Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 2

message: The dispute following the revert wars on this page is now over. One of the users was blocked for violating the Three-Revert Rule. The dispute has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/Archive. - Sikon 04:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute

message: On 09:26, 18 July 2005 Netoholic removed the image from . I think this was a poor idea, and i plan to revert to the previous version. Note that some version of this image has  been accepted and used for a long time, indeed since the template was first created on 16:11, 18 November 2004 by User:MacGyverMagic. DES 16:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Template:Magic-spoiler]]

message: I just documented ) on the main page. Please look my documetation of this tempalte over, and consider if it seems acceptable. DES 16:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Template:Endspoiler]]

message: Maybe a repeat of a previously closed discussion, but I personally find it a shame that the Wiki-editors don't take more care in writing more about a certain subject before getting to a spoiler section. Ok, that you release certain information about a subject later in the article, but does the WHOLE article have to be a spoiler!?!? Geeze. --Kim Nevelsteen 08:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree. I don't believe that anyone looks something up and expects to find out nothing, because the first thing in an article is spoiler warning.  Spoilers like that are worthless because they do not distinguish between general (mildly spoiling) information and critical spoiler information. A reader wants to be able to read something, and probaly more than would be released in the publicity blurb. Sandpiper 21:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler GRIPE! 

message: A suggestion:
To put "Spoiler Warning" in all articles in RED letters. I read many articles without knowing they had spoilers simply because the words "Spoiler Warning" didn't catch my eye...
:See Template talk:Spoiler#New Proprosal for spoiler warning change. —Cryptic (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler Warning color 

message: Well, shouldn't it?--Efgdgdsg 12:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Such as what?  Religious scriptures?  It's generally accepted that spoiler warnings are applicable to works presented as fiction.  —Lifeisunfair 13:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think religious scriptures count.--220.238.2.146 08:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the "spoiler warning" extend to any literature thats unaccepted as non-fiction in the scientific community? 

message: Who added that line? Can someone buy them a Guinness please? -- Lardarse 05:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  It also is regarded as an ugly [[Hack_(technology_slang)|hack]]. 

message: See Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines#Spoilers...66.167.253.58 07:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More guidance needed? 

message: Some poor guy just got the ending to Cowboy Bebop ruined for him because he was reading the article on Samurai Champloo and skipped over the spoiler warnings without reading them because they looked like all other spoiler warnings.  I think this is a good reason to keep , but also modify it so that it takes a parameter, like .  This solves the problem of people skipping over custom spoiler warnings and not reading them because they look exactly the same as the other "normal" spoiler warnings.  Spoiling the ending to Cowboy Bebop in the article on Samurai Champloo is an extraordinary (but necessary) act, and so an extraordinary spoiler warning is necessary.  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 11:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: and  do this. —Cryptic (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *You're missing the whole point ... those still look like every other spoiler.  The point of this one is to be more noticeable because it needs to draw attention to the fact that spoilers above and beyond the scope of the article are going to be discussed.  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 18:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It's not about space at all.  It's about maintaining a consistent, site-wide appearance.  This is part of the reason templates were implemented in the first place, instead of using the old method of copy-pasting in boilerplate text.  As for why Template:Spoiler looks the way it does, see the copious archives at Template talk:Spoiler (where this should have been discussed in the first place). —Cryptic (talk)
Some templates can have more info than others and still be uniform. If a private and a sergeant are both in uniform, the sergeant has different ribbons, medals, hash marks, rank insignia, etc. They're both still wearing the same uniform. If one thing has different information than another but they are both using the same basic format, then they are still uniform.
A template is a pattern. They are meant to be guides for filling in information; templates are not rubber stamps. By definition, they should be filled in with information specific to the situation. Kafziel 21:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A more visible spoiler warning 

message: There are some articles where only part of the article is a spoiler. This normally does not include the introduction, or someone may follow a link to a section (from the contents or another article), or someone may simply scroll down without reading everything. All of these lead to the possiblity that someone may not see the spoiler warning.
This leads to problems for both readers and editors.
Readers may accidentally read a spoiler, or editors may insert a spoiler in a section that's not covered by any warnings (probably the introduction).
We should have additional warnings to help prevent these situations - for readers, we should have JavaScript that makes the warning always visible, unless the user turns it off. Brian Jason Drake 04:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional warnings - current warnings are only seen if that part of the article happens to be seen 

message: Shall we move content list below spoiler warning if a header element is a spoiler, like, for instance, secret levels and/or characters in games? -- Drange net 15:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page already says not to "put spoilers in section headers, unless the spoiler warning is before the TOC." —Cryptic (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoilers in content list

message: I suppose this issue has been discussed ad nauseam but has been archived... anyway, IMHO the current spoiler warnings are a big eyesore, not to mention too "paternalistic" to the reader. In fact, placing them as boxed displays may be counterproductive: I suspect that the reader eventually learns to skip over them without seeing them (just as I no longer "see" the half-page of boilerplate, intelinks, categories, TOC, etc. at the top of every article.) 
Would you consider changing the spoiler warning template to be a shorter warning that can be embedded in the text, like
:The movie follows the typical Western movie plot, except for the director's apparent fondness for armadillos. The underwater shooting scene is one of Carrey's best performances so far. [SPOILER> Quite surprisingly, the movie ends with a big shootout in the town's main street, and all the bad guys die. <END OF SPOILER]
I believe that this format is at least as effective as the current one, makes better use of scarce screen estate, makes for a cleaner article layout, and is a bit more flexible (can be used for part of a paragraph, as above).  Moreover, by being "cheaper", it may be more acceptable to article editors. Comments?  Jorge Stolfi 13:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah that's even uglier IMO WikiSlasher 08:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler warnings are ugly - alternative proposals 

message: It seems that the spoiler warnings on some pages are ineffective, the reason being as follows:
On short pages, such as those in the Redwall series, as an example see any of those books, with not much material to fill an entire page scroll on a browser, the spoiler warning, directly above the spoiler, does not conceal it [spoiler]. I use that word too much, I'll just call it S now. If S is on the page and you cannot scroll it out of the way, there is no avoiding it. Maybe some kind of either a long blank space or one of those "highlight the hints" things is in order.
Anyway, Flameviper12 18:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not Effective

message: Excuse me if this has been discussed elsewhere. At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Crying_of_Lot_49
I've been questioning the need for a spoiler. Is there 'pedia policy page on the spoiler?
--Maas 04:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is an exposition of content necessary for a work of art?

message: Around February 16, I had a long discussion about Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (it's changed since then, so here is the version I'm referring to) regarding a warning about the pictures, which I have recreated below:
	Warning: This article is under dispute because it contains explicit images of abuse and torture.  For details and discussion of this dispute, see the talk page .
After the discussion, which you can find here, it came to the conclusion that Wikipedia is not censored. I believe that would include "spoilers" as well. In regards to a comment I saw about the spoiler warnings, about this being a courtesy to readers, that's exactly the point that was shot down regarding the pictures in the above example. I just find it hard to understand how a warning about grotesque pictures can not be allowed, but one about the ending of a movie or book can be. One thing to note, the wording was rearranged several times to resolve several complaints...and that is not the reason that it was taken down.
Just to make it known, I'm still against the pictures in the Abu Ghraib article, but am confused about the clear differences in precedent that is created here. Chuck 08:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other warnings, relating to this 

message: In some articles about documentaries (such as Fahrenheit 9/11 and Super Size Me), there are spoiler warnings. What is the general view on this? Should spoiler warnings be used in such articles? In my opinion, they should not. One reason for not using a spoiler warning in an article about a documentariy is that documentaries are educational material meant to inform, not to entertain. So witholding information that might be important to the documentary itself kind of contradicts the idea with making a documentary at all. Instead, my view of this is that encyclopedias such as Wikipedia should do as much as possible to help spread the contents/message of any documentary considered important enough to have its own article. /Magore 19:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No feedback so far. Alright, I'll be bold and add a little notice about spoiler warnings in articles about documentaries. (Ie, they shouldn't be used, since documentaries technically doesn't have a plot or storyline, but are meant to inform and educate.) /Magore 02:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Documentaties often have narratives. Hoop Dreams and Spellbound are good examples of this. Writing who wins the spelling bee or the college scholarship would taint the experience for a new viewer. Spoiler: To know in advance that the woman in Farenheit 911 loses her son is to have an altered viewing experience. Not all docs are focused on being informative; some primarily tell a story. --Chris Griswold 07:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, many documentaries have a narrative of some kind. But that is a question about how a documentary can be done, and not what it is for. The spoiler-vs-no-spoiler question is about the purpose of a documentary. And that purpose is as I previously stated to spread information and knowledge, ie they are meant to educate, not to entertain. Within that context, a spoiler warning works against the purpose and nature of a documentary, since the spoiler warning tries to keep information that the documentary wants to spread away from the viewer/reader. A spoiler warning also has a degrading effect on a documentary being reviewed, implying that it is edutainment rather than something educational. /Magore 04:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you seen Spellbound or Hoop Dreams? The narrative takes precedence over the education idea. Not all documentaries have education as their primary goal. How about My Date with Drew?--Chris Griswold 04:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler warnings in articles about documentaries? 

message: I found some unmarked spoilers for "Lost" on Michelle Rodriguez. I put the spoiler tag on the page, but the edit summary when it was added also has the spoiler. This guide says not to do that, so is there a way to get such spoilers removed? (Update: I subsequently removed the spoiler from that page altogether as it really belonged on the character page.) DAF 05:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with spoilers in edit summaries? 

message: It's used in Everyone Poops! Stevage 19:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it. It doesn't "spoil" anything.--SeizureDog 07:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funniest spoiler ever 

message: I just got an idea that could be interesting: What if we wrote in a function into the spoiler tag where you can click something to where it takes you to the  tag? This way, readers don't have to scan through the text to see where the spoilers end, which entails the risk of accidently reading a spoiler in trying to get past them. --SeizureDog 07:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like the TOC? That is a really interesting idea. --Chris Griswold 08:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, like the TOC. The only problem I'm seeing is that the TOC skips to specific sections, I dunno if you could script it to skip to the middle of a section. Surely someone with the know-how could figure out a way though. --SeizureDog 23:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I mean like how the TOC expands and collapses. But either way could work. I'd prefer your way because the people who don't want to be spouiled would be inconvenienced, rather than the alternative. --Chris Griswold 00:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Expanding and collasping wouldn't be very reasonable on some pages, and hiding that much text could cause layout issues.--SeizureDog 00:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skip to end function 

message: I see many people not taking advantage of the spoiler tags (I am new, and I did not even know that they existed here myself... there are just so many possible tags here), so my original discussion on another page was about adding them to which I was lead here. Seeing now that spoiler tags do exist, I would like to propose a different design unlike what is currently used.
How about a physical manual-hide spoiler similar to how some forum software hides boards inside of each category (Example URL - Click the minus image at the far right of any category header) or this site allows the hiding of the Table of Contents? This type would require an endspoiler, but since it physically hides the text, many problems could be solved including a few addressed in other discussions here including the spoiler notes not being noticed, more visible spoiler warning needed, and ability to skip past spoilers.
This type of spoiler design would also allow for the addition of a "Hide spoilers by default?" checkbox option in user preferences! Check the box if you wish and so long as the tag is used, you will never accidentally read another spoiler again!
I am aware this is an encyclopedia, and it is not normal for an encyclopedia to hide information, but your average encyclopedia does not allow any random Joe to create articles or talk in detail about specific books and movies which is why spoilers were created in the first place. CobraWiki 21:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look two threads above. --Chris Griswold 07:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw it when I was posting this (note the "ability to skip past spoilers" point made), but that thread began on a different note, so instead of changing the flow I started anew anyway. CobraWiki 19:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here's a different (and more beneficial) Spoiler design idea