Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 7

message: Arbitration reject: Spoiler Warning (19:57, 5 July 2007 )
. The mediation has stalled, so that brings this down to two active venues of discussion: here and the RFC. Any others? - David Gerard 15:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the exception of a meta-discussion about the tone of the debate, and a digression about depictions of rape, the RfC seems to be dormant at present. --Tony Sidaway 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Any admin want to remove the RFC pointer from ? I would but I expect me doing it would go down badly in itself ... - David Gerard 18:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Premature closing of things has been a contentious issue so far. This last week was a vacation for a lot of U.S. professionals due to Independence Day (July 4). There's no rush. I suggest admins wait 8 days before a closing the Spoiler RFC to give any remaining once-a-week editors a final opportunity. Milo 09:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration declined 

message: When we do reach some kind of consensus, would somebody be willing to try and briefly summarise the process, arguments and justifications we went through to arrive there? This policy has been disputed periodically for at least four years. I think it would be best if we left something brief and understandable for people to start from if they want to reopen discussion (as they almost certainly will). We've produced an enormous body of text here, far more than any sane reader  will want to wade through unguided in the future. -Kieran 00:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll try, but no doubt we'll argue about that as well =) Philip Reuben 00:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This discussion is incredibly inflamed. With the amount of process abuse and argumentum ad baculum accusations that have been going around, each side will sadly accuse the other of abuses and idiocy. I don't see how we can work out an agreement on this. --Kizor 07:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documenting this discussion 

message: It's rather silly to say that this page's "designation as a guideline" is disputed. It's not. pretty much everybody here is agreed that Wikipedia requiers some sort of guideline on the usage (or lack thereof) of spoiler warnings. What appears to be under dispute is what exactly the guideline should say, hence this is "under discussion on the talk page". Simple, no? Wasn't there an ArbCom case about this very subject? Radiant! 16:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of any such trivial matter reaching arbitration, but if it did perhaps it might be a good idea to cite the case. --Tony Sidaway 16:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Is the guideline in dispute? or simply details and application? I say, the latter. The policy/guideline already has a notice that it's hotly debated on the Talk page. A dispute notice is redundant overkill, imho.  David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 16:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course if this guideline really were disputed as a guideline we'd just remove all of the tags.  The No disclaimers in articles guideline would prevail in its absence. --Tony Sidaway 23:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As someone has again restored the dispute tag, I've taken the bold step of redirecting the page to No disclaimers in articles.  --Tony Sidaway 23:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uh, WP:POINT? Regardless of whether there is dispute or not, there is clearly no consensus for this redirect. Philip Reuben 23:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm disputing this article's designation as a guideline.  This is disputed, and has been hotly disputed for a long time.  I've seen plenty of other guidelines given a "disputed" tag because there was heavy dispute over the contents of the page, not over the issue of whether a guideline should exist on the subject.  Edit warring over the presence of a disputed tag is almost universally proof of the existence of a dispute, and the removal of the tag is inappropriate until such a time that we can come to an agreement that the page is an adequate guideline supported by consensus.  We're not there yet, so stop pulling stunts like turning the page into a redirect because, by some twist of logic, this implies that the guideline isn't disputed.zadignose 00:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  I certainly wasn't out to prove a point, but I seem to have done so unexpectedly.  It appears that there is consensus that this guideline should exist, after all.  Therefore the disputed tag can be replaced with an underdiscussion tag. --Tony Sidaway 00:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "I certainly wasn't out to prove a point, but I seem to have done so unexpectedly"? You make it very difficult to assume good faith, I'll say that much. My main issue with the underdiscussion tag is that the wording is not strong enough, and suggests to me that there is broad agreement that that the guideline as it stands is roughly appropriate, with any possible changes being minor in nature. What we are disagreeing over is whether the article as it stands can be designated a "guideline", and clarifying that this fact is disputed makes it harder to point to this page as an argument in itself, instead promoting discussion of individual opinions on talk pages as a way to obtain local consensus. The current situation promotes circular reasoning (WP:SPOILER supports the consensus, the consensus supports WP:SPOILER) which is not desirable when such a drastic change has been made to WP:SPOILER so recently and with opposition from numerous editors across numerous articles. It's a shame that there isn't an in-between tag. Philip Reuben 01:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course not. Least controversial edit ever. (Of course, I was the one who reverted Tony, but no one else seems to be objecting to that or to this. Tony should direct his nitpicking to things people care about.) Philip Reuben 11:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: My issue is not with Ned Scott's edit, but his failure to explain his edits in the edit summary, and (when asked about it) to act dismissively and insultingly.  Such behavior is absolutely not permitted on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 14:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a policy stating that all edits must have an explicitly clear edit summary? Last I checked, there was a guideline (Wikipedia:Edit_summary) that "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". His response was dismissive, but in jest and (I think) entirely appropriate to your blatant overreaction to a non-issue. Philip Reuben 15:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well not in jest, obviously.  It was a naked, and rather disgusting, personal attack. --Tony Sidaway 15:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Tony, are you feeling ok?" and "Stop it, Tony, you're scaring me" are a disgusting personal attack? That's hilarious, and I'm being charitable in putting it that way. Philip Reuben 15:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. It's absolutely beyond the norms of acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 18:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess we must agree to disagree. Philip Reuben 19:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute 

message: I saw this text in the guideline:
:"Remember that Wikipedia is written from a real-world perspective; what is exciting in the context of a fictional universe is almost certainly a standard plot device in literary construction. The importance of plot details should be considered from a real-world rather than in-universe perspective (see WP:WAF)."
I'm afraid I just don't understand it.  I know that wikipedia is supposed to take a real-world perspective, rather than an in-universe one, but I don't understand the rest of this.  How does this relate to spoilers, and how does it offer us any guidance regarding their use?zadignose 04:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are two ways it pertains. On one hand, since many plots have some twist near the end, the mere existence of such a twist isn't enough to put the plot detail in the lede, even if the twist is major from an in-universe perspective.  On the other hand, the mere existence of a plot twist probably isn't enough to put a spoiler tag inside a "plot" section, again because so many fictional works have somewhat unpredictable plots. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what the in-universe or out-of-universe distinction has to do with spoiler notices. The manual of style calls for out-of-universe perspective anyway.  That paragraph is confusing and should be removed.   Every sentence should be very specific and clearly related to the main topic of the guideline, and evern more so in the intro.  --Parzival418 Hello 04:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I ran into an edit conflict, so my post is similar in content to the above.  Anyway: I don't think the text is at all clear on this, and still don't really see the point.  It's largely confusing, and doesn't really hint at how I'm supposed to consider the plot details from a "real-world rather than an in-universe perspective."  I've never been in the universe of a film or book, but I know what plot twists are supposed to be surprising.  I can't really see how the concept of "in-universe" perspective is even relevant to this guideline, and this entire text just confuses things.  It seems like an attempt to tenuously link our rules regarding in-universe perspective to some interpretation of spoiler policy.  It should probably be removed from the guideline entirely.  Is it guidance, or is it a justification of a particular perspective?zadignose 04:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it earlier today, and someone added it back in.  I did not want to remove the same text twice, so I left it.  If you want to remove it, I would support that decision. --Parzival418 Hello 05:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I pointed out above how it is relevant. From the perspective a single work, a plot twist may seem like a major or surprising thing. From the perspective of an encyclopedia with articles on hundreds of similar works, the existence of a plot twist in a plot is nothing to get worked up about, because most important works will have them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying that, now I understand your point.   However, I don't agree with your conclusion that because there are hundreds of similar works, the plot twist is not important to a particular reader. The purpose of spoiler notices is to help a reader not have the story ruined for them. That has nothing to do with the fact that the story they are interested in is one among many or that we are writing "about" the story rather than "telling" the story.  Either way, we have the option, according to consensus on an individual article, to alert the reader of the plot twist in advance.  So I still feel that paragraph should be omitted from the intro of this guideline.  --Parzival418 Hello 06:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Writing from a real world perspective really doesn't relate to the question of whether "most important works" will have plot twists, which is a claim I don't accept in any case.  I'm not much in favor of getting worked up about spoilers or plot twists, but whether or not a plot detail is revealing enough to qualify as a "spoiler" has nothing to do with real world perspective, and as I pointed out, the existing text offers no guidance on how this concept should be applied, and is generally confusing.  It reads like "here's another reason we could think of that might argue against the use of spoiler warnings, by some implied link to an unrelated policy, though the logic is fuzzy and you probably won't get it."zadignose 06:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact almost all works have some sort of plot twists is one of the reasons for not using spoiler tags to mark plot twists in "plot" sections. It's why the reader should expect to find descriptions of plot twists in our plot summaries. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real world perspective (second thread) 

message: Ok, aside from Nydas and Tony, I see no one currently fussing over more than minor wording and whether NPOV should be mentioned explicitly. Can we just cut the crap and shake hands? I can't see what else can be effectively done. I suggest we leave it like is, accept that "WP:SPOILER is more of a guideline, than an actual rule" and return to our merry wikilives. And before it's brought up: solve the 45K thing elsewhere. It has no bearing on the guideline: if the guideline is being abused, that's arbitration, not the guideline's fault (or if it was, we've fixed it by now.)
And, because someone wanted a timeline of things, here's some of it (feel free to fill in the gaps):
* RfC
* MfD (quickly shot down)
* More bickering at RfC
* The tenuous calm
* Return to bickering on RfC
* WT:SPOILER and Template Talk
* RfC becomes IP shout match
* MedCab (closed)
* ArbCom (denied)
* productive (?) bickering 
* now???
All this in less than 1 and 1/2 months! --David Fuchs 20:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed your signature. You were short a tilde. --Kizor 20:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you chap. I mess that up quite often. David Fuchs 21:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: (1.37 AM, brilliant reply vanishing as brain crashes down, should really learn to be less stubborn, possible improvements on Tuesday with coffee) --Kizor 22:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you, David. IMHO, all we have is endless edit warring and quibbling over wording and how much spice needs to be in teh stew. This is disruptive, as it leads other bystanders to wonder which version of the guideline to follow. Monday's? Tuesday's? Last week's? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 13:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's what the disputed tag is for, to show that all of these versions are contentious. That said, aside from the issue of implementing the guideline properly being difficult because of the inherent bias in the system (which I do wish wouldn't be brushed aside, but what can you do), I agree that there isn't too much more to be done to the guideline. Most of the recent edits have been fairly arbitrary. However, I want to remind the anti-spoiler tag side to try and avoid inserting bias into the article, for example through sentences that imply by omission that consensus is needed to add a spoiler tag but none is needed to remove a spoiler tag. (If anything I'd say the topic should be avoided, since consensus applies no more or less to this guideline than to any other. I liked Phil Sandifer's wording about spoiler tags being "controversial"; it's vague, but then it also isn't argument fodder but merely a statement of fact.) Do remember that the wider issue of spoiler tags has no clear consensus either way, and that the pro-tag side has made significant concessions to get to the current guideline. Philip Reuben 21:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Put 'er down 

message: Phil raises a good point, and one that is somewhat separate from our other discussions: How do we judge what is and is not a spoiler? Certainly the editors inserting the warnings must have been doing this, but if this is not to be entirely a POV thing, we should probably provide guidelines as to what does and does not constitute a spoiler. -Kieran 00:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't judge what are spoilers, we judge whether to include spoiler warning tags. Not everything that is a spoiler needs a spoiler tag, so the real question is where to put the tags. For example, "plot" sections don't need spoiler tags whether or not they contain spoilers. Also, judging "what is a spoiler" is quite close to original research, whereas judging where to put a tag is a style judgement similar to deciding whether to place a  tag. As an analogy: we don't decide whether unreferenced statements are "true", we decide whether they need a  tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Another issue is that the spoiler notice could be put on a section Monday, and the Plot section rewritten Friday, but the notice remains. The editor who placed the notice can't know via precognition that the synopsis will always have what could be judged as a "spoiler." Hence, we're not judging the quality of the synopsis, only placing a notice on a section is likely to provide a plot detail that diminishes the reader's enjoyment. Make sense? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which brings up a good question I've somewhat asked before but got no answer -- are there ANY other metatags designed for the body of the article that are made to be permanent? Fact tags, cleanup, etc. are supposed to be temporary. Everything else that I can think of (other wikis, templates, catagories, etc) are navigational. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such templates are not used per the reasoning of WP:NDA. To my knowledge, the spoiler tag is the only content warning tag on Wikipedia, which is one of its problems. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think so. There are a number of content (maybe we'd call them cleanup) tags that indicate that an article's NPOV is in dispute, etc. Spoiler just isn't a cleanup tag. But ... you raise a good issue.... David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my point. Cleanup tags are supposed to be there temporarily. They are there to get people to make the article better, and aren't really inherent to the content itself -- an FA will have none of them, AFAIK. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 02:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It simply won't be possible to make a general decision about what might be spoilers - for any given plot detail, somebody will think it's a spoiler. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I think that's an incomplete answer.  We can't delineate how to handle every case, but we can at least offer some guidance.  Even if "for any given plot detail, somebody will think it's a spoiler," they won't always be right to apply a spoiler tag to every plot detail, or necessarily to omit the tag from every detail.  Certainly anyone who would claim "Star Wars is a movie set in outer space" as a spoiler would be way out in left field, whereas "In the end of The Lost Treasure of Axum, the 'treasure' turns out to be a biological weapon that wipes out all life on Earth" is a bit more of a spoiler by most people's estimation.  We can try to suggest how to approach such distinctions, as a sort of measuring stick for editors to consider what qualifies as a spoiler and what doesn't.zadignose 16:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Examples are a good idea. Examples that are selected across a range of possibilities are used to fairly judge the grading of school essays. I suggest five real examples. Say that #1 and #5 are the Star Wars (don't-tag) and The Lost Treasure of Axum (do-tag) extremes. #2 would be a less obvious don't-tag and #4 would be a less obvious do-tag. #3 would be an example of a plot twist that about half of editors think is a spoiler and about half don't, which should be decided by local consensus. Phil Sandifer is well aware of the essay grading method I'm describing, and hopefully will support it. Milo 19:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is and isn't a spoiler? 

message: A whopper of a title, but whatever works. I've been asked to prove that the English Wikipedia's users are predominantly not native English-speakers. Alexa's traffic statistics are reliable enough to be used as a source in the Wikipedia article, and to be linked to in Wikipedia:Statistics. It states that 52% of all wikipedia.org traffic goes to en, and a grand total of 24.7% of all traffic is from the United States, Canada, United Kingdom and Australia. Assuming that no traffic whatsoever from these countries goes to non-English Wikipedias (a tall statement indeed, given the 'melting pot' nature of the States with Spanish being in particular prominence, and with Canada having circa eight million people with a non-English first language and several million who do not speak English at all , etc.) the percentage is still comfortably short of a majority, and I believe this to be an uncontroversial fact. Its implications are not, and I believe they should be covered separately. --Kizor 22:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusive proof that native English speakers do not constitute a majority

message: Can't think of any.  Sorry.
Does this have something to do with a line of argument that goes something like the following?
# Some of our readers do not know what the word "plot" means.
# The same readers do know what the word "sled", "father" and "dead" mean.
# Therefore we must have a tag that says "Note: plot details follow" between the heading "plot" and the words "sled", "father" "dead" and so on in the articles in which it is conceivable that somebody might learn something about the plot by reading those words in the plot section.
Or is there some reasoning that makes more sense than that? --Tony Sidaway 23:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Implications?

message: Here's food for thought, from the San Francisco Chronicle, an editorial on why spoilers are unethical (in the context of Harry Potter):
:First, the fans of Harry Potter have invested a lot of time, money and passion in the first six volumes in the series. They have read and re-read hundreds of pages over 10 years, and they are entitled to discover Harry's fate on their own.
:Second, Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling has a right to have her intellectual property respected. This right is fundamentally an ethical one, whether or not it is codified by law. That is, even if you aren't breaking the law by spilling the beans, you still shouldn't do so. 
:Third, society has a compact with artists. They entertain us, and we support and protect their right to do so. If either party reneges, the deal is off....A spoiler intentionally or negligently subverts the compact between artist and audience by throwing up an obstacle to the artist and giving him or her a reason to cease their creative activities. After all, why would a writer want to spend years spinning a tale as elaborate as Harry Potter if some blowhard is going to come along and ruin the surprise of how it all turns out?
hateless 21:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I don't think we've got, or are likely to have, any problem with Harry Potter fans.  We're certainly not in the business of supporting the idiots who enjoy spoiling people's fun.  I think Harry Potter fans recognise that they can come to Wikipedia for reliable information, and that they won't find gratuitous "Snape kills Dumbledore" nonsense all over the place.  That isn't what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia does, however, have a reputation as an encyclopedia to maintain, so we'll definitely carry full plot details of the seventh Harry Potter novel, in the appropriate place, given due prominence, and with appropriate labelling (which may involve the use of spoiler tags for a short or possibly even a long period).  We will carry that information as soon as there are editors able to edit the appropriate articles (some of them have apparently had early release copies for some days now but have respected the embargo). --Tony Sidaway 22:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is really that spoilers are not harmless, that there are ethical considerations involved. Point 1 is most readily applicable to us here. Otherwise, I agree with you completely, Tony. hateless 23:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is this childish crap?? You're not "spoiling" something to discuss it comprehensively and without POV bias or censorship, as one does in a reference work. Those who do not want to read comprehensive, unbiased, unrestricted content, oughtn't go reading reference works. It's pretty simple, that. - David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 01:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem is that there is valuable, non-plot information in the article.  I would personally like to read reviews and publishing information without seeing the plot.  Unfortunately, a glance at a paragraph is all that is required so it is impossible to read follow on sections without reading the entire page.  If it's on the screen, it's absorbed regardless of intent to absorb it.  --Tbeatty 07:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I would also question ethics of a comprehensive, unbiased, reference work would be summarizing the copyrighted, fictional, creative works of others in the same medium in which it was created (i.e. the written word).   It seems to me that this raises ethical questions in and of itself.  --Tbeatty 08:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must be misunderstanding you, as it seems that you're asserting that written book reviews are inethical ... critical treatises on novels and fiction (e.g. a written analysis of Raymond Chandler fiction which includes detailed examination of plot points) ... periodical reviews (Harpers, Atlantic Monthly, New York Times Review of Books) coverage of fiction ... are all inethical?? (shakes head) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 18:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: uh, I'm pretty sure its 'unethical', David, but your point is valid. Tbeatty, you seem to be saying that you'd like a separate article for the plot of the book, because you don't want your poor eyes to look over a section labeled synopsis or plot. That would be unnecessarily segregating information to the degradation of the article. Plot summaries are exactly that: plot summaries. The current plot section on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is incredibly bad, because all it does is recant the plot. According to policy, guideline, and what you call "ethical questions", plot summaries are supposed to contextualize and allow the reader to figure out what happens in the book; the rest of the article is supposed to tell you why that's such a big screaming deal. And no one copyrighted plot summaries. My god, then Interpol would swoop down and have carted me off to jail a while back for writing an email to a friend telling him what happened in the latest Transformers movie. You're inventing moral questions where none exist. David Fuchs (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all.  I would like a navigation feature like a hide box that allows users to navigate around articles to get the information that they want.  How do you argue that a reader should avoid the plot using the TOC but at the same time argue that the TOC is not used to skip sections they don't want to read?  I think an analysis of a plot is fine. Large, detailed plot summaries that are not analysis or review, however infringe upon the creative work of the author.  Rarely, if ever, do major review houses give away the entire plot.  It seems somewhat convoluted logic to argue that a plot summary that "hides" a large portion of the book is okay, but a hide box is "censorship."  There is no difference between the use of a hide box and the use of a summary where "censorship" is concerned.  --Tbeatty 00:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethics of spoilers 

message: So far as I know, spoiler warnings don't go at the top of talk pages, right?  If so, should the page state that, or does that fall under the jurisdiction of Wikipedia:Use common sense?  17Drew 00:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's common sense.  You can't discuss an article about a fictional work without discussing the content of the work. --Tony Sidaway 00:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some would argue that it is common sense to avoid reading a section called "Plot summary of X," if there is a portion of X's plot that you will go into conniptions if you read by mistake.  But somehow we have ruled this argument to be unkind.  Ethan Mitchell 20:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything, the rationale for spoiler warnings (already quite weak) is even weaker on talk pages. According to WP:TALK, the purpose of those pages "is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article...." Anyone who's editing would almost certainly know the story. It's bad enough to suggest that we need to protect readers. I can't imagine the justification for protecting editors, too. Marc Shepherd 22:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On talk pages