Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 14

message: After the spoiler template TFD, this guideline was rewritten before any proposals were made on this page. Editors are free to make any proposals now. --Pixelface (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no dispute - we are accurately describing current practice. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am disputing the page's designation as a guideline. --Pixelface (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but a single editor disputing the guideline, at this moment, is not enough to warrant a disputed tag in the guideline page. Unless it can be proven that people are against this guideline, there is no need for such tag. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll wait. --Pixelface (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Akiyama has also disputed this page's designation as a guideline. Do you think there is a need for such tag now ReyBrujo? --Pixelface (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec) Actually, yes, the guideline was massacred after the TFD, however the spirit of the guideline remains the same. Most of the changes address the disappearance of the Spoilers template, although some sections that may have been useful have vanished in the rush. Editors do make such mistakes from time to time, after all we are human. It is better if you address what you want to challenge instead of just adding a generic tag and hoping to create a whole new guideline. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I challenge the entire guideline. It appears to have been written by one editor. I can provide diffs if you'd like. --Pixelface (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read anything that Radiant wrote? Just curious. Marc Shepherd (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read anything that Radiant! wrote?. Such comments don't exactly make me think Radiant! is a neutral party in all of this. --Pixelface (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I did read it and it seems rather contradictory to me. On the one hand, Wikipedia does not have stringent rules, but on the other hand, we're supposed to say when it's appropriate to use a spoiler tag and Radiant! disqualified a valid response — "whenever editors feel like it" — which is the case for many other tags. Seeing as how there was a long dispute over archiving this page, I don't think additional archival was the best move in my opinion. --Pixelface (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide evidence that consensus for any practice other than the one advocated by this page exists. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can provide more evidence if you'd like. --Pixelface (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All reverted. By that standard, consensus for vandalism exists. I didn't ask for evidence that people added spoiler tags. I asked for evidence of consensus. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You asked for evidence that any practice other than the one advocated by this page exists. I've provided that. Shall I contact each of those editors so they can discuss the issue here and we can come to an agreement? I believe the history of the spoiler guideline shows that spoiler warnings have been used on Wikipedia for at least 5 years, the events of the past 7 months notwithstanding. I also believe the recent TFD for Template:Spoiler, despite the closure by JzG, showed no consensus for its deletion. I don't think there has ever been a consensus for the deletion of the  template. --Pixelface (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize - I switched "for" and "that" in my request so that it was unclear. Regardless - no spoiler tags is stable on thousands of articles. Evidence to the contrary is a pre-requisite for any motion on this guideline. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You say no spoiler warnings is "stable" on thousands of articles, but that is because one user runs a bot to look for them and then removes them. I would be interested in knowing how often a spoiler warning is re-added to a page after it is initially removed. On May 2, 2007, when Tony Sidaway requested that TonyBot be approved, he did not mention he would use the bot to remove spoiler warnings. On May 2, 2007, this guideline looked like this. Tony Sidaway said "The aim is to make it easy for users to produce lists of information they need to maintain Wikipedia." Tony Sidaway also said "The bot owner reserves the right, for good reason and with the interests of Wikipedia in mind, to refuse access to any user. The reason for refusal will be stated publicly on the user's talk page and may be subject to revision if you can somehow successfully cajole, persuade or provide reasonable reassurances." Tony Sidaway said "The query mechanism could in principle be used for the purposes of stalking another person's edits, for instance, and if this ever happens the community should be able to detect this and express its opinion on the appropriateness of the queries in the light of the project's aims." The bot was speedily approved on May 4, 2007 at 12:31. At that time, the spoiler guideline looked like this. I have to question the appropriatness of TonyBot's queries for the word spoiler and how they concern this spoiler guideline. The bot's first output list of pages containing the word "spoiler" was created July 22, 2007 at 20:42. At that time, the spoiler guideline looked like this. Before July 22, 2007, Tony Sidaway edited this guideline several times in July 2007 and this guideline was subject to frequent edit-warring. On July 22, 2007, this guideline was also edited by David Gerard, who exhorted people on the WikiEn-l mailing list on May 15, 2007 to go a URL and "get hacking.". On May 16, 2007, David Gerard wrote an email on the WikiEN-l mailing list and said "Find "what links here" from Template:Spoiler, open all articles beginning with a letter and clear that letter out. Or ten or twenty. Shouldn't take too long." David Gerard also wrote an email and said "Could those of you who despise this thing please take the time to go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Spoiler and remove it from ten or so articles where this is clearly the case?" (where it appears under a "Plot summary" heading). David Gerard also wrote "Can we kill this creature yet? Huh? Can we?". On May 19, 2007, David Gerard wrote an email and said "I note that I've been removing inappropriate spoilers as fast as I can and almost all have stayed that way. Whereas those reverting me have tended to be blocked for 3RR a lot, i.e. are hotheads." On May 19, 2007, David Gerard wrote "Where is the evidence our readers even care?". On May 20, 2007, David Gerard wrote "I did go looking for complaints. Just a quick search on blogsearch.google.com for "Wikipedia spoiler"." Steve Bennett asked "Can anyone give me a 1-sentence description of the net outcome of the recent spoiler war?" and on May 31, 2007 David Gerard wrote "Net outcome: If your article needs , it's defective enough it may as well be tagged .". The events surrounding the bot's use to find and list pages that contain the word "spoiler" makes me question whether the community at large approves of such use, or whether Tony Sidaway is using TonyBot in order to push his POV throughout every article on Wikipedia. That POV may be shared by several editors, but it needs to be determined what percentage of Wikipedia readers share that POV. --Pixelface (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Random editors, mostly IPs, engaging in clear original research and adding their point of view. Not much evidence there at all. --Farix (Talk) 12:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me also add that this no more demonstrates that there is a consensus for spoiler warnings as a similar list of vandalism demonstrates that there is a consensus for vandalism. Consensus on a dispute of this nature can only be be achieved through discussion. --Farix (Talk) 12:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've provided evidence that a practice exists other than the one this guideline describes. Are you suggesting that edits by unregistered users are not valuable? Are you suggesting that those editors were vandalizing Wikipedia? How were those edits original research? Shall we notify all of those editors so they can be present here and take part in this discussion? --Pixelface (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: * Without re-hashing the endless debate that Radiant so admirably cut-through, your argument is utterly without merit.  The "practice" is not representative of the way the vast majority of wikipedia "practice" operates.  It's ideological, and the number of participants is too small to fall back upon as representative of some larger, more general consensus.  Unless you can come up with a better argument than "It's the way we do it because it's rigidly enforced by a small number of users" as "That's why we do it that way" you're adding nothing to the conversation.  Please please come up with a better argument. - CygnetSaIad (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No better argument can exist than "the policy accurately describes current practice. No consensus exists for alternative practices." Policy is descriptive, not proscriptive. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * You've simply repeated yourself, without adding anything new.  The claim has been made, with what appears on even casual investigation to be some merit, that "what's done" is in fact the result of the SPOILER patrol zealously enforcing their own idea of the guideline.  While the examination of this claim is probably outside the auspice of this talk page, it clearly calls into question your argument.  That is to say, it puts the burden of proof back on you.  You need to demonstrate that this policy's particular place in the pantheon is no different from any others, where there aproscriptive nature is the result of large scale collaborative editing. - CygnetSaIad (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Phil Sandifer, are style guidelines descriptive or proscriptive? --Pixelface (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  (addressed mainly to Cygnet Salad: Indulging in this kind of meta-argument has all the usefulness of navel-gazing.  Let's please keep to the topic. --Tony Sidaway 05:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "topic" is quite straightforward really: If there is no reason offered othered than "that's how it's done" than it's logical A) to examine how it's really done, and B) ask for a better reason.  If people quit offering non-arguments, I'll quit "navel-gazing." - CygnetSaIad (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This page is not for discussing how Wikipedia makes policy.  I suggest that you raise this topic on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). --Tony Sidaway 06:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You make it sound as though spoiler tags were deprecated randomly and without reason. Reasons were provided every step of the way, and consensus evolved to the current status quo, as evidenced by the lack of change to that status quo. Demonstrate a consensus for change. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: Well, we can keep talking here until the cows come home, but that is ultimately going to be ineffective, given the success everybody has had so far at convincing the other party. So, briefly and concisely, here is what the "pro-spoiler" people can effectively do. Note that none of this will be effective unless there is some modicum of consensus supporting that particular viewpoint.
#By our editing policy, you can edit any article that you believe contains spoilers, for instance to move perceived spoilers away from the lede, to warn people, or to otherwise change layout. People who disagree with such changes can likewise edit those pages to counter them, or find compromises or other solutions. As with any edit dispute, discussion on any particular article should be held on that article's talk page.
# was deleted via our TFD process, a decision which can be appealed at deletion review. This has already been tried once, but it can be tried again if need be - noting that you are unlikely to get a different outcome unless you bring new arguments to the table. Since the ArbCom doesn't deal with content decisions, and deletion review deals only with content decisions, a deletion review has no further appeal other than to Jimbo.
#You can create a new template, provided it is fundamentally different from those templates that have been deleted so far, and see if people like it and want to use it. I have not seen any feasible suggestions for such a template so far, but that shouldn't stop people from trying. Templates that are not fundamentally different will be summarily deleted per deletion policy (which can be appealed as above).
#You can discuss the particulars of  on that particular talk page. For instance, you can edit it to change its wording, or discuss on what manner of articles it should be placed, and for how long, or suggest that certain users be less quick in removing them.
Realistically speaking, that's pretty much it. Since this guideline reflects what people do (rather than the other way around), attempting to change its wording is going to be futile, unless one of the above actions is succesful first. To put it differently, product and process both trump policy, so changing policy is only effective through changing product or process first. Or, of course, people can choose to continue discussing it here for another megabyte or two, but that does not strike me as particularly worthwhile. >Radiant< 13:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for action 

message: After the TfD removing the spoiler template much of the discussion above seems moot; lamenting over spilled milk.  We have a new tag which seems adequate when it is clearly written; however, the template seems unstable and thus not always very clear.  It seems to me that we should stop bickering over the nuances of the guideline and focus on an agreeable and stable template.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of text in Wikipedia—not just plot summaries—is written at the high school level. That's because we don't require anyone to prove their abilities before they write here. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some people bring good information without the polish to meet our standards.  It seems that we need a group of editors willing to provide the polish and help to demonstrate.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moot points 

message: Moved to WP:AN/I#Allegations of wrongdoing. This is dragging the discussion off topic and AN/I or one of the dispute resolution channels is the proper place to hold this discussion. --Farix (Talk) 12:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations of wrongdoing 

message: I just came up with an idea.
Internet Movie Database now has a feature called "Synopsis", which is designed to contain detailed information, including spoilers, about that particular movie.  Synopses can be added and edited by anybody who is a registered and verified member of the Internet Movie Database.  It is located under the movie's entry in the subentry "/synopsis".  For example, I myself have written a synopsis there for the movie SpaceCamp.
For movies and television at least, why couldn't Wikipedia entries contain a summary of the work, then a template with a link to that movie's synopsis page on IMDb for more detailed plot information? --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 16:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, we could do that (most plot summaries are too detailed), but any important plot information also has to be in the Wikipedia article. Encyclopedic coverage of The Empire Strikes Back necessarily has to include that the film's big surprise was that Darth Vader is Luke's father. Wikipedia's articles should stand on their own as much as possible (think printed versions or DVD editions etc.), and so we can't substitute IMDB's plot summaries for our own. Kusma (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If for no other reason than licensing -- IMDB is a commercial enterprise and is not licensed on the same terms as Wikipedia. So any sort of "incorporation by reference" is inappropriate (although referral to IMDB is as legitimate as any other referral). --Lquilter (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work with Internet Movie Database 

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. The log page is here. --Pixelface (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Current fiction}}]] 

message: If CF is deleted it will leave us with no templates to mark spoilers. At that point, is it worth it to maintain this page separate from WP:NDT considering that the effective text of this page will be "Wikipedia does not warn about spoilers beyond the general site disclaimer?" Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think WP:SPOIL is useful even if technically redundant, and serves better than a redirect to one line in a long page would - David Gerard (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If Current Fiction is deleted 

message: :Is it worth noting that this page is pretty much hidden from anyone looking for it? Try doing a search for it; there's no link anywhere. --YellowTapedR (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the first hit in a search for the word "spoiler" or "spoilers", so it's really not hidden at all. --Farix (Talk) 02:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? Actually try doing a search instead of trying to make me look stupid. There is no link on the page that comes up and there is no link on spoiler (media). --YellowTapedR (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Enter "spoiler" and then hit "search". But it isn't my fault that you can't properly search for something. --Farix (Talk) 02:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need to be a dick. That's exactly what I did and there is no link to it. Try it yourself. I looked back on the disambiguation page and it appears that Tony Sidaway removed the link. Interesting. --YellowTapedR (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do remember to remain civil, and I did do a search just before posting. Or do I need to take a screen shoot before you will believe me? --Farix (Talk) 02:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, you are one who is being uncivil by first accusing me of making you look bad, then calling me a dick when I restated that you weren't using the search function properly, and now claiming that I must be screwing with you. But here is the screen shot: :Image:Spoiler screenshot.png --Farix (Talk) 03:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably a difference in which namespaces are selected in user preferences (Search tab). I'm guessing that TheFarix has the Wikipedia namespace selected and YellowTapedR doesn't. I think the default setting is that only mainspace is searched, but editors often add other namespaces. Chaz Beckett 03:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: No, what happened was YellowTapedR made the mistake of using /go/ instead of /search/. The later is what brings up this page first. I do believe you can change those preferences, true, but hidden? Not in the least. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Because unless you specifically try to by entering the "Wikipedia:" prefix, all attempts to go to a page assume that you are looking for an article, not a policy page. There are a handful of exceptions - some of our three-letter-acronyms do work without the WP prefix, and a handful of things like No Personal Attacks will take you to the policy page, but even Neutral Point of View when searched for straight-on takes you to an article on journalistic objectivity. This is not a bug - unless you are clearly looking for a policy page, Wikipedia does not take you to one. This is true for all policy pages, not just this one. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right. There's no reason for it not to be there. Tony Sideway removed it, probably because it was in lumped together with the rest. I put it on top like most of the others. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed it specifically because links to policies and the like do not belong on Wikipedia.  If somebody wants to know about our policies they should look in the correct namespace. --Tony Sidaway 20:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, not everyone knows how to do that.  Beginners have the same rights as long-time users, you know, including the right to learn how to become better Wikipedia editors.  I think Melodia's solution is best. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I completely agree that new editors have the right to learn.  That isn't an argument for placing what amounts to unencyclopedic data into the encyclopedia body.  An introduction to Wikipedia, including its policies, is linked from the Main Page.  I will accept what Melodia has done but I don't think it's at all necessary. --Tony Sidaway 15:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a link on a disambiguation page.  Surely it is understandable that new users (and even some veteran users) will find there to be some ambiguity between Spoiler and WP:SPOILER, yes? A single link on the Main Page isn't necessarily enough (just as a discrete disclaimer on a page no one would normally visit is not necessarily enough). Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this page findable? 

message: A Wikipedia article is usually one of the first Google hits for a movie title.  A lot of people Google for more information about the overall plot of a movie, but don't want to read critical plot details.  The "Disclaimers" link is at the bottom of the page; there's no way a typical user is going to see that before reading the unwanted information.  I submit that out of courtesy to readers, it would be good to have spoiler warnings in Wikipedia articles about movies, TV shows, and books.
===Proposal for when/where to use a spoiler warning===
*when unexpected plot elements (not disclosed in any trailers or other promotional material) are revealed
*have one template to use if the entire section contains spoilers, and another to use if only the latter part of a section contains them ("The remaining part of this section contains spoilers...")
It's not possible to remove all subjectiveness out of the decision to include a spoiler warning, but that is the case with most Wikipedia guidelines, many of which deal with much more important or divisive content disputes.  Thanks for your consideration.  Eseymour (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, this has been mentioned and rejected. Kusma (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kusma doesn't tell the whole story. People are divided on the issue. Historically, there have been probably more spoiler warning proponents than opponents, but the proponents have less political power and came in several generations, so the opponents win. Samohyl Jan (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether there are "more spoiler warning proponents than opponents" is questionable. There is anecdotal evidence both supporting and refuting that statement. It depends whose anecdotes you believe. In either case, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Marc Shepherd (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, Wikipedia is _unfortunately_ not a democracy, thus a minority can enforce power over a majority, even in the case of subjective issues, such as spoiler warnings. Samohyl Jan (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what you mean. I honestly don't understand what the big drawback is to having some kind of minimally-intrusive spoiler warning, but as with so many topics on Wikipedia, it appears that a very motivated minority is able to enforce its will over a majority which has other things they'd rather do. Sigh. Eseymour (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me respond to the substance of the proposal, just for the heck of it. "Unexpected plot elements" is subjective. "Not disclosed in any trailers or other promotional material" appears arbitrary. Moreover, specifying "trailers [and] promotional material" is about as artificial as anything I've seen, subjecting any critical inquiry to the whims of what a promotional media department has decided to try to generate buzz about. ... Finally, as has been pointed out before, if people do not want to learn about a subject they shouldn't go to an encyclopedia on that subject. If all they want is what they could see in promotional materials then they should go to the promotional material itself. And while Google links are too arbitrary and bizarre for us to use as a criteria for anything here in Wikipedia, the statement that WP is the first link is not always true: for popular films with a large "promotional" budget, at least, a film website is more often than not the first google link. And they will include all the promotional buzz and plot mystification that any anti-spoiler person could wish. --Lquilter (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's subjective, but so is just about every other Wikipedia guideline.  FWIW, I didn't mean that everything not in promotional materials would be a spoiler, only things that significantly affect the plot and aren't revealed by the studio.  Oh well.  Eseymour (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several problems with this. First determining what "significantly affects the plot" is highly analytical and subjective and would be a blatant violation of WP:NOR without clear secondary sourcing. There is also the problem with how do you determine what information is not reveled by the studio or publisher. If I really want to get cranky, I could state that once the work has been released or published, then its plot details has been "reviled" by the studio or publisher and are no longer spoilers. And you can't make a distinction between what is released through promotional materials and the release of the work itself as is completely arbitrary and a possible violation of WP:NPOV. Not an ideal position if you are a supporter of spoiler warnings. --Farix (Talk) 17:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you say, but I've never seen a good argument that this is actually the case.  To me a spoiler warning violates NPOV or NOR in the same way almost any organizational element does... what counts as "Early Life", in a biography article, to use the classic example.
For that matter, determining whether information is important enough to be included in an article or is meaningless trivia is often in the same category.  Once you have a working definition of what you're going to count as a warning-merited spoiler, you'd probably have 90% agreement on where the spoilers are in any given article, any more than, once you have a working definition of a baker, you probably have 90% agreement about whether any particular character in a tv series or movie is a baker, or is involved in a love triangle, regardless as to whether the words were actually used in the fiction.  It doesn't count as something requiring a secondary source, The primary source itself is sufficient.  Or you'd have 90% agreement on whether a particular event counts as being in somebody's early history. Wandering Ghost (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: True, that detail is just trivia and doesn't belong in the intro. Chaz Beckett 16:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think cases like that could be handled editorially.  The triva about Lohan playing twins should follow the mention of that information in the plot summary section. Eseymour (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's probably already been mentioned, but... 

message: *when unexpected plot elements (not disclosed in any trailers or other promotional material) are revealed
*have one template to use if the entire section contains spoilers, and another to use if only the latter part of a section contains them ("The remaining part of this section contains spoilers...")
It's not possible to remove all subjectiveness out of the decision to include a spoiler warning, but that is the case with most Wikipedia guidelines, many of which deal with much more important or divisive content disputes.  Thanks for your consideration.  Eseymour (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, this has been mentioned and rejected. Kusma (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kusma doesn't tell the whole story. People are divided on the issue. Historically, there have been probably more spoiler warning proponents than opponents, but the proponents have less political power and came in several generations, so the opponents win. Samohyl Jan (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether there are "more spoiler warning proponents than opponents" is questionable. There is anecdotal evidence both supporting and refuting that statement. It depends whose anecdotes you believe. In either case, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Marc Shepherd (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, Wikipedia is _unfortunately_ not a democracy, thus a minority can enforce power over a majority, even in the case of subjective issues, such as spoiler warnings. Samohyl Jan (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what you mean. I honestly don't understand what the big drawback is to having some kind of minimally-intrusive spoiler warning, but as with so many topics on Wikipedia, it appears that a very motivated minority is able to enforce its will over a majority which has other things they'd rather do. Sigh. Eseymour (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me respond to the substance of the proposal, just for the heck of it. "Unexpected plot elements" is subjective. "Not disclosed in any trailers or other promotional material" appears arbitrary. Moreover, specifying "trailers [and] promotional material" is about as artificial as anything I've seen, subjecting any critical inquiry to the whims of what a promotional media department has decided to try to generate buzz about. ... Finally, as has been pointed out before, if people do not want to learn about a subject they shouldn't go to an encyclopedia on that subject. If all they want is what they could see in promotional materials then they should go to the promotional material itself. And while Google links are too arbitrary and bizarre for us to use as a criteria for anything here in Wikipedia, the statement that WP is the first link is not always true: for popular films with a large "promotional" budget, at least, a film website is more often than not the first google link. And they will include all the promotional buzz and plot mystification that any anti-spoiler person could wish. --Lquilter (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's subjective, but so is just about every other Wikipedia guideline.  FWIW, I didn't mean that everything not in promotional materials would be a spoiler, only things that significantly affect the plot and aren't revealed by the studio.  Oh well.  Eseymour (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several problems with this. First determining what "significantly affects the plot" is highly analytical and subjective and would be a blatant violation of WP:NOR without clear secondary sourcing. There is also the problem with how do you determine what information is not reveled by the studio or publisher. If I really want to get cranky, I could state that once the work has been released or published, then its plot details has been "reviled" by the studio or publisher and are no longer spoilers. And you can't make a distinction between what is released through promotional materials and the release of the work itself as is completely arbitrary and a possible violation of WP:NPOV. Not an ideal position if you are a supporter of spoiler warnings. --Farix (Talk) 17:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you say, but I've never seen a good argument that this is actually the case.  To me a spoiler warning violates NPOV or NOR in the same way almost any organizational element does... what counts as "Early Life", in a biography article, to use the classic example.
For that matter, determining whether information is important enough to be included in an article or is meaningless trivia is often in the same category.  Once you have a working definition of what you're going to count as a warning-merited spoiler, you'd probably have 90% agreement on where the spoilers are in any given article, any more than, once you have a working definition of a baker, you probably have 90% agreement about whether any particular character in a tv series or movie is a baker, or is involved in a love triangle, regardless as to whether the words were actually used in the fiction.  It doesn't count as something requiring a secondary source, The primary source itself is sufficient.  Or you'd have 90% agreement on whether a particular event counts as being in somebody's early history. Wandering Ghost (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: True, that detail is just trivia and doesn't belong in the intro. Chaz Beckett 16:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think cases like that could be handled editorially.  The triva about Lohan playing twins should follow the mention of that information in the plot summary section. Eseymour (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for when/where to use a spoiler warning

message: I noticed today that some articles were using the  template as a standing for the  template. That strikes me as very strange -  is for real-world future events, not things in a fictional storyline. It only has an appearance of acceptability in these articles because of their in-universe prose. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to be the action of one Bionicle editor who still thinks that article information should be made "safe" for those who don't want to be "spoiled". He is calling it a compromise of some sort. But my impression of the Bionicle articles is that they almost all violate WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT. --Farix (Talk) 16:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  future template 

message: Just as an aside, do we have an article on souveniring?  That was a major issue back in the days when I was a projectionist, one film came out nearly seven minutes short due to the number of souvenir frames that had been taken from it (and maybe the occasional bad repair, not everyone was as scrupulous as us about repairing tears when they happened, we always suspected the local Odious of just cutting dozens of frames out rather than repairing them). Guy (Help!) 21:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Souveniring 

message: ←To Masem: You're presenting a reason that readers should eventually expect what they get and be responsible. This is the so-called "outgroup" argument from further up. That still is no reason that we can't cater to what they expect right from the start. You're also saying what's "better", but you're not presenting any reason. I'm proposing not to take it upon ourselves to decide what's better for our readers, but rather to take our cues from what all the other sources already do, and not do any more or less than them. Can you give me a good reason why you're so sure that the way they're doing it is actually worse than the way we're doing it? If no one reliable does what we're currently doing, how can you say that we're reliable? How do you justify this? If the revelation of spoilers really isn't a big deal, how do you explain why everyone else isn't also doing it? Equazcion •✗/C • 02:42, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We can say we're "reliable" because we have millions of editors working 24/7 on our articles doing quality control. I don't think the point of WP is to compare us to other sites. WP has one policy, other places have another. Readers are well aware of what they'll get when they view each site. I haven't seen any outcry from people demanding WP institute spoilers, or angry because they learned something they didn't want to know. Snowfire51 (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that we have millions of editors working constantly says nothing about our reliability. Lots of people working can still be working to uphold policies that don't produce the most reliable material, not to mention more doesn't equal better. You haven't heard an outcry because people aren't infants who would complain about things like that. Even if everything on Wikipedia sucked horribly you wouldn't hear an "outcry". All you'd hear would be arguments coming from the people who care about Wikipedia and about making it better, which is what you're hearing now. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:07, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I had forgotten what little fun it is to discuss wikipedia policy with you. Okay, I'm done here. I'll sum up, I oppose changing wikipedia's policy on spoilers. I don't think changing it adds anything to WP, other than making it far more difficult to contribute and properly edit. I see no problems from the current setup, and WP has grown considerably under current policy. Snowfire51 (talk) 03:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think Wikipedia has grown enough. I think attracting new users shouldn't be our focus anymore. We've already got an overabundance of manpower. I think we should now shift over to focus on our readers, rather than what's the most fun and easy thing for us to do, as contributors. Nevertheless I understand and respect your opinion. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:44, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You go shift focus. Knock yourself out. The majority of editors will continue to do what's  'fun'. After all, noone's getting paid, noone has ANY obligation. People will only work on what they find rewarding, even if it goes against what you personally see as important. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If fun and lack of payment were the only motivations here then we wouldn't need policy. But the output of a useful and quality source of information are priorities, which is why we have policies. Proposing that those priorities would be better served with a change shouldn't garner the kind of response you just gave. If you have respect for policy then you're here for the same reason I am. We're all working towards the same goal, and if we occasionally disagree on the best way to get there, that's okay. Let's discuss it civilly. If you disagree to the point that the discussion actually bothers you, then you're welcome to leave it up to others. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:10, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: people would leave, break 1

message: The following email was posted by Phil Sandifer to the WikiEN-l mailing list on November 14, 2007:
--Pixelface (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can read the rest of the discussion at this subpage:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler/Mailing_list_November_2007 --Pixelface (talk) 06:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: To answer Phil's question, maybe "being honest about one's intentions" is the best way to deal with those people? Sarcasm aside, this makes me sad, because saying things like these are precisely the reason why people believe in WP:CABAL. Also, I would like to note, there are not the same pro-SW people over and over - there have been more than a handful of people that came here and said they were unaware of spoiler warning removal, and were negatively surprised. Samohyl Jan (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  However, there is only a small handful of people (on both sides of the issue) who actually cared enough about it to continue a prolonged debate. That has always suggested to me that most Wikipedians either agree with how things have turned out, are neutral about the way they turned out, or that they consider the issue not sufficiently important to argue about. Marc Shepherd (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does every editor who has added a spoiler warning to an article know about this guideline? Shall I notify all of them so they can come here and discuss it? Editors can't argue about a guideline if they don't know it exists. Much of the discussion about the spoiler template has occurred on the WikiEN-l mailing list. I consider the mailing list archives part of this discussion and that's why I have linked to them here. If an editor is not a mailing list subscriber, they are unaware of what's being discussed there. If the spoiler template appeared in 45,000 articles in May and was listed for deletion when it appeared in 45,000 articles and was tagged with a  template so people could see it was up for deletion, I would agree with you about the "small handful of people" and the prolonged debate. Perhaps some people don't think it's sufficiently important to argue about, but I think it's more likely that many editors are simply unaware of the whole issue — as Lobojo and Equazcion demonstrated. --Pixelface (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  And the point is? That majority doesn't care isn't an argument in favor nor against spoiler warnings. Samohyl Jan (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: One thing he might consider doing is not calling his opposition "lunatic POV pushers". The worst mistake a person can make in a debate is to regard his opponent as opinionated and stupid while seeing himself as neutral and enlightened. "He who realizes he knows nothing has found the path to enlightenment." Progress won't commence until the majority side recognizes that they are not right or neutral simply because they are the majority. Everyone has an opinion on what policy should be, and they are all POVs. We all need to start realizing that. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:07, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think what Phil really wants is a Committee of Experts who would decide major policy questions, without the burdensome need for a consensus process that tends to bog things down. Personally, I agree with him (and no, I would not be interested in being one of the so-called "experts"; I would happily defer to whatever they decide). But I can't see that happening. Marc Shepherd (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be a good solution to a lot of WP's problems, but I imagine it's the antithasis of what the foundation and Jimbo want the project to be. Plus, I can just see people getting annoyed that /their/ issue wasn't addressed, which is why as it even stands now, very little is taken care of "at the top". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah, because dictatorship, not democracy, is the way that successful countries are run. Thanks but no, my country was run by committees of experts for 40 years. Samohyl Jan (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And they'd declare their opponents insane too. It's a lot easier than making a logical argument.--Nydas(Talk) 22:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'm surprised that they were removed (which is the first problem, I think: I don't know when I noticed that I hadn't seen one in a while, but I don't recall ever seeing any notice that any such plan was in the works). Without using the same language as Phil, I don't think there was anything silly about them, nor do I find them particularly unencyclopedic. I think it's sclerotic thinking to say that we can't apply the advantages of the medium in ways that transform our notions of an encyclopedia. This is not your grandma's Britannica: people can stumble on a Wikipedia page from anywhere on the Internet, and to warn them in this way is just a simple courtesy (and one *I* certainly appreciated, as I'm a voracious reader). I'm not on the mailing list either, and had no idea this was happening and knew of no venue where I could voice my concerns. Anyway: I think it's a mistake, and it's news to me. --Rhombus (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reflections on the end of the spoiler wars 

message: I made a proposal similar to this a month or so ago, and I think in the past month or so the case has become clearer.  We no longer have spoiler templates on Wikipedia articles, and this is explained adequately at WP:NDT.  It would make sense, therefore, to put this separate guideline page, which used to be an exception. into abeyance and redirect to the more general guideline. --Tony Sidaway 12:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, to the point of simple fact that the redirect itself would make the whole point a lot more clear. We WOULD need to make sure to keep this talk page's archives there, as well, though. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree.  Talk page too? Hiding T  13:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, that would make sense. I also agree that keeping the archives of this talk page is important. Chaz Beckett 13:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I disagree. The spoiler issue is highly controversial and deserves its own guideline, both to be a prominent and easy-to-find place where users can find out Wikipedia's stance on the issue, and to hold discussion on it. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:39, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

text: I do agree that we're not discussing deletion of archives or even, necessarily, redirection of this talk page. --Tony Sidaway 13:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a ridiculous proposal. With how heated the spoiler debate is and how many people care about it, the issue is hardly over and done with, so it's wrong to get rid of it. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:48, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

text:  At the risk of assuming bad faith, Tony has lobbied incessantly to get the major discussion on this page removed, and I believe that failing that, he's now resorted to trying to get rid of the guideline altogether. I think this is childish and needs to stop. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:50, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're missing the point, though, that the policy on spoilers -- no longer an exception of WP:NDT, is now redundant. AT THE MOMENT, it falls there, and placing a redirect to there will show that yes, don't use them because we don't put that TYPE of warning on WP. Of course, many disagree that they are the same, but as I don't, I support moving it there until a point comes (if it comes) that WP uses some sort of spoiler notice again. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it were no longer an exception and the issue seemed dead, I would have no problem with a merge. However the issue is still debated. Removing this guideline in the midst of that is, again, a ridiculous proposal. Furthermore, consensus should be served, and the decision to close this guideline should, of course, not be left up to just those people who were always on the side of getting rid of spoiler warnings. Such a decision could be seen as a conflict of interest -- a way of permanently quelling the spoiler debate, so that their particular views are in less danger of being opposed. Therefore, if you are serious about this proposal, I suggest posting a merge template both here and at WP:NDT, and posting a formal merge proposal at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, so that consensus can be properly assessed. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:41, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not a bad idea, granted. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Do we need to say the latter? I've very seldom seen removals of material on the grounds that it's a spoiler, and I don't think it occurred to me to appeal to this guideline when I restored it.  We just don't remove significant material from an encyclopedia because, well, it's an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 16:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was some trouble at the Pro Wrestling project, with people asking for a spoiler embargo. See e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 35#Spoilers again! Kusma (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I commented in a forthright fashion on that proposal    but I certainly didn't rely on this guideline.  Really it's a matter of whether something is significant, reliably sourced and expressed in neutral and balanced manner in the context of the article.  Spoilers are no more special in the context of policy than any other fact. --Tony Sidaway 18:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Whether content is a spoiler or not is irrelevant; content policies operate independent of spoiler issues. I don't know whether an extra page to express that is really warranted or not, I just wanted to point out removal of verifiable "spoiling" content has been a contentious issue. Kusma (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think it's a natural tendency, for users who aren't familiar with how Wikipedia works, to see removal of spoiler content as improving articles. It's important to explicitly state what the policy is. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:07, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposed merger is a bad idea, since it hides the discussion under even more layers of flab. Presumably this is the idea, given the determined efforts at censorship throughout this debate. I wouldn't put it past the anti-spoiler admins to quietly get the redirect deleted as well; it would be consistent with their past behavour.--Nydas(Talk) 17:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now now, let's not assume bad faith. I wouldn't go accusing admins of things they haven't even done yet. But I agree with the motivation for this proposal, as I stated as much above. This proposal is a sham, an attempt to quell those on the other side of the debate. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:40, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not assuming bad faith; they honestly believe what they're doing is the right thing. It's like a village which has a law which states that one cannot wear a hat on a Tuesday. The village elders would not doubt vigorously defend such a law, perhaps stating that 'all the other villages have the same law' or 'we're a village, not a hatshop'.--Nydas(Talk) 18:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  The spoiler template was already deleted, and every attempt to resurrect it or recreate it or anything resembling it has been deleted.  All avenues of appeal have, for the time being, been exhausted.  "The other side of the debate" can certainly state its opinion, but we have to work with reality here.  What has actually happened is that spoiler tags have left the building through a process of open debate over several months in which all sides stated their opinions.  This is just a proposal (not universally supported by all who were opposed to spoiler tags--see Kusma's comments above) to merge this guideline into the guideline for which it was for a long time the one anomalous exception. --Tony Sidaway 18:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whether or not the original opposers universally support this doesn't say anything about whether or not a select few have chosen to act inappropriately. The avenue of appeal is discussion, and that is still ongoing. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:47, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

text:  No, we went through this before.  If someone has acted inappropriately, use the Dispute resolution process.  Don't clutter up policy discussions with endless accusations of wrongdoing. --Tony Sidaway 22:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just because some have acted inappropriately doesn't mean I feel there's any dispute that needs resolving. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:12, 8 Jan 2008 (UTC)

text:  Sorry, but this sounds like a censorship to me. How can people who manage dispute resolution see if there is a dispute, if people are not allowed to discuss a dispute or voice their opinion? Samohyl Jan (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Censorship is a red flag word, almost always indicating POV-pushing.  Please pick something which is less loaded. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I disagree, unless it will be clear what will happen with the talk page and it's archives and with the history of this page. The history of this page is referred from the discussion, so it would be bad if it would be lost. Samohyl Jan (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  A redirect is made by editing the page so that the new top version contains a redirection directive to the new page.  The talk page may either be redirected or left as it is.  The history is not lost. --Tony Sidaway 07:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought about it, and disagree with the move. The people may want to discuss SWs in the future, so it's better if the pages are separate. Samohyl Jan (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Doc just added the invitation to discuss this issue on talk to the guideline page after a request here. Would you prefer to hide the existence of this merge proposal? Kusma (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that I missed that request for the template above. I know that Tony Sidaway has   turned this guideline into a  in the past. And I am wary of people using  tags to turn articles into redirects. The  tag is not a  tag. The  tag is for proposing merges, not redirects. I oppose a redirect, and I oppose merging the current wording of this guideline into WP:NDA. --Pixelface (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: redirect this page to [[Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles]]