part due to 'spoiler' concerns. Tell me... how many people did I just 'spoil' that for? He was also Luke Skywalker's father! Wow, huh? The fact that we have spoiler warnings all over these facts that virtually everyone knows is frankly absurd. We twist articles into pretzles trying to 'warn' people about things most of them know and for which they shouldn't be here if they don't want to know. Maybe it would be reasonable to have spoiler warnings on books/films/et cetera which have just come out... but doing so for facts which are decades old is just silly. --CBD 11:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support of essay status

message: # badlydrawnjeff talk 12:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support of guideline status

message: # The silly warnings should simply go, and if anyone wants to complain about how Cinderella now has been ruined for them, they can write a userspace essay and rant about how "useful" the warnings were there. Shanes 14:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support of rejected status

message: There seem to be several reasons for spoilers. The 3 main ones seem to be:
* "solution" based (magic tricks, and mysteries)
* "Soap-opera" based (ongoing plot), such as comic books and television series, or even how a game, film, or book progressed the plot to build toward an ending.
* And "ending" based, such as how a game, a film, or a book ended (or even how an event within a subsection ended, depending on the situation).
For simplicity, we'll call these "events".
Each of these events could be split into fiction and non-fiction, and also by media type (book/film/TV series/video game/live performance (includes recorded ones)/etc.).
By this, even such things as sports games and the Olympics apply. So we should consider Wikipedia:Current and future event templates in this discussion, as well.
One issue is that some parts of the world receive the information (in publication/broadcast/etc.) before others. In addition, the "Soap-opera" based events often release solicitation information, or other advertisements.
So given all of this:
* Current Events:
# There is no reason that Wikipedia should attempt to keep track of who has or hasn't experienced the event in question.
# The unique situation of wikipedia being able to show "current" information, rather than as one that is published in a "closed form", means that wikipedia may have "current" content that a "closed" encyclopedia might not.
# Therefore, wikipedia should have some way to make it clear to the reader what is a "current event".
# A current event is ongoing by nature. 
# There should never be a case where a section requires a current event tag AND a spoiler tag.  A current event is the larger consideration, and, as such should ALSO be considered a spoiler. 
* Spoiler tags:
# WP already has Template:Magic-spoiler (Though it should be renamed Template:Spoiler-magic for consistancy of naming.) 
# WP already has Template:Solution - Use should be considered expanded for uses in the solution of mysteries (such as Sherlock Holmes), and puzzle-like games, including Video games. (Perhaps should be renamed Template:Spoiler-solution for consistancy of naming.)
# Template:Spoiler-ongoing - Used for ongoing plots involving the setting, characters, situations, etc. (such as in comic books and television series). Should use the format of Template:Spoiler-about.
# Template:Spoiler-ending - Used for the final "end" of a series, a film, a book, or even a subsection (such as the details of the death of a character within a film). Also may be used to show the winner(s) of a game event (such as a tournament). Should use the format of Template:Spoiler-about.
# Template:Spoiler-solicitation - Use includes any information gleaned from advertising or promotions.
# Use of the generic templates Template:Spoiler, Template:Spoiler-about, and Template:Spoiler-blank, should be kept to an absolute minimum.
# Template:Spoiler-other - As a combinative spoiler warning, it should be removed, since it does not differentiate between types. (Alternately, it could be potentially re-worked to include such differentiation.)
===Support (categorize spoilers more clearly)===
===Oppose (categorize spoilers more clearly)===
# While some of the ideas aren't bad, I'm definitely opposed to including any of the "current" templates and events that are not fiction in these guidelines (even for reality TV, sports events, game shows, etc).  That just opens up a whole other mess and there's really no reason to not have "current" be it's own thing. I also think we should simplify the tags, maybe to the extent of simply saying "Spoilers follow", rather than start to branch off and have specific spoiler templates. I can see solution, a generic spoiler tag, and a spoiler tag with a variable message. I think solution should be a "spoiler" of sorts that isn't about a plot, like a puzzle or magic trick, but still isn't about a real life event. -- Ned Scott 05:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little confused about this.  Surely you aren't proposing that we start labelling the current event tags as spoiler warnings?  They serve a completely different purpose, equivalent to "Work in progress" signs.  I'd be happy for you to change the names of templates to make them more in line with the accepted structure, but I'm not quite sure what your suggestion is.  Anything more radical I'd be hesitant about.  RobbieG 08:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Robbie here, I always thought of the current tags as more of a cleanup / incomplete / verifiable warning / etc type template.  I wasn't aware that people were using them to warn readers of the outcome of events. Works of fiction don't really know time, since when you read or watch fiction, it happens "now". WP:1SP#Check your fiction says: "Works of fiction are generally considered to 'come alive' when read and exist in a kind of perpetual present tense, regardless of when the fictional action is supposed to take place relative to "now". Thus, generally you should write about fiction using the present tense, not the past tense."  Another reason to not link current templates and usage with WP:SPOILER. -- Ned Scott 08:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to add the same proposal below, without the question of "current events" tags, since that part has been the most misunderstood. - Jc37 17:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorize spoilers more clearly

message: # While some of the ideas aren't bad, I'm definitely opposed to including any of the "current" templates and events that are not fiction in these guidelines (even for reality TV, sports events, game shows, etc).  That just opens up a whole other mess and there's really no reason to not have "current" be it's own thing. I also think we should simplify the tags, maybe to the extent of simply saying "Spoilers follow", rather than start to branch off and have specific spoiler templates. I can see solution, a generic spoiler tag, and a spoiler tag with a variable message. I think solution should be a "spoiler" of sorts that isn't about a plot, like a puzzle or magic trick, but still isn't about a real life event. -- Ned Scott 05:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose (categorize spoilers more clearly)

message: :I'm a little confused about this.  Surely you aren't proposing that we start labelling the current event tags as spoiler warnings?  They serve a completely different purpose, equivalent to "Work in progress" signs.  I'd be happy for you to change the names of templates to make them more in line with the accepted structure, but I'm not quite sure what your suggestion is.  Anything more radical I'd be hesitant about.  RobbieG 08:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Robbie here, I always thought of the current tags as more of a cleanup / incomplete / verifiable warning / etc type template.  I wasn't aware that people were using them to warn readers of the outcome of events. Works of fiction don't really know time, since when you read or watch fiction, it happens "now". WP:1SP#Check your fiction says: "Works of fiction are generally considered to 'come alive' when read and exist in a kind of perpetual present tense, regardless of when the fictional action is supposed to take place relative to "now". Thus, generally you should write about fiction using the present tense, not the past tense."  Another reason to not link current templates and usage with WP:SPOILER. -- Ned Scott 08:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to add the same proposal below, without the question of "current events" tags, since that part has been the most misunderstood. - Jc37 17:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment (categorize spoilers more clearly)

message: There seem to be several reasons for spoilers. The 3 main ones seem to be:
* "solution" based (magic tricks, and mysteries)
* "Soap-opera" based (ongoing plot), such as comic books and television series, or even how a game, film, or book progressed the plot to build toward an ending.
* And "ending" based, such as how a game, a film, or a book ended (or even how an event within a subsection ended, depending on the situation).
For simplicity, we'll call these "events".
One issue is that some parts of the world receive the information (in publication/broadcast/etc.) before others. In addition, the "Soap-opera" based events often release solicitation information, or other advertisements.
So given all of this:
* "Current" Events:
# There is no reason that Wikipedia should attempt to keep track of who has or hasn't experienced the event in question.
# The unique situation of wikipedia being able to show "current" information, rather than as one that is published in a "closed form", means that wikipedia may have "current" content that a "closed" encyclopedia might not.
# Therefore, wikipedia should have some way to make it clear to the reader what is a "current event".
# A current event is ongoing by nature. 
* Spoiler tags:
# WP already has Template:Magic-spoiler (Though it should be renamed Template:Spoiler-magic for consistancy of naming.) 
# WP already has Template:Solution - Use should be considered expanded for uses in the solution of mysteries (such as Sherlock Holmes), and puzzle-like games, including Video games. (Perhaps should be renamed Template:Spoiler-solution for consistancy of naming.)
# Template:Spoiler-ongoing - Used for ongoing plots involving the setting, characters, situations, etc. (such as in comic books and television series). Should use the format of Template:Spoiler-about.
# Template:Spoiler-ending - Used for the final "end" of a series, a film, a book, or even a subsection (such as the details of the death of a character within a film). Should use the format of Template:Spoiler-about.
# Template:Spoiler-solicitation - Use includes any information gleaned from advertising or promotions.
# Use of the generic templates Template:Spoiler, Template:Spoiler-about, and Template:Spoiler-blank, should be kept to an absolute minimum.
# Template:Spoiler-other - As a combinative spoiler warning, it should be removed, since it does not differentiate between types. (Alternately, it could be potentially re-worked to include such differentiation.)
===Support (Categorize spoilers more clearly (Mark II))===
===Oppose (Categorize spoilers more clearly (Mark II))===
===Comment (Categorize spoilers more clearly (Mark II))===
Oh, are we still voting?  Well, I'm still not sure about this proposal.  I mean, if we use the example of a video game, I'm not sure that any of the above would be sufficient.  You make a distinction between solutions (like: doing such-and-such kills the end boss) and plot details (as in: in the end cutscene such-and-such happens).  Would games therefore need 2 warnings?  RobbieG 09:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what this is suggesting, as spoilers aren't necessarily dependent on when they occur. I'm not even sure what these categories are supposed to help us do. -- Ned Scott 10:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still wondering why we haven't closed the RfC. We moved into the guideline page over two weeks ago and this thing is more active than that one. I think we've pretty much concluded that this will remain a case-by-case thing anyway. Unless someone comes along with something brilliant and poignant on many levels. Ryu Kaze 01:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorize spoilers more clearly (Mark II)

message: Oh, are we still voting?  Well, I'm still not sure about this proposal.  I mean, if we use the example of a video game, I'm not sure that any of the above would be sufficient.  You make a distinction between solutions (like: doing such-and-such kills the end boss) and plot details (as in: in the end cutscene such-and-such happens).  Would games therefore need 2 warnings?  RobbieG 09:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what this is suggesting, as spoilers aren't necessarily dependent on when they occur. I'm not even sure what these categories are supposed to help us do. -- Ned Scott 10:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still wondering why we haven't closed the RfC. We moved into the guideline page over two weeks ago and this thing is more active than that one. I think we've pretty much concluded that this will remain a case-by-case thing anyway. Unless someone comes along with something brilliant and poignant on many levels. Ryu Kaze 01:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment (Categorize spoilers more clearly (Mark II))

message: * Spoiler tags should by default be set to on in the CSS.
* For pages which are primarily spoilers (IE: A dedicated page to an episode of a tv series) spoiler tags should not be used as it is generally intended for that page to be primarily composed of plot details which can be considerd spoilers.
* For lists (IE: A television episode list which summarises and contains more then one episode) spoiler tags should be used.
* The rewording of  from "Plot and/or ending details follow." to "This article or section contains spoilers including plot and/or ending details.".
* A tutorial on how to turn off spoiler tags via CSS on the spoiler page (linked via the spoiler tag)
* Only  should be utilized, all others should be removed and forwaded to spoiler for cohesion.
I believe that the above proposal is fair. If you have any points you may wish to add comment below.
===Support (MatthewFenton's proposal)===
# As the proposer i support this. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 09:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:MatthewFenton]]s proposal

message: # As the proposer i support this. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 09:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support (MatthewFenton's proposal)

message: # jwandersTalk 00:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose (MatthewFenton's proposal)

message: To help prevent discussion from looping through repeated comments, this section allows editors to summarize their overall views on the issues above. Editors may revise their statements provided they link to previous versions (please use diff links from the edit history) of their statements so as to avoid confusion.
When offering comments on this matter, please place a header immediately below with your username as its title. Then offer your views of the issues presented. If you wish, indicate which proposed solution(s) you would support (you may be neutral or present your own proposal), as well as which you would be most in favor of (please be specific in this regard), as well as any potential pros or cons that you feel may follow as a result of recognizing one solution or another. If you are in support of a proposal mentioned above, please add your name to its list of supporters. Again, you may support more than one proposal, but please indicate preference.
==User:badlydrawnjeff==
* Few of the "against" arguments hold up under greater scrutiny.  As spoiler tags have been widely used, it's safe to assume that the content disclaimer and section headers are not enough.  I don't see how a spoiler tag at the start of a plot summary violates NPOV, nor is it censorship, as the information still exists.  With that said, a "spoiler" is not really subjective, but the use of the tag may be, which is an education issue, not one that should be dealt with via abandonment.  
*The only argument I can see making sense is the one about it appearing unprofessional and/or unencyclopedic, but we're not your typical encyclopedia.  In a situation where we're linked to as references all over the web, and easily accessable, it becomes a courtesy issue, since it's not an issue otherwise.
* In other words, leave it to article consensus, and leave the guideline as is.  If it ain't broke... --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please discuss these things in the above sections or in the general discussion below. Comments on user statements should be more like "How would you feel about this?" or "can you give an example of what you are talking about". -- Ned Scott 23:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I would have no objection to someone redesigning the template to make it look neater.  In fact, I'd welcome it.  I do think that right now we have more important concerns, however.  RobbieG 21:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Individual user statements

message: * Few of the "against" arguments hold up under greater scrutiny.  As spoiler tags have been widely used, it's safe to assume that the content disclaimer and section headers are not enough.  I don't see how a spoiler tag at the start of a plot summary violates NPOV, nor is it censorship, as the information still exists.  With that said, a "spoiler" is not really subjective, but the use of the tag may be, which is an education issue, not one that should be dealt with via abandonment.  
*The only argument I can see making sense is the one about it appearing unprofessional and/or unencyclopedic, but we're not your typical encyclopedia.  In a situation where we're linked to as references all over the web, and easily accessable, it becomes a courtesy issue, since it's not an issue otherwise.
* In other words, leave it to article consensus, and leave the guideline as is.  If it ain't broke... --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:badlydrawnjeff]]

message: *When the usual queation asked is why does wikipedia contain spoilers - why are we even debating the careful use of "spoiler tags" to mark where such spoilers are to avoid reading that section of an article. I have seen, congent debate for hiving all spoilers off to completely separate (and related) articles. This not a real option and neither was that. At least in most instances. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Kevinalewis]]

message: In my time with encyclopedias and my capacity as an editor on wikipedia, I would really say that considering any information with the intent of informative intent as a "spoiler" is quite misleading and utterly destroys the purpose of an encyclopedia. Put simply, an encyclopedia is meant to distribute knowledge and all other quibbles and the like derived from the social crowd are irrelevant. As editors of wikipedia, this our duty as volunteers on the project. The encyclopedia comes first. Always. When an editor or editors presume outside needs of a networking group deserve the attention at the integrity of the encyclopedia there is a serious problem. 
On earlier discussions, it has been established the spoiler tag was intended as a cooup-out for people who came to wikipedia for entirely the incorrect reasons, such as the false view of a review site, that of a online catalog and dumping ground of information from all veins of subjects. This is entirely the wrong view we wish to give wikipedia. And I've no idea why we should encourage those kinds of people in the construction of an encyclopedia.  Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia, first and foremost. The unique premise of wikipedia as an online source of information is only in effect to permit the variable tools we utilize to improve the quality and wide range of content for encycloepdia. In that wikipedia is a new and different venue of sharing this knowledge is true, but our expanded content does not permit the we neglect what an encyclopedia is and how it treats information. An encyclopedia treats all of its information on equivilent standing as to verify its proffessional and neutral take to give each individual subject equal care. The goal of wikipedia is not to re-invent the spirit of the encyclopedia, but to expand, elaborate and provide complete inclusion on all sources of knowledge. As such, a video game such as Dead or Alive should and is demanded to recieve the same amount of neutral content and attention as the scientific subject known as the Sea Urchin. That's what wikipedia was intended to do - take the usual encyclopedia and expand the amount of knowledge it can hold. Additionally such implemtations such as talkpages, userpages, image uploads, templates, basic-level editting tools exist as sofar in they assist the encyclopedia. Things that do not directly assist the encyclopedia get deleted.
Many editors in support of the template raise functionally sensible arguments that are very appropriate - in an website that did not thrive upon knowledge and build upon elaboration such as plot details, specifics and other related data in the course of it being an encyclopedia. However, some editors became sidetracked; such falsely believed the social ideals derived from external websites were appropriate for the  encyclopedia. As such the main arguments include "People like it", "some people think its useful for looking up data not relevant to an encyclopedia" and my favorite: "They don't hurt anything". Had this been an acceptable view such unencyclopediac content would not be disposed of at AFD and DRV (Although I must concced those processes are slightly broken at the current time).
I'm sorry, but that's the most mindbogglingly stupid thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia. 
Apparently, a "spoiler" is a common term constructed in internet conversation and forums, designed to warn others of inappropriate introductions of story content in non-relevant discussions. Those websites are nowhere near the realm of an encyclopedia and do not document themselves as such. It would be silly to warn to someone whom has come to partake of knowledge at the outset, and furthurmore catering to those who continue to make a point of flaunting their wish to stay ignorant. Ignorance is a foriegn term to encyclopedias, great institutions and other great sources of knowledge. Its one that shouldn't even be considered, much less endorsed. Apparently, somewhere along the line editors percieved wikipedia's unique premise as a carte blanche for the introduction of this ideal and declared it as "essential to the workings of an encyclopedia". Go figure.
Spoiler tags are paticularly irrelevant to the basic tools provided to wikipedia editors and readers; the headers and Table of Contents in paticular make it entirely redundant. In addition, many reports have established the tag as placed directly below the header "Plot" or above the TOC. Um, the header doesn't accomplish that how...? Soem might suggest that elaborates upon the content contained, but I utterly refute that claim on the basis people have common sense and people see stuff - If the header says "Plot" than the spoiler tag clarifies nothings. If the prose in question is several pharagraphs in length than of course there will likely be substantial elaboration. Everyone knows how to look at things. Everyone knows an encyclopedia is comprehensive. To presume a reader has no knowledge of this and present the template as a "courtesy" is an utter lie. Stupid people don't read encyclopedias. And by its nature, wikipedia is very simplistic in nature concerning navigation, especially in the article namespace.
This is an entirely friviolus template, concieved on imaginary conceptions outside the well-being of the encyclopedia itself. They incite confusion, including the false interpretation about what Wikipedia is for (many editors have described it as helpful for those coming to look up information for game reviews and the like; that's not what this site was intended for); they look unprofessional and they trod upon article format, paticulary in thumb ing images. And they are extremely subjective. You cannot define what is and what is not a "spoiler". For example, the Juggernaut (comics) features a redundant spoiler at the start of the article. Compare to Spider-Man, which has a spoiler and end spoiler in a individual prose nearing its conclusion. This is very, very unhelpful. Why aren't these artcles tagged similarly...? Why is this left to the neutral editors of an encyclopedia...? How does it assist the encyclopedia's purpose and quality to others...? 
If spoiler tags needn't be removed for the sake of an encyclopedia than I suggest we remove wikipedia's status as an encyclopedia itself. This hasn't any purpose in the course of a goal to build a great encyclopedia. -Randall Brackett 16:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Randall Brackett]] 

message: * The majority of oppose arguments do not focus on the value of the encyclopedia to the readers, except for the damage to our tone. I propose we change the template to have the word "major" or "substantial" in the template (Substantial plot and/or ending...) and use it as infrequently as possible. The template is damatically overused, currently.(CF - Book of Esther (removed by me) Bubble_Bobble (also removed by me)) and scores of others. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Hipocrite]]

message: Basically, my reasoning for — at the very least — seeing spoiler tags taken off the default version of the site (though I'd prefer to see them deleted) is that they are based in individual editors' points of view concerning what may or may not be appropriate for readers to see. This judgement is then passed on to the readers in an attempt to influence them not to learn something specifically selected by the editor.
Our NPOV and no censorship policies were created for the purpose of keeping editors' opinions out of the articles. They're not supposed to be trying to influence which information the readers do or do not read, or how they absorb it. All information here that has met the criteria for inclusion is supposed to be treated the same. None of it is supposed to be given a banner that says "This might ruin your ability to enjoy a story," and I honestly don't care if it does ruin someone's ability to enjoy a story. We're not here to put courtesies before principles. As our very first policy says, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its goals go no further, and material that does not fit this goal must be moved to another Wikimedia project or removed altogether". Wikipedia's founded on encyclopedic principles. If it's going to be an encyclopedia, it's going to have to conform to these principles, and that means spoiler tags (a POV editor-based judgement intended to present specifically-targeted information in a biased light) should not be here. If they're here, then this is a glamorized fansite, and not an encyclopedia.
The bottom line is this: there's a certain integrity involved in being an encyclopedia, and the hypocrisy imposed by allowing spoiler tags to be present undermines that. If they're going to be here, Wikipedia's not an encyclopedia and shouldn't claim to be one. If my fellow editors do not have enough concern for the principles and integrity of what we're here to do to ensure that they are upheld, then I will personally think that we should push to see the claim that Wikipedia's an encyclopedia removed. If it's going to be a fansite, it shouldn't be masquerading as a professional, unbiased, comprehensive body that is serious about knowledge. If it's going to babysit the notion that knowledge is harmful and that shielding people from information is okay in a setting that's supposed to be impartial, then it should not be claiming the dignified title of "encyclopedia". Wikipedia either is an encyclopedia or it isn't. If it isn't one, then it shouldn't be claiming to be one. Pretty simple.
Note to Jimbo Wales and the Board: I understand that the idea behind the project is pretty much to let it govern itself. I understand that you guys hope for editors to agree in the best interests of the encyclopedia. I understand that you don't want to interfere. But is this just an experiment to find out if the concept can work? That strangers from all over the world can actually agree and make an encyclopedia? Or is it an attempt to make sure that the mission is fulfilled? I know you guys don't want to interfere in things like this, but if you want this to be an encyclopedia, one would think you'd make sure that it is one when guys like Randall and I can't, when our authority is non-existent or too limited. As editors here, all of us, even those I disagree with, should be working to make this place an encyclopedia. We should never have been able to even argue over this matter. Someone should have stepped in to make sure that the principles outlined were upheld if this place is truly to be an encyclopedia. Sometimes you can't just let the system work when the system is rigged to undermine itself. Sometimes you have to straighten it out and make sure it works.
Now, I'm not blaming you guys, because I understand why you don't like to make decisions for us and that you probably have more pressing matters on a regular basis, but I think that — just as the editors of an encyclopedia must put the princicples of an encyclopedia before courtesies — that the system we all hoped would work in the creation of this encyclopedia must sometimes be put on the backburner for the integrity of the mission itself. The purpose must come before the practice. Ryu Kaze 17:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Ryu Kaze|Ryu Kaze]]

message: I think one of the things we've got to work out is that perhaps we're going to have to be clear that there's no consensus for the use of spoiler templates, but that we're going to have to offer guidance on how they should be used if there is consensus within a given article to use them. I think it might be an idea to look at offering an additional template, rather broader in scope to be placed at the top of an article, for articles where agreement is hard to reach. Hiding Talk 17:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Hiding]]

message: I support the use of warning people about spoilers. To anyone who believes we should remove the spoiler warnings, how about once we know the secret to the next Harry Potter book (or whatever spoiler), let's put the spoiler at the top of the article (with no warning) and feature that article on the front of wikipedia so everyone gets spoiled by it? Would anyone really be okay with it?   DyslexicEditor 18:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please discuss these things in the above sections or in the general discussion below. Comments on user statements should be more like "How would you feel about this?" or "can you give an example of what you are talking about". -- Ned Scott 23:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:DyslexicEditor]]

message: I have long been a proponent of spoiler tags. Apologize that I have not been involved in the most recent discussions, as I've had some time constraints to my time on Wikipedia, but I have been following it from afar, and I'd like to thank all parties involved for their dedication towards trying to find a solution and consensus.
The bottomline for me is, and always has been, that spoiler tags are beneficial to readers. Perhaps not beneficial to all readers, but there is certainly a large chunk of Wikipedia readers who find spoiler tags helpful and informative. I myself have benefited from them in my casual reading of the encyclopedia. While I certainly understand the arguments against them, particularly from writers who feel constrained working around them constantly, we have to remember that this encyclopedia should be optimized for readers moreso than for writers. Yes, we should strive to be professional, but part of being the best encyclopedia we can be is being the most reader friendly that we can be. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 20:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:EWS23]]

message: I believe people supporting spoiler warnings because they might be "useful" are missing the point. There are tons of things we could add to articles that can be seen as useful, but we aren't adding them because we are writing an encyclopedia. I could add to the Oslo article which pubs are the most popular, have cheapest beer, what beer brands, what it costs, when they are crowded, etc. This would be information that I would find useful if I were living elsewhere and planned on visiting Oslo and read about the city in Wikipedia. But this is simply not stuff we include in an encyclopedia. Useful or not. On Wikitravel beer prices might be appropriate, though. And on many movie-blogs, slashdot, and fan sites, spoiler warnings are expected and often used. But that's there, and not here. Being useful has nothing to do with it. The warnings make the articles look so silly and amateurish that it's ruining not only the articles they're in, but the whole encyclopedia. If an encyclopedia is what Wikipedia is. I'm starting to have my doubts.Shanes 20:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Shanes]]

message: I am not just an editor of this encyclopedia; I am also a reader.  As a reader, I find spoiler warnings to be useful.  I recognize that there is a legitimate argument to be made that usefulness is not our primary goal.  However, I reject the premise that creating an encyclopedia (where "encyclopedia" is defined narrowly as conforming to certain strict rules) is more important than reader courtesy.  An encyclopedia is, inherently, a courtesy to the reader.  Without readers, the encyclopedia is only so much data.  First and foremost, the encyclopedia must be useful and helpful to the reader.  Every single one of our guidelines and policies are pursuant to that, in some way.
Normally, I would be tempted to agree that a section labeled "Plot" or something similar should serve as sufficient warning for spoilers.  However, it is extremely common for plot summaries in other media to go out of their way to avoid revealing spoliers.  This is particularly true for just-released fiction, something which print encyclopedias simply cannot cover.  As an encyclopedia which is quickly updated with the most current information on fictional works, some of which are yet unreleased, we are in a unique position among encyclopedias.  As such, we must take that into account when we are determining how to apply our primary goal (that is, being useful to the reader).
--  Powers 02:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:LtPowers]]

message: People need to stop trying to see Wikipedia as a clone of Brittanica or other classic encyclopedias of years gone by. This is a totally different animal and the rules are different. Articles can be written within minutes of an event or an announcement, and as a result there will be copious amounts of material written on films, TV shows, books, etc. which contain spoilers. Just because Alice in Wonderland is a classic that's been around for 100 years doesn't mean that everyone knows how it ends. I never found out until I took it in university. Now, I will agree that spoiler tags are often misused; not everything mentioned regarding a book or film or TV show is a spoiler. But given the tendency for editors (and I'm one of them) to post detailed synopses, I think spoiler tags are a necessary evil (for lack of a better phrase; I don't consider them evil at all). The only alternative would be to establish a Policy (not a Guideline) banning the presence of detailed synopses in articles. However that's a debate for another forum. And the only way to make Wikipedia exactly the same as Brittanica is to ban amateurs like, well, 99.9999% of people who contribute to this site. 23skidoo 03:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:23skidoo]]

message: *I disagree with the assumption that spoiler warnings "don't hurt anything". Whether the costs outweigh the benefits is debatable, but I do think it's obvious they have some effect on article organization. Often, I think the spoliers-begin-here-spoilers-end-here format is harmful, because it encourages editors to lump anything that could be considered a spoiler together in a single section rather than primarilly basing such decisicions on logical organization and article flow. In some cases, it may even lead to good, useful information being left out in attempts to avoid the use of an excessive number of tags. At best, it's still one more thing to worry about which may prove a distraction from our core encyclopedic purpose.
*If we do wind up deciding to use spoiler tags, we need to hold a discussion about what contitutes a spoiler. I don't think erring on the side of caution is an acceptable substitute. Right now, in many articles, all discussion of plot is treated like a spoiler. I believe that most people would agree that basic premise information the likes of which would be found in an advertisement for a fictional work does not really "spoil" a story. Similarly, the revealing endings of certain stories which are extremely well known (folklore, for example) seems non-controversial. If we use these tags, we should aim to adopt the least invasive usage-guidelines possible.
*I know this seems like a stupid question, but are spoiler-warnings really all that useful, anyway? I know a lot of editors seem to think so, but I also know if I were reading an article on, for example, a novel I was reading, if a quick glance revealed a lengthy "plot" section, I would assume the article containing plot details, and not read it until I wanted to know about those things. I wouldn't consider that a hardship, particularly. Besides, are we really doing our readers a service by using these tags which suggest that Wikipedia is spoiler-safe? Wikipedia is freely editable -- anyone can add anything with or without a warning tag. Considering this, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that readers who are highly allergic to spoilers exercize the same care they would reading reviews, looking at jacket covers, or just chatting with friends who have already seen a movie they intend to see.  -- Lee Bailey(talk) 05:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Lee_Bailey]]

message: I am completely opposed to the deletion of spoiler warnings.  I maintain that they are neither biased nor censorship, and therefore I see no reason to get rid of them.  However, many people disagree with this, so I'm going to present my complete argument below.
Spoiler warnings need not be biased
Sounds like an oxymoron, doesn't it?  But it's true, providing we do away with the actual term "spoiler warning" and replace it with something more neutral.  Why?  Well, plot details invaribly do follow such warnings.  All we need to do is to make a definition of "spoiler" that is universally accepted.  For example, if we say that all plot details are spoilers, or all plot details not printed on the cover of a story/movie/game.
Where spoiler warnings are biased
*When we discriminate between which spoilers need to be labelled.  That would be a direct violation of the NPOV policy.  For example, I have never seen Citizen Kane.  I no longer see the point in watching it as it has been spoiled for me by countless sources.  The ending of the movie is a big part of our popular culture, but it's still a spoiler, and the movie is possible to spoil.  Likewise, some people think public domain works don't need spoiler warnings.  So, have you seen Shakespeare's King Richard II?  Because I haven't.  I have no idea what happens.  A possibly even more extreme example would be The Little Engine That Could.  A children's classic?  I'd never even heard of it until somebody listed it as an example of stupid spoiler warnings.  I don't know what happens in the story, and frankly I don't care, but it is spoilable, and therefore the most objective thing to do is to include a spoiler warning.
*When we actually pass judgement on the spoilers themselves.  This is actually kind of the same thing.  We must not say: "The following section contains information that can and will spoil the plot for you if you haven't seen the movie", "The following section contains unnescessary spoilers", "The following section contains spoilers and if you read it prior to reading the book itself you'll be really gutted", "The following section contains mild spoilers", "The following section contains type 3, grade 0.2 spoilers", "the following section contains spoilers. They are evil!  Read it at your own risk!!!", "OMG spoilage below!!!!!1", or anything similar.  Some of those are pretty obvious, but some of those might actually get used.  I regard all of them as direct violations of the NPOV policy.
*You know what could also be regarded a POV?  That spoiler warnings should be deleted.  It's a specific POV held by certain people.  That makes it biased.  The assumption seems to be: "if we can't come up with a neutral definition of what requires a spoiler warning, let's do away with them completely."  However, that doesn't actually make that much sense, when you think about it, because it's basically catering specifically for the POV of those who feel that spoilers are no big deal.  That sounds pretty subjective to me.  I'll admit that this argument is not terribly strong, but I still feel it's worth considering.
Spoiler warnings are not in themselves censorship
I'm frankly astonished that the censorship argument is still being used.  Spoiler warnings are plainly not censorship.  We are not withholding info.  We are not preventing people from reading anything they want to read, because if they want to read it, they'll just ignore the warning.  The only people who'll heed it are those who do not intend to read the plot anyway.  Wikipedia is not compulsary.  I don't think that's on WP:NOT, but frankly, it bleeding well should be.  I can't emphasise this any stronger, Wikipedia is not compulsary! Wikipedia is not compulsary!  Yes, it's obvious.  So why are people ignoring it?  Wikipedia users do discriminate between what pieces of information they want to read.  An encyclopaedia aims to be useful.  I can't imagine anyone would consider it to be encyclopaedic if people who came here to research bicycle pumps ended up reading instead about traffic control, or people looking for a description of quarks wound up reading about Knaaren.  There are people who won't read Wikipedia at all.  Spoiler warnings do serve a useful purpose in the encyclopaedia.  They don't really help people find the precise information they are looking for, but they do help them avoid reading stuff they don't want to, which is basically the same thing.  That's not censorship, because people do it anyway.
Where spoiler warnings would be censorship
On the guideline discussion there was a proposal to create a device to hide spoiler content on Wikipedia.  I think that goes too far.  We have to draw the line somewhere.  If we delete information, we are censoring it.  Likewise, it's definitely censorship to only include spoilers in sections labelled "Plot" (or similar).  It's way too restrictive.  The spoiler warnings actually prevent such restrictions.
What's an encyclopaedia?
I'm not trying to be stupid here.  Seriously, what is an encyclopaedia?  It doesn't really mean anything.  It's just a collection of information.  An encyclopaedia of supercars is hardly going to be NPOV, but nobody can claim it isn't an encyclopaedia.  Britannica has been known to print bias as well.  We don't do that here.  Wikipedia follows many of its own rules.  We present a  NPOV, we are not paper, we are not censored for minors, we are not a crystal ball, we have categories, we use hyperlinks, we cite sources and oh, we use spoiler warnings.  All encyclopaedias are different, so the argument that something is "not encyclopedic" is laughable.
But the spoiler warning template looks ugly!
Which is also a POV.  It looks fine to me.  Besides, we're an encyclopaedia, not a piece of artwork, so I don't see that aesthetics are crucial to the debate.
There.  That's my argument.  I have got more I could say, but for now I think I've gone on long enough.  If you'd like me to clarify my position on something, I'd be happy to, so just ask.  Thanks for reading.  RobbieG 11:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have no objection to someone redesigning the template to make it look neater.  In fact, I'd welcome it.  I do think that right now we have more important concerns, however.  RobbieG 21:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:RobbieG]]

message: I just want to add an observation to this whole thing; Wikipedia articles are often top-3 Google hits, and almost always top-10. 20 years ago, someone who went to Britannica to read about Hamlet expected a spoiler, and if they didn't, it was their own problem for spoiling it for themselves. Many people click on a high-ranking Google hit looking for casual information.
We live in the Internet age, where information can appear much more rapidly than it ever could before. People here are talking about how it's tough if Citizen Kane or Casablanca are spoiled for some people. What if a major new release such as the latest Pirates of the Carribean movie is spoiled for a guy doing a Google search for a trailer, 3 days before the movie is released, by a Wiki editor who watched a bootleg video they found on BitTorrent?
I also see "censorship" thrown around. Censorship is the omission of information, not a qualification about the information about to be read. Removal of spoiler tags will lead people towards omission rather than qualified inclusion, and that's censorship.
Spoilers are not a recent internet fad, although the term may be relatively recent. Film critics 65 years ago would have been fired if they told their reading audience what happened at the end of Casablanca. Wiki editors today have the same responsibility to respect the feelings of their readers.
I remember someone posting the identity of the character who dies in the most recent Harry Potter novel minutes after the book's release, as they had flipped to the last few pages to get the scoop. A casual Harry Potter fan reading that page looking for a release date coming across such a major plot point with no warning would be justifiably furious, and this is where we do the project wrong. If spoiler warnings were removed wholesale for some vague notion about their "encyclopedianess", or a POV notion about their aesthetic, people would run into situations like this all the time - and many of them would never click a Wiki link again, nor think of contributing. It would just make them dislike the whole project. Who benefits from that? - dharmabum 09:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Dharmabum420]]

message: This'll be short for now, but gve it some thought anyway: the spirit of NPOV is for fairness and reliability for readers, right?  How many readers come across a spoiler warning and think to themselves "WTF, since when does Wikipedia judge what is or isn't a spoiler, or what is or isn't good or bad about reading a spoiler?!  That's bias!"  A reader who goes to Howard Dean and reads "Howard Dean is insane, and Democrats have ruined their chance at destroying the country by making him head of the DNC" is going to think "Wow, what conservatively biased crap, so much for being an encyclopedia."  But if they come across a spoiler warning and decide it doesn't matter if the article ahs spoilers and read on, they're not going to think "Man, these guys think I should think twce before reading this next section just because they assume I don't want the plot revealed to me?  I'm not gonna read that crap!"  SOmething to think about.  Karwynn (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Karwynn]]

message: The key issue here is of style. Some spoiler tags have been deleted from plot summaries in articles with the rationale that it's obvious that the plot section will contain spoilers. In effect, this just gives reason to orphan the spoiler template and further the anti-spoiler warning cause. The fact that the user should expect that the plot section will contain spoilers doesn't really hold water. The style of how plots are divulged varies widely between articles. While Leroy & Stitch spoils the whole film, the article on Wet Hot American Summer doesn't spoil much of anything. Going from two articles like these that vary wildly in how they divulge the plot, a user doesn't know what to expect in terms of how much of the film will be spoiled. In this respect, a spoiler tag would be useful.
I agree with the point that "Choosing to add the tag or not is similar to other decisions in the editorial process", but that's about the only point on either side that I agree with. I don't see the harm in including them, as they are quite useful for some users and aren't truly censorship. It's a more clear decision about what a user would consider to be a spoiler is over what a user might find objectionable. That having been said, I don't Wikipedia would be any worse off without them either. Users would eventually learn that Wikipedia freely displays spoilers and would be more judicious in reading articles if they need to do so.
There's a lot of problems with Wikipedia that might stop it from being viewed as a professionally done encyclopedia. A few of them are the inclusion of articles on topics that would not appeal to a general audience (articles on web site forums come to mind), imbalances on article length, bias towards certain topics and substandard prose. In the end, there are things that are a lot more unprofessional and unencyclopedic on Wikipedia than spoiler warnings. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Jtalledo]]

message: Swimming against the tide, I'll try to keep this brief. Delete the tings, or at the very least deprecate their use. If retained, made a guideline, and applied consistently and thoroughly (as a guideline should be), we would end up with spoiler warnings on the Illiad, Tale of Genji, King Lear, Exile and the Kingdom, One Hundred Years of Solitude, or even operas like Marriage of Figaro, Don Giovanni, Aida. This would culminate in tagging even the Bible and the Avesta. Simply ridiculous. Beyond this, the tags and general warnings add nothing in well structured articles, and both are eyesores in all instances. As for dealing with recent publications and films, there are consequences to hunting for information on a book or film you haven't seen.--Monocrat 17:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Monocrat]]

message: I find it extrenley silly that those that oppose spoiler tags seem to believe this is a censorship or that it violates NPOV, if some one would care to elaborate?
** It would be censorship if the content was blanked/hidden or made difficult to see.
** It also does not violate NPOV as in all tags i have seen no point of view is expressed, saying spoilers follow can not be classed as POV as it is truth if it has the potentioal to spoil a storyline.
I am extremley disgusted that some users may wish to remove spoiler tags as they not only aid articles but provide integrity to the project (Wikipedia) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 11:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:MatthewFenton]]

message: While I try to steer clear of highly controversial issues, this one hit me in the face. I came across this while carring out Maintenance. Personally, I despise spolier warnings, and feel that better, encyclopedic organisation under categories should be used instead [i.e. "Plot", "Conclusion"]. If they must be used, I feel that they should be hidden by default, with instructions made available to activate them. I am not opposed to the spoiler tags in principle, just to the way they have been used, especially the unilateral application to classic literature [does the article on the Three Billy Goats Gruff really need spoiler tags]. Also, people's perception of 'spolier' differs depending on their understanding, and familiarity with the subject matter. I feel most of this controversy is down to people not using their common sense! ><Richard0612 UW 16:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Richard0612]]

message: This comment is being made a lot to oppose the case by case argument, and could people just clarify what it means.  Should a spoiler template be inserted in every sdingle article?  Because I can't see what it means if it doesn't, and yet I can't believe it means use them in every single article.  So could people outline what they mean, as their opposition to the point isn't clear.  Should the article on the United States have a spoiler template?  I know this seems like I'm being facile, but I'm not.  We need to get a good idea of what people think constitutes a spoiler, so that we can work out what we all agree is definitely a plot detail that needs a template. Hiding Talk 11:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhpas not facile, but perhaps facetious? I'm not sure what they mean. I think it means one of two things: 1: Allways include plot/ending details, or 2: Allways enclose plot details in spoiler tags. The only non-fiction content that I know some people don't want to have "spoiled" are sports events that they record for watching a few hours later, but these people make a concious effort not to watch/read news untill they've watched it. See also Spoiler (media). --GunnarRene 12:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that if we are hoping to build a consensus here we need to explain our opinions, and yes, it would be nice to know which of your two ideas they mean. That I conveyed it with humour is surely a good thing. Hiding Talk 12:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Searching the text here, I see thay say "Always have the tags", which means 2 above, instead of re-starting the discussion on a case-by-case basis. That wasn't so hard to understand. --GunnarRene 12:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but I'd like that clarified by people making such comments. I notice your own vote in that section seems to argue for case by case and yet opposes it, so I'm getting rather confused tracking what people mean. I apologise if you find my confusion frustrating, I'm not going out of my way to be difficult here, I'm simply trying to engage people in discussion to build consensus. Hiding Talk 12:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The comment means that on every article where plot details are disclosed, sploier tags are necisary.  Tobyk777 22:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does "Always use spoilers mean"? 

message: While there are a lots of eyeballs looking this way, I'll bring up a personal bugbear of mine. I hate the use of the phrase "and/or" in the template. It is jarring and unprofessional. The Wikipedia manual of style says not to use such and/or constructions in the articles (see WP:MoS#Slashes), so why has it been allowed in a widely used template? Carcharoth 13:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good question.  I suggest, since it looks likely that we're going to end up changing the template, any new one avoids this clumsy construction.  RobbieG 15:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please lose the "and/or" bit from any templates 

message: *Is it fair to say there are three schools of thought on this?  That the general disclaimer and well written headers are enough; that they aren't and a template to sit above a section is desired; and that they arent enough and the text itself should be wrapped in a template?
*Would it therefore be an idea to look at discussing the pros and cons of the three approaches and try and build some guidance on what to use and when?  It could be that a number of approaches could be included in the guideline depending on the situation. Hiding Talk 19:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still early in the RfC, lets just watch some more comments come in. -- Ned Scott 19:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A stab at summation so far

message: At first I thought the idea of coming up with examples of spoilers and working out what is really a spoiler and what isn't was a silly idea. But the more examples I look at, the more I realise that sometimes you really can tell what a spoiler is, though it is difficult to put into words.
I agree that "secret" plot twists (such as "who did it", and the Sixth Sense example) are worthy of spoilers. At the other extreme, you have events that are widely known, such as the fate of the Titanic (I'm talking here about spoilers for the movie, not the historical article, obviously), or the title kind of gives it away "The Little Engine That Could", for example. And inbetween, you have a spectrum of other possibilities.
One thing that did strike me though was that the blurb written on the back of many books gives away more of the plot than Wikipedia does. There are even some books where the author gives away plot details near the beginning, or the foreshadowing of events is an integral part of the style. The examples I am talking about here are The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion by J. R. R. Tolkien. In the prologue to LotR, the basic outcome is given away to the reader. The same happens to varying degrees in The Silmarillion.
In other words, a lot of this should be done on a case-by-case basis, but I would suggest that the onus be on those using spoiler tags to justify them. They have to say why this really is a spoiler.
In the case of the Sixth Sense, the fact that the ending is a spoiler should actually be mentioned in the article. Something in the lead section should say that "The film ends with a surprise twist that casts the film in a new light. A full appreciation of this <insert technical term here> can only be obtained by watching the film without previous knowledge of the ending. Those who have had the ending revealed to them are said to have had the ending spoiled for them."
Then just use variants of the above in articles with major spoilers. Carcharoth 22:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Silmarillion isn't really presented in the style of a story, but as a collection of "myths".  Therefore, I doubt Tolkein ever considered it possible to spoil.  RobbieG 22:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The film American Beauty would be another example of what you're referring to I think. If I'm remembering right, I believe there was some discussion a while back at that article over whether the fact that a certain character dies is a spoiler, even when that character tells us he's going to die in a voice-over in probably the first 90 seconds of the film (it may even be the first line -- I can't recall). I don't think a single review was written at the time which didn't mention this character's death, so I'd pretty much call it "not a spoiler", although it is technically the "ending" of the film (it just happens to be the beginning as well). Are cases like this really a good example of why we should evaluate case by case, though? It would seem a guideline/style guide could easilly offer a rule of thumb about similar situations (ie, when the ending is obviously not a secret) -- Lee Bailey(talk) 01:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: My all-time most memorable spoiler situation had to do with LotR, actually.  When I was first reading it, my then-boyfriend told me how his friend had spoiled it for him by saying, "Is (character x) dead yet?"  And I hadn't gotten to that bit myself!  As for The Sixth Sense, if I'd read that there was a major plot twist at the end, I'd have spent the film trying to figure it out - which would have been detrimental to my enjoyment.  Better to have a spoiler notice that doesn't flag a particular aspect of the story. I certainly agree with the Titanic example, though. Karen 01:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to disagree here. Virtually every box cover or movie review will mention when a film has a twist ending. I'm pretty sure most people don't think saying "there's a twist at the end" constitutes a spoiler. This is partially why I'd prefer to see the tags not used at all; using them paves the way for other editors to come along and start saying they find other things to be potentially ruinous to their enjoyment. It's really tempting for nice people to want to bow to these requests out of courtesy, but the more we use these tags, the more collateral damage they can potentially do it terms of prose quality, page layout, information exclusion, and general drain on community resources. I'm not trying to pick on your specific concern, Karen, I just think it illustrates that what constistutes a spoiler can be quite subjective indeed. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 01:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Carcharoth brings up some interesting points, and I think his suggestion of simply including the existence of a surprising plot twist in the prose is a good one. If we can say something in normal English, there's no need to use artificial tags. It might even make for better article prose overall, having editors forced to think through why this and that is surprising and how to describe it in normal English. (Just as expanding on a trivia list at the end of many articles is so popular since it's so easy to do, it usually makes for a better article if the editor invests some time in reading the article and try to include the fact in normal prose in its right context.) And often there aren't really any big surprises in a story, and the straight forward plot is all there is to it. Then the "Plot" section header should be enough imo. For, as has been said, who's to say that knowing the plot in a particular case is spoiling a movie/book/play? Does having read the LOTR plot (i.e. the book) spoil seeing the movies? Does knowing in detail the life of Oskar Schindler spoil Schindler's List? I don't think so, quite the opposite, actually. But people will disagree. While some will say that "you have to know this and that before seing this movie" others might prefer to not know anything, not even basic historical facts. This disagreement can also be included in the text with citations. And then we aren't taking side by using a specific tag. But if there undoubtedly is a big plot twist, like many examples mentioned here, describe it as such in normal English. The bigger and more important the twist, the more words we can defend using, maybe even a separate section discussing only the plot surprise, with the section named as such "The big plot surprise", or something. And let it be up to the reader if he wants to continue reading. Shanes 04:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure if I totally agree on this. Like what Karen said, you can spoil by saying what kind of spoil it is. In the end, I think it comes down to context. I think anything that forces the editor to actually think more about each spoiler and if it really is a spoiler is a good idea, for that reason alone. Though, we kind of already have this with  and . I think things like "this is a spoiler for season 5 of blahblah show" would be acceptable, as well as other things that Carcharoth mentioned.  Being less generic would likely cut down on how much people use the tag, since so many put spoiler tags on sections that mention the plot but might not actually contain spoilers.  I also think it's possible to tell information that might be seen as a spoiler, but if out of context means nothing to the reader.  I think this idea is worth looking into. -- Ned Scott 07:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think his argument went more towards the fate of the boat itself (which, I agree with, is not what I would call a spoiler) as opposed to the fates of individual fictional characters (which, again, I agree, is a spoiler).Darquis 17:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More thoughts on what a spoiler is 

message: I generally agree that Lee's idea would reduce the 'unprofessional presentation' complaints of many, but unfortunately it doesn't address my primary concern. Specifially, the problem I have with 'spoiler warnings' is not the tags themselves, but the reshaping of articles caused by the concept. Central facts which would normally be included in the lead are removed to prevent 'spoilage', all 'spoiler' information is concentrated into a single segment in the middle of the article rather than appearing where it would more naturally fit, et cetera. Unfortunately, hiding spoiler tags will not eliminate this problem... there is an inherent difference between writing in an encyclopedic style and writing in a 'spoiler safe' style. On 'the other side' this inherent conflict in goals leads to complaints about 'spoilers outside the spoiler section' or articles not having spoiler warnings (the disagreement over whether Beowulf should have spoiler warnings being a good example).
As such I'd like to suggest another option... same concept of the banner at the top with clickable options and defaults settable somewhere, but instead of turning 'section spoiler tags' on and off it instead turns the spoiler text itself on or off. Write the entire article with no concern whatsoever for spoilers and then go through and mark sections or individual sentences/clauses to not display if spoilers are a concern. By default you get the banner which has an on/off toggle for 'spoiler text' with such defaulted to display just as in Lee's proposal (possibly having a preference setting to default to spoilers hidden). Someone who doesn't care about spoilers at all could set an option to hide the banner itself and thus always see an article written in an encyclopedic organizational style with no banner or tags. We haven't used 'hidden text' for spoilers to date primarily because of concerns about unprofessional appearance and technology issues. I think the first is less of a problem if it is something you have to 'opt into' - and it can help to remove the equally problematic tags. The tech issues could be eliminated entirely with a MediaWiki change, but at present are really only a concern for a handful of old browsers and screen-readers (well under 1% of users)... which would receive the spoiler warning banner, but no option to hide the spoiler text.
I can see where this might still result in different writing style than if there were no spoilers at all... breaking sentences so that a spoiler fact is isolated from non-spoiler facts, having a couple of lines in the 'plot' section which are very generic non-spoiler text (e.g. 'The Empire Strikes Back picks up X years after the events of the first Star Wars film and continues to follow the characters introduced there.') that continues to display when the rest of the plot is hidden, et cetera. However, these would be comparatively minor and could be smoothed out. Everyone would receive a top of the article spoiler warning unless they specifically chose not to, clunky 'spoiler section' tags would never be displayed, and all but a very few (or everyone if a MediaWiki change were made) could choose to read a non-spoiler version of the article. Thoughts? --CBD 12:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, but I'm not sure I like the idea.  The spoiler tags themselves are basically inoffensive and harmless.  If this system was abused, whole big portions of text could be made hidden.  RobbieG 12:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: CB, the issue about organization is one of the biggest problems I have with spoiler tags. Right now, I think there is a tendency to group spoiler information together to prevent having lots of "begin spoiler/end spoiler tags", which can adversely affect layout. If the waring-tags were hidden, though, this would only impact the readers who chose to see them, who would be choosing to temporarilly sacrifice the cleaner layout in order to have the warnings.   Therefore, my thought on this is that having the warning-tags switched off by default would allow for placing spoiler information in any section where it's appropriate, just by using multiple sets of the standard tag. I don't know if that addresses your concern.  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 13:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My agreement's with Lee and Rob here. A system like that is just begging for the vandals — and people who, for instance, would like to pretend the sequels and prequels to Final Fantasy VII don't exist — to take advantage of it by blocking non-spoiler info into the template and getting it hidden from the eyes of many. Lee's suggestion would take care of everything just fine because relevant plot details could be placed where needed throughout the article without concern for grouping it, and anyone who chose to implement spoiler tags would be aware that there might be some flow issues as a result. This way, those who want spoiler tags get them, and those, like yourself, who loath the notion of ignoring relevant placement of information for the sake of putting spoilers "inside the box" don't have to worry about it. Ryu Kaze 13:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Lee and Ryu, unfortunately I don't think it will work that way. While it may seem counter-intuitive, I'd argue that the majority of people supporting spoiler tags don't particularly like the look of them either. That's why they try to group the spoilers into just one section... because they recognize at some level that those tags just look bad. You will never get a lead on an 'Anakin Skywalker / Darth Vader' article which mentions that he is Luke Skywalker's father because then you'd have to put spoiler warnings around just one sentence in the lead paragraph... which would split the lead paragraph apart. It looks dumb... even to the people who like spoiler warnings. Do you really think they are going to want the 'normal' (from their perspective) version, with the spoiler warnings, to look terrible? No, they'd reformat it to minimize the 'chopping up' impact of the spoiler warning lines just as they do now. I see your concerns about people 'hiding text which does not need to be hidden', but that would only happen if someone clicked the 'hide spoilers' link... and they'd see huge blocks of text disappearing. I don't really think it would be a vandal magnet or difficult to spot/correct... there isn't anything stopping vandals from doing this now, yet they don't. --CBD 10:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While true that vandals don't try abusing it too much right now, it's not as potentially disruptive either. Given how many vandals do "blanking", this seems like something they'd get into. Ryu Kaze 12:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Alternative

message: I think we have to bear in mind that we don't currently tag articles which contain porn, do we?  We make sure such images are appropriate to the content and that's about all, we let the general disclaimer handle the rest.  I think the same approach should be used here. If people coming to articles on porn are clear on what to expect, then people coming to articles on fiction are too. Hiding Talk 11:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On this point, see also Are spoiler tags a violation of Wikipedia's censorship policy --GunnarRene 11:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, although I am looking at arguing a different point, one already rejected through the Toby proposal.  The community was quite clear that tagging and allowing people to hide content was a no go.  This looks like getting that proposal enacted through the back door. Let's treat all content the same. Hiding Talk 11:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So that would apply to both hiding spoiler tags and their content. Hm. There seems to be an emerging conensus here against the compromise of hiding either one by default, from both sides of the yes/no to spoiler tags issue. --GunnarRene 11:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would also apply to tagging spoilers. Hiding Talk 11:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: On point one nothing changes then, we still compare like for like and we don't do content warning there so we don't do it here.  On point two, any errors you note would be mistaken on arriving at the article, and on point three, spoiler warnings have always been contentious, there is nothing new in people opposing them.  Check out the archives.  Every time they are discussed there is no concrete consensus.  They aren't the status quo. Hiding Talk 20:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treat spoilers like porn 

message: I never thought it would happen, but I've finally found a use of the spoiler warning that baffles even me - "it's a small world".  What?  It's a ride (and a particularly irritating and tacky one at that!), it doesn't need a spoiler warning because it has no real plot.  I'm not going to remove the notice as that would be pretty much hypocrisy coming from me, but I expect somebody else will.  I've found new sympathy for those who think spoiler warnings should be decided on a case-by-case basis.  RobbieG 08:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's removed by now. --Akral 19:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A truly stupid spoiler? 

message: To help avoid groupthink and get some fresh ideas on how to approach updating the guidelines, I was thinking that maybe we should approach some of the fictional WikiProjects. Many projects incorporate WP:SPOILER into their own guidelines and suggestions, and it would be interesting to see what independently (or semi-independently) groups come up with.  Not to say that those of us who aren't apart of those projects shouldn't come up with ideas.  We should still continue conversation here (here being somewhere in the Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning pages or sub pages, since this one is so long we might want to sprout out another page or go to the main talk page).
For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate uses a lot of spoiler tags with specific notices to what season they spoil, and have even included "spoiler free" versions of their episode lists (they're actually just the lists without summaries at all, just air dates, episode numbers, and titles).
I'd like to hear from some of the smaller show specific Projects as well as the larger ones, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga.  Ask all these groups to start a discussion about how they and their editors typically use spoilers and what they think could be done to improve their usage, then take those responses and put them back here.
-- Ned Scott 05:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't get those projects involved here. I question the dedication of many of their participants to an informative, useful encyclopedia. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't display your own prejudice here.  I actually admire people who have the "dedication" (the word you yourself used!) to even join a Wikiproject.  I certainly haven't; I'd probably always get bored and wander off onto a humour site or something...  Anyway, I think that since fiction is central to this debate it would be a great idea to involve some fiction Wikiproject members. RobbieG 18:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, I happen to take offense at Hipocrite's statement since I'm the organizer of WP:Firefly and consider myself very dedicated to ensuring quality, and our scope and goals for the project are to weed out cruft and write more out-of-universe style. I'm also a member of WP:Novels, another fiction project, but just to show my scope, I'm also involved in writing articles for WP:MilHist, a non-fiction project.plange 18:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do either of you truly believe the majority of people involved with those projects are dedicated to an informative encyclopedia? Be honest. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not either of the people who objected to your previous comment, but let me jump in here anyway. Of course the majority of people associated with Wikiprojects are dedicated to an informative encyclopedia.  They sign on precisely because they are willing to volunteer extra time to improve the quantity and quality of information in their areas of interest. The fact that the informative nature of their work may be in a niche, relating to a particular writer, tv show, etc., does not render it unencyclopedic or uninformative.  It merely results in Wikipedia having better coverage of certain aspects of popular culture than would a more traditional reference work. It does not in any way detract from other areas of Wikipedia, and may actually inspire people to explore other areas and add their input.  I'm personally involved in the Television and Novels Wikiprojects, and consider my niche - Madeleine L'Engle and neglected television articles for older shows - quite informative and encyclopedic. None of which has much to do with the value and usage of spoilers, btw.  ;) On that issue, I'm wondering whether separating a premise heading (spoiler-free) from a plot details one (potentially spoiler-rich) might be helpful. Karen | Talk | contribs 20:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Go crazy then. Don't fault me when the result is that spoiler tags need to be customized for each show under the sun and plastered in every article that is remotely related to any TV show or movie. Spoiler tags for Albert Einstein and John Nash are on the way.Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh-huh.  Notice that there isn't a spoiler tag anywhere in Zorro (TV series) or Route 66 (TV series), both of which I worked on, both of which have plot details from decades-old episodes. Please don't assume that individual editors cannot take a sensible approach to whether spoiler tags are needed for a given subject. Karen | Talk | contribs 21:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hipocrite, what is your problem here?  Can't you just assume good faith?  The assumption that all Wikiproject members are irritating fanboys and fangirls seems to me to be groundless.  As I've said above, they are probably some of the most dedicated Wikipedians out there!  RobbieG 11:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An idea

message: Should we move to the main talk page (Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning) to discuss the guidelines, make a new sub page, or continue here? I'm not saying we should close the RfC yet, as people still seem to be coming in with comments, but.. this page is already very large, and we'll be addressing specific guideline issues instead of the over-all concept of a spoiler tag.  I think it would be wise to organize our discussion for the guidelines off this page, maybe with an occasional "check-in" or something as long as the RfC is still going. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 13:55, 30 July 
2006 (UTC)
:Sounds like a great idea. We need to start hammering out guidelines....plange 19:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  move talk for guidelines? 

message: Noting new discussion for those who still have this on their watchlists: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. -- Ned Scott 04:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New spoiler warning discussion (5-15-07)