Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 15

message: No bickering at eachother anymore. Want to have a polite conversation, start a new thread. — Save_Us † 11:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, see TfD and DRV. Some related discussion is in /Archive 13. Kusma (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Not to beat a dead horse, but I don't see why it's a bad template, it helps people who don't want to have a story or movie ruined. Why not make a spoiler template that has a link to the main disclaimer? --AW (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it violated WP:NDA and its usage was almost entirely redundant. --Farix (Talk) 21:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not precisely accurate of consensus, which was against the specific tag but for using the current fiction tag in its place.  Unfortunately, that tag was deleted for unrelated reasons, and no one has gotten around to creating a spoiler-specific tag to replace it.  Yet.  Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Can we do without the personal attacks and character assassinations? --Farix (Talk) 23:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Er, the template was deleted although many of our younger, more fiction-oriented editors voted for it. As far as I can tell, most of the people accused of the "spoiler coup" are well above the age of 15. Perhaps the power comes from the laptops, not the age. Kusma (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You affectively called other editors immature by declaring that they were 15 year old, which is a personal attack. --Farix (Talk) 23:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Alluding to those on the "other side" is immature is a personal attack IMO. --Farix (Talk) 23:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: WP:DRV. It's not too difficult. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:12, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: YellowTapedR prefers to throw insults around instead. --Farix (Talk) 00:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Said the completely non-polarizing editor known as Farix.  {sigh}  Your constant accusations remind me of an old Usenet staple: "you telling me I'm off-topic is off-topic."  You are free to figure out how that is relevant on your own.  I trust that you are both intelligent and mature enough to catch my meaning. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think you're misinterpreting my statement. Even the editor starting this thread recognized that the horse has been laid to rest. If you're not going to contest deletion, perhaps it is time to declare the matter dead (at least for the near future). Just a suggestion.Chaz Beckett 02:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I got the same meaning off your statement as YellowTapedR did Garda40 (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler template? 

message: I've just discovered WP:SPOILER, after reading the discussion on Talk:The Mousetrap.
I agree with the policy: for Wikipedia to be comprehensive, it can't avoid revealing plot twists.  I accept the arguments against spoiler tags.  However, I feel that this shouldn't be taken as justification for ignoring the needs of the Wikipedia user who wants a little background on a story without ruining the ending.  (eg. 'Is this the sort of film I might want to watch?').
I don't think this is difficult to achieve.  Look at The Sixth Sense - a casual reader has every opportunity to avoid reading the twist, which is buried in a comprehensive plot summary.
It isn't 'encyclopaedic' for an article to just list the spoiler, without giving much information about the narrative.  Nor is it helpful to unfairly draws a casual reader's attention to the spoiler - for example, by giving it away in the synopsis.
So, I believe it might help reduce the amount of noise if WP:SPOILER were changed to say something along these lines:
It is acceptable to alter the wording of an article so that it is easier for a casual reader to avoid accidentally reading the spoiler.
AndrewBolt (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If we have two versions of an article, one which makes it easy for a casual reader to avoid reading a spoiler and one which doesn't, we should choose the version that is more encyclopedic in tone and has the more appropriate lead section. In other words, the question of spoilers should not influence our decision. Kusma (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, so we should choose the version that doesn't reveal the spoiler, as seen in Encarta --Pixelface (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Add "with equivalent content" to what I said to make my statement slightly more wikilawyering-resistant. Kusma (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You said the one more encyclopedic in tone. Referring to Encarta is wikilawyering now? --Pixelface (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This game is boring. Kusma (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're here to play games, you're on the wrong website. Maybe a mailing list would be more to your liking. --Pixelface (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The funny thing with Encarta's article is that it fails WP:NOT completely. So we really can't use it as an example of how Wikipedia's articles should be. However, it is an example that demonstrates how Wikipedia does a much better job with coverage of works of fiction then other encyclopedias. --Farix (Talk) 22:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems clear to me that we should look at what other encyclopedias do to determine which version Kusma talked about would be more encyclopedic in tone. What encyclopedic purpose does revealing the twist in The Sixth Sense provide? Why would it be "unencyclopedic" to let readers know they are about to read a twist? I personally can't recall ever reading an encyclopedia that revealed the ending of Citizen Kane. If Wikipedia articles reveal more than other encyclopedias, I see no reason why articles cannot also include spoiler warnings. Revealing spoilers appears to be a new feature of encyclopedias (if Wikipedia is any indication), but spoiler warnings have been used on the Internet for very many years. If no article is allowed to have spoiler warnings, the next step is for editors to remove plot details that don't cite reliable third-party sources per WP:RS. That's what this issue has come to. --Pixelface (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Really Andrew, you're pretty much saying what's already supposed to happen in the first place. It's always nice to see someone new coming here and agreeing with the (current) guideline, though. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: What plot details may be spoilers should not be taken into consideration when writing an article, particularly the plot summary. Plot summaries should be as concise as possible while still covering the main plot points of the work of fiction. Also, Wikipedia's articles are not suppose to help the reader determine whether he or she would want to read the work of fiction. That is treating Wikipedia as a review site instead of an encyclopedia. --Farix (Talk) 21:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is supposed to provide educational content. Someone reading an article to get a general idea of what a film is about does not turn Wikipedia into a review site. Are you suggesting that only people who have read a book should read the Wikipedia article? Why would they need to read a plot summary? Readers can use our content in any way they want to. You're right, this is an encyclopedia — not themoviespoiler.com --Pixelface (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Agree with Farix. Wikipedia is for information, not reviews. And who is to decide what goes into a spoiler, and how long it stays up? When you're dealing with the analysis that goes into our articles, who would decide what must be left out? Tyler Durden? Luke Skywalker's dad? Rosebud? Snowfire51 (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And who is to decide how the users want to use Wikipedia? If they want to use it as a review site too, why should they be prevented to do so? Samohyl Jan (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's plenty of review sites on the Web. Wikipedia isn't one of them; it's an encylopedia. Chaz Beckett 20:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If a reader wants to use Wikipedia in a capacity that it's not for, that's fine, as long as no editors actually go about changing things to reflect that. No matter what anyone 'wants', the fact is simple. WP is an encyclopedia, and any other use people get resulting from its uniqueness is merely extra benefit. But to say that "well they might use it as a review site, so we should follow the conventions of such" is as silly as trying to make it into a phonebook, or a game guide, or a social network, or a map, or any of many other things. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: However, if we disclose all the key details of the plot without any other part of the article necessitating it, then we're treating Wikipedia as a digest, not an encyclopedia.  We should neither avoid spoilers nor put them in unless we have an encyclopedic reason to do so.  It's a pity this common sense has been drowned out by those who have been waging war for and against spoilers.  Both sides have got the issue wrong, and the encyclopedia is shit as a result.--Father Goose (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the welcome, Melodia.  I don't disagree with any of the above comments, and may be my suggested wording is not ideal.  My observation (from a limited sample of articles) is that well-written, encyclopedia-quality plot synopses don't need to warn that they will reveal the spoiler.  The pages that produce debate are the ones where the plot summary fails to 'cover the main plot points', and exists mainly to reveal the spoiler.  It often seems that people treat WP:SPOILER as justification for the latter, rather than as an incentive to improve the overall quality of the article.  I feel that suitable wording of the policy would help shorten these debates, leaving more time for people to contribute new material! AndrewBolt (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoiding spoiler issues by providing encyclopaedic plot summaries 

message: The "Humor and cultural references" section of version 183809147 of the article P = NP problem contains a spoiler in the second episode of the TV show NUMB3RS. I deleted it rather than add a spoiler warning directly into the article. This seems like a perfectly good statement being deleted for no good reason. It seems to be in compliance with the current guideline:
I haven't seen anything in past discussion about this. Brian Jason Drake 12:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant that I haven't seen anything in past discussion about the general issue of spoilers outside of articles on the topic of fictional works.Why not keep the section, since "it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail." (Wikipedia:Spoiler) Brian Jason Drake 09:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Detail and trivia are two different things. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Spoiler tags outside of articles on fictional works were already deprecated as ridiculous. In most cases the information is cruft in the article itself (no-one looking up the P = NP problem is going to give a hoot about NUMB3RS. Really) and should be removed. - David Gerard (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This kind of thing does occasionally show up, still.  Today, after waiting four or five days for the search database to update itself, I found that spoiler warnings had been added to an article about the actress Lucy Griffiths, and our article about Bayou La Batre, Alabama‎.  A note on Central Intelligence Agency also cautioned about spoilers. --Tony Sidaway 14:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers outside of fictional-work articles 

message: I am just a casual reader of Wikipedia, and at some point noticed these spoiler warnings disappeared; checking here I see a heated debate that must have gone on for months. I have an opinion about this, but it seems pointless to divulge it argue about it. What I do think might be useful, though, is that this guideline article be a bit more informative about the argument/discussion. The article just states the policy, and that is fine; but in light of how divided some of the community is, it might be good to add some of the pro/con arguments and the reached consensus (if there is one). Of course it can all be found in the discussions, but it is rather long and tiresome, and at times one might question whether people argue in good faith.
For people who encounter this policy and wonder about it, I think there should be some unbiased extra information in place (clearly separated from the policy itself, maybe in a different article even). (Ant6n 20.04.08)
===quick thought===
i know there's endless discussion about this but: what if it's my first time in wikipedia through an article containing spoilers? what if i DON'T know i should EXPECT them?
it would seriously suck if it were for example the ending of the harry potter series...24.232.74.200 (talk) 05:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  But Why? 

message: i know there's endless discussion about this but: what if it's my first time in wikipedia through an article containing spoilers? what if i DON'T know i should EXPECT them?
it would seriously suck if it were for example the ending of the harry potter series...24.232.74.200 (talk) 05:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: quick thought

message: The second line of the spoiler page reads "In Wikipedia, however..."  Should this be "On Wikipedia, however..."?
--HockeyInJune (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh just tweak it. If somebody disagrees they'll tweak it back and if it matters you can discuss it here. --Tony 06:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In/On 

message: Since either way the warred-over argument is over, I've actually placed it in the archives rather than merely boxing it. This should be an adequate compromise, as the point of removing or closing arguments is to prevent them from continuing, not to actually make stuff disappear. So this matter should now be settled, since either way, that particular exchange ain't continuing. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:01, 22 Feb 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived 

message: I know the whole spoiler debate is over and the tag has been deemed unneeded, but one argument (that I found in a userbox) I just don't get is that the spoiler tag is some sort of censor.  Wasn't the whole point of the tag to prevent censorship?  I'm not saying bring back the tag, but I find this argument kind of ridiculous, contradictory to itself and contradictory to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. -69.158.20.210 (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that it's not a censor, per se. But the whole 'war' bordered on ridiculous at times, so thinking that here isn't anything all that new. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censor? 

message: Is there any consideration taken for spoilers of unreleased material?  It's not uncommon for spoilers to leak before a book/movie/whatever is released - are those treated the same way?  I can understand that people clicking on an article of something they haven't seen/read would expect the plot to be described there, but for things that aren't out yet is that a reasonable expectation?  --Minderbinder (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Typically the problem with this information is that it cannot be sourced to a verifiable source, and I would expect that if this is information pre-release, that reliability standard needs to be much higher than for other information.  For example, for reality TV shows I work on, while there are spoiler lists for who's going win or who's booted, the sites have a very low reliability level.  But, take the other example where JK Rowlings admitted a major character would die in Deathly Hollows months before release, that's usable (though arguably not that much of a spoiler). --MASEM 20:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

text: My bot picks up explicitly labelled soap opera spoilers every now and then, usually something like "spoilers indicate Meg murders Jim and buries him under the  patio". I just remove them citing Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (WP:CRYSTAL). --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 07:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreleased material 

message: It seems to me that the anti-spoiler folk mainly bristle at the thought of Wikipedia itself being compromised by the indulgent intentional ignorance encouraged by spoiler awareness.  I agree with that view, but I also think it's tragic that an entire category of use--casual browsing--has been essentially locked away.
So, what if there was a compromise?  It would be entirely possible to have an external database project detailing Wikipedia spoilers that could be overlayed using, for example, a Greasemonkey script that turns them into "click to view" sections.  Something as simple as an entry for each section in each article that contains spoilers.  That way, people concerned about spoilers could get the script and use it to browse Wikipedia.  Actually, I guess the same thing could be accomplished with custom user javascript. Max (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only problem with this (other than the technical hurdle) is the majority of people who complain about the spoilers are just naive folks who wouldn't have special settings or greased monkeys turned on. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 17:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is so, why not make the compromise the other way around - SWs are visible by default and hideable by CSS. As far I can tell, against SWs are mostly editors, no one really asked users about it AFAIK. Samohyl Jan (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External spoiler data 

message: David Baddiel writes in The Times:"... and Wikipedia puts huge capitalised signs up saying SPOILER WARNING when its plot descriptions of films or TV dramas edge towards the ending."This guideline seems to suggest otherwise, and I can't say that I've noticed any spoiler warnings recently.  Has there been a shift in policy? --Skinheed (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there has been a shift & David Baddiel is obviously not up to speed with it.  I dunno exactly when the change took place, but sometime around the beginning of this year.  Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Couldn't resist adding my own comment to that article. :) --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 11:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Seems like something that could be incorporated into Spoiler (media). Even if the Wikipedia details are incorrect. --Farix (Talk) 23:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shift in policy? 

message: Hi, i am just another casual Wikipedia reader, i just got a good game spoiled because i expect most pages on the internet to have some kind of spoiler warning. It is, or at least was some kind of standard (and surprise wikipedia is NOT encyclopedia britanica, it is a webpage) On pages or pieces of pages that contain spoilers. And i know that most of the Wikipedia elitists fight hard to make sure that Wikipedia does not contain "all human knowledge" (what do you mean "not notable"? I liked it.. No none of my articles has ever been removed, but some articles i found useful.)
But relay, get real, a work that can be edited by any monkey on the planet will never be viewn as a reliable source for information, for real, important business. All this "encyclopedic tone" and "notability" is just a thin veil to make you (the elite, that has the know how, that walks the walk and so on) feel more important.
And realy, what kind of lame argument is "different information are spoilers to different people"? I mean get real, some things are pretty obvious that they will tick people off. But then again, you elitist probably don't even read this page any more, since your mind is already made up, and agreeing to have a spoiler tag would again bring you down to being a mere web page author instead of someone writing a encyclopedia. So i could just erase all this, but then, i have already wasted quite some time so i will leave it, maybe it will make a slight impact on some one. And i am sure one of the editors will do that for me, since it is not encyclopedic enough, and then, i will for the first time have had any content of mine erased from this page.
83.226.168.225 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 20:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, thanks! You really cleared it up. Marc Shepherd (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The comment above does seem more suitable for a personal blog, or perhaps the Village Pump.  It covers a much broader range than the subject of this guideline.  On the other hand, it's not the most constructive comment I've seen, so maybe we should leave it here. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just another complainer 

message: I know, understand and comprehend that Wikipedia is not censored (after all, it prefers damaging the readers' joy over censoring itself; talk about selfishness ¬_¬), but I think the article (this article, I mean) should encourage users to add spoilers only on sections that naturally require them (this is, sections focused directly on the plot of the series/movie/game/book). For example, is it really necessary to write Snape kills Dumbledore, Luigi is unlockable or Yusuke is a Mazoku in the introduction text of the article? Thanks for your attention, and Godspeed. --200.71.160.128 (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the spoiler is the most relevant thing about the article subject from an out-of-universe perspective, it needs to be in the introduction. Otherwise, it probably doesn't (lead sections with spoilers are comparatively rare). Wikipedia:Lead section explains that the lead is not a teaser. Kusma (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is common, however -- in fact, it's our typical format -- is to have a big "plot" section immediately following the introduction that contains every possible spoiler.  Given that this format destroys Wikipedia's usability for anyone who wants to learn something about a work without spoiling all the fun of seeing or reading it (this is why they call them spoilers), Wikipedia's handling of spoilers is still badly in need of reform.--Father Goose (talk) 06:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

text: You'll probably have better luck if you make a suggestion on the specific articles that concern you. As a general matter, the only thing we can say is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are designed to convey information, not to suppress or conceal it. Marc Shepherd (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I correct you, an encyclopedia is make to give information to people that doesn't know some info. If these people has not read a book, and wikipedia explain this book in detail, this make the article itself meaningles.unsigned 20:50 17 Nov 2008 (UTC+1)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.193.49 (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendation 

message: At The Dark Knight (film), a non-free image of Two-Face was added.  I removed it on the basis that it gives away the appearance of a character too visibly.  I am a proponent of including spoilers on Wikipedia (The Dark Knight has a fleshed-out plot summary), and I believe we've operated on the premise that the Plot section will be contained with plot details.  We don't explain each character's ultimate fate in the Cast section and only among critical commentary if necessary.  Still, though, with the film not yet released in the United Kingdom and other territories, I was thinking it would be best to apply common sense in excluding the image for now.  I support the eventual inclusion of the image with critical commentary, but I don't think we need to be so quick about it.  WP:SPOILER only mentions spoilers within the text, so I don't know if images were ever discussed here in the context of spoilers.  There is a discussion at Talk:The Dark Knight (film)#Image of Two-Face, and I invite input to determine consensus. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Dark Knight 

message: I understand and expect that if I am reading an article about something that I might find out a bit of information about that, for example I would go to an article about a film I hadn't seen yet. But I wonder what peoples opinion is on spoilers that aren't directly to do with the article. I'm talking about an episode of Dr. Who from season 4 that had information about the season finale in it, I added a spoiler tag (to that one sentence) and it was removed and I got a message off someone about wikipedia policy. 
* I just wonder what people think about spoilers in that situation?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Decay (talk • contribs) 23:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally agree that an article should not contain a spoiler form something not directly related to the article. I don't think it should have a spoiler tag though, rather I question why the info is even in the article in the first place. A page about a specific TV show episode should not contain information about other episodes. Mloren (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers of unrelated articles 

message: I'm in a discussion over spoilers in the game of Nethack for that article. It's just now come to my attention the new policies on spoilers at Wikipedia. It's obvious that there's no firm rules that are going to clear up this issue and the spoiler policy is indelibility linked to the Wikipedia:Use common sense policy. Currently there isn't even a hyperlink to that policy! I think there should be a guideline that the lead section tends not to contain elements that would be considered by most as spoilers and that they be delegated to the sections like "Plot" or "Ending" that it is common sense to skip if you are censoring yourself from such things. That would be fully in-line with the other goals of Wikipedia while maintaining expected social norms. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Defining what is a spoiler is original research as it is an interpretation that knowing the information will "spoil" the experience. But more importantly in your case, the guideline clearly states that information should not be removed on the bases that it is a spoiler. --Farix (Talk) 11:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh good god; in that case, defining what are important plot points to include in a plot summary is also original research.  I suggest you see Wikipedia:Use common sense. 68.73.114.58 (talk) 11:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

text: The current guideline is pretty clear; some people just don't like it. The previous guideline was a whole lot less clear; and some people still didn't like it. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

text: The spoiler guideline itself defines the word spoiler so it is not original research. Even if you ignore that definition, it is logically inconsistent to say you cannot define what a spoiler is and yet also say that spoilers cannot be removed from an article. The current spoiler guideline can be circumvented by always claiming information was removed for some other reason. This guideline seems to encourage people to lie in their edit summaries. I don't like it and it has angered many readers as a perusal of this archive proves. As I stated above, this guideline should be indelibility linked to Wikipedia:Use common sense and therefore Wikipedia:Ignore all rules policy. It is the expectations of readers that major spoilers not be included in introductory sections and so on. It is also their expectations that spoilers probably do exist in section like "plot" without a very good reason. The guideline should be something like "major events meant to be a surprise should usually not be in the introduction but in sections that the reader can recognize as likely to contain major spoilers." Notice I am using the word "guideline" now whereas I was incorrectly saying "spoiler policy" before. WP:SP is not a policy. It is a guideline. So even the phrases in the guideline like "it is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot" are poorly written because they are the words of a policy, not a guideline. This entire guideline needs to be rewritten from scratch. I will eventually draft a new version myself that hopefully solves some of the confusion while maintaining the reasoning the current writers intended. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, you are completely misrepresenting previous discussions. They were about the placement of "spoiler warnings" into articles. It was never about the inclusion of spoilers in articles. The guideline has always stated, through every variation, that information should not be removed on the bases that it is a spoiler. That statement has had near unanimous support, even during the discussions about the use of spoiler warnings. Secondly, even if the guideline does give a loose definition of a spoiler, exactly how to apply it is original research. Rarely can you provide a verifiable source stating that knowing a piece of information will spoil the experience. As for spoilers in leads, that really depends on the peace of information. If the reason the subject is notable is because of a piece of information that some may consider a spoiler, it should be mentioned in the lead because it explains the subject's notability. Also, the lead should summarize the entire article. If you have a section about "spoilers" the it should be summarized in the lead as well. --Farix (Talk) 20:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: TheFarix covered it well, but I'll add just one more thing. It is true that an editor could temporarily circumvent the guideline by lying in the edit summary, but this seldom works. Editors who regularly follow an article will generally look at the underlying substance of an edit. A false edit summary usually won't deter conscientious editors from detecting and correcting bad edits. Marc Shepherd (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: but this seldom works .I've seen that work more than seldom .Garda40 (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think my position is understood. I'm not against the inclusion of spoilers in articles. Far from it. My position is that, if possible, spoilers should be placed in the article such that readers don't get blind-sided by them. It should consider the desires of all readers. If the document is well-structured, it will allow readers the chance to identify sections (like "Plot") that are likely to contain spoilers so that they can choose to skip them if they desire. I put forward that this makes for a better article when it is written that way. The guideline's wording should also be flexible enough to allow for violations of this if the material warrants. The guidelines' tone does not seem to match its own boiler. I have faith that the wiki-discussion process can arbitrate on a case-by-case basis any gray-area problems that arise over what constitutes as spoiler and if it should be in a section or not. Also, any spoiler guideline that doesn't at least notice the social norm that it is rude to tell somebody something about a movie, book, or game that they didn't want to know is incomplete. That would help guide Wikipedians to writing a great article. Currently WP:SW doesn't really guide at all. It dictates. And the current version's wording seems to overstep its bounds as a guideline and gives people the impression that it is policy. I don't like the situation where people avoid visiting an article until after they have seen, read, or played something because they are scared of spoilers being in unexpected places. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty obvious what is and what isn't a spoiler; I mean, sometimes leads include a synopsis of a whole work (eg. Hamlet).  If a review or summary on the back of a book, movie, etc. wouldn't say something, then don't include it.  A user should be able to read at least part of an article if they want to know what the subject or general plot of something is.Petero9 (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it isn't that obvious. Two people can read, watch, or listen to the same work of fiction and have different opinions of which plot elements are spoilers and which are not. There are even some who consider any plot element a spoiler. On top of that, many so-called spoilers are only considered a spoiler by most people for a limited time (ex. Vader is Luke's father, Snape kills Dumbledore). Since all of this is interpretation and based on editors' individual opinions, it is better for Wikipedia to not label plot details as spoilers. Also, calling a plot detail a spoiler based on the lack of coverage by independent sources can be viewed as a violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Farix (Talk) 01:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy not well enough defined