Talk:Memories of Matsuko

message: Just reverted to an earlier version per WP:CP due to a large amount of copyrighted text added by someone in March. The text appears to have been taken from , which was archived at  prior to the text being added to this article. I'll try to re-add the infobox and stuff like that in the next few minutes. Try to keep an eye out for these sorts of issues in the future. --- RockMFR 02:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point regarding the spoiler warning is no longer "moot," as there is now a summary which does not violate copyright.  The same issues regarding spoilers remain.zadignose 00:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: WP:SPOILER is a guideline, not a policy.  WP:CONSENSUS is a policy, a much stronger statement.
Here is the definition of Wikipedia Guidlines, from the page :Category:Wikipedia guidelines:
:Guidelines are a set of rules and recommendations that are supported by consensus and should generally be followed, but unlike policies are not mandatory and subject to the occasional exception.
Here is the definitiion of Wikipedia Policies, from the page Wikipedia:List of policies:
:Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered standards that all users should follow. 
I believe that the editors working on this article have the right to create a consensus for the article according to Wikipedia policy, and that the guidline about spoilers should be respectfully considered in doing so.  But I do not believe that the spoiler guideline must be followed over and above the consensus, if the editors here don't agree with the guideline.
In this situation, that's especially important, because the guideline itself does not have consensus.  That makes it a very weak guideline indeed.  It means that today it can say one thing and tomorrow another.  So how are the editors here to follow a disputed guideline?
In my humble opinion, it would be "firm and correct" (a term from the I Ching), to follow the policy first, and then, if the guideline fits our understanding of the policy, then follow the guideline too.
Since the guidline itself does not yet really know what should be done with the spoiler alerts on this article, I recommend that the editors here make up their own minds and make it a good article to the best of our abilities.  If that means including a spoiler alert, then one should be included, if and only if, the editors here develop a real consensus for that.
As far as the guideline itself, I still am not sure why some people don't like the spoiler alerts.  But apparently there are many who don't like them.
So my recommendation is to minimize their use, but, if you believe they should be present, go ahead and use them.  Use them in a way that keeps the article well-written and organized, but don't omit them just because a guideline that is in a state of change tells you to omit them.
If you do include them, make sure you have a section here on the talk page where you indicate that you have consensus for it.  And if some disagree, discuss and address the issues.  This is important so that challenges that come later can be addressed by showing the documentation of the consensus.
In summary - those are my interpretations of the policies and how they apply to this situation, as I see it in good faith. Further comments are welcome. --Parzival418 Hello 10:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're going to debate in favor of a spoiler notice on this article, please don't hand-craft notices to avoid detection.. ;)  David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the requirement to use a template, rather than a hand-crafted notice is quite unique and questionable in itself, still I think we should honor the general intent of the guideline.zadignose 00:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: guidlines are not policy

message: ;Statement of the problem:
*Some editors have stated the article should have a spoiler alert if there is a consensus for it.  The guidline WP:SPOILER is unclear because it is currently under dispute, therefore WP:CONSENSUS should be followed in preference.
*Some editors have stated that WP:SPOILER should be followed as it is and that they intepret it to suggest the spoiler alert should be omitted.
;Please enter comments below:
Include.  I believe that the spoiler alert should be included, in an appropriate and careful manner, covering only the plot points that would damage the experience of the film for a first time viewer.  --Parzival418 Hello 10:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there are only "include" entries here, I have added the notice.  Please check and see if you agree with where I put it. You are welcome to move it if you prefer it appear elsewhere.  --Parzival418 Hello 17:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article clearly doesn't need a spoiler tag, per WP:SPOILER and common sense. I'm not removing it at the moment, but eventually someone will. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that until I came along, there was a clear consensus over 4 days' discussion to include it. That actually satisfies the guideline (and arguments of anti-spoiler editors) that consensus on teh Talk page is sufficient to including one. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 13:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comments: Shall this article have a spoiler alert?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Memories of Matsuko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061108232657/http://kiraware.goo.ne.jp/ to http://kiraware.goo.ne.jp/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)