Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 3

message: Even before I was aware of this dispute, myself and another editor have been in a dispute over the use of two spoiler notices. Basically, the other editor wishes to use both  and a second message that reads "Some of the episode overviews may contain spoilers, but attempts are made to limit their spoilage." Here's the current article in dispute: List of Planetes episodes .  The others are List of Air episodes (which is currently locked over a further dispute with the other editor, and currently does not display the second message), List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes, List of Oh My Goddess episodes, and List of MADLAX episodes.
While we might disagree on the template's usage, I think that non-template spoiler warnings should be out of the question.  We have no way of tracking them,  maintaining them, and so on.  Also, the statement itself is false, as I have pointed out to this other editor, as on List of Planetes episodes he was not the main contributor to the summaries, and he is also not the only contributor to summaries on the List of Air episodes. As I've said before, I'm pro spoiler warning, but I'm NOT for removing spoilers when they are appropriate, and the second message suggests just that. I thought I would get everyone's take on this issue here. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it pretty obvious what we do here: point him to the fact that we're supposed to be comprehensive and that we don't exclude relevant info for the sake of shielding. Now that's worse than the spoiler tags ever were. Ryu Kaze 12:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Something maybe both sides can agree on

message: * Have intentionally not read (i.e. become embroiled in) the lengthy discussions above. Have no problem with the concept of spoilers nor current execution, nor with the idea of making them . Regards, David Kernow 16:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by folk fresh from [[WP:RFC/STYLE]]

message: I think one of the things we've got to work out is that we're going to have to be clear 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 20:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Be clear there's no consensus on the use

message: I'd note this review of Superman Returns by Philip French in The Observer contains no spoiler warnings. It's an online source, and the article is a critical evaluation of the film, so similar in approach to Wikipedia. Hiding Talk 20:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but are there any spoilers in the review? -- Ned Scott 20:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should move this over to the /RfC page under the "professional/encyclopedic" discussion. -- Ned Scott 20:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples of other sources avoiding spoiler warnings

message: I realize the point of having individual user statements was to avoid unnecessary redundant arguing, but the comment section added by RobbieG is irresistable. Would it be possible to have a collapsing section underneath each user's statment for comments, which one would click to expand? I don't know how to format like that, but there's an example at the Good Articles page. That seems like we'd be able to keep user comments, which a user could update if they changed their position during the course of discussion, but wouldn't require the average reader to read through a huge debate that ends in no change. Maybe? -- Lee Bailey(talk) 14:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a sub-page for the individual user statements? --GunnarRene 15:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just keep doing it the way we have been? Inviting discussion to each one of the user comment sections is like taking the 444kb discussion we had previously and multiplying it by however many user comment sections there are. Ryu Kaze 17:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. :( RobbieG 11:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what? You haven't done anything. You've been one of the most well-behaved people in this entire discussion. Ryu Kaze 21:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: For inviting people to comment under my user statement.  I realise now that that defeats the object somewhat.  I presume that's why that section was moved?  RobbieG 16:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, no, it was just that it got very long, 'tis all. -- Ned Scott 04:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC format tweak

message: We sould have some kind of link on the spoiler tags to skip down to the end spoiler tag that follows. --Blackjack48 01:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skip Spoilers 

message: In response to the recent RfC, a third talk page has been started for WP:SPOILER to address revisions to the spoiler tag guidelines. You can find the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/guidelines -- Ned Scott 02:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline revision talk page 

message: Hey, I've noticed now that you put spoiler warnings for each series rather then just for the program as a whole. This is very good and I am wondering how this came about. I remember moaning about the crappy spoiler warnings going off what the Americans have seen in either Lost or Battle Star Galactica talk (it was about the latter but I may have been suggesting the former does it) a few months back. Could it be that someone actually paid attention to what I said?--Josquius 10:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if it was their idea or not, but I first saw this being used at WikiProject Stargate. -- Ned Scott 05:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series spoiler warnings 

message: I often find that the spoilers themselves catch the eyes better than the spoiler warnings.  I would rather have them bigger and in brighter colour.Hillgentleman 04:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that they could possibly be more intrusive is one of the few positive things about them. Exploring that fact, however, would be a terrible idea. Ryu Kaze 00:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shape and Size of the Spoiler Warnings 

message: umm...this is just for clarification. But should spoiler warnings be used on pages that are specifically for plot summaries/discussion and character information?
I mean pages like Plot of Naruto I, and Jiraiya (Naruto). Especially the plot page, where just about the entire page except the contents and intro paragraph are 'spoilers?'Yaksha 03:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a notice on those articles would pretty much notify someone that the entire article is a spoiler, but I guess it's left up to the judgement of the editors. Spoiler tags are best used for spoilers in unexpected places, but if the editor knows of a situation where there might be confusion, then I could see the justification. -- Ned Scott 06:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoiler warning on plot and character pages

message: Is it really necessary to post the disclaimer that information is a "spoiler" as is the case in an increasing number of articles? This seems inappropriate to me in an encyclopedia format. I understand why this is used in fan forums but the Wikipedia ideally provides authouritative articles on a variety of subject matter. There should be an assumption that if someone is looking up an article that it may to contain a comprehensive account of a subject. I don't think it's appropriate to adopt a fan page convention in this case.
:Check out all the archives. That's one of the most common anti-warning arguments that has been presented. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And there are plenty of counter-arguments given as well. Johntex\talk 23:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The internet is ruled by fanboys, so I think you're going to lose this one anonymous user. It wouldn't be so bad if they kept the practice to their Star Wars, Lord of The Rings and Pokemon fan-pages, but it's spreading to non fan-page articels like Othello too. Probably because one of the fanboys thinks he might read that one after finishing the collected works of Stephen King. Morningmusic 19:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers 

message: Higher up on the talk page is a discussion which was never completed; however, I felt that if I made a comment there it would not be seen. We still have to make a proposed amendment/RfC and include a larger variety of editors to make their opinion; it's been left open for nearly three weeks now. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 19:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviving "Spoiler redirects that reveal true identities" 

message: I was going to propose the addition of Data's mother to the Category Star_Trek_robots, but the addition would constitute a spoiler, as she is initially presented as a human in the episode.  I'll err on the side of caution and assume that avoiding spoilers takes precedence over making a Category as complete as possible, though I don't know if there is an express policy on the matter.  The issue suggests an interesting solution, though: a Category of entries that cannot be included in other Categories due to their spoiler nature.  Although it might be argued that such a Category is needlessly "meta" at face value, the existence of such a Category might be useful in illustrating one of several problems in informational gatekeeping.
:Without being an expert on Star Trek, I would add that article to the category, if the robot has its own article. If somebody are cruising through a catagory of Star Trek robots or, for example :Category:Fictional messiahs, I gather that he/she is looking for more in-depth information and would rate completeness above spoiler protection. Just my preliminary opintion. --GunnarRene 01:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the article should be added to the category. Wikipedia is not censored. Completeness and accuracy are far more important than protecting our readers' intentional ignorance. --dm (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A hard case? 

message: In the game Ever17, there are two characters that appear to be different. However, the game actually takes place in two times; character A in 2017 is character B in 2034, while character B in 2017 and character A in 2034 are different people (making a total of three rather than two). Both/all of these are voiced by the same character voice (CV). The opening video does not give the CV for character A, probably because knowing that they are played by the same CV might lead to the assumption that they are the same person in the story. (The ending video does say that they are both played by the same CV, so that is reliably sourced.) However, I would simply think that said CV is talented enough to voice two different characters, and would not assume any equality between A and B. What do others think? Does the listing of the CV for character A warrant a spoiler warning?
Also, did I handle the spoilers in the references properly? --Mercercounty 08:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How likely does it have to be that something will lead to an assumption on the reader's part to tag it with a spoiler warning?

message: It seems to me that an article section titled "Plot" or "Synopsis" is already announcing that it reveals elements of the plot.  In the interest of reducing clutter, could the guideline suggest that spoiler warnings are unnecessary here? —Michael Z. 2006-12-15 00:52 Z
:No. The guideline only says how to use them and where, not whether or not to use them in the first place. Further, as an encyclopedia, our plot information sections might convey a lot more of the plot than, say, a movie review in a newspaper or magazine. Also, some articles give away a lot more information than other articles here do. In other words, in some cases even plot sections need spoiler warnings. So you'll have to make the judgement. Is there a specific article you're wondering about? --GunnarRene 00:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You two may be unaware, but it is common consensus between the Computer and Video Gaming project and Final Fantasy project that spoiler tags are not to be used in Plot sections. You'll be utterly safe to remove any spoiler tags in any video game article, especially in the Plot section. This guideline is quite ridiculous, it claims consensus but in reality there is consensus against it for the majority of editors. "Plot" makes it ridiculously obvious that plot is going to be revealed. There may be some sections that don't actually reveal any spoilers, but tell me, would you label a piece of wood as "a piece of wood" just because it might not be? No. --TheEmulatorGuy 00:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-evident spoilers 

message: I say make the font bigger, give the notice a red background, maybe? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.72.98.108 (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Users aren't as dumb as bricks. The current warning is perfectly noticeable, and is normally useless (who is going to be oblivious to the fact that "instructions" explain instructions, and "plot" explains the plot?). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheEmulatorGuy (talk • contribs) 00:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More noticable 

message: does anyone have any ideas on what to do about the anti-spoiler-warning folks who take over an article or project, remove the spoiler-warnings, and guard them from being replaced, deleting them immediately if they are and intimidating the editors?  Elgaroo 23:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly enough, they have as much right to take away the warnings as you do to add them, as they are a guideline, not a policy. The three revert rule might come into play though, and intimidation could be against WP:CIVIL. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 00:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Warning Squatters 

message: So, there is a common technique used to hide spoilers. You make the background and the foreground the same color. If someone wants to read the spoiler, they highlight the section, and the words become visible again.  The following blue block is an example:
This is a block of text which is hidden from view unless you've overridden css or you highlight it. Note that some words may be visible if they've been made a link or such. I could reveal spoilers in this space without worrying that someone who wishes not to have something spoiled, might "see" it and read it in their mind.
This allows folks to not only have the spoiler warning, but also have to react to the spoiler space in order to read most of it. (links and references excepted)
Thoughts?
*Flip purr 18:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's bad enough spoiler warnings are in articles at all -- and you want to make them look even more horrid with that? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, To each their own. I for one hate having things spoiled and find the spoiler warnings to be somewhat lacking currently. Flip purr 16:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go back and read the archives of this page. While the current consensus seems to be keep the spoiler warnings, for the most part of of them talk about the current warning being unobtrusive enough. What you propose just looks bad, and we're supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a fansite. People want Wikipedia to get respect -- making it aethetically crap is not the way to do that. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOT. That's all I have to say about that. Actually, I have a better idea - make spoiler warnings invisible - no, better - ban them and delete this guideline. --TheEmulatorGuy 06:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  IIRC there is a css option that you can set to make them invisible. Also, please read your user page first paragraph and stop, It's my birthday. ;) Flip purr 16:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Spoiler warning#Unacceptable alternatives. -- Ned Scott 06:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Ned, Interesting point about the reverseing fg/bg to highlight in some browsers. I find it hard to believe that it won't work with screen readers, since the software doesn't need to "see" the text like we do. I'll try to ask a acquaintance I have that uses one.  As far as users overriding their browser settings, well... that's on them and the spoiler warnings are them, so they'd get the old behavior of just banners. Besides, "unacceptable practices" are a matter of public opinion. Flip purr 16:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes; but in the case of a guideline page like this one, "public opinion" might be better described as "consensus", which is what determines guidelines and policies on Wikipedia.  I think that your well-intentioned proposal is unlikely to gain any traction, because the section Ned linked to is supported by a wide consensus of Wikipedians. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should spoilers be made invisible? 

message: It seems there is a css option to make spoiler warning invisible, which satisfies the user who dislikes spoiler warnings
But what about the user who does like spoiler warnings, and chooses an option to never display spoiler content? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.109.250.207 (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CSS option to make spoiler content invisible

message: Doesn't this violate Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#.22And.2For.22? Fistful of Questions 17:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sure does, and it's ugly as hell. I'd remove it if I knew how. 195.149.148.24 13:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The use of a slash in "and/or" 

message: Something like Template:Hidden could be provided (perhaps as a user script) that allows to click to see hidden spoiler text. --84.20.17.84 10:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see older discuscussion. The present situation is a consensus formed in discussions between those who wanted to hide, or even delete, spoilers and those that wanted no form of spoiler warning. --GunnarRene 00:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic hiding 

message: Multiple spoiler templates have been proposed for deletion, at separate deletion discussions: --GunnarRene 02:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be fairly easy to merge this same concept with , or hell, even further merge it with . -- Ned Scott 03:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple spoiler templates have been proposed for deletion 

message: I have a small question for the supporters of this guideline...
Why does it matter if readers mistakingly read spoilers? Is there a policy that states "don't anger the reader", "don't offend the reader", "don't make the reader sad"? It seems ridiculous that the encyclopedia has to "protect" readers from the dreaded spoilers, for no reason whatsoever. If there is an answer to this, kindly direct me to it. --Teggles 18:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer seems to be that enough people want the warnings to stay, so they stay. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to make it clear that this guideline is taken on a case by case (or, rather, WikiProject by WikiProject) basis, and that users should not harrass other Wikiprojects to conform to the spoiler tag or non-spoiler tag school of thought. — Deckiller 22:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Melodia, that would violate WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. --Teggles 03:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, more like there's no true consensus -- what other explanation can there be? All evidence I've seen points to that spoiler warnings are as (un)enencyclopdeic as warning disclaimers, etc...yet they stay. So why? Because enough people are vehement about them that even if people start to remove them, theywill be back, and people will probably be accused of vandalism. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 04:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ignorance is bliss. all pages should have spoiler warnings, except the anime pages - they tend to dumb you down. The Jackal God 23:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small question about this guideline 

message: 'Those who wish to not see spoiler warnings could use the following Cascading Style Sheets rule:
.spoiler { display: none; }
Any web browser which supports CSS (as almost all do) will then hide the spoiler warnings. (You will still see them in the Wikitext when editing.)
"
iF THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A TIP ON HOW TO DO SOME-THING, THEN IT IS REALLY BAD.  iF YOU FOLLOW THE LINK, THERE IS NO REAL EXPLANATION OF HOW TO IMPLEMENT THIS.Kdammers 11:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSS