Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 9

message: If anyone wants to check it out, here is a current AN/I report regarding a spoiler issue.  Its heading is "Users pushing personal agenda", but the topic is spoilers.  It's not about notices, it's about content removal, based on "popular opinion" as a justification. --Parsifal Hello 09:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And hopefully no one here is suggesting the user was correct in removing content of a spoiler nature just because it was a spoiler... David Fuchs (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or the citation of "by popular demand" as a legitimate reason to remove any kind of content. --Farix (Talk) 13:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No one is judging you, Pars. I meant (and believe Farix does) that we hope the people here beating their heads against the wall arguing the guideline realize that justifying a template by "popular demand" does not validate it-- and that removing content for the sole reason of it being a spoiler is wrong. David Fuchs (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The only reason it when to WP:AN/I was because it was turning into an edit war. It actually had very little to do with "the spoiler issue". --Farix (Talk) 13:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  current AN/I report - spoiler issue 

message: The problem is not the guideline itself, but the way it is enforced. So, how about keeping everything the same and adding something along the lines of:
Editors should seek consensus on the article's talk page before removing spoiler tags, unless they are in areas where spoilers are expected, such as plot, themes and character sections.
--YellowTapedR 22:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I'm pretty sure its says to obtain consensus already. David Fuchs (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No, you don't. You need to wait more than 3 hours before declaring nobody is watching the page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  All right 

message: This stuff about the anti-spoiler crowd claiming to have consensus is nonsense. If you read through the archives of this page, the majority clearly supports keeping them. Now they'll say that wikipedia isn't a "majority rules" organization, but that doesn't mean that everything must be decided by the MINORITY. The pro-spoiler crowd needs to be more bold and just edit the damn guideline. --YellowTapedR 23:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comment regarding this proposed compromise... Girolamo Savonarola 00:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enough 

message: When you ask a friend "What's this movie about?" they usually tell you the plot, without giving away the important and surprising aspects of the story.
This is how I expected plot summaries on wikipedia to be - unless otherwise indicated (with a spoiler alert), plot summaries would not give away important or surprising aspects of a story.  However, I guess I was wrong, judging from all this - it seems most people see "plot" as being synonymous with "spoiler".  I can't be the only person who finds this false.
I am quite distressed, since I decided to look up a book that I've been wanting to read for ages, and decided to read the plot summary since there was no spoiler sign.  Bad idea.  I was shocked to find that it described a vital plot twist.  Now the story that I've been waiting years to read has been spoiled for me.  If you are wondering, it is Sati, by Christopher Pike.
It seems that other people have been editing the page to include the obvously needed spoiler tag, but they keep getting removed and this page is cited as the reason for removal.  I highly object to this.  When I see a heading indicating "Plot", I don't think that it's a spoiler unless it's marked as such. Rediahs 16:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would direct you to the lengthy discussion on this point in the archives. I don't think anything else needs to be added. David Fuchs (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has always been the stated aim of the anti-spoiler people to 'burn' those who expect spoilers, until they learn otherwise. They see you as stupid and at least some of them consider you an aesthetic pervert for liking narrative suspense.--Nydas(Talk) 17:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There's a lesson in this: if you don't want to find out the plot of a book, don't read the plot section of its Wikipedia entry. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 17:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words Don't use Wikipedia .Garda40 18:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nydas, Phil wrote that email. I didn't. I have not been subscribed to the Wikipedia mailing lists for some time (I did when I was trying to resolve a dispute regarding the Hebrew Wiki) and in any case never noticed anything about spoilers. In any case, I am not trying to 'burn' Rediahs, only prevent pointless iterations of the same arguments over and over again. That's the point of archives, history, whatever. David Fuchs (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you resist the urge to prevent discussion.--Nydas(Talk) 21:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed.  I don't use Wikipedia if I don't want to learn something. I use Wikipedia a lot. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 18:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll just sidestep Mark's snide implication that those who don't want spoilers are uninformed, and answer Garda40 on a personal level: I do a lot of research on movies for various reasons, and no, now that I know Wikipedia actively discourages the use of spoiler tags, I won't use it for research anymore.  There's no reason to use Wikipedia if the content can include spoilers but readers get no warning of this.  As for what I was hoping to accomplish, well, it's pretty obvious most here don't want to accomplish anything.  The anti-tag people are too busy being smugly self-righteous, and the pro-tag people keep thinking life should be fair.  Clockster 13:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot doesn't necessarily indicate a spoiler. 

message: I did some searching, but couldn't find any encyclopedic web sites dedicated to entertainment. Most of the sites out there are fan-based, retail-based or places like imdb.com. But Britannica does not even have articles on individual works, so you can't use them as a comparison either.
The way I see it, it's reasonable to assume readers will know the a work will be spoiled for them if there is a plot section more than two or three paragraphs. But when there is only a paragraph or two, they're more likely to assume it's just a snapshot of the plot similar to what's printed on the back of DVD cases and books. In some cases, though, the ending is given away in just one paragraph. Like here in the Death Wish 3 article (I was being quick and couldn't find a better example):
"Paul Kersey (again played by Bronson) returns to New York City to visit a war buddy from the Korean war, only to find his friend brutally murdered by a gang led by a reverse mohawk-wearing Manny Fraker (Gavan O'Herlihy). Soon afterwards, the police coerce Kersey into attacking a criminal riot in a dangerous neighborhood as a way of exploiting his freedom from legal restraints. In the film's climax, Kersey mows down many of the criminals with a Browning M1919A4 machine gun, then obliterates the criminal leader with a mail-ordered rocket launcher."
--YellowTapedR 00:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's weird about that plot summary is it's incredibly simple and concise, yet full fo incredibly pointless info (a Browning M1919A4? Do we need to know exactly what make and model of gun used?) David Fuchs (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You can expand the plot summary to an encyclopedic length. Readers shouldn't expect the non-summaries that appear on DVD covers. Those non-summaries are intended to conceal the plot, while our articles are intended to include it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other sites