Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning

message: I'm sure the closing admin will know policy well enough and will read this comment, and the one above  (that you posted earlier, and was also at the bottom of the page, complete with requests to post above it). There is no need for the extra emphasis complete with wiki commented <! -- warnings --> to post above it. What is stated here is no more or less important then what anyone else here has stated. (Please note I have not yet made a statement on this MFD) —— Eagle101Need help? 01:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MFD is wrong venue for policy discussions. This is a compromise as it stands. Two options : Leave MFD open, albeit with caveat, or speedy close MFD as inappropriate venue. One is giving folks a break as per WP:IAR, one is following policy. Your call. :-) --Kim Bruning 02:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For now I think it is best to allow folks to comment, there seems to be a large group of people willing to discuss this issue here, and as such it is probably best to leave it here, even if that is considered ignoring all rules. :) This seems to be getting a very large section of the community involved. —— Eagle101Need help? 02:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that does seem to be a good idea to me. Don't you think? However, the next time you remove the point of policy, I shall be forced to close, as current policy does not allow more tolerance. (Else I'd have to violate 3RR just to be polite and accommodate your whims) Would you prefer to talk with me here and reach a compromise?  --Kim Bruning 02:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never did remove your statement :), All I've done is put it in the normal format of the rest of the debate, what you say is not more important then what anyone else says right? —— Eagle101Need help? 02:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But the content of the comment was important, as the only alternative was to close the discussion. Which I have now done (This is an ironic situation where I ran out of reverts to be polite with ^^;; ). --Kim Bruning 02:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, nevermind, speedy closed as I typed my message. -- Ned Scott 02:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or not.. look, people, regardless if there are going to be warnings or not, there should still be a guideline to tell people what's up. In the very least it will tell people not to use such warnings, or "hide spoiler" methods. -- Ned Scott 02:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Ok, let's do the compromise where we leave a point of policy at the bottom of the page, but let people have their say anyway. This discussion would then basically be about marking the page "historical", which is fine by me. You can then go about fixing the process to make it acceptable to the community again. Will that do? --Kim Bruning 03:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good. Thank you for being reasonable. Axem Titanium 03:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The discussion should be about us using spoiler warnings or not. This discussion should be able to accurately gauge community consensus. The outcome will dictate what the active guideline will then say. -- Ned Scott 03:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all I want. The guideline can stay, just what it says is up for debate. How about a message box at the top to inform debaters about the nature of the debate? Axem Titanium 03:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think Deckiller said it best here. MFD may not be the best place to discuss it but at least it's very visible and generates a lot of discussion (45kb in only a few hours). I don't think vote counting is even necessary. We can just wait until it dies down and then cull consensus from the pages of discussion. Axem Titanium 03:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, but you yell COI at me, but not at Deckiller (because he holds the same view you do)? 45kb is nothing, check the talk archives of this very page. -- Ned Scott 03:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but Deckiller isn't trying to suppress new debate. Indeed, he does have a COI but he's not here unilaterally doing anything. I have a COI too: I don't like spoiler warnings (for reasons founded in my own logic and repeated ad nauseam), but I still get a say in it just like you and Deck do. Axem Titanium 03:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In no way am I trying to suppress debate. I am respectful to those who disagree with me, and I've even stuck up for them when they were not around, because I knew there logic and respected it. Your assumptions of me are completely unfair and wrong. I wanted to find a way to include ALL the comments from the MFD to the current discussion, while promoting a better format for discussion, but I guess you guys didn't even consider that. -- Ned Scott 03:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry for the delay in commenting, my school had a fire alarm in the pouring rain. I'm soaking wet, but besides the point, This conversation would be best at a RFC on a policy or a guideline... or on a manual of style element. There are two types... but this one fits both of them!
*Wikipedia style, referencing, layout and WikiProjects 	(watch) 	(add entry)
*Wikipedia policies, guidelines and proposals 	(watch) 	(add entry)
are the two options.
Kim I'd like to appologize for not figuring out your edit, I hit your 3rd edit in an edit conflict whilist modifiying my own comment, and I presummed someone reverted me wholesale, and just copy pasted. (I did not realize you wanted to talk on the talk page, in any case I'm sorry, and I know I fucked up. Cheers! —— Eagle101Need help? 03:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It happens. I could have used a different order for my edits, or been a tad slower myself.  --Kim Bruning 03:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

message: While I feel it's still too early to "call the fight", if the conclusion is to no longer use spoiler warnings, would This version be acceptable for the new spoiler guideline? -- Ned Scott 05:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The second point on what not to do ends with "...instead of properly applying spoiler templates," which it probably shouldn't. --Masamage ♫ 05:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's perhaps a decent start - an explicit allowing of spoilers in article leads if the spoiler is a major aspect of the topic is, to my mind, essential, but it's certainly not mind-wrenchingly awful. Phil Sandifer 05:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With a little editting, that version looks good. Don't throw in the towel, just yet, though. A good debate is always fun. Axem Titanium 05:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do to for delete 

message: Actually, you're not supposed to discuss policies and guidelines at MFD. One of the reasons MFD got split off from WP:AFD is so that we could easily catch situations where that happened.
Now since closing an MFD always causes a lot of wikidrama, I decided to try to just put a friendly footer on the page, that points out that all deletes go to historify, and that we're actually sort of Ignoring that "inconvenient" rule by keeping the discussion here.
Of course, if the footer gets removed all the time, well, you can't have your cake and eat it too, and we'll just have to close the MFD anyway. 
(possibly I'm being too soft, and should just crack down and enforce policy)
--Kim Bruning 09:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see what happens if we put it in a box. :-) --Kim Bruning 09:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: xFD is sometimes the best way to create a policy discussion. Sure, it's against The Rules, but it works, so what's the problem? Kusma (talk) 09:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Huh? Of course it doesn't work for policy and guidelines. By no measure. We're just keeping this MFD open for once because I wanted to see if that's easier than closing it. People can all have their fun and wikidrama waste their time, and then we'll end up doing the actual consensus formation elsewhere (just like many other times when people tried MfDing active guidelines). :-/ --Kim Bruning 11:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MfD gets more people involved than talk page discussion. why is that bad? Kusma (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice at bottom of page 

message: Can one non-pointedly nominate WP:MfD at WP:MfD? Carcharoth 13:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would probably be inappropriate.  But if MFD had become a sick process one would simply delete it or mark it historical.  If concensus was that MFD was sick then that would be that. --Tony Sidaway 13:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, so miscelleny includes User namespace pages, and Wikipedia namespace pages that are not policy or guidelines. So essays comes here, and WikiProjects and noticeboards (PAIN) and other organisations (Esperanza), but what about processes (like the various XfDs and PROD and FAC and DRV) and other organisations (eg. ArbCom or Community Portal)? Of course, most of these are currently functioning well, but I am just saying that MfD, despite seeing some massive debates over certain classes of miscellany, might not be the best place for some of those classes. Is there the stomach for another "type" of XfD process? Or should it be made clearer which discussions should be kept away from deletion venues and directed to requests for comments, with the caveat that MfD may be an acceptable way to advertise such an "inactivation" discussion? Carcharoth 13:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophical point 

message: Both the MfD and the TfD were/are apparently inappropriate venues for discussion, but why is the pro-deletion MfD included directly on the page, when the pro-keep TfD is hidden away on a sub-page? This unfairly slants the discussion in favour of the anti-spoiler camp.--Nydas(Talk) 19:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please WP:AGF, there is no reason to believe that this was intentional. The reason for this was probably because this RFC page was moved directly from the MfD page so a separate page for the MfD wasn't created since it would be extra work. I was under the impression that the TfD was closed prematurely anyway. Axem Titanium 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we not move the MfD onto another page to avoid it influencing the debate? Some people have been citing it as part of the 'consensus'--Nydas(Talk) 21:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why we wouldn't want an MfD that overwhelmingly showed that the guideline lacks support to influence the debate. Phil Sandifer 22:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the TfD which showed a clear majority in favour of keeping isn't being given the same airing? Don't you think that's a little unfair?--Nydas(Talk) 22:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The TfD shows that there is some consensus to have some form of spoiler warning. The MfD shows that there is no consensus for the current rules for doing so. Since nobody seems to be seriously proposing a complete ban on spoiler warnings, I'd say the TfD position is pretty well-represented. Phil Sandifer 22:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, the "keep" votes for the TfD barely managed 60%, a far cry from the super-majority needed to build consensus. At any rate, the MfD has been archived similarly. Axem Titanium 22:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MfD/TfD disparity

message: I can't find the response I wrote to Kusma on Poll 1 (the one where I asked whether Xenu was written as fiction or non-fiction and pointed out that Romeo and Juliet can still be spoiled even though people know what happens at the end), even when I check the history pages, and my earlier response to him (the one beginning "No, it really doesn't") keeps getting moved into the votes against section, when I've already voted in the votes for.  Can people please stop moving my comments?  RobbieG 22:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop moving my comments!