Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/Guideline status2

message: Dear sir,
I was very surprised not to find the traditional "spoiler warning" at the beginning of this article : Genesis.
Regards, ...
*An encyclopedia tries to tell everything. An average reader only wants bits of it. 
Some articles are not readable when you are not a notorious big specialist of the domain (I'm thinking of mathematics). Some plots are bare-naked and you have to exert yourself with your keyboard to avoid an unnecessary defloration. 
We could oblige ourselves to do with some parts of an article what we can do with a TOC. A TOC begins with the words : Contents [hide]. Other parts might say : Plot [hide], or Very technical part [hide :-]. To me, it seems technically feasible ; but shall the mind of the average WPian, full of knowledge to be given gracefully, be inclined to restrain his production like that ? --DLL 22:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An encyclopedia with addenda 

message: I find it a blatent misrepresentation of the facts to falsely claim this process was given a strong support by concensus. General conflicting issues against the process of implementing spoiler tags has been present ever since the initial creation. Relevant discussion can be viewed here, here and here (note there are various discussions pertaining to this issue; I elected to choose the most relevant). The opposition to the template has been opposed regularly. How is it this has been accepted as concensus by the community? -Randall Brackett 00:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A generally contested practice 

message: ===Should the placement of spoiler messages be a guideline/Is it unencyclopedic/Do readers expect it?===
Anybody reading an encyclopedia article about a work of fiction would expect a summary of the plot and, therefore, the spoiler warnings are redundant.  An encyclopedia article is not a review after all. JChap 02:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The spoiler warning has a place in all works of fiction.  We should not assume the reader has read every old play and book in existene. Johntex\talk 22:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to our policies, we don't care. We're here to give knowledge, not protect people from it. Ryu Kaze 01:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My response to the above questions

message: Anybody reading an encyclopedia article about a work of fiction would expect a summary of the plot and, therefore, the spoiler warnings are redundant.  An encyclopedia article is not a review after all. JChap 02:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should the placement of spoiler messages be a guideline/Is it unencyclopedic/Do readers expect it?

message: If spoilers are kept, there should be no set rule.  Rather, editors should use their judgment on where to place them. JChap 02:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where should any spoiler message go?

message: The most interesting question of the lot.  My first response would be, if spoilers are kept, that we put spoiler warnings in every work of fiction, so as to avoid discussions about what works are "canonical" and which are not.  For example, it may be fairly obvious that we do not need a spoiler warning before "Rosebud was a sled," but what about "Mr. Orange is an undercover cop?"  It all turns on whether you think everybody has (or should have) seen Reservoir Dogs. There are editors here who will insist we should not put the spoiler warning in Finnegan's Wake because only a complete Philistine would not have read that book. JChap 02:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The spoiler warning has a place in all works of fiction.  We should not assume the reader has read every old play and book in existene. Johntex\talk 22:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to our policies, we don't care. We're here to give knowledge, not protect people from it. Ryu Kaze 01:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What constitutes spoilage? Are there time limits as to what can be spoilt, for example would Shakespeare's plays or Moby Dick need warnings?

message: Question answers itself.  Only where relevant obviously.  JChap 02:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should plot details in fiction be included arbitrarily, or only where relevant to a sourced, critical discussion of the work and its impact?

message: Has anyone done a user survey on this topic?  Most of this is rhetorical fluff.  Has there been any formal poll to gauge the position of the end user on this topic?  --05:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. We're taking it around one wikiproject at a time. I'd prefer the relevant discussion be carried out in the specific mediums rather than having a immense satuaration of views on one page. I think it becomes more and more difficult to gauge a concensus the higher amount of editors are invloved as it tends to incline people to vote, rather than discuss the matter. -Randall Brackett 12:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not talking about editors.  I'm talking about visitors to the site.  I haven't seen any hard data on their use or non use of the tag. --Kunzite 18:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User input

message: There seems to be some sort of edit war going on at the censorship article ... over the definition of censorship. Cheers, CWC(talk) 21:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks to me like a pretty silly issue. Censorship most certainly isn't something that can only be practiced by government institutions. Anyway, I'll leave them to it. I have no interest in getting involved in that at this time. Ryu Kaze 21:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree wholeheartedly with everything you just wrote ... especially about not getting involved <grin>. Best wishes, CWC(talk) 22:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discretion is, indeed, the better part of valor. Best wishes to you also. Ryu Kaze 22:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The irony, the irony

message: Hm... I'm not sure anyone has raised this point, but this reminds of the old debate about Toby, a proposal which was pretty much laughed at by a lot users. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reading the pages. Is the debate about censorship on wikipedia...? -Randall Brackett 01:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Essentially, yes, although there were other issues addressed. --Jtalledo (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toby 

message: Just a note that the recent tfd listing at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 4#Template:Spoiler isn't wholly relevant.  This discussion is seeking clarification of the guideline status of this page, and also what constitutes a spoiler. Hiding Talk 22:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TFD not wholly relevant