Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/old template talk

message: This change  today added the text "This template should only be used on very recent or unreleased works of fiction. Be sparing in its use" and the same editor immediately went to work removing it from older works.
I'd like to ask why? Was a consensus reached somewhere about this? I don't understand why someone who hasn't read or seen something would only want a spoiler warning if it was brand new. What purpose does it serve? Notinasnaid 18:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted it. i don't agree, and i can see no discussion of such a change. Such rules have been proposed before, and generally did not obtain consensus. DES (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an excellent idea to use  only on recent stuff. It insults the reader's intelligence to put a warning that the plot will be revealed in a section called "Plot". In articles on Shakespeare's works, warnings that the ending might be revealed are really silly, too. People have put spoiler tags on books from the Bible. If  is to be used at all, it should be limited to things that are current. Kusma (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree. While Shakespear and the bible may be excessive, many works that are not "recent" are none the less not nearly as well known as thsoe, and are new to many readers. if there is a point to the spoiler tag at all (and I think that there is) there is just as much point on most older works as on new ones. This point has been debated before, and there has not in the past been anythign like consensus for such a limitation on the spoiler tags. DES (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: See lots of previosu discusson at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning DES (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This is now saying "Use this template sparingly. It should not be used in sections that are clearly marked with a heading (such as "Plot" or "Ending") that already indicates that information about the plot or the ending might follow." I don't think there is consensus for thsi, either. This text is transcluded in from Template:Spoiler/doc. DES (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to "only use sparingly, only for brand new stuff" 

message: See this, that editor has screwed up, what: 1/2 of articles on Wikipedia? That wasn't discussed at all. Should be reverted ASAP. Matthew 21:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And here I was about to complain. Yeah, that's a horrible idea. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Frankly I'm so shocked by the edit I'd like the admin to go through recall (which I doubt they'd agree to do :\). Matthew 21:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't go so far. This just seems like an idea poorly thought out. The idea is nice, but the execution fails miserably. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:29, 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: It's not just that. The bar cuts though infoboxes, images, and other such things. On top of that, in undefined cases, you're hiding entire articles. Really, this is a very bad idea. It really needs to go. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Another agreement here. This template appearing on pages like James "Sawyer" Ford looks horrible - the bar goes right over the top of the image, and also messes up the formatting of things like headers within the box. Please can an admin revert this asap? Mike Peel 21:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've refreshed the screen and the text is still justified "center".   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I just came to this through Laura (1944 film) where the spoiler top is covering the infobox... I see there has been at least some friction with reverting this so I won't try... but, I just want to point out that I really dislike this a lot.  WOW, look at Babylon 5 and other pages without end spoilers.  This has to go, NOW. gren グレン 21:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I just noticed this problem at The Dark Knight (film), where the bar cuts across the Infobox Film template.  I understand the intent of the design, but if it causes formatting problems like this, I strongly suggest we return to the original format. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is that you guys NEVER use as you are supposed to do :P that's why. Go and fix THAT. -- drini [meta:] [commons:]  21:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can'tshouldn't screw up hundreds of pages because you think it is someone else's error.  If we agree on these changes then we can run a bot to make sure all pages have endspoiler templates but we should not screw up articles and then fix them, we should fix them so that it's a smooth transition.  That is if we agree on this new style... personally, I think it's hideous. gren グレン 21:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Dude, my example uses the endspoiler tag, but it still screws with the formatting.  And some articles are spoiler-ish all the way through regardless. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: So you create a box around the text automatically that pushes all of the info into a center justification, and covers headers and the infobox?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You need to consider other items on the page, like images and box templates. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your sandbox still shows it centered, instead of left justification.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have reverted, but I am up to 2 reverts on this page, so i would prefer not to have to revert again. DES (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awful idea. There is no need to hide plot sections; they have prominent spoiler warnings. Mgiganteus1 21:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with the recent change 

message: The template right now looks exactly as the average encyclopaedia user would expect: i.e. it's completely blank.  Which is perfect.  We don't need to be warned to look away before an encyclopaedia (read: comprehensive source of information) tells us that the gorilla dies.  So, since a small number of people seem to want the warning, how about this: rework the template so it is hidden by default for all users unless they turn on a css variable in their personal css.  In other words, reverse the status quo, making content visible unless poeple specifically choose not to see it.  Guy (Help!) 20:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disabling the template by default is a great idea, and those who wish to see it must enable it. Matthew 21:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The issue with that is anonymous readers, who would lose the warning and wouldn't have the choice to enable it. Mike Peel 21:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They do, they just need to tell their browser to display spoiler tags. Apparently that can be done without logging in. Kusma (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  They'd have the choice to register.  It's free and easy to do.  However I think this is a bad idea because it still lumbers us with these stupid templates.  We should just phase them out and delete them. --Tony Sidaway 21:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Personally, I think things are fine as they are. If the template is going to be phased out, or its functionality changed (e.g. hidden by default, or put in a big box), then it needs to be brought up at the Village pump, and probably mentioned at WikiProjects like WP:TV, to give people time to comment on it before it's implemented. Mike Peel 21:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have an idea 

message: I am blanking this temoplate. The MfD/RfC on the policy page, shows there is no consensus for its use. Rather then delete it, I shall blank it until consensus for its use is arrived at.--Docg 21:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please revert. Where is this discussion? Mike Peel 21:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Doc's measure is a temporary one which will prevent edit warring in articles while the RfC is in progress. Picaroon (Talk) 21:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning - it's a nice idea on the surface but has proven severely problematic in practice, as documented at length there. If it stays at all, its use is likely to be severely proscribed - David Gerard 21:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you! Why isn't this linked to from the template? (cf. Template:tfd) Also, this template is protected, so there shouldn't be any edit warring? Mike Peel 21:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The template is not protected for that reason - but for preventing vandalism. There was no reason why I could not edit it. what I really resent is people reverting me who have not even the grace to enter into a discussion here. That's disruptive.--Docg 21:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I would have loved to revert you, but I'm not an admin. I've just finished scanning through the RfC, and it looks like there's some good discussion going on there (which I'm not going to join as I don't have the time). What's the harm in leaving this template as it is until that discussion has ended and a conclusion has been reached? Mike Peel 21:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is currently screwing up the encyclopedia and making us look ridiculous. It has been added to Biblical Books, Classic English literature, Mark Poppins, and Shakessphere. When it has been removed from those individual articles, people have put it back claiming that it is 'standard policy'. That's quite unacceptable. --Docg 21:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've unblanked it, as it's still widely used, and I hope that I've effectively pointed people to the discussion appropriately. Thanks! Demi T/C 21:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. But it would have been courteous to have entered the ongoing discussion here before reverting.--Docg 22:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: So, which is the policy that says "if something is, in the view of any editor, making Wikipedia look ridiculous it can be globally removed without consensus, and despite ongoing discussion"? I don't know all the policies, so I may have missed this one. However, I observe the magic phrase was used in [], but this didn't seem to result in immediate removal of content. Can any editor define "quite unacceptable" in this way, or is this a limited privilege? Notinasnaid 22:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "If the rules stop you improving the encyclopedia - ignore them"--Docg 22:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, Ignore All Rules (Sadly, the protection of the template means that in this case, this is a privilege only open to adminstrators). So what you are saying is that, whatever the outcome of any ongoing debate, for the good of the encyclopedia you intend to ignore the result, and remove the tag in any way you can? Notinasnaid 22:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. If there is a policy on these things that commands consensus support - I will abide by consensus.--Docg 22:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doc, that's just rude and disrespectful to the people who are discussing this issue. IAR was something thought up to help newbies who were nervous about rules, then expanded as a way to explain our occasional odd situations. But you're just kind of using it to just get your way.. I'll be honest, I won't really care that much if spoiler warnings are removed, but it pisses me off when I see people try to strong-arm the situation like this. -- Ned Scott 00:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At least, that is, when they use a lame excuse like IAR. -- Ned Scott 00:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I should note here as well, I jumped to a false conclusion about Doc's motives, which I now realize. -- Ned Scott 15:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  blanking 

message: The present look is in-formal, "spoiler warning". I propose we change to the below design, without the "spoiler warning" text... instead, just stating the need to know information. Matthew 15:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just use a standard wikipedia headline ===Plot=== or ===Ending=== which would convey the same warning and fir the style of the rest of the article - problem solved.--Docg 15:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree, very much. But still, if this template is to stay (for now, anyway), it should be fixed. Matthew 15:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's probably inevitable, but the cute "i" icon looks like an invitation to click for more info. The response to an "i" icon is so ingrained I did that even knowing how Wikipedia works. So the picture may be counterproductive. Any please consider: what to do with "end spoiler". Notinasnaid 15:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh, that makes it stand out even MORE than it did. Do not like at all. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Somebody else put it central... not me, heh. Matthew 16:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't like it one bit. It's unattractive and stands out more than before. I think it should be changed back and discussed more if it really bothers people. Voretus 16:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that we use :Image:Information icon.svg as the icon instead of the :Image:Template-info.svg one. The template-info one is more associated with info relating to templates (like documentation) as opposed to info from templates. Also, non-editing readers probably will not know what the {{ }} are. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 16:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The new template stands out too much. Having said that, the icon really needs to be changed as it will confuse people. Introducing Wikipedia markup syntax to the general readership is not the purpose of this template. --Darkbane talk  16:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Is it sloppiness, or is it that formality is not needed for  Spoilers end here. ? Notinasnaid 16:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No images is definitely better if it has to be changed at all from the normal. It serves no purpose other than to make the stuff stand out more. Voretus 16:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I've disabled the editprotected request while discussion continues. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formality 

message: I like to request that this template be reverted back to its previous state. The new design is fugly, stands out too much, doesn't complement the way in which the template is used in articles, and it disrupts the flow of the article more so then the original template. --Farix (Talk) 17:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just want to say that I personally agree. Hell, even something like this would be better (In fact it doesn't look too bad). It's very ugly indeed and definately interrrupts the article. To be honest I think the template should really be here anyway as people shouldn't come looking for details on something if they don't want anything revealed, but I guess this isn't the place to discuss that...- .:Alex:. 17:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Get rid off that piece of junk that I just stumbled over elsewhere. It's ridiculous.  --Servant Saber 17:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too would like a revert. Hiding the spoiler warnings using CSS is no longer possible. —Zachary talk 17:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The new design is too small — it looks like it's just been slapped in the middle of a page somewhere and it doesn't improve upon anything that I can see. For compatibility, aesthetic, and visibility reasons, please revert. --Cadby (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If this is a vote for a revert, then yes, if I am forced to choose between the current version and the old version, I vastly prefer the old version. Mainly because of the image, which should be removed or changed as I said above – Gurch 18:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the very least, the image needs to be removed or replaced. JavaTenor 18:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I do personally believe that this template works best on the left (rather than central). Perhaps I speak for my self, but surely sweet and succinct is better? Perhaps the image should be changed, or removed. Matthew 18:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the old design is fine as it is. Why does it need to be changed? --Farix (Talk) 18:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  #Formality Matthew 19:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Personally, I think the more simplistic and unintrusive the design, the more formal it is. Fanciness with images, boxes, different sizes of font, just makes it look less so. --Cadby (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like it. It barely stands out, at least add red to it or something. --Kaizer13 00:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What, and be logical about it?! Are you crazy? Hehe, you're probably right — but it's also sort of important to ensure it doesn't look too ridiculous so people don't get the wrong idea about its intrusiveness and how much it detracts from the article (a big discussion, as far as I have read). But I agree, I think it should just stay as it is for awhile until its fate is decided; changing it in the first place wasn't really that urgent of a matter. --Cadby (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. These changes are pointless and do nothing but make the articles using this template look more obtrusive, less "formal", and all-around worse. Please go back to the old format, I see no sign that anybody really wants this change. Where's the consensus for it? - Redxiv 02:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Silly me. -- Ned Scott 01:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't be sure what the above editors are referring to, but the current version (here) is a lot uglier and more intrusive on an article than it used to be. This is how I remember it. It's the same font as most articles, and thus fits in much better than this font, which I have seen nowhere else. Please change the font and format of the text back to this. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. There seems to be broad consensus on this talk page (above) for changing the template back to its previous format. I've done so. To see the increased font size, you will need to purge your cache. And the ability to disable the warning in your CSS has been preserved. Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please revert

message: A new draft is in the works to help act as a compromise for the recent RFC, see Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/draft. Feel free to modify, discuss, etc. -- Ned Scott 01:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New guideline draft 

message: I and David Gerard are apparently in agreement, an event shocking by its rarity over these last few days, that there should be more informing going on. There's been no invitation to discussion of this public matter, so an issue far more important than (say) a webcomic AfD is getting less exposure than one of those would. Snowfire suggested a TfD-style message on the template along the lines of "The status of spoiler warnings is currently being discussed; see this debate," and there have been no dissenting opinions. Can I ask someone who can to add one? --Kizor 17:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Please place  next to such requests either, to increase the chance of an admin comming across them. --ais523 11:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you dearly, my good ... man? I've already made note of that template for further use. (Sorry if I sound like a 18th century statesman. I've been watching a movie about those. You should've seen me when I read the Silmarillion.) --Kizor 20:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC note on template? 

message: Looks like we're going for a single spoiler tag with the discussion on WP:SPOILER, and with that in mind I propose we simply merge the function of  to . There is also , but -about is far more used, and is less of a change than -other. I also propose we put back in "metadata" in the div class, which hides the spoiler warning when the article is printed. The updated code would look like this:
Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details  follow.


-- Ned Scott 08:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to this change. It's unneeded, simply saying spoilers follow is enough. Matthew 09:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not done. If there is consensus for this change, please link to it and put  back up. --ais523 11:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, this is not controversial in any way. Matthew has clearly misunderstood the situation, as this addition ADDS the the descriptive abilities of  to . From a template standpoint, nothing at all will change for the end reader, and this is a technical merge made possible by phaserfunctions, which likely were not considered when the second template was made. -- Ned Scott 21:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which, for example, is no different from the time we merged  with . -- Ned Scott 21:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and this should have been done regardless of the recent spoiler warning debate, as I said, for technical reasons. -- Ned Scott 21:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Not at all, I understand fine. I still object. There's no need to use multiple variants of what spoilers follow, it's OTT. The other templates that do it should be deleted. Matthew 21:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I misread your comments then, as I thought you objected to the loss of functionality to . -- Ned Scott 21:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Heh, reading that I forgot the argument part, which is that such a minor addition seems reasonable, and when the topic of spoiler is unclear (say, an article related to the fiction, but not specifically about the fiction) it just makes things confusing. This is very different than some of the other spoiler templates which replace the entire message or expand it to a great length. -- Ned Scott 05:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I would suggest just deleting  or redirect it to this template. Is there really a reason to state what the spoiler is about?  would be a better candidate for merger with . --Farix (Talk) 23:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging spoiler-about 

message: Do we really want to put the text "The status of spoiler warnings is being discussed at this Request for Comment" right on the template?  This is gonna show up at every place the template is used, which is a lot.  I can see a need to solicit comments but this is rather in-your-face.  Can't the message be simply put on Template:Spoiler and Wikipedia:Spoiler warning? 131.107.0.73 20:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so. The discussion over there is so ridiculously long I wouldn't think either side needs any more advocates. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 23:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that it should be removed, per WP:ASR--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 00:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should stay - this is a very important matter and there's no other place to inform readers about this. I should very well hope that the discussion's ridiculously long, it's not a thing to be done lightly. --Kizor 14:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "request for comment" text should be moved out of the template 

message: Spoiler tags are considered metadata, correct? I'm about to change the rest of the spoiler tags, but I thought I'd ask here first. --- RockMFR 00:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's metadata???--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Meta usually refers to things referencing themselves. In this case, a spoiler warning is text talking about the article itself, as opposed to the article's topic. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spoiler warnings are not metadata, IMHO. They refer to the article, not the encyclopedia project.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They refer to the article, not to its topic, so they are obviously metadata. "Plot details follow" is not information about Darth Vader. Kusma (talk) 09:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm specifically referring to the metadata CSS class that we use on a variety of templates. This class is commonly used to prevent certain things from appearing when printing pages. --- RockMFR 03:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. It might not be a bad idea to leave spoiler tags in print versions of Wikipedia, but that probably merits a larger discussion on the matter. It is not, after all, as impertinent to the subject as a  or  tag. —Cuiviénen 03:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metadata class 

message: It's got "guideline" at the top now and the RFC appears, with the link in the Spoiler tag, to have turned into a chat page with no plausible hope of a resolution being reached through it (though I haven't delinked the RFC) - David Gerard 01:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking [[Wikipedia:Spoiler]] 

message: Hello,
Someone should create an Anchor Link inside the Spoiler.
Clicking <A href="#EndSpoiler1">Go to End Spoiler</A> should refer the reader to the end of the spoiler section, which is marked by 
<A name="EndSpoiler1">End Spoiler</A>.
Thank you,
LAUBO 20:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've thought of this too, but there are some problems. The main one is that most articles don't use the end spoiler. For this to work, it would have to be added as an option in this template, like  so articles that already have the tags would need to be changed and editors would need to learn the new way to tag articles. The other (minor) problem is articles with mutiple spoiler sections, this would only link to the end of the first one. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anchor to End Spoiler 

message: To something like:
:Warning: Significant plot details or twist ending follows.
The reason is because the template should only be used to precede significant plot details or twist endings and not general plot details. This should help discourage the overuse of the template, as has been mentioned repeatedly in the recent RfC and during the construction of the new Wikipedia:Spoilers guideline. It also removes the use of "spoiler" which many editors consider a non-academic term. --Farix (Talk) 14:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it certainly should (in theory at least) help keeping it from being overused. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 15:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And without any objections, I will make this this an edit protect request. --Farix (Talk) 13:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The grammar seems wrong to me. What about "Significant plot details or twist endings follow."? --MZMcBride 20:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll except that. --Farix (Talk) 23:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A twist ending is a plot detail, I propose the simpler Significant plot details follow. Tphi 02:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If/when this change is made, please also change Template:Endspoiler in a similar manner. --ais523 16:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If I could further the request, please remove the "Warning:" bit... because the style of it makes it clear that it's a warning... so the text is redundant. Matthew 16:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. The change was made before this final request, however, I believe that the warning text should remain. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read Wikipedia:Spoiler. Why isn't a week long enough?  Spoiler tags are deprecated. --Tony Sidaway 14:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have read it, several times. 1) A week is not long enough because a proposed change, followed by "Okay nothing heard from interested parties, indicating no opposition, making the change," is unwarranted. Why not 1 day? 1 hour?? The answer is, leave a proposal up for more than one week, providing other editors time to respond. If you require that other editors log in daily just to prevent renegade policy and guideline changes, then you don't understand this community. 2) "Deprecated?" Says who? My reading of the ongoing arguments (last 4 weeks or so) is that there has been NO consensus, just rampant edit warring and reversion by opposing opinion-camps. Anti-spoiler editors making changes all over does not indicate a consensus towards deprecation. I'm still withholding judgement on this pending observable actions. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 15:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change text 

message: I think that the link to Wikipedia:Spoiler warning should be changed just to Wikipedia:Spoiler. The amount of times that the template is used justifies the change to remove the redirect. -anabus_maximus (Talk to me) 18:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove redirect 

message: The spoiler template is not working properly on this article. It is covering up an image and an infobox on the page. Can this be fixed? ANNAfoxlover 23:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it for now by removing the spoiler tag for now.  If you want to put the warning back, a more technically-oriented fix may be required. --Tony Sidaway 14:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur, the spoiler warning really isn't called for, as the "synopsis" is really just a story description from a Disney meeting record. Ongoing discussions (cough, fights, cough) and revision of WP:SPOIL indicate that spoiler warnings are really only needed where plot surprises and twists are described. A Plot section heading generally is sufficient warning that story details follow. -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 15:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WALL-E]] 

message: Why does it even need a new look? The original was fine.--Indakeepyo 20:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks a lot better stylistically and no longer has unnecessary legalistic verbiage or formatting. —Centrx→talk • 01:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: New wording avoids the use of non-encyclopedic terms, such as "spoiler", and makes it clear that the template should only precede an identifiable spoiler instead of general plot details. --Farix (Talk) 15:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: How is it any different from its usefulness before? —Centrx→talk • 05:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree that the new format isn't great. The old way that said Spoiler warning: Plot and/or story details follow. was simple, straightforward, and easy to read.  This doesn't do any of that.  It wasn't broken before, so why did it have to be "fixed"?  I suggest an RfC from the community since various users have brought up these concerns.  --MPD T / C 04:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New look 

message: It can be found at template:spoiler2.
Here it is:
:Please, please, please, no new templates. It confuses readers if different templates are used in different places, as editors have to choose (if they even know there are multiple versions). If you think I'm being harsh, review the gaggle of spoiler templates which were recently nominated for deletion. Just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean need to do that thing. (sigh) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 16:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've created a spoiler template that warns people better 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support — per my reasoning. Matthew 10:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a link to a definition, but I think you're correct that the word is vague and not useful.  In deciding content, we whould stick with the core policies, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR.  Everything else can resolve to those.  As a spoiler alert is not a content issue, per se, but more a style issue, I suppose you could refer to WP:MOS.  (My personal opinion I already registered above; I think it's just polite to readers to warn them before wrecking the movie or book for them...)  --Parzival418 Hello 19:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: follow-up: I found the definition of "encyclopedic" and will add it in a new section below. --Parzival418 Hello 21:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: In case anyone here did not realise it, there is currently a MedCab case to attempt to resolve disputes on the spoiler guideline and its application. Matthew, I think you missed that one, but you should probably be involved. Anyway, while there is an ongoing dispute, as Kuronue alluded to above, I don't think that it's appropriate to be making major changes to the template. -Kieran 12:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's now over, so you can argue about changes otherwise. The guideline is essentially stable. David Fuchs 23:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Viewed now, this comment is slightly humourous, in a very bitter way. -Kieran 15:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why humorous?  Why "in a very bitter way?" --Tony Sidaway 16:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MedCab case

message: Active discussion appears to have shifted to WT:SPOIL. Unless having discussion active in multiple places apparently unconnected to the others is considered a good thing - David Gerard 23:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem to have died. See edits since June 30, and it looks like it has degenerated into a meta-discussion about the tone of the dialog, and a side-discussion about the acceptability of the pictorial representation of rape on Wikipedia. This isn't the kind of discussion we want to promote on our encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 00:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've removed the link to the RFC and expressly pointed discussion at the guideline talk page - David Gerard 00:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC current?

message: I propose that this template should be used liberally, not sparingly. The downside of using the template too liberally is minimal (an extra line of text appears); the downside of using it too sparingly is much worse - readers irreperably learn the endings of works. It is perfectly reasonable to expect to be able to obtain a plot overview of a work without becoming aware of the ending (the back covers of books and movies do this routinely.) If detailled discussion of the spoilers is desired, simply add the template. Just because a section is called "Plot" is not enough to imply that it will contain spoilers. I just learned spoiler plot details of a movie I haven't seen yet because I expected that there would be a spoiler warning with any spoilers, since this was standard practice on Wikipedia until very recently. Kwertii 02:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion belongs at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler, the guideline that explains when spoiler warnings can be used and why they should not be used everywhere (for more explanations: there is a huge amount of discussion of these issues at the RfC and its many archives plus some on the mailing list). Kusma (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to invert "use sparingly" guideline

message: The protection log for this page lists:
:23:30, 16 December 2005 Kyorosuke (Talk | contribs) protected Template:Spoiler ‎ (Too visible and easily vandalised- Used on 5,000+ pages)
Now, two years later, there are very few uses of this template on Wikipedia.  According to the research done at Wikipedia Talk:Spoiler, it's only on a around 20 or so mainspace pages.  The majority of the links listed in "what links here" are on talk and user talk pages.  Per the what-links-here for current mainspace uses of this template, it seems like only a few.
Other templates used on many more pages than this one are not protected.  Here are a some examples of unprotected templates used in mainspace:
* Template:Disputed
* Template:Totally-disputed
* Template:Blpdispute
* Template:Advert
* Template:SectOR
* Template:POV-intro
* Template:Content
* Template:Weasel
* Template:POV-check
* Template:Contradict
* Template:Fansite
* Template:Story
* Template:Peacock
* Template:3O
* Template:Magazine
* Template:Synthesis
Since the reason for protection that existed in 2005 no longer applies, I request that this page be unprotected, based on: "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". --Parsifal Hello 02:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection request 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. L337 kybldmstr 07:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Kusma (talk) 08:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Spoiler}}]] 

message: The template has an extra little thing at the top saying that it's currently being considered for deletion. The talk page says that it was but that the result was keep. Would it not be better to remove the little box as it is outdated? —PolishName 21:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, didn't read the post - ignore this...—PolishName 21:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion... 

message: I am not sure that was such a good idea. There are some pretty significant differences between  and the former spoiler template.  emphasizes the new-ness of the work and the lack of critical commentary. "Spoiler" emphasized that the article presented significant plot details.
The former spoiler template had a high percentage of misuse — for instance, slapping it on the entire plot, thereby making no distinction between spoilers and general information. If "spoiler" redirects to , I suspect that a high percentage of misuse will continue.
I'm inclined to think that  is different enough that it shouldn't be regarded as a synonym of "spoiler". Marc Shepherd 17:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also not a big fan of this redirect, especially right now, when some people will assume  still exists. My personal preference would be to delete it (and keep it redlinked through cascading protection if necessary). Kusma (talk) 09:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I deleted the redirect. Garion96 (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Second closing of deletion review endorsed deletion so I deleted the redirect again. Garion96 (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm now convinced that the redirect was an error.  This is because nearly every single remaining transclusion of this template was on a talk page or something, where the boilerplate of  was inappropriate and would almost certainly cause confusion.  --Tony Sidaway 02:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect to current fiction? 

message: Well, the template was deleted per the talk page. So, what do you guys think? Should we merge this talk page into the Current Fiction TP, or speedy delete this per CSD G8? L337 kybldmstr (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what's wrong with keeping the talk page, myself. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there isn't much of a point to keeping a talk page for a template that no longer exists. But some people probably don't want this deleted, which is why I'm asking this question: I want to help reach decisions the community agrees with. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I counted the Nov 8 TFD votes correctly at 26 keep to 24 delete, there was a slim majority in favor of the template. That confirms that the underlying issues remain alive. Those issues more related to the template design and message were explored here on the template talk page. If they're deleted, those issues are likely to be debated all over again. Milo 06:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we should keep this talk page, at least for now. There is still useful discussion here (like whether the redirect should be made) that people won't find otherwise. Kusma (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree.  Along with Wikipedia:Spoiler and its talk page, this page has an appreciable history and documents the gradual evolution of thought about spoiler tagging from an initial standpoint of 100% agreement that it is necessary and beneficial right through to the controversy about the mass removal of tags, and the final successful tfd.  It should remain. --Tony Sidaway 11:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy or merge? 

message: I understand, even if I disagree with, the argument that users of Wikipedia ought to assume that the Plot section of an article about a specific work of fiction will include "spoilers" about that work. In numerous articles, however, details of the plots of works of fiction are included as part of a larger discussion on some other topic. For example, in Omega point, an article on a topic in metaphysics, the final twist of Robert Charles Wilson's Darwinia is revealed without any warning to the reader. Should Wikipedians wishing to avoid spoilers skip over sections on popular culture altogether? What about articles that are not organized to include such a section, should prudent Wikipedians simply leave them unread?
--Frostyservant (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In a word: Yes.  If a reader is that worried that they might possibly learn something about some work/genre/etc of fiction, they shouldn't be reading an encyclopedia article on it.  :)  —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 19:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about plot details out-of-article?