Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 4

message: What about reasoning why those "Unacceptable alternatives" are unacceptable??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.165.250.10 (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the reasoning was explained well enough. Which one are you unsure about? — CharlotteWebb 20:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you just would have let me save  then it would display fine, kee jerk reaction, let me finish. See User:Drini/sandbox to see what I'm trying t oachieve. Spoilers collapsed by default so people won't see them if they don't want to. -- drini [meta:] [commons:]  21:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Pages displayed wrong for a few seconds between saving  and . CSS hack cant' be turned on/off on the fly, Wikipedia:NavFrame does. So if you wanna see spoilers, click on "show". I did NOT break half of wikipedia pages, it was jsut that  saved a few seconds before  and therefore in the meantime pages rendered wrong. Gee.. -- drini [meta:] [commons:]  21:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading this conversation when all the :Template:tls were mistyped as :Template:trs was quite funny. --tjstrf talk  23:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unacceptable alternatives 

message: I find it ridiculous that the MfD was closed. Hate to say it, but the MfD was an infinitely better method of handling the situation. First, it's more clearly advertised then a conversation on a talkpage. Second, it gains the appeal of a wider range of editors by displaying it in multiple ways. Third, it gauges consensus easily. Just because it violated protocol doesn't mean common sense should be used. IAR really needs to be renamed to "Use Common Sense". I'm confident those numerous "delete" !votes will not be drowned out so easily. — Deckiller 03:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MfD closing is disturbing 

message: That not everyone is on the same talk page... -- Ned Scott 03:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm getting the feeling 

message: Please could someone remove the MFD tag because that discussion has been closed as inappropriate for discussion of a guideline, and moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning.  Perhaps the tag should be replaced by a note that discussion of the guideline is continuing on that moved page. --Tony Sidaway 13:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: done. Kusma (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Closed again to move to an RFC.. heh. -- Ned Scott 18:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for protected page edit 

message: How will we notify the people reading the pages with spoiler templates? 168.229.22.213 14:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We won't.  That way we get to have our way instead of the reader's way. — The Storm Surfer 13:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  With the TfD closed... 

message: The major problem, not just with this guideline, but with  tag itself, and the reason why it keeps getting supporters even though it's flatly unencyclopedic and goes against most of our other policies on content warnings, comes, I think down to the first edit, which inadvertently says why spoiler warnings are bad policy that keeps surviving.  From the very first edit:
:Wikipedia is an attempt to write an encyclopedia.
:...
:It is traditional netiquette for this discussion to be surrounded with warnings of "spoilers".
This is, in a nutshell, the problem with spoiler warnings and the reason people keep insisting on adding them.  Spoiler warnings have no place in an encyclopedia; but people are simply used to seeing them on message boards, in internet discussion forums, on Usenet...  There are many compelling reasons for including spoiler warnings on message boards, but none of these have anything to do with making an accurate, professional encyclopedia.  Worrying about how an article will affect someone's enjoyment of a book or movie is, basically, unencyclopedic; the logical extension of spoiler warnings would be to say that we can't report critical opinions of books and movies, even when widespread or noteworthy, because it might make it harder for people to enjoy them.  Likewise, netiquette does not apply to Wikipedia content, and, indeed, a concerted effort should be made to avoid having netiquette and other internet-biased views influence article space.  I think that this policy should be simple, straight, and to the point: "Spoiler warnings are always unapproprate for an encyclopedia, and should not be used in articles." --Aquillion 18:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An intelligent analysis. Very nice, and I agree. — Deckiller 18:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, Wikipedia is not quite the same as every other encyclopedia, is it? We cover a great many more subjects, of a different character, than others, and present information in a different way. The idea that because other encyclopedias don't have spoiler warnings, we shouldn't either, doesn't hold water. Maybe we shouldn't cover subjects trivial or unimportant enough to include in a real encyclopedia, either? Or include dynamic media, which doesn't appear in a print encyclopedia? Demi T/C 20:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern was with new users who often will exclude or remove spoilers when they are appropriate. But, to be honest, it's not a major concern. -- Ned Scott 18:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Demi, the issue is that the reason why it is always unencyclopedic to employ spoiler warnings applies equally to Wikipedia: The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide accurate and useful information, as clearly and directly as possible.  That is all.  Aside from necessary legal concerns, there are no other issues worth considering in writing an encyclopedic article.  When people start making arguments like "This will annoy--" or "This could ruin someone's day--" or "This might hurt someone's enjoyment of--", they've gone wildly offbase.  That is appropriate for a webforum, perhaps; but it has no place in an encyclopedia.  Spoiler warnings are an artifact of this flawed way of looking at Wikipedia; the concerns they are made to address are simply not of any relevance to us at all.  Whether or not it ruins someone's day to learn the ending of the book, or even whether or not (as some people have threatened) they stop reading Wikipedia to avoid spoiling the book, have nothing to do with the way we write articles, and should never, to the slightest degree, be used to influence our policies and guidelines on writing articles.  Wikipedia is not "the free messageboard anyone can consult for a fun look at a book they were thinking of reading."  It isn't a review service, or a political party that has to worry about who's going to vote for it, or anything like that.  It is an encyclopedia, and that means that when you click on the Wikipedia page for a book or play, you should get a complete, immediate, straightforward description--a listing of what it's famous for, who kills who, what the major plot twists are, and so on, preferably with the key points in the introduction.  If a book or play is famous for a particular plot twist, that should definitely be in the introduction; and, for clarity's sake, that introduction plainly cannot be broken up.  That is why spoiler warnings fall completely and irreconcilably outside of Wikipedia's scope; that is why, I think, in the long run they are going to be removed completely, and policy rewritten to (at least) strongly discourage them. --Aquillion 05:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler warnings and netiquette 

message: Please remove WP:SW from shortcuts as it redirects the the Star Wars WikiProject. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 20:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted the redirect change, as many talk pages and talk archives appear to still be using WP:SW to reference this page. -- Ned Scott 21:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortcut 

message: I've marked this as rejected. Whilst its merits as a guideline are obviously disputed - some people think it ought to be a guideline - it is obvious that it does not have a consensus in support in its current form - so it is quite clear that it is rejected (for now anyway). Does anyone seriously wish to argue that there IS a consensus in support of this.--Docg 08:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll never know. The MfD was closed after a day, the TfD was closed after even less time, and the RfC is a bloated mess. It's interesting that the MfD (broadly in favour of deletion) is transcluded onto the RfC, whilst the TfD, (broadly in favour of keep) isn't. Of course, this whole sorry debacle is overshadowed by the mass actions of a group of admins, who seem to think that this has to be settled in a matter of hours, rather than weeks or months.--Nydas(Talk) 10:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would be interesting to know when the spoilers suddenly got so badly out of control.  I don't recall seeing them on articles on Biblical books and the works of Dickens before this debate started. Guy (Help!) 15:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rejected 

message: Taken from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning#Time to close this - results are obvious, Tony Sidaway's adaptation of the German policy, several of the comments from the RFC, and a few of my own ideas. -- Ned Scott 01:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like it so far. I think it does a pretty good (though not perfect, yet) job of reflecting consensus, and keeping a neutral tone, giving justifacation toward removing all the (what a lot of people consider ) silly places for them, etc. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No, we can't, but this is a compromise document. Even before this whole mess, spoiler warnings were never meant to be a "right" to the reader, but only a reminder, because we were in a position to do so without a big fuss. You might have gotten used to using spoiler warnings on classics, but that's not why we allowed spoiler warnings. -- Ned Scott 04:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "We" is referring to the consensus that allowed the spoiler warnings. Take a look around on the talk archives on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning. -- Ned Scott 06:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I'm opposed to all spoiler warnings. But I think I could support this new text as a compromise. Basically you can have them on very recent works - but most others get removed.--Docg 11:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm still opposed to spoilers in general, I think this cleaves them into a good middle ground. Nice job, Ned. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 13:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New draft 

message: Seems like a good start.  Some commentary on a few lines:
* should only be used where the spoiler is not integral to the understanding of the work, and that knowledge of the spoiler would likely substantially diminish the readers enjoyment of the work.
Why shouldn't it be used if the spoiler is integral to understanding the work?  I think I see what you're getting at here- if the only thing something is famous for is inherently tied up in "spoilerness," then go ahead and put that in the lead, which should not have spoiler tags.  But if a spoiler is integral to understanding the work and in most of the article?  Well, tag the first section of the article with the spoiler warning, then.  That won't compromise the article structure, but it will offer fair warning.  I'd tentatively suggest just chopping out the first half of that sentence, although perhaps there's a better phrasing.
*Tagging an article should only be done for recent works of fiction. (Maybe on this one?)
I would not support this line.  While I'm not in favor of spoiler warnings for Shakespeare and other classics, I'd stretch the definition of "contemporary" considerably farther.  Not sure what a good phrasing is, but roughly "one lifetime" seems about right.  King Kong is fair game; something from the 80's, however, is quite likely to still be experienced afresh.  The 60's are a grey area, although I'd lean away from spoiler warnings.  (Also, Snape kills Dumbledore is absolutely worthy of a spoiler warning — if it's mentioned outside the "plot" section for some reason.  The same is true of all your other examples - I don't think they're nearly as widely known as something which has entered the language itself, like, say, Jekyll & Hyde.)
* Spoilers should not be unnecessarily disclosed in the lead, and avoided only when reasonable.
"Reasonable" is fuzzy and kind of circularly defines itself.  I'd suggest something like "Spoilers are only rarely appropriate for the lead, but may be reasonable in cases where the topic is inextricably tied to such information." 
Also, there should probably be a line in there about not twisting the article structure for the sake of spoilers.  I'd propose something like:
* Articles often break down neatly into sections which contain spoilers (such as plot summaries and literary controversy) and sections lacking spoilers (considering authorship or lists of actors / characters).  That said, this is not always true, and articles whose best structure would contain spoilers throughout should not be bent into "spoiler" and "non-spoiler" sections.  Simply mark the first section with  instead.
SnowFire 05:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Commentary

message: Should we add a sentence with an analogy comparing such tags to fair use images, i.e. use them only when absolutely required, because in most cases, and especially classical works (compare with fair use images and living people), they aren't necessary? Johnleemk | Talk 06:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make it rare, like fair use images 

message: I strongly object to "Such tags should only be used once in an article." Consider articels such as Aubrey-Maturin series where a whole series of works is discussed in a number of mini-articles. Spoilers can exist in multiple sub-sections of such articles. DES (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is that we're moving away from spoiler warnings being an exact tag on an area, and more of a heads up, that Wikipedia might contain spoilers at any time, anywhere. -- Ned Scott 11:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Once only 

message: This draft exemplifies the problem on the RfC discussion. The following text has appeared only recently in the existing spoiler warning (I realise it's not new to this draft), clearly placed there by the "anti" element:
:When discussing creative works, e.g. books, music, computer games, TV series or films, then an encyclopedia's task is to give a summary of the work and its place in the overall field. Thus, it is natural that the action of a book or a film will be described and discussed in full.
This is a false description of what such articles should do (per the MoS:WP:WAF). It foregrounds in-universe plot summaries (bad) and relegates the primary purpose of the article (giving the work's place in the overall field) to secondary status. It is clear from WP:WAF that a good article about a work of fiction need not include a "full" description of the plot, whatever that means. If the work is of minor notability it need not include any details of the plot.
We also have the standard kow-tow to traditional encyclopedias:
:In encyclopedias, however, this is rare, and spoiler warnings are generally avoided.
Right now, Wikipedia is THE encyclopedia (I speak as an academic). It is as accurate as any general-purpose encyclopedia, far more detailed, and far more accessible. Moreover, it is the only useful and serious encyclopedia designed for on-line reading, where spoiler warnings are particularly useful. PaddyLeahy 10:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree with with you about WAF, and was thinking about that when I was tinkering with the draft. A few ideas had popped into my head for some better wording, I'm still a little foggy about how to best put it. -- Ned Scott 11:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'm not really sure what to do with "In encyclopedias, however, this is rare, and spoiler warnings are generally avoided." Something should be said to the effect that we generally try to avoid such warnings. -- Ned Scott 11:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the first problem with it is that it's inaccurate - we've found no instances of spoiler warnings in other encyclopedias or serious reference works, which is the problem. This is one of the major problems with spoiler warnings - ostensibly our competition is serious reference works like Britannica, and yet we have editorial practices associated with Internet forums. I've tried to tighten this sentence a bit, but I agree - it still needs something. Phil Sandifer 13:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a good point. Why don't we just cut the sentence? It doesn't really do any heavy lifting in terms of the guideline's meaning. In fact, I'll go kill it now. Phil Sandifer 13:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starts off on the wrong foot 

message: Ned's proposal, mixed with Phil's, looks not insane so far.
I'm still taking lots of inappropriate spoilers out to be shot, and I'm seeing that ... most are sticking that way. And those reverting them are tending to get themselves blocked for 3RR, i.e. are hotheads anyway. This suggests to me that the actual wiki-wide consensus either agrees with me or doesn't disagree. As such, I'd suggest leaving finalising this for a few days to see if complaints flood in from actual aggrieved readers (the people this is supposedly for) about spoilers.
(I don't hate spoilers. I've even added them myself. It's just almost all of them at present are redundant or ridiculous.) - David Gerard 15:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - I like the current proposal, though it doesn't hurt to see if anyone comes up with improvement for a few days. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wait a few days before declaring cooked 

message: Somehow, I don't think the section on "Problems with spoiler warnings" is complete without first explain how the use of spoiler warnings have been abused in the past. So here is my attempt at an introduction to:
:Spoiler warnings and spoiler protection came about as a way to protect readers of internet forums and newsgroups from being "spoiled" about what many considered an important plot point, plot twist, or ending of a recent TV episode/series, book, or film. However, as the internet culture matured, spoiler warnings were given when any detail about a work of fiction's plot was discussed. It was even argued by some that reveling the name of a character who will appear in a future episode or novel or the actor or actress who would play the character constituted a spoiler.
Perhaps someone can reword it a bit or take the basic idea and come up with their own introduction. --Farix (Talk) 17:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (EC) I can see spoiler tags being used on very recent works of fiction (unreleased or just released), but that should be pretty much it, and I'm even hesitant to endorse that, I personally think we should have it in the general disclaimer and that is all. Still, this is a step in the right direction, and at least we won't be seeing any more "spoiler warnings" on :The Passion of the Christ or :The Iliad. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  preface to "Problems with spoiler warnings" 

message: I've added "about a fictional work" or words to that effect to various sections that say removing a spoiler is wrong.  There are several cases where plot spoilers have been added to unrelated works and then marked with a spoiler warning, and in some cases the addition of the spoiler was really not relevant to the subject at all.  For instance the Roger Bacon article has something about a Bacon character in a video game.  This says:
: A villainous character claiming to be Roger Bacon appears earlier in the story but proves to be an imposter, and eventually the "real" Bacon assists the game's protagonists in disposing of the pretender.
This gives the game away to some readers, but obviously it's of at best very tangential relevance to Bacon so the whole thing, or at least the spoiler itself, could be removed from the article and the article would most likely be all the better for that.  A spoiler tag formerly on that article, on account of that plot spoiler, has recently been removed.
So I have added this:
* It is sometimes acceptable to remove a spoiler about a fictional work from an article whose primary subject is not that work.  For instance one might reasonably, if consensus for this exists, remove information about a plot twist in a film about ghosts from the article Ghost, but not from the article about that film.  If inclusion of the spoiler would otherwise suggest that a spoiler warning should be expected because of its appearance in a largely unrelated article, this is worth considering.
Perhaps this is over-egging the pudding, though.  Please edit mercilessly. --Tony Sidaway 17:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems more like a problem with WP:TRIVIA then with WP:SPOILER. --Farix (Talk) 18:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers in articles not about the fictional work itself 

message: Currently, I have noticed that in the Grim Tuesday Article, lines from the spoiler formatting are impeding on pictures. This could just be my computer, but if something can be done...? 86.132.249.228 18:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two of the images are in clear violation of our non-free content criteria policy. I've removed them as such. --Farix (Talk) 18:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grim Tuesday 

message: As much as we could argue about this 'till kingdom come, it appears that (finally) we're getting somewhere with the prop'd guideline. Can we just do a show of hands to see if the proposal has support/needs tweaking? David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 18:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There needs to be some sort of mention or acknowledgment that a part of the English Wikipedia community feel that spoiler warnings are never appropriate in an encyclopedia, perhaps at the point where the German ban on spoiler warnings is mentioned. - Nunh-huh 18:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Show of Hands 

message: *Spoiler tags are redundant when used in ==Plot== or other sections that are clearly going to discuss the plot. Using such headers is stylistically preferable to a tag.
:: As noted repeatedly on the RfC, redundancy is not a sin and these sections do not necessarily contain spoilers. Therefore spoiler warnings may be appropriate.
:::Except that we're trying to minimize spoiler warnings. Redundancy is not good if one of the redundant things, namely the spoiler warning, is something that we're trying to reduce. Phil Sandifer 19:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A plot summary that doesn't spoil the plot is (1) not comprehensive and (2) not a plot summary, but a "back-of-the-book advertisement". — Deckiller 19:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've responded to these points already on the RfC and had some support from other editors. PaddyLeahy 20:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  This is an outright invitation to fancruft. If there is nothing but in-universe comment to give, the article should be deleted.
PaddyLeahy 19:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This misunderstands the point of that proscription - the point is that such articles can be expected to rely on details from the story, as their subjects are somewhat detailed. I've rephrased. Phil Sandifer 19:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're just trying to have your cake and eat it. Given that the RfC has been bypassed by one side on this argument, edits to this page are the only way of carrying on the debate. PaddyLeahy 20:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather stop the debate, where it's clear that there is no consensus for the inclusion of spoiler warnings on much of anything, and move on to writing a policy that actually comes to a useful compromise. If you'd prefer to stubbornly insist on a minority viewpoint that is untenable, you're welcome to do that, but I'd certainly prefer you don't do it on a guideline page that has an actual chance of creating something useful. Phil Sandifer 21:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed these proscriptions 

message: Since the guideline is, in its current form, coming down against spoilers, it seems beside the point to rehash the pro-spoiler warning arguments. The purpose of that section, as I see it, is to offer an explanation for the logic of the guideline, which is important so that people, when directed to the guideline, do not see it as arbitrary. To rehash the debate implicitly promotes further fighting over spoiler warnings. If any of the counter-arguments listed sincerely have a consensus behind them, the guideline should be adjusted to fit them. Otherwise, they probably don't belong. Phil Sandifer 19:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this guidline is to be accepted, it has to reflect the consensus. The only consensus possible at present is to agree to disagree. So I've been bold and modified the guideline accordingly. (This also stops it being used as justification for rash action by proponents of one side of the argument.) PaddyLeahy 20:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am very uncomfortable with this, simply because it all but invites further fighting and makes dissent from the guideline frankly encouraged. "It's only a guideline, and the guideline has all these reasons for disagreeing..." and then we're all but where we started. There's plenty of dissent about WP:RS - and I'm one of the main dissenters - but I'd never argue that counter-arguments should be put in the guideline. Phil Sandifer 20:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seconded, Those arguments belong on this talk page or on the RFC, not on the guideline for future editors to war over. —— Eagle101Need help? 21:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rehashing the debate on the guideline page 

message: This would be better as a talk page note, where people can still understand the background of this debate without having to read archives, but doesn't clutter the actual guideline. -- Ned Scott 22:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup box it on the talk page as a summary of the debate and not to be archived - then perhaps a link on the actual page saying - "this has been the subject of heated debate - for details see [here]"--Docg 22:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I still think some explanation of the reasoning behind the guideline is worth having in the guideline, it should be noted. But I'd accept a colorful box at the start of the talk page or something. Phil Sandifer 22:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my feelings are mostly from a stylistic point of view, so whatever. -- Ned Scott 22:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: and a nice shrubbery would be pretty as well. ;) Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would spoil it - David Gerard 23:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, then just down a tree with...a herring! (our dearly beloved President says to do so, staying the course, and whatnot). Arcayne 23:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that it's beginning to look like a debate with some of the few dogged defenders of spoiler warnings.  Removing the whole thing off to an essay seems reasonable. --Tony Sidaway 03:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be because the general community has never been informed, or has it? No announcement, no tag. The debate is between those anti-spoiler editors who happened to see it and those pro-spoiler editors who happened to see it. --Kizor 04:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The general editor community doesn't complain on my talk page - it's those hotheaded enough to revert it it ways that get them blocked that seem to - David Gerard 04:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how that disproves the claim that the editor community is quite unaware of the whole thing. --Kizor 04:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been on MfD, TfD, RfC, talked about on IRC, ANI, and the mailing list. Short of sky-writing, what exactly would you prefer be done to notify more of the editor community? Phil Sandifer 04:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The MfD and TfD were both closed in under a day. There was a single tangentially related topic about it, possibly two, on AN/I. Haven't been to the mailing list or IRC, I'm afraid. Very few editors read RfC. I would prefer a note of the ongoing discussion - at the moment, a webcomic AfD gets more exposure than this. (Not an exaggeration, to be anal, they're transcluded to a single page that is on a great number of watchlists.) Change the spoiler template. Add "The status of spoiler warnings is currently being discussed; see this debate." If there indeed is such an overwhelming consensus, you can do that. --Kizor 04:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy surrounding spoiler warnings on Wikipedia 

message: This is severely disappointing: The "No disclaimer templates" policy page had a specific exception for allowing spoiler tags. It was removed because of the pressure to change spoiler policy here. The lack of the exception is now being used in the arguments here for pressure to change spoiler policy. Am I the only one who sees a problem with this? --Kizor 04:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I'm appalled it made it into NDT as an exception in the first place - David Gerard 04:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that you're extremely confident about you being right, but I'm faulting the process here. How does the validity or lack thereof excuse the use of such circular reasoning? --Kizor 04:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I didn't use the lack of the exception as an argument, so it's not clear who you're talking to here. There's more than one person behind all these "bad spoilers suck" accounts ya know - David Gerard 05:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very well aware of that. I asked why your appallement is relevant. --Kizor 05:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't using it as an argument, just saying so. For further joy, here's one from 2003 - David Gerard 10:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop bringing in things that you openly admit have nothing to do with this argument! Some of us are trying to accomplish something here, foolishly or not. --Kizor 16:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Were you genuinely surprised when editors noted in the RfC that your smug condescension and sense of superiority come across as insulting? I mean, you're using what is desperately attempting to be a serious argument as your plaything. --Kizor 16:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates 

message: If the "anti" element are seriously trying to write a guideline which allows use of spoilers in a way which minimizes distortion of article structure, they should welcome the use of . Without this tag, editors are driven to place spoiler material at the end of the article, after all the information they would like to be seen by readers who don't want to see the spoiler (e.g. those contemplating reading/viewing the work in question). By the same token, the advice (on the template page) not to use  at the end of sections should be removed. PaddyLeahy 10:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Without this tag, editors are driven to place spoiler material at the end of the article" - this would only apply if they were editing badly, i.e. warping the article for the sake of spoilers. That's the sort of thing that inspired the demolition of spoiler tags in the first place: that the expectation of them is damaging to the encyclopedia itself - David Gerard 11:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sense the agenda here is to use the stipulation that text should not be distorted to effectively ban spoiler tags despite apparently allowing them. Not very subtle. PaddyLeahy 11:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The agenda here is that writing a good encyclopedia article that conforms to fundamental content policies is far more important than any consderation of spoiler warnings, as I and many others have noted repeatedly. Because it is - David Gerard 12:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Endspoiler is the single worst part about spoiler warnings, in that it encourages restricting spoilers to a single section of an article instead of putting them where they would naturally occur in a well-structured article. By creating a spoiler section of the article Endspoiler implicitly advocates writing around spoilers. The vast majority of my objections to spoiler warnings would vanish if we stopped using them on plot summaries, stopped using endspoiler, and acknowledged that there are cases where thes poiler will have to go in the lead. Phil Sandifer 15:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is possible, and from the truckload of spoiler-warninged articles I've seen since this whole mess began, not uncommon, to use multiple spoiler and endspoiler tags. I've seen spoiler warnings often cover multiple sections until and endspoiler. Neither of those is restricting spoilers to a single article. Most of the rest of the uses of endspoiler that I've seen have been when there was a genuinely spoiler-free last section or sections, such as awards or themes. --Kizor 16:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>{{Endspoiler}}</nowiki> 

message: David Gerard has removed my deletion of the stipulation that "Plot" sections should not be marked with spoiler tags, labelling it "silly". But this is the heart of the argument. This line, which of course is the principle new item added in this draft, justifies David's (and a few other editors) precipitate action in deleting many hundreds of spoiler warnings. I have given two reasons for resisting this proscription, which have not been satisfactorially answered by the anti element:
* Plot descriptions need not and often do not contain spoilers
For instance, up until I would guess about 1700 most works of fiction were based on stock plots which the writer expected the audience to know. Therefore knowledge of the plot can hardly be described as a spoiler (so the line on the tag "Plot and/or ending details follow" misses the point... the current project page gives a much better definition of spoiler). Even today, many fictions do not rely on a surprise ending or plot twists but get their impact from the depth of characterisation etc. And many plot summaries on wikipedia do not reveal crucial plot twists. Is any of this disputed?
* Redundancy is not a sin.
F y dn't blv m why nt rmv ll vwls frm wkpd—t's wll knwn tht nglsh txt cn b rd wtht thm. Or why not remove the lead section since it is supposedly a redundant summary of the rest of the article? Re-inforcing the message that Plot sections etc do indeed give away crucial elements (in specific cases) is one of the main points of spoiler warnings. PaddyLeahy 10:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, would you have any actual complaints from actual readers who expected Wikipedia not to have spoilers and were upset to find them here? It's just that so far there's zero evidence their alleged audience actually wants them. Which strikes me as strange given how eager they are to complain about every other aspect of Wikipedia's content. Note that I mean complaints not invoked by me asking - I'm trying to gather complaints on the matter from the readership, rather than the editors, over the past six years. Thanks! - David Gerard 11:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Several contributors to the RfC including me avowed from personal experience as readers that they found spoiler tags useful. As has been pointed out repeatedly, such tags are very widely (I'd accept too widely) used in Wikipedia at present, so complaints about them not being used were not expected. Despite your trawl of the blogosphere you have only found one or two complaints about their actual use... you havn't said yet how many irate readers have rung you up, in your apparent role as the Wikipedia complaints dept, to complain about the presence of spoiler warnings.  Per my first post on this issue, it ain't broke, don't fix it. PaddyLeahy 11:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK ... from people who don't keep getting blocked for trying to edit-war their opinion in? - David Gerard 15:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Redundancy is bad when it involves adding something harmful to an article. Spoiler warnings are harmful. They introduce a neologism, they encourage restructuring the article in counter-intuitive ways, and they suggest that the level of discourse here is that of a fanforum, not a scholarly work. They may be necessary at times, but they are harmful, and their use should be reduced. Phil Sandifer 15:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was that response to my comment? If so, my comment was anti-spoilertags, and I was explaining how a plot summary is naturally assumed to have spoilers. — Deckiller 15:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was in response to the initial statement by Paddy. Phil Sandifer 15:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What was your take on the multiple suggestions for alternative phrasings in the RfC? --Kizor 16:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy 

message: OK, we have apparently zero complaints from readers about spoilers from before Phil and I started asking for such complaints.
So I went looking for general public opinions on spoilers in Wikipedia. Since the Internet public in general complain chronically about any and every aspect of our content.
Quickly hitting blogsearch.google.com with "Wikipedia spoiler", I didn't get a lot. Or indeed any. I did find an expectation of full detail in Wikipedia, e.g. , , ,  (where he spoils 300 for himself by reading Leonidas), ,  (expects spoilers, doesn't sound entirely pleased by this),  (uses Wikipedia as source for a spoiler),  ("Spoiler warnings are the scourge of modern civilisation"), , ,  ... - David Gerard 11:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent suggestion! I look forward to your data - David Gerard 16:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Some while back I went to Sky marshals looking for info. on the law enforcement officers. While giving an example of sky marshals in fiction, the entire secret of Flightplan was revealed . Very frustrating. This wasn't a spoiler within an article, but rather in an article unrelated to it. As to spoiler warnings in general--please keep them! JJL 00:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Searching for public opinion 

message: I like this write up. I think it accurately represents the consensus that has developed. The only part I'm not sure about is:
Articles about fictional characters, objects or places can be expected to be substantially made up of elements of the story in question and should not need spoiler warnings.
I'm not sure I agree. There are three types of information on fictional characters, etc. There is real-world information (who played them, who created them, etc), there is background information (who the character is, basically stuff that happens before the story starts and isn't secret) and there are the events that took place in the fictional work involving them. Only the last one involves spoilers. I think it can make sense in certain articles to include spoiler warnings before bits of information fitting into the 3rd category. Quite often those bits of information will fall into a "Plot Summary" type section, so wouldn't need a warning, but that's already mentioned in a different bullet point.
--Tango 16:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Including spoiler warnings in this class of articles would encourage sectioning spoiler information off when that is inappropriate. So it should be done only in extreme cases with a good rationale for each case. Kusma (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The first item - the one we should focus on in Wikipedia - should require spoilerish information if the article is well-written. A well-written article on a character is going to deal with criticism and analysis focusing on that character, documented fan response, writer/actor comments, etc. These are likely to be made in relation to the evolving plot, and certainly are likely to be torturous to de-integrate from the plot. Susan Ivanova is an article that I'm somewhat proud of how deals with this - but spoilers are integrated throughout the article, and with good reason. (I still think there's too much in-universe stuff, but sections like "Talia Winters" and "Departure from Babylon 5" are quite good, I think.) Phil Sandifer 16:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional characters, etc. 

message: Can we have a coherent definition of this bias-magnet? Despite all the thundering denunciations of the 'everyforum.com' mentality, most of the examples (Star Wars, Harry Potter, etc) suggested as 'known to everyone' are really only known to members of everyforum. Are the works of Barbara Taylor Bradford or Jacqueline Wilson (both massive authors) 'common knowledge'?--Nydas(Talk) 17:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Use editorial judgment on a case by case basis on article talk pages. Guideline pages give guidelines, not manuals. Phil Sandifer 17:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still exceedingly vague, even for a guideline. Why not simply remove it and strengthen the other criteria?--Nydas(Talk) 19:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, just remove this one.  While the recency of a work certainly affects whether warning are appropriate for other reasons, "common knowledge" is such an extremely high bar to set it would apply in practically no cases.  I would venture that a plot spoiler is only common knowledge if people know it without even knowing the existence of the work.  For one of the rare examples of this, I'm sure that some people think that "Jekyll and Hyde" comparisons are just a phrase and have no clue who Robert Louis Stevenson is (for those not familiar with the book, it is in fact a spoiler; that they're the same person is not revealed until near the end).  Can the same be said of even canonical examples like King Kong dying?  I doubt it.  I'm not saying that King Kong should have spoiler tags, but "common knowledge" is not the correct argument here.  SnowFire 19:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Common knowledge" doesn't mean that everyone knows it; it means that everyone could know it.  I think that the answer is to strengthen it, instead.  For example:  "Any play, book, movie, or other work that has been in publication for over a month should be considered common knowledge, and articles on such subjects should never contain spoiler tags.  Extremely high-profile works may become common knowledge much more quickly."  The exact length of time could be changed, but I think that that captures the idea nicely.  Additional advantages of this method is that it will make the eventual phasing-out of spoiler tags entirely that much easier by allowing them to be cleanly removed from the vast majority of articles; and that it will prevent the "creep" effect where people see spoiler tags on one article, incorrectly assume they're supported by policy, and start adding them to other articles. --Aquillion 19:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm...  if you admit that you want to abolish spoiler warnings from Wikipedia forever, then can you just advocate that?  Advocating an equivalent "guideline" that says warnings are (basically) never appropriate is silly; just advocate against the policy as a whole, because your statement only makes any sense from the perspective of "let's destroy spoiler warnings, but slower to cause less alarm."  My statement was from the perspective that spoiler warnings are a good idea but may not be necessary in certain topics.  SnowFire 21:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that we've just had two completely different definitions of 'common knowledge' speaks volumes about the worthlessness of it as a guideline.--Nydas(Talk) 21:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Oh, I do agree that we should eliminate spoiler warnings entirely, SnowFire.  I just also support anything that would limit them as much as possible and prevent them from spreading further. They are inherently bad things, and the encyclopedia is improved every time one is taken out...  the eventual goal, naturally, is the deletion of  itself and barring recreation or the use of warnings in another form, but that can wait until it's been removed from most articles.  The template has an inertia, I think, that these discussions are slowly sapping away. --Aquillion 14:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "Common knowledge" means a random person on the street is likely to know it. You are thinking of "public knowledge", which means that a member of the general public can find it out if they want, but they don't necessarily know it. "public knowledge" would be a very bad guideline since by definition anything that is published is public knowledge. Common knowledge is a good guideline, it's just very difficult to really determine if something is common knowledge. I think Aquillion's definition is good - if you can find a major source for the information which doesn't mention the work and has nothing to do with the work (a magazine targeted at book clubs would be a bad source, for example, a general newspaper a much better source), as you could with Jekyll and Hyde, then it is common knowledge. --Tango 10:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Works whose plot is 'common knowledge' 

message: The project page currently states:
:Scholarly reference works tend to frown on the use of neologisms like "spoiler," however, (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (neologisms)) and thus spoiler warnings are generally avoided on Wikipedia, and are controversial when they are used.
"Spoiler" isn't a neologism.  The American Heritage dictionary (4th ed, 2006) defines it thus:
spoil·er  n. [...] 5. A published piece of information that divulges a surprise, such as a plot twist in a movie. 
Compact Oxford has the definition "a news story published with the intention of reducing the impact of a related item published in a rival paper" which is clearly a very closely related definition.
May I suggest removing this sentence and finding a different reason why people don't want to include them to elevate up to the top section? JulesH 19:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think the OED definition is close enough to be useful. Neither the OED nor Merriam-Webster has it. the American Heritage definition that I'm looking at  specifies "post to a newsgroup," which does little to remove the claim of neologism. Phil Sandifer 19:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err... his says "2006", yours says "2000." His is the more updated version which outdates the last one. I'd say it does quite a lot to remove the claim of neologism... --Kizor 01:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What the hell kind of logic is that? Give me a break man, and cut out the bullshit. -- Ned Scott 10:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'm trying to say is that JulesH has a later edition of the same work, which supersedes the one Phil Sandifer uses. JulesH's edition does not have the specification which Phil Sandifer's edition has, and which Phil Sandifer uses to strengthen the claim of a neologism. If that's not clear enough, let me know so that I can try again. --Kizor 11:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: His comment made perfect sense. Try using a little logic yourself before you accuse someone, Ned. TK421 23:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neologism? 

message: To simplify how many templates we have, I've proposed this change to . -- Ned Scott 21:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template merge 

message: : Ned Scott moved these here from the main page. --Tony Sidaway 11:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline rationale 

message: This page is well-written and gives reasonable restrictions to limit the proliferation of spoiler tags. >Radiant< 10:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was also dictated more than talked out, I'm afraid. --Kizor 11:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd definitely like to hear more about what you think is missing, since I think a lot of interested parties are getting their sides of what makes a good spoiler guideline. Jussen 01:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not so much what is missing as what shouldn't be there in the first place.  Debating the details while ignoring any debate that says that something simply shouldn't be there is not "interested parties getting their sides" in any even-handed manner.  It's like writing a guideline about how Wikipedia editors should be shot, and then being open to arguments about what caliber of bullet to use, then claiming the page was widely discussed and open to all interested parties, when the biggest change--not to shoot editors at all--was not an acceptable option. Ken Arromdee 15:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This looks good 

message: "Spoiler warnings are inappropriate in articles discussing classical works of literature, poetry, film, theatre, and other fields. In grey areas, editors placing spoiler templates should attempt to justify this on the individual article's talk page and be ready to defend them in discussion."
What exactly constitues a "classic work"? Sabre Knight 12:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I think the answer is "a bias magnet." For one, Homer is classic; for another, Heinlein. --Kizor 12:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fundimentally, I agree with you; this is one of the reasons why spoiler warnings will always be inappropriate for articles.  Everyone agrees, I hope, that it would be comically absurd for us to put spoiler warnings on Homer; therefore, it follows from Kizor's statements above, we must ban spoiler warnings everywhere...  if it is a choice between putting spoiler warnings on Shakespeare and putting spoiler warnings nowhere, I think it is plain that putting them nowhere must win out. --Aquillion 14:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately everyone doesn't agree, even on Homer. See for instance Talk:Iliad#Spoiler_warning. It was also brought up in discussions here where people argued that everyone should be warned no matter how old the work is, because "readers deserve to be warned of spoilers that might reduce their enjoyment of the work", to quote an argument used. I find this commitment to warn against learning about the classics highly inappropriate for anyone writing an encyclopedia. Shanes 16:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: So we're like Cliff's Notes? Great... 24.224.148.174 20:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That would depenmd heavily upon where you are asking. In the States, the guides are everywhere. And, in the course of film plot/synopses, we do summarize the main points of the film. -  Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: At the moment, the order makes little sense. It would be better, in my opinion, to say when to use spoiler templates before saying when not to use them. Can I swap the positions of those two sections? --h2g2bob (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really wouldn't care, enjoy. Jussen 01:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swap positions of When to use and When not to use 

message: I disagree with the idea that "Plot" sections should not contain spoiler warnings (as the current text of the proposed guideline stipulates). Plot information does not always act as a spoiler, inasmuch as it does not disclose the ending or other details. Often a part of the section is a spoiler and another is not. When reading about a work that you haven't read/watched etc., you will normally want to: 1. have some general info about its plot so as to know whether you want to read/watch it; 2. avoid spoilers so as not to have your reading/watching spoiled. So it is helpful to indicate where the spoilers begin - otherwise the reader has to guess for himself which part of it to read and the articles become much less useful.
An example is the article Ghost World (film) about which I'm engaged in an edit conflict right now.  The first sentence in the "Plot" section is "The story focuses on the relationship of two teenage friends, Enid (Thora Birch) and Rebecca (Scarlett Johansson), who are outside of the normal high school social order in an unnamed suburb, often assumed to be in or around Los Angeles, where much of the movie was shot." This is rather general and is not a spoiler; indeed it is very likely that a future viewer would like to know it. That's why the tag was placed after it and before everything else. --91.148.159.4 13:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such information should go in the lead anyway, where we do not generally put spoiler tags. Phil Sandifer 13:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clear that in many cases such information may be too long and detailed or otherwise inappropriate for the lead (I don't know about this particular article). And in any case, the editors who are removing the tags on a mass scale at the moment don't bother to move the info to the lead either. --91.148.159.4 14:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is also spilling over into System Shock 2 where people are arbitrarily declaring they have the right to remove these tags, despite nothing being finalised yet. DarkSaber2k 14:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "right?"  Editors don't need to be specifically granted the right to try and improve articles.  Spoiler tags are, regardless of the debate here, optional at the very least--I don't think anyone is seriously arguing to mandate them.  Starting a debate over spoilers on a specific article where they are objected to is therefore quite approprate...  given how controversal they are it's fair to say that users shouldn't just add them without discussing first, and that spoiler tags that were originally added without discussion should (when an objection arises) be removed until an agreement is reached. --Aquillion 17:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're saying that each and every addition of a spoiler tag requires prior consensus (like a change to a policy page), while a removal of a spoiler tag does not. The debate is not over yet, but you have already invented a rule that a spoiler tag is "guilty until the contrary is proved". This is just ... wild. Common decency, if not a specific rule, requires that one should achieve consensus, and a clear one, before undoing what has been a general, traditional practice here on Wikipedia for years and years and years. And no, nobody has been, as you suggested, "starting a debate over spoilers on a specific article where they are objected to", or even checking whether some editor happened to foresee, in 2005, the current wave of anti-spoiler-tag-ism, and to discuss it on the talk page. No, this is being done quite automatically, see e.g. here. --91.148.159.4 18:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spoiler tags have never been a traditionally accepted policy.  Even in the past there have been credible attempts to get the  tag deleted, and many Wikiprojects (e.g. Final Fantasy) eschew spoiler tags entirely and remove them from articles they encompass.  That is not the sign of a healthy or accepted practice...  many users, like you, have seen the official-looking spoiler tags someone whipped up and mistakenly assumed it was common practice, causing them to spread, but they have always been controversal.  Now, it is perfectly fair to be bold and make controversal edits; for a long time (whether they knew that it was controversal or not) many people have been adding tags without discussion.  If you're challenged on it, though, you should step back and discuss, not add the edit again. --Aquillion 02:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, to use your wording - if your deletion of an old spoiler warning is challenged, you should step back and discuss, not delete it again. Second, casting a glance at the archives, I see only one attempt to delete the template (May 2006), and no or almost no trace of people opposing the very existence of spoiler warnings prior to that time. But even if there had been a noticeable opposition to spoiler warnings as such for a long time, still the presence of a large number of people who use and/or advocate spoiler warnings means that the right thing would have been to address this on the policy discussion pages instead of embarking on a crusade across thousands of articles. A question about principles should be decided on the level of principles, i.e. here. If you know that an edit and the principle behind it is highly controversial, then you are not supposed to make it at all. If you make it, it is just an invitation to edit war, not a WP:BRD thing. --91.148.159.4 03:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  spoiler tags in plot sections 

message: Instead of outright remove spoilers, why don't we just add an option to turn them on or off globally? CDClock 17:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, do you mean turn them on or off per user preference, like the way the date is presented? That could solve some, most, or nearly all of the problems mentioned. Milo 06:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean a hide/show option like the current invitation to Wikimania I get when I sign in?  As someone who is in favor of spoiler tags, this sounds like a fantastic idea.  Of course, there are two issues here.  The "easy" problem is figuring out what the default for users not signed in should be (my vote is for "on," though I predict this breaking down along "party lines," so to speak).  The "hard" problem has to do with feasibility.  I'm not talking about how much work it would take.  If it is a truly worthwhile task then the amount of effort required is trivial.  The question becomes whether or not this is possible.  The mechanics of the Wikimania invite seems to suggest that it is, but I'm no expert on these kinds of things (that is, programming code and the like). Postmodern Beatnik 20:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option to turn spoilers on/off? 

message: In episodic works, is it appropriate to include information that gives away critical plot or character information from future episodes? I can see the reasoning behind much of WP:SW, but seems to allow for the inclusion of such information, which, I would argue, a reasonable reader should expect not to be present. Someone reading an article about the first episode of a 6 year TV series shouldn't have to worry that he might encounter information about the last episode, should he?   — Aldaron • T/C   15:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? A small percentage of secondary sources discussing the first episode will do so in isolation of the last episode, and surely any critical overview of the series as a whole will address the first episode, which should thus be reflected in that article. For me, part of the problem here is that spoiler warnings are, on one level, a warning against unexpected information. That is to say, if there's a warning, there's a reason not to expect that sort of information in that section. We ought not train Wikipedia readers to be surprised by thorough information. Quite the opposite, it should be assumed that Wikipedia is going to contain a lot of information. Phil Sandifer 15:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: We can try to be reasonable about this. When discussing The Hobbit, information about things that happen in the Lord of the Rings should be fair game if necessary for the encyclopedic nature of the article, but we shouldn't have inserted information like "Harry meets Dumbledore, who will be killed by Snape in Book 6" into Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone when Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince wasn't even released yet. Kusma (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would expect any good article on The Hobbit to allude to the Lord of the Rings, and the role of Gollum's "birthday present" in that larger work.  Someone who hadn't read The Lord of the Rings would not know to expect that, but I don't think that means we shouldn't contain that information in the Hobbit article. --Tony Sidaway 16:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an excellent example, I think - obviously The Hobbit has to mention the significance of the birthday present. On the other hand, I'm unconvinced of the benefit of mentioning "Snape kills Dumbledore" in the article for the first Harry Potter. Again, if you discard concern for spoilers one way or another (that is, to ignore both "we cannot reveal" and "we must reveal" arguments), these decisions really do make themselves in what seems to me a respectful way. Phil Sandifer 17:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Yes, the significance of Snape's later death isn't apparent in the first books, from what little I know of them.  Obviously putting gratuitous and unrelated information into articles is wrong, but that has nothing to do with whether than information is a spoiler, but relates to how the information in the article must serve to illuminate the immediate subject matter and its overall context.  But if for instance an event in a later book is foreshadowed by the one under discussion, that should be mentioned if it's significant.  And this also applies to cases where, as with Lord of the Rings, the author later decided to adapt elements of the earlier work to construct the later work. --Tony Sidaway 18:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that this is bad, but I think it's bad largely because it's original research, not because it's inappropriate for the article. Phil Sandifer 18:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Putting gratuitous irrelevant spoilers into works of fiction can be a form of trolling, although it may also be due to cluelessness or a kind of free speech zealotry.  It's disruptive and can be dealt with via dispute resolution or, in more egregious cases, administrator action. --Tony Sidaway 18:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of spoilers 

message: I've rewritten this section as follows:
*Spoiler warnings may be used in articles whose primary subject is fictional where the editors proposing them can provide a compelling and justifiable reason to insert one. Such reasons should show that the spoiler tag does not diminish article quality, and that knowledge of the spoiler would substantially diminish many readers' enjoyment of the work. 
*A spoiler warning is a courtesy note to readers, such as those who find articles from search engine results. It is a reminder note, and never guaranteed.  It must never affect article quality.
* Very rarely, a spoiler warning may appear in the article lead.  If this can be justified, the warning should be placed at the top of the article. The presumption should be that article lead should not warn about plot spoilers.
* Wikipedia provides the  tag to mark spoilers.
I've reworded the first piece to remove the requirement that a spoiler tag should improve quality, and replace it by a requirement that it doesn't diminish quality.  I've also trimmed some detail.
--Tony Sidaway 10:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When and how to use spoiler warnings 

message: I just want to say I disagree utterly with removing spoiler tags from sections headed "plot".
IMO the systematic presence of spoiler tags for all detailed plot discussions was a good thing. Quite apart from the courtesy to readers, it also represented a valuable on-page encouragement to editors to give a full and comprehensive plot summary (as per say Sight and Sound magazine), and not to hold back on key plot twists. 
I don't see that the spoiler tags were causing any harm at all, but I do see significant harm in removing them.  I'm also concerned that this is a change of policy has been made by a small clique of activist editors in a cupboard, without most WP editors having any idea that the change was being pushed.  
I suspect when they do notice, I won't be the only one coming here to say: this proposed change is a mistake.  Thank you.  Jheald 17:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be under the impression that this was for benefit of the readers. As far as I can tell, the readers have been a fringe issue. What this is about is that we are a real encyclopedia, and we need to prove it by looking like one (as opposed to proving it by being a useful reference.) I dearly wish that there was nothing but bitterness behind this little rant, but the need for spoiler warnings was dismissed by reducing works with them to a couple of ridiculously non-representative examples, such as the works of Shakespeare, and when I tried to point out that the entire genres of detective novels, thrillers et al were dependent on the lack of foreknowledge, the response from one person of this small clique was, quote, "Sucks for them." --Kizor 18:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer is a bit subtler than that. Ironically, the need to be encyclopedic is such that the more important a secret is to the subject of an article, the more important it is to reveal that secret openly, early on, and throughout the article in dealing with that subject. It's trivial to withhold the ending to Shrek 2 from an article because the ending isn't that important to the film as a cultural object. I cannot imagine an article on And Then There Were None that doesn't deal heavily and constantly with the ending. And, of course, the ending is the best part of that book. This is the problem with reader concern. In general, the more pressing a reader's interest in not knowing the ending is, the more pressing the encyclopedic interest in dealing with the ending constantly through the article. Phil Sandifer 18:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. The bigger the spoiler (e.g. Fight Club, Crying Game, Soylent Green), the greater the requirement to reveal it really soon for the article to be encyclopedic - David Gerard 01:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Most of Wikipedia knows about the changes. The spoiler tags had a link to the RfC transcluded for several days, the issue has been all over the e-mail forums, and numerous talkpages have established threads relating to the issue. — Deckiller 01:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure there will be more waves of people who don't know what's going on, but it's unlikely that any new conclusions would be reached even with that added input. -- Ned Scott 02:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It has been pretty widely circulated.  All the usual places and then some.  And the many thousands of edits you'd think would have pulled some people in.  And they did, but not as many as I expected.  A week ago I didn't expect us to make so much progress, but that progress did happen and I think it was because we realised firstly how many terribly misapplied spoiler tags there were, and secondly how little the readers care about their removal. --Tony Sidaway 03:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty damn sure deleting thousands of tags just to 'test a reaction' or somesuch is a violation of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Kargath64 06:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed. I've removed maybe three thousand spoiler tags in the past week or so, and I'm still surprised how little fuss there's been - David Gerard 22:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, yes. There's the matter that doing any kind of significant damage to removals on that scale would take an equally massive movement - a movement of contributors who would have to be idealistic enough to not be intimidated by going against several thousand spoiler removals by hand and to not mind the fact that any gains they'd make would be almost instantly reverted. This hypothetical army of hardheads would also have to have the temper and the insight to restrict themselves to two, three articles a person, because a larger effort would be considered disruptive and grounds for blocking, as you and Sandifer have shown and demonstrated. You can call the lack of fulfilling impossible criteria implicit agreement if you wish. --Kizor 07:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me just add (in case new readers don't know where to find it, or didn't know it existed, like I didn't) that there is actually a straw poll still open on this very question, on a general RfC page on the spoiler question, with votes still being added on both sides at this time. Jheald 08:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It might be appropriate at this stage to turn the RFC page into a redirect to this talk page.  This is where all the heavy lifting has been done. --Tony Sidaway 18:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might - no, it would - be interpreted as an attempt to stifle opposing opinions. Let the discussion run its course, and let the debate remain in view for posterity. It's not like you have anything to fear. --Kizor 19:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And just because I'm seething, it's quite telling, and very descriptive of this whole debacle, that you describe this page as the one that matters, as opposed to the one dedicated to talking things out in detail and establishing consensus.(I for one was completely unimpressed to see the anti-spoiler crowd declare it had overwhelming consensus and rework this guideline in its image after two, three days of discussion in an obscure area with no public announcement whatsoever, and then ignore the event when a public announcement was made and the "overwhelming consensus" evaporated.) --Kizor 19:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No spoiler tags in "plot" ? 

message: To along with the spoilers guideline, we need a dedicated guideline for specifying that except in exceptional circumstances, plot summaries should not be longer than two or three paragraphs.  Pengo put it really well here: "Do we need "spoiler" tags to warn the reader that there's a terribly written "synopsis" following? No, we need better written plot summaries." --ragesoss 06:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Writing about fiction is that away (WP:WAF). --Farix (Talk) 10:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the writing about fiction guideline has a somewhat different purpose.  The length of plot summaries are tangential to the main thrust of the guideline.--ragesoss 14:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WAF is more about fiction articles in general. It's not really about how actual plot summaries in the main articles of works should be treated. There are so many ridiculous misunderstandings WRT plot summaries (only a fool would expect analytical secondary sources in every plot summary, and each sentence doesn't need to begin with "fictional" or "the player or reader realizes that the characters encounter..."). I have a lot of experience with plot summaries and fictional articles in general; I can start a draft within a week or two if I'm up to it. However, two or three paragraphs is generally too short for certain works. A plot summary MoS would give ideal summaries for each type of work (for example, a 40 hour RPG would have a longer summary than a 2 hour movie). — Deckiller 14:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A while ago, the popular culture expert and Wikipedian Phil Sandifer produced a good, brief, encyclopedic plot summary for the second Doctor Who story, The Daleks.  It was reverted at the time, but as I'd more recently done something similar on the first story, An Unearthly Child, Phil happened to mention his earlier work to me.  I had a look at it and have restored it to the article because it's an excellent example of writing in out-of-universe style.  It's true that it would be better to have more external sources, and in the case of forty-year-old Doctor Who or Star Trek episodes there's plenty available.  It's just that we haven't got around to citing them yet. --Tony Sidaway 18:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why don't you do all the WP articles on books of the Bible too, while you're at it?  Don't you think they could use your "out-of-universe" perspectives too?  Seriously, if it's good enough for Sight and Sound to summarise what the viewer actually sees on screen, it should be good enough for Wikipedia too. Jheald 19:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This guideline needs a companion: [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (plot summaries)]] 

message: A discussion has emerged on the talk page for the Lost episode Talk:Tricia_Tanaka_Is_Dead, regarding the use of what I'll call 'forward spoilers'. What I mean by this, is giving away important plot points for some episode in an article for a preceding episode. If I'm following a television series, I'm assuming that the spoiler waring only pertains to the plot of the article's episode, so that I can read the article without fear of fining out important things about episodes I haven't seen yet. I would like this policy to include something about only using backward spoilers, or marking forward spoilers especially.
This is not about removing information, just about structuring it so that an episode listing can be used by people who haven't seen the entire show yet. I think this is a significant part of the audience for Wikipedia episode listings, and implementing this small guideline would not hurt the encyclopedic value of wikipedia, but rather add to it. risk 12:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  If, for example, an episode of a show is primarily notable and famous for setting up something that happens in a later episode, that should be the primary focus of the earlier episode's article and mentioned in the lead, not merely something that is buried later on.  I don't think, overall, that 'giving away important plot points' is a worthwhile consideration in any case--what matters is covering the important parts of the subject as clearly and completely as possible. --Aquillion 18:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thus making the encyclopaedia less useful still for its readers. --Kizor 18:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  It would make the encyclopedia less useful for its readers if we removed or concealed vital, central information on an episode's significance; thus, we should not remove or conceal descriptions of important parts of the plot, even parts from later episodes. If part of episode 7 belongs in the lead section to episode 1, that is where it belongs, and leaving it out would make Wikipedia less useful to anyone who wants to use it as a scholarly reference. --Aquillion 04:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Fair enough, it can be significant to make these kinds of spoilers. What should be noted is that it's not necessarily the sort of thing you expect, even when a section has been tagged with the spoiler template, as one might take this to mean 'only spoilers about the subject of the article'. Perhaps a compromise would be to try and put these spoilers (where possible) in a separate section labeled 'Significance for future episodes' (or something better), which gives a clear signal to the unsuspecting reader. Anybody not ready to read about that could stop there, and there would be no need for any kind of extra spoiler tags. And if the bit of information is not significant enough for its own section, then it's probably best to keep it in the article for the future episode anyway. risk 02:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. The quality of writing in Wikipedia seems to have suffered greatly over the last couple of years, and part of that stems from trying to split everything up into discrete sections, as if filling in a form, rather than to write a coherent article. Information like that mentioned in this example belongs in a particular place in the discussion, and arbitrarily ripping it out and placing it elsewhere harms the whole piece. PeteVerdon 00:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forward Spoilers 

message: We seem to keep changing the nutshell every few minutes. Perhaps that is a good indication that the guideline hasn't matured to the point to be summarized in just a couple of lines. But here is another possible suggestion
:Wikipedia contains spoilers and strives to be a scholarly work. Therefore, spoiler warnings should be limited to articles about fictional works when there is a compelling reason, based on consensus, for the reader to be warned.
Farix (Talk) 00:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever gets it across in the minimum number of words - David Gerard 01:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehh, I just noticed someone erasing every spoiler tag it seems using AWB, saw it because Barge of the Dead appeared on my watchlist, I don't see it explicitly written in this guideline anywhere, but does this mean spoiler tags are now officially out or what? Homestarmy 02:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, they're out.  If you think an article needs one, argue a reason that editors will find compelling enough on the talk page.  Pay due attention to the requirements that the tags will not interfere with article quality, particularly neutral point of view, completeness, etc. --Tony Sidaway 02:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But since this particular article's creation by myself, I think i'm the only editor that really cares at all about the article anyway, and I was already sort of convinced to start with that the plot summary basically gives almost everything in the episode and constitutes a pretty big spoiler, am I expected to go find people to make them interested in debating with me first for all articles? Seems like a lot of trouble for an episode of Star Trek..... Homestarmy 02:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looking at the article, the spoiler template was unnecessary as the section's title provided adequate enough warning. However, the article does have two problems, one is that the article is entirely a plot summery, which violates WP:NOT#IINFO. The other is that plot summery is written from an in-universe POV, which violates WP:WAF. --Farix (Talk) 02:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Short is good.  The nutshell is even shorter. --Tony Sidaway 02:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed. If we must keep the spoiler tag, we might as well mention the process (consensus), the realm to which spoilers logically should be confined (fiction), and...well, I don't see any reason to burden it with needlessly bureaucratic verbiage. As noted above, I think that spoilers harm the overall mission of being an uncensored encyclopedia, but I'm not against editors using a good, brief guideline. --Edwin Herdman 02:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "If your article contains , it probably sucks and might as well contain "? - David Gerard 12:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutshell 

message: I've restored the nutshell (how did that get deleted)?  I encountered the wording:
: Scholarly reference works of the sort Wikipedia aspires to be do not usually warn for spoilers
Previously this had read:
: Scholarly reference works of the sort Wikipedia aspires to be do not usually discuss the plots of works of fiction
The latter made more sense in context, so I've restored it. --Tony Sidaway 05:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I explained above (or in an edit summary), this doesn't make sense. The whole paragraph is illogical. Websites often use spoiler warnings, okay. Scholarly reference works don't usually detail plot, okay. The two sentences are not related. The bit about spoiler being a neologism does not make sense in this context at all. "Because of this, spoiler warnings should generally be avoided" does not logically follow from any of the preceding sentences. Changing it from "discuss the plots..." to "warn for spoilers" makes it halfway decent. However, the whole paragraph should bit split up, as 'spoiler' being a neologism and scholarly works not using spoiler warnings are two completely different ideas. --- RockMFR 08:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find the new wording a little confusing but perhaps that's me.  If any scholarly works warn for spoilers, it's news to me. --Tony Sidaway 15:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As there are millions of "scholarly" works in existence, there is a high probability that some of them use spoiler warnings, or something similar to it. It very well may be that no such works use spoiler warnings, but stating that as fact is something that we simply cannot do. Maybe something a bit stronger than "usually" could be used here though. Perhaps "almost never"? --- RockMFR 17:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The previous version, which was removed, said: "Scholarly reference works of the sort Wikipedia aspires to be do not usually discuss the plots of works of fiction."  I support that version.  So yes, I think we agree. "Almost never" isn't necessary, "do not usually" is adequate. --Tony Sidaway 18:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're missing my point. The old version was not good because the statement was entirely irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether scholarly references works discuss the plots of works of fiction (which they do, actually). It matters whether they warn for spoilers. --- RockMFR 18:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Tony, why are you asking why the nutshell was removed when you replied to my comment about it, and you can see the page history? The guideline doesn't need a nutshell, it's completely pointless to use one on such a short guideline, and it's just another bickering point. -- Ned Scott 09:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd no idea you were seriously suggesting removal of the nutshell. I thought you were just making a flippant comment about the brevity of the guideline (which I think is something we should all be very proud of). I still have no idea why you want to remove the nutshell, which gives the basics of the guidelines and is obviously a lot easier to digest than a couple of pages of prose. --Tony Sidaway 15:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are actually good arguments in general against the use of nutshells. The same reasons infoboxes drive some people crazy. Summing something up in a few words without distorting it or dumbing it down requires skill. But maybe the advantages/disadvantages of nutshells is not best discussed here. Carcharoth 17:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I had some sand in my vagina. I still think it's silly, but I don't really feel strongly about it. -- Ned Scott 21:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]'s edit of 05:29, 27 May 2007 

message: This guideline implies that there is a preferred way of reading - without knowing the ending ahead of time. Not everyone reads that way. Many people, for example, flip to the end of mysteries in order to figure out the end before they read the rest of the book. Wikipedia should not privilege one kind of reading practice over another in its guidelines. Awadewit Talk 14:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's silly. Those that flip to the end of mysteries can skim the article looking for spoiler warnings and then read them. No problem. TK421 16:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reading practices 

message: Although it doesn't seem to have been raised here as a problem, someone has removed the following statement:
: Spoiler warnings must not interfere with neutral point of view, completeness, encyclopedic tone, or other elements of article quality.
As it's the core of this guideline, obviously removing it without discussion was an error, so I've restored it. --Tony Sidaway 15:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That they were doing so was the impetus for the original MFD - David Gerard 12:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "neutral point of view, completeness, encyclopedic tone, or other elements of article quality." 

message: Dolly_zoom appears to run into problems with the guideline as it is a non fiction article with mention of spoilers for various films yet to remove that many spoilers would probably disimprove the article .
Any Comments   .Garda40 16:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would question whether those are actual spoilers. Remember that a spoiler is not a simple plot detail, but an important point that would "ruin" the viewer's enjoyment if the point was reveled  before the viewer saw the movie. --Farix (Talk) 17:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It might be spoiler-ish but it doesn't need a spoiler tag.That's logic I can't fellow unless you mean just for one item   .Garda40 17:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: We don't put spoiler warnings into non-fiction articles, so there are no problems here.  The discussion of what goes into the article should focus purely on article quality and those who want to know about aspects of the real world should set to one side their pre-occupations and avoid imposing the technical requirements of theirpreferred style of reading fiction upon  the contents of encyclopedia articles. --Tony Sidaway 18:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dolly zoom article 

message: Why is this in the guideline? This completely goes against Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. Yes, a good editor will provide reasons for every edit; however, it is not required. If someone disagrees with your edit, THEN you should provide compelling reasons. --- RockMFR 17:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The presumption is that you don't insert these unsightly stylistic blunders without a compelling reason. The justification for this presumption is that spoiler warnings have provably compromised the balance, encyclopedic tone and quality of our articles in the past.  This doesn't mean you can't be bold, or that the guideline doesn't have exceptions (all guidelines do, they're not bright-line policy). --Tony Sidaway 18:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but you don't need to provide one right away. As long as you aren't inserting spoiler tags mindlessly, it's fine. However, in the guideline's current form, the nutshell incorrectly states that the editor must provide one. By changing it to must "have" a compelling reason, I think it will be clearer and more correct. --- RockMFR 18:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a nuance, I agree.  Please remove the word "provide" and replace it with "have" or something. --Tony Sidaway 22:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd be better to remove 'compelling reasons' altogether, and replace it with 'recently released films' and so on. The only reason for keeping it is 'not a white line', an idiosyncratic principle which is not followed by the preceding 'when not to use spoilers' section, nor anywhere else in Wikipedia.--Nydas(Talk) 09:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh I don't want to hard code stuff.  I want people editing individual articles to make up their own mind.  This is a style issue and I don't really want to have a consistent style across Wikipedia because it isn't that kind of project.  Popular culture articles will tend to be influenced by internet notions like "canon" and "spoilers", which we can't really eliminate.  The real problem we had until recently, as I see it, was that those internet conventions leaked into articles on literature and even the sciences.  We've done what we need to eliminate that drift but I don't want people editing, say, articles about recent episodes of Lost or Prison Break, to feel that they need to look in a list of exceptions for an excuse to place a spoiler tag.  If the readers can be expected to want a warning, it's reasonable to put one there. This is why I'm not removing spoiler tags from articles about Doctor Who episodes that have aired first more recently than May two years ago.  The other Doctor Who people didn't object to that, in fact they don't even seem to be much interested in the subject at all.  But I'm erring on the generous side because this is a big change. --Tony Sidaway 22:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Recently released films' isn't hard code. And again I must point to the 'hard code' of the 'when to not use spoilers' section. As for your personal style issues, it has been possible to turn off spoilers for sometime now.--Nydas(Talk) 19:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requiring a compelling reason 

message: When I use a search engine rather than getting to this site first, I come across many commercial sites which have lifted their text direct from this and decorate it with advertisements. I think that the problem of spoilers is so significant that one of those sites will surely come up with the idea of putting spoiler warnings into all the places where it is being removed from this one. So is this decision mere precursory for the arrival of a competing site? Despite all the touting, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia – the amusements of popular culture are traditionally beneath the purview of such works, and spoiling them therefore is likewise not going to be done. 
[My own experience with spoilers is that I read Alva Rogers's Requiem for Astounding (on the shelves in the high school library) and it ruined all the plot lines of the golden-age science fiction stories for me (the Lensman, Foundation, Baldy, and Gallegher series, as well as the works of A. E. van Vogt) because the stories were out of print. But worse than this was the magazine "Protoculture Addicts", an anime fan magazine put out by people who had access to an entire series years before it became legally available in the West. It had pictures of anime characters, which attracted one to read the text, where there were spoilers.] Sobolewski 19:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should we be concerned about a "competing site"? That would be a good development. Wikipedia is freely available for any purpose. I hope that a competitor provides spoiler warnings for those who want it and Wikipedia can get on with the business of creating an encyclopedia. --dm (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you don't, somebody else will 

message: As I understand it, Wikipedia aims to provide an encyclopediac reference for users looking for information.
There are three types of information-searchers Wikipedia needs to cater for:
-Those who are looking for a simple "what is it?" about something (and with fictional media NOT necessarily learn the major plot points)
-Those who are looking for a particular detail or fact about something
-Those who wish to do detailed research on a topic, and gain all the info Wikipedia has about it.
Removing spoiler tags and bringing all the important essentially prohibits the first group from using Wikipedia in relation to works of fiction or media.  First category users who have not used wikipedia before will come and quickly get burned, and learn not to Wikipedia any more for that sort of search.
However, if we DO have spoiler tags, we cater for Category 1 users, whilst still serving the interests of Category 2 and 3 users.
Kargath64 07:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All disclaimer templates have be claimed to "do no harm", as they may be ignored. Nevertheless, Wikipedia has chosen not to have more important and more useful warnings on medical content, nudity, or content that is offensive or prohibited to people of some religions. We do that because Wikipedia is not censored, and disclaimer templates are self-censorship (and often violate NPOV about whether some content is objectionable or not). As for whether spoiler warnings do or don't do harm, read Phil Sandifer's arguments in the MfD or the rest of the 400-600k of discussion at the RfC. Kusma (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disclaimers don't necessarily "censor" Wikipedia.  They just warn people that they are approaching a touchy topic.  --Luigifan 11:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Where is the "censorship" with spoiler tags?  What part of the MediaWiki code deletes text between beginning and ending spoiler tags? Really, c'mon... Kargath64 01:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If knowing the plot of a fictional work ruins it for you, please avoid reading encyclopedia articles about works you haven't viewed or read. --Tony Sidaway 03:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please don't do the "if you don't like it here, go away!" dance, Tony. We should be working to make things better for *everyone*, not just you.Kargath64 03:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony's remark does not seem like he's telling you to go away. He is right, the best way to avoid spoilers, warning present or not, is to avoid the Wikipedia article on the work of fiction. People can always avoid spoilers by using the table of contents to stay clear of the plot section, they could get a quick summary from the lead, and then skip to what ever other information they are looking for. If you click on a header on the TOC, it takes you to that section, avoiding potential spoilers in the plot section. Category one users, as you so called them, risk finding spoilers in articles with or without the tag. The question remains: if the majority of them were taken away, would users and readers really miss them? There haven't been that many complaints so far as Tony has pointed out.Darthgriz98 03:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they can't. A point strongly driven by anti-spoiler editors is that spoilers central to the work should be placed in the lead, at which point it will be impossible for casual users to get any kind of information without being spoiled. --Kizor 04:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why hide something so important to the story?  For a spoiler to be in the lead, it would be of absolute great importance to the plot. Wikipedia leads are supposed to outline the main points of the article, if a massive spoiler is a crucial main point, then it should go in the lead.  Hiding spoilers in the lead in this case would be inhibiting the thoroughness of Wikipedia. Darthgriz98 04:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  This reminds me of the Monty Python sketch in which a couple walk into a department store intending to buy a bed.  Things go fine until they ask about mattresses.  The assistant puts a bag over his head.  Another explains: "I'm sorry, you have to say dog kennel to Mr Lambert, because if you say mattress he puts a bucket over his head. I should have explained. Otherwise he's perfectly all right."  He won't take it off until everybody climbs into a tea chest and sings Jerusalem.  There just has to be a way of writing an encyclopedia article about something without being scared in case someone reading it finds out that the butler did it. --Tony Sidaway 06:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: But Wikipedia isn't a blurb, it's an encyclopedia article on the movie or book that tells the whole plot.  Then the reader should look through for what they are looking for and not scroll the whole way to the ending.  DarthGriz98 22:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said it was a "blurb", I just likened it to that. You can look up something without necessarily wanting to know the ending. What if I want to know  say, the setting of Jules Verne's "Black Diamonds", but am not wanting to know who kills who and where (not that anyone does really - this is just an example).--MacRusgail 16:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Then find a review or just limit yourself to the lead section, which should give a brief one paragraph overview of the work. --Farix (Talk) 22:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What the anti-tagging brigade wants is the lead section to contain ALL major spoilers in the story.  It's sheer zealous idiotry. Kargath64 08:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, if you don't want to know something, you shouldn't be reading an encyclopedia article about it. There are other places to get this information and an encyclopedia cannot cater to everyone who wants to remain ignorant about certain facts. You don't want to read spoilers, but others don't want to see pictures of human anatomy or read criticism of their religious beliefs, or learn about a bit of history that might diminish their patriotic feelings. When a spoiler is revealed, all that's been ruined is some enjoyment of a particular work of fiction. Others that read Wikipedia risk having their whole world view shattered. These risks have to be borne by the reader. Wikipedia should only be concerned with facts, not on how those facts might affect some people.  --dm (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is rubbish. There's a difference between finding out a little, and finding out too much. Wikipedia was catering to people who wanted to find out just enough, but not too much. Now it's not. I've looked up plenty of things on here, such as books, films, TV etc, without wanting to know the whole caboodle, plot twists etc. It's not black and white. --MacRusgail 18:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course there's a difference between finding out a little and finding out too much. That's my point. But "too much" is in the mind of the reader and we shouldn't be saying where that line is. What we should avoid is too little information. That means we should be erring on the side of inclusiveness. As to your point that Wikipedia used to cater to those who didn't want to read spoilers, we shouldn't keep doing something wrong simply because we used to.  --D. Monack | talk 19:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why removing spoiler tags kneecaps Wikipedia 

message: To those in favour of removal of the spoiler template, do not go on deleting sprees until consensus is reached here and at the RfC.  
Remember Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point ! Kargath64 03:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only the minority disrupts. When majority disrupts, it is called consensus :-P -- ReyBrujo 03:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when is about 3 editors the majority?  Oh, and no thanks for moving my reminder to the bottom of the page, where people will see it *last*. Kargath64 04:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm... talk page guidelines say all new stuff should go to the bottom. Axem Titanium 04:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  As opposed to the ~50:30 editor majority polled about the spoiler-tagging issue, is the speedy deleting spree supported by descendents of The Silent Majority? Milo 05:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A simple reminder, in light of recent actions by some 

message: Thank you for purging so many of those unnecessary spoiler tags. Very rarely is there a reason to include a spoiler tag. They almost always appear in sections already identified in some ways as revealing plot, therefore the tag is redundant far more often than not. The tag invokes POV by saying that one part of plot information is more spoilable than another. Any criteria attempting to make use objective will only violate restrictions against arbitrary inclusion criteria. Thank you, thank you! Doczilla 05:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your simple position on the underlying issue is well-known. But please commit to approval of their consensus process violations, if you do approve. Your answer may be reminded to you as reason to railroad your side, if you are ever in the minority on any future issue. Milo 07:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you 

message: I'm consistently flabbergasted when I see that someone has added a detailed plot summary days, if not weeks in advance of a movie being released.  I think this is a very valid time to use the spoiler warning tag even in the plot section, because who in their right mind would expect someone to have access to any REAL spoilers before the movie is even available for public consumption?  This happened most recently with Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, which had a lengthy synopsis in place over a week before the movie hit theaters.  I think we should allow this exception to continue to be a place where warnings are kept in effect. --Bishop2 13:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove such summaries - they're not based on reliable sources until the movie comes out. Phil Sandifer 14:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A valid time to use Spoiler Warnings in the Plot section? 

message: Just a question - on a number of pages, this one for example, we have solution tags (and sometime spolier tags when they should be solution tags). Anyone know if there's a debate on the removal of them on the same premise?Pedro |  Chat   15:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove them when they are clearly unnecessary like in the example you gave. Kusma (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the most unnecessary and redundant tag I have ever seen. Remove them please.DarthGriz98 15:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone tell me why we have a solutions tag? It seems rather condescending to the reader, more so then some uses of the spoiler tag. --Farix (Talk) 21:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got rid of most of the redundancy for this tag. I left most of the more questionable usages alone. --Farix (Talk) 02:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you to all for the consensus and clarity. We now have a reference if challenged by other editors, which is they key thing. Pedro |  Chat   07:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spolier tag / Solution tag 

message: I've nominated a slew of duplicate spoiler templates and one disclaimer for deletion tonight. You can find most of them at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 1 with an earlier nomination at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 30#Template:Sgspoiler. This also doesn't count the half-dozen or so duplicate spoiler templates that Ned Scott redirected instead of put up for deletion. --Farix (Talk) 02:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, good, love to see some cleanup around here. Will be voting on this. --Edwin Herdman 02:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After this, I suggest targeting the various spoiler redirects, such as . Most of them are unlikely to be used again. I am thinking of restoring some of Ned's redirected spoiler templates, orphan them, and then send them to TfD. --Farix (Talk) 11:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Farix. I had no idea that create-happy editors were stinking up the harbor (imho) with an onslaught of spoiler templates while the edit war over the main template rages on. Le sigh. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 15:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be that hard on the creators. Most all of them were created in good faith long before the recent debate over spoiler warnings began last month. All of them, however, just are not needed regardless of what the outcome of the debate would have been. --Farix (Talk) 16:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for Deletion nominations 

message: I've removed this pending worthwhile arguments for its inclusion. The two arguments advanced so far have been very weak. The first, that we don't set hard rules or 'white lines' in guidelines, is a principle not followed elsewhere in the article, specifically the section which says that classics should not (usually) have spoilers. Most Wikipedia guidelines do set hard rules. Imagine if WP:WEB had 'compelling reasons' instead of actual criteria.
The second, that these things should be hammered out on talk pages, sounds superficially reasonable, except that it was a principle totally ignored by the anti-spoiler brigade in their mass removal campaign.--Nydas(Talk) 08:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted you. Inclusion should be justified on the talk page. The default is no spoiler tags. Kusma (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Inclusion of spoiler tags no more has to be justified than any edit one may do, whether removal or deletion. It is a clear double standard to insist upon muddled guidelines for inclusion. The default of no spoiler tags is not a policy, nor is it even consensus. Even some of the anti-spoiler camp have said that new fiction articles should have spoilers.--Nydas(Talk) 09:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to have strict anti-tag guidelines to prevent nonsense like spoiler warnings on the works of Plato (see here). I don't have a problem with including a spoiler warning in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows for the first couple months after it is released, but it shouldn't be hard to find a compelling argument for that. Kusma (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do we even need to have a 'compelling argument' on the talk page? Why not have 'spoiler warnings are appropriate for recently released works of fiction' in the guideline itself?--Nydas(Talk) 09:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a bit too absolute: Films that fictionalize a historic event don't really need spoiler warnings. In many cases, knowledge of the ending does not diminish enjoyment of the work (or people wouldn't go and see movies like Revenge of the Sith: you already know that Anakin will turn into Darth Vader). In these cases where no enjoyment is spoiled by knowing the ending, warnings will be unnecessary. Kusma (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't 'films that fictionalize a historic event don't really need spoiler warnings' also too absolute? It surely depends on the film; some will be so thoroughly fictional that a spoiler warning will be in order. Once again, I don't beleive that we should be making judgement calls as to what people 'ought to know' about films before we see them. The end result is an encyclopedia undermined by fannish beliefs that everyone knows the ending to Harry Potter or the Asimov novels.--Nydas(Talk) 10:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Compelling reasons doesn't have to reside on the talk page, though it does help. But you can include your compelling reasons can be put in the edit summery. Help:Edit summary even encourages us to make compelling reasons, i.e. explain why we made the edit, for all edits. --Farix (Talk) 10:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still a magnet for edit wars and biased assumptions about what 'everyone knows'. Why we couldn't have some of the more common 'compelling reasons' listed here, as they will be the same in most cases?--Nydas(Talk) 10:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Most recent fictional works probably won't get a spoiler warning, simply because the kind of people who edit the articles don't have the "spoiler warning" culture that is only really common on the internet.  Films like Harry Potter have a large number of internet-acculturated fans and those people may well expect such warnings.  This is a compelling enough reason for recent releases, in my opinion.  There may be other compelling reasons but I can't think of any.  The thing about a compelling reason is that nearly everybody will agree with it.  This is how you know that it's compelling. --Tony Sidaway 11:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So why not say 'if everyone agrees' on the guideline, rather than the compelling reason mumbo-jumbo? Your suggestion implies that anyone can veto spoiler warnings in an article, which strikes me a thoroughly unwikipedian.--Nydas(Talk) 07:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Compelling reasons' 

message: What to do with this template. I really don't really see a need for it and it falls under WP:NDT. It's not a "spoiler warning" in the way that spoiler has been traditionally defined. I also see a lot of redundancy with how this template is used.
The justification behind the template has more to do with protecting the content from magicians who want to keep their trade secrets...well...secret, then to warn the reader. It also gives editors of magic articles an excuse to violate WP:NOT#HOWTO. Both of these makes it a bit harder to go out and delete the templates outright like we are doing with various spoiler and solutions templates.
Bottom line, the template is more a disclaimer then a "spoiler warning". But spoiler warnings are also a form of disclaimer, so I guess that point is moot. The question is, does the infrequent exception for spoiler warnings also apply to magic secrets? --Farix (Talk) 19:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say replace the warnings by a ==Method== header and delete the template. Kusma (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In all instances where Template:Magic-spoiler was present with no subsection, I replaced it with ==Method==. There where a couple of instances where I removed it because the template didn't make any sense. All other instances I left it alone. But in the end I've sent the template to WP:TfD for evaluation. --Farix (Talk) 15:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Magic-spoiler]]