Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 10

message: As many people may/may not know spoilers are regulary entered into professional wrestling articles by IP's or other users, which are quickly removed. I have proposed several templates to help warn the user(s). The discussion is ongoing. If you wish to participate, click here. Davnel03 06:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler templates proposal at [[WP:PW]] 

message: Looking at the whatlinkshere for , I noticed that a great deal of them are people posting them on talk pages... we should probably sort this out, as I'm pretty sure it hasn't been discussed in length. David Fuchs (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh good grief .They're  on the talk pages  and what's probably more important they are historical (at least the 20 or some I clicked are and I can't see that would be different for most of them ) .Garda40 21:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree. Kinda silly to weed them out on talk pages. Considering part of the main arguments is that spoiler warnings are a "forum thing" and not an "encyclopedia thing" -- talk pages are forums. So what's wrong with them there? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree as well...it's the least of Wikipedia's problems. Marc Shepherd 21:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Whilst use of tagging on talk pages probably feeds other inappropriate uses of spoiler tags to some extent, I don't think it's a big deal.  I think "forum thing" is a blind alley because our talk pages are not forums in that sense. Nevertheless, it's a very low priority matter. --Tony Sidaway 16:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fan-use of spoilers 

message: By my count, Tony, you are in violation of 3RR. Since I'm not some rat, I'm not going to report you, but you are being rather uncivil for such a minor change. I don't know how you can say with a straight face that this guideline is not in dispute. The tag isn't saying the current version is bad, just that some parts are disputed. What's the problem?--YellowTapedR 20:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony does not have more than three reverts in a 24-hour period. Marc Shepherd 21:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR 

message: Parsifal writes  "This study shows how editors write under the constraints of a guideline that they believe is not disputed."
Well that's true up to a point, and it's a point worth investigating.
However I (and no doubt many other editors) have already shot his fox.  We made tons of edits during a fourteen-day period when this guideline contained the same text that it is now proposed we restore, to wit: "The content of this guideline is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page."  Since the guideline was marked as disputed, I usually didn't cite it , but I don't think anybody reacted any differently.  I simply said something like:
* "→Warning: Possible Plot/Ending Spoilers Ahead! - Removed. Fictional character biography can be expected to discuss the plot."
 or
* " →Character history - and remove redundant warning)"
And of course life went on as usual.  My edits continued to be accepted.  There wasn't a vast swelling of the ranks of the disaffected, there were no complaints on my talk page about all of those edits.
I guess here you're seeing how Tony Sidaway "writes under the constraints of" a guideline that he believes may possibly be disputed.
Of course I wouldn't have made the edits if I thought they wouldn't be accepted.  This is why, if we change the guideline text to read as above, I and most other editors will continue to use it as a guideline.  A guideline is a document that is  "is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow", but it "isn't set in stone."  It isn't a policy, which "has wide acceptance among editors" and no exceptions.  You don't lose anything by accepting this as a guideline, you simply recognise that it's been applied a stupendous number of times with huge success, but that you, or anybody else, should look at the particular case pertaining in any given situation, and use your commonsense to make decisions, and discussion to resolve disputes by searching for consensus.  Which is, of course, what I and a number of other editors have become quite good at doing over the past few months. --Tony Sidaway 23:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I avoid citing this guideline if I remove a spoiler tag - I try to just say why I'm removing it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing to an undisputed guideline? 

message: Please note that the sentence in the lede about spoiler tags being redundant in plot sections is not detailed below; the lower part has a weaker sentence. I tried to move the sentence from the lede to a lower section, to remove redundancy as D. Fuchs was trying to do, but my edit was reverted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007-9-12 

message: I have again moved the sentence from the lede lower down.  The lede clearly stated that spoiler tags are generally inappropriate inside plot sections (not just at the top); the lower part only talks about using them to cover an entire plot section. I agree that the lower part is redundant, but the way to remove that redundancy is to remove the weaker wording, not the stronger wording. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No example has been given of an article where the spoiler warning tag is justifiable inside a "plot summary" section. I encourage anyone who thinks there might be an example to present one.  If no example can be found of an instance where a warning tag is appropriate in a plot summary section, then there's no reason for the guideline not to point out that "generally" these tags are unneeded; that would make the guideline agree with real life. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007-9-14 

message: Now that I'm back from a few days calming myself down... Spoilers are more than just tags; thus, the guideline should deal with more than just the proper placement or lack thereof of spoiler tags. I've gotten used to the idea that tags aren't being used anymore, begrudgingly, but I'm still worried about one of my pet articles and spoilers. What are we doing about spoilers in infoboxes? In leads? Are spoilers supposed to be confined to plot summaries, and if so, what are we doing when they're not? For example, the article in question (and I'm scared to list it here in fear that it'll be swarmed with people restoring spoilers where they don't need to be ) is Tia Dalma. The infobox listed her occupation for a long time as "Sea goddess" - but that's not an occupation, and she's only ever been seen making a living as a voodoo priestess, so I put that in instead. It listed several other pieces of information as "sea goddess" (such as location and so forth) and I changed it. Two movies of notability as a voodoo lady, and half a movie of being a goddess (not to mention it being a major spoiler) seems to me to indicate that she's better off using her pre-World's End information in the infobox; furthermore, I put in the lead that she was significant in the third film, including being the subject of a major plot twist; therefore, if someone wants to know what the plot twist was, they'll go to the plot section for the third movie. None of this is covered at all by the current guideline, nor being discussed on the talk page, except for a few lines about it not being good to "twist around" the article to enclose spoilers in certain places. Can we discuss? Kuronue | Talk 01:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, no. Considerations of "spoilers" must have absolutely no bearing on the way we structure the article.  The current guideline should say this if it does not already say it. The Tia Dalma problem was a result of people using biographical infoboxes in articles about fictional characters.  The article on this character must of course mention in the lead that she is a human personification of Calypso. --Tony Sidaway 02:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why? It's not what she's most notable for. That's why I went ahead and removed it - she's notable for being Tia Dalma, as Calypso is only mentioned in half a movie, which merits a mention but not necessarily a spoiler in the lead. Kuronue | Talk 13:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether this information belongs in the lead or not is independent of whether it is a spoiler or not. Important information necessary for summarising the article has to go there. Less relevant information can be removed. "Spoiling" and "non-spoiling" information needs to be treated in the same way. Kusma (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Define necessary. I don't feel that the spoiler is truly necessary - in fact, most spoilers are not necessary in the lead, and the fact that they're spoilers, IMO, simply adds to their non-necessary. I'd not have cared enough to edit it if it wasn't a spoiler, because someone obviously thought it was or they wouldn't have put it there, but the lead should discuss the aspects which are most notable, leaving the details to the rest of the article; therefore, I feel it's enough to note that she's a major player in the plot of the third movie, while leaving the details to the plot summary section. Kuronue | Talk 16:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, the example you brought up was just stupid to begin with- a fictional character probably shouldn't be using biographic boxes. As for tags in leads, as I think has been noted before, Sosuke Aizen has a spoiler smack top in the lead. This can't really be replaced with  because the spoiler is the character became an antagonist, however the U.S./NA release of the episodes is two years behind the Japanese. The only way you could reasonably remove the spoiler in this case is if current fiction had a modifier that allowed it to specify where it would be unreleased/recently released. David Fuchs (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can work magic with templates if you tell me what you want. It would be pretty simple to add a parameter to put an optional extra line of text into the template. One benefit of current fiction over the a spoiler tag at the top of an article is that it is more precise about what's going on. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More than just tags 

message: The version of the guideline that some editors seem to be so eager to change to suit their personal preferences has been tested in the field and works very well.  Please do not try to change it at this stage unless you can provide strong evidence of a need to change.  For instance, if you have evidence that the guideline does not reflect current practice, present that evidence.  We should not be changing something that clearly works. --Tony Sidaway 17:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been edited every day for the past week, by multiple editors. What we have is hardly a stable consensus version, therefore, your efforts to make everyone shut up and stop editing looks suspiciously like trying to force us to conform to your particular rendering. Kuronue | Talk 17:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Consensus isn't what happen on a single wiki page, but what happens wiki-wide.    From my point of view, the persistent efforts of a tiny handful of Wikipedia editors here to sabotage the written guideline are a last gasp effort to avoid recognising that the spoiler tag is effectively dead.  You can't change on-wiki practice by changing the content of a guideline.  The guideline must follow from practice or else you're wasting your time.  If I sound tetchy it's because, after more than three months, I now equate your attempts to change the guideline against overwhelming consensus as a deliberate attempt to sabotage that existing Wikipediawide consensus  rather than argue your case and get support. --Tony Sidaway 18:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version of the guideline has genuine flaws that I imagine everybody can agree on — for instance, there are three points in the lede that are repeated almost verbatim in the subsequent sections. The draft I suggested solves this problem, and seems to have at least provisional support as a compromise draft from both sides of the aisle (David Fuchs, Carl, Nydas, Milo, and YellowTapedR have all expressed support for some or all of it).  I've made some small changes which I hope will address your concerns.  --Jere7my 18:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Tony, it seems like you should be arguing for the deletion of the spoiler template and this page, not the preservation of a version that (as currently written) permits spoiler tags.  That, in your eyes, would better reflect wikiwide consensus.  Correct? --Jere7my 18:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think spoiler tags should be permitted if there is consensus for them.  Such instances are vanishingly few but they do still exist. --Tony Sidaway 20:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tony, if you automatically equate the efforts of anyone but yourself to change the guideline page as "sabotage", you need to back off the page and go do something else. Kuronue | Talk 21:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your premise is blatantly false.  Stop trolling. --Tony Sidaway 22:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What premise? You said it yourself, a few posts above. Stop calling people trolls. I'm sick of your attempts to singlehandedly control the fate of this guideline. Nobody needs your permission to edit wikipedia in any way, shape, or form, so stop saying they do, stop calling them trolls, stop throwing around the word "sabotage" Kuronue | Talk 22:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  You falsely claim that I 'automatically equate the efforts of anyone but yourself to change the guideline page as "sabotage"' That is trolling.  Stop trolling. --Tony Sidaway 23:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it's only edits you disagree with that are sabotage, and people you disagree with who are trolls. People you agree with are safe.  Kuronue | Talk 23:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: And off you go trolling again.  Please stop. --Tony Sidaway 23:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Stop making personal attacks. Kuronue | Talk 23:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tested in the field 

message: I've edited the reference to a "newly discovered Shakespeare play" :
Before:
: (A newly discovered Shakespeare play could well demand spoiler protection for a while!)
After:
: (A newly discovered Shakespeare play could conceivably have a spoiler warning' for a while.)
The reasoning is pretty straightforward.  I think it unlikely that an article about a newly discovered Shakespeare play would give the plot of the play much prominence.  Even if it did, I think it would be unlikely to come as the kind of revelation that would be termed a "spoiler", and I further think it unlikely that people who worry about "spoilers" in video games, comics, soap operas and the like would have the same feeling about the plot of such a play. --Tony Sidaway 18:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Newly discovered Shakespeare play"