Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 5

message: This entire debate seems pretty silly. Spoiler warnings seem like one of those "what does it hurt?" things. It does nothing to detract from an article except for those who have issues bordering on the obsessive about such things while on the other hand it's a nice "heads-up" that the work of the artists involved is not damaged. Something I think most don't take into consideration, that beyond a readers "enjoyment" is the fact that these articles discuss works of art and their creators' rights should be respected.
But past that is the hysterical (to me at least) notion that people are arguing what is encyclopedic over articles that would NEVER find their way into most. And to top the entire thing off with an ironic cherry on top, is the notion that if you really want to split hairs most encylopedias are not written and edited by folks hiding behind handles or strings of IP addresses. If wikipedia can be an encylopedia written by the masses, then it can also be the one that loosens it's tie enough to say "Hey, it might not be according to Hoyle correct, but we don't get our shorts in a bunch if you want to give someone the heads up that they might not want to know that it was Maggie who shot Mr. Burns" (sorry if you haven't seen that Simpsons episode yet, but you will notice there is a spoiler warning on this entry...)"
RoyBatty42 22:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not yet read much into this debate, but so far I have only seen one person defending the removal of the spoiler template. I think that those of us who feel that it is a good thing should work together to get its removal reversed. Twilight Realm 18:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that there are a handful of admins with the means and mentality to make hundreds of edits an hour to enforce their point of view. Since they've taken to using the 'lack of opposition' as 'consensus', they'll just keep overriding thousands of ordinary wikipedians.--Nydas(Talk) 21:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ironic rationales 

message: I've re-removed this paragraph of unmitigated gobbledegook. Ken Arromdee puts it well:
"It was added again without the word 'neologism', which doesn't really help, so I've deleted it again. It still included the dubious claim that it's unusual for "scholarly reference works of the sort that Wikipedia aspires to be" to include spoilers. What Wikipedia aspires to be is not given anywhere in enough detail to know whether Wikipedia aspires to be something with or without spoilers. (And spoiler opponents taking out spoiler warnings and spoiler policies and then making claims about Wikipedia aspirations based on the absence of the material they took out is, well, circular.)"
Twilight Realm:
"It's been added back again. Aside from the points that I have already made, which I do not think need repeating, I'd also like to comment that citing one "scholarly" source to prove what they all do is absolutely ridiculous."
--Nydas(Talk) 20:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Touche. If anything ever suffers from the delusion that wikipedia is ONLY a scholarly source, please see []. That does not mean to say that wikipedia isn't "scholarly" but the truth is, wikipedia delves into levels of detail that scholarly sources don't, and hence the need for spoiler tags. Sethie 20:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The paragraph, which I have restored, does not describe "spoiler" as a neologism. --Tony Sidaway 21:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does, however, contain the problems identified by Ken Arromdee.--Nydas(Talk) 21:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ken might like to find a number of scholarly sources that use the term spoiler.  Then we might discuss the accuracy or otherwise of the claim that "it is unusual for scholarly reference works (of the sort that Wikipedia aspires to be) to warn for spoilers when discussing fictional works."  Sethie also mistakes "aspires to be" for "is". --Tony Sidaway 21:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Touche, sort of. That's partially why Sethie said "is ONLY" :) Sethie 21:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The big problems with that section is not the definition of "spoiler" (so the use of scholarly sources with the term isn't really relevant), but the claim about what Wikipedia aspires to be.  No official Wikipedia statement says "Wikipedia aspires to be the kind of work that doesn't contain spoilers".  The closest you can find are some general statements, such as statements comparing Wikipedia to a print encyclopedia--but those statements don't mean "Wikipedia aspires to be like one in all ways". Ken Arromdee 15:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Spoiler is a neologism' 

message: :Above (#Not dispute) Ned Scott asked "how many people came here to dispute the guideline, or how many people are just pissed at one of the guys doing mass tag removals?". Six of the seven responses included both issues, and six mentioned a guideline dispute. 
:Ned then removed the article disputed tag declaring (19:01 13 June 2007) "and you guys proved my point. you have an issue with Tony and the others far more than you have an issue with the guideline, which was a compromise to prevent total removal)". 1/7 more is not "far more", and certainly doesn't invalid the existence of a dispute (and thus a dispute tag) declared by six editors (as well as other disputing editors not polled). 
:Admin Heimstern suddenly appeared (19:05 13 June 2007), declared an "extensive edit warring" (I disagree; it was just routine edits and reverts) and protected the article with a tag which says "This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved." 
:Now how is that suppose to work? The dispute is about whether there is a dispute. Sethie already called that one (22:04 12 June 2007): "the fact that there is a dispute about whether there is a dispute kinda proves there [is] ..... *drum roll******* A DISPUTE!)" 
:The dispute tag isn't a content issue. Heimstern or some other admin should simply declare the obvious: yes, there is a dispute, leave the article dispute-tagged until the underlying content issues are resolved. Milo 23:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute catch 22 

message: I came at this by chance having noticed comments about spoilers being removed. My general view is that they have been ridiculously over-used and that using them in such a way makes them completely pointless. However, I do see a place for them where particular plot elements may be considered critical. But my reason for creating this section here was reading the actual guideline after looking at some of the debate. One of the very best ways I see to avoid the need for a spoiler is to structure the article so that a reader can see ahead  that something they may read will have more detail than they would wish. I absoluetly disagree with the notion that wiki, as an encyclopedia, should force knowledge upon people, whether they wish it or not. I am certain that very many people will happen upon a wiki page without understanding wiki conventions, or what is likely to be shown there. The structure of a page should inherently allow people to first get a broad grasp of a subject without being exposed to too much detail. I see this as an important aspect of writing any kind of article...it should have a more general introductory section.
The guideline (at this moment, anyway) says:Concerns about spoilers should play no role in decisions about the structure or content of an article, including the article's lead section. When adding a spoiler in the lead section, 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. Cobblers, mate. That is an absurd statement to make. No role? Come off it. The primary goal of an encyclopedia is to convey that information which the reader wants to know. It is not appropriate to presume that wiki is an elitist institution intended to be read solely by academics. It is beneficial to any article to bear in mind the needs and wants of people reading it. This includes taking into account whether they may be upset by discovering the ending, rather than the general overview they were seeking. I do not see that there is any excuse for placing a gross spoiler in the introduction of any article where the issue might be relevant, and this should most definitely be taken into account when structuring such an article.  Such a statement is utterly the opposite  of having too many spoiler warnings, and is equally unacceptable. 
The structure of the entire article should bear in mind the desireability of not including unexpected spoilers. Note, not that spoiler information should be excluded, but people should most certainly think about its potential impact when they decide how to present it. Sandpiper 19:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be saying that the article structure should be tailored to fit the expectations of someone who has come to read about a subject but specifically doesn't want to know all about it.  I have to say, this doesn't sound very encyclopedic to me.  An encyclopedia is supposed to tell you everything significant about a subject.  That's what it's for.  The reader may not know this at first, but I can't imagine him being surprised to find that encyclopedias do that.  It seems unreasonable to me to tailor for those few readers who come looking for information they don't actually want. --Tony Sidaway 20:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But likewise it's important to structure the information so that you would find what you *want* to know easily. Having spoiler warnings obviously doesn't contradict to not telling everything in the article (they don't censor in any way). It's not important what structure is encyclopedic or not (by any definition), but what structure the users actually want. And I tried to do a poll, and about a half of people participating actually uses spoiler warnings sometimes, so it isn't just a few people. Samohyl Jan 20:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The structure should be encyclopedic. If the users expect something else then we have other problems, like that we don't explain what we are sufficiently. Phil Sandifer 20:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But what is encyclopedic? Britannica doesn't have (for example) article history, so does this feature make Wikipedia unencyclopedic? The best definition of encyclopedic I can think of (with regards to presentation, not content) is what is actually useful for the reader. What definition do you, Phil or Tony, use then? Samohyl Jan 21:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Yes, let's take a real world case.  The Romeo and Juliet article says this in the lead: "Romeo and Juliet is a world-renowned tragedy by William Shakespeare concerning two young "star-cross'd lovers" and the role played by their tragic suicides in ending a long-running family feud." So there in the first sentence we give away the ending.  Should we "restructure" the article by removing that from the lead? --Tony Sidaway 20:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know. That's what the Talk:Romeo and Juliet is for. There will always be border cases. But that doesn't justify the general policy of removing all spoiler warnings (without a warning!). Samohyl Jan 21:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The guideline allows for the introduction of spoiler tags where a compelling reason exists for doing so.  The default position is that we're an encyclopedia and our articles about fictional subjects can be expected to contain all significant information about those subjects. --Tony Sidaway 21:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm unhappy with Romeo and Juliet as a real word case. Romeo and Juliet is a Shakespearean work, hundreds of years old, a cornerstone of English literature, a random person on the street can be expected to know the basics of its plot. It represents very little indeed other than itself, and it definitely doesn't represent one of Wikipedia's greatest strengths over classical encyclopedias - comprehensive coverage of recent and lesser-known fiction. I'd rather ask about Rogue Moon or Heroes (TV series). --Kizor 21:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you're not happy with Romeo and Juliet, how about The Crying Game (1992)?  Just fifteen years old.  Second paragraph, first sentence: "The film was notable for its dramatic plot twist, in which it is revealed that a seemingly female main character has a penis, and for a sympathetic portrayal of characters from often-reviled subcultures, presented here as complex and likable human beings."  Should we restructure the article to remove one of the most significant facts about the film from the article lead? --Tony Sidaway 21:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, what, I object to one extreme case and you jump to another? Or do you claim that the majority of articles that until very recently used spoilers were such cases? How about the two I just mentioned? --Kizor 21:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  It's funny, it has been just changed by somebody to read: "The film was notable for its dramatic plot twist, and for a sympathetic portrayal of characters from often-reviled subcultures, presented here as complex and likable human beings." This version isn't much of a spoiler (because the what the actual plot twist is not revealed), and spoilers aside, I think it actually is better. But I still agree with Kizor, these are really borderline cases. Samohyl Jan 22:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This brings us, at long last, to my point: removing significant information from the lead brings the article into conflict with the Lead section guideline (WP:LEAD). --Tony Sidaway 22:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is it really that important information that main character (and not some other) has penis? I am not sure. But here's an idea: Why don't you look to what reviews of this movie said at the time? As was previously noted, film reviews usually do not contain spoilers, but I find it unbelievable they wouldn't contain mention that the film is about transgender issues. Samohyl Jan 22:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a significant part of the film's fame and, if you like to use the word, "notability".  Reviews of current films, as you correctly state, sometimes do not reveal plot twists.  We're not a review website.  --Tony Sidaway 23:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The intro then states that it's notable for dealing with transgender issues, not for that main character is revealed to have penis (if is it the first movie ever that uses this plot device, this looks more like trivia to me). If the former is the case, you simply don't need to know that main character has penis (in the intro). Look - I don't know the movie and don't care. The point is, this is really a special case, that should be discussed on the talk page. In general, I object to not having spoilers in sections marked "Plot" and so on, and for the double standard applied to existing articles (spoilers removed without discussion, but putting them back requires discussion). Samohyl Jan 06:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  I don't think this is a special case at all.  Many books, films, plays and other narrative works are famous for their plot tricks.  The lead section of an article should discuss these adequately, where important, without permitting article quality to be compromised by concessions to traditions imported from Usenet, blogs, forums and other new media. --Tony Sidaway 18:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is where our opinions differ. I don't think this compromises article quality at all. I agree that article should discuss everything. But if avoiding spoilers (or having spoiler warnings) is useful for some people, why not have them? This like saying that all articles should expect certain familiarity with the topic, because otherwise it compromises article quality. There will always be such compromises, because there are many different users of a particular article; but that doesn't mean that the quality of article is any worse if such a compromise has been made (since the target group has changed). Samohyl Jan 19:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Well, an article lead that omits something because some segment of the people reading the article might not want to know something seems perverse. An encyclopedia doesn't exist for the purpose of concealing information. Every single page of Wikipedia is headed with the words describing it as a free encyclopedia.  If the reader stumbles upon a Wikipedia page falsely believing it to be some obscure area of Usenet, Blogs or web forums, he'll only make the mistake once.  Subsequently he'll expect to find an encyclopedia article underneath those words.  So the ugly, intrusive and, frankly, insulting warning is unnecessary.  And so we have found. --Tony Sidaway 23:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you feel that spoiler warnings should be removed because you personally find them ugly and intrusive, and you personally are offended by them.  Man, if that's the standard wiki operates on, we've gone pretty far from the guidelines as I remember them.  Speaking of guidelines, WP: Spoiler is now marked as disputed, and has been for several days.  Yet judging by your recent contribution history, you seem to be continuing to bulk remove spoilers, using WP: Spoiler as a justification?  If you really feel you must, then perhaps continue to remove spoilers, but don't you think it's a wee bit dishonest to appeal to the authority of a guideline currently in dispute when you remove spoilers?  Why not stop removing them and discuss them on the talk page with the editors, or hell, why not invite them to join the discussion to help form consensus?  But to remove them 'per WP: SPOILER' is misleading and could wrongly convince people that their spoiler warning is in violation of an agreed upon wikipedia guideline or procedure.  Just a thought. Wandering Ghost 01:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Aragorn has an introduction that fails to mention that he becomes King of Gondor and Arnor. From the point of view of encyclopedic knowledge about this fictional character, this is a very poor lead section. The only reason I can assume for this is that the author tried to avoid spoilers, and I don't see how this has helped make the article better. In fact, WP:LEAD says "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article." (Albus Dumbledore avoids spoilers by teasing, in violation of the guideline). How does this spoiler avoidance make a better encyclopedia if it makes it impossible to write good lead sections? Kusma (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Failing' to mention in the lead that Aragorn becomes the King of Gondor makes sense because he is a fictional character. His out-of-universe importance is tied to his appearances as a Ranger and  Gondor's heir in a series of books and films. That he eventually became king is relatively unimportant. The Luke Skywalker article has the sort of thing you want in the lead. It's also a big ball of in-universe cruft.--Nydas(Talk) 12:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OTT guideline intro 

message: Any page that accurately describes some issue will tend to be disputed by people who dislike said issue. However, it is not possible to change a fact by changing the description of that fact. >Radiant< 12:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed? 

message: No pretense of impartial investigation or decision. Not even buck-passing to AN/I. 
(Quote from #Arbitration)
:"Want to demonstrate how the clique fix is in? Go to Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage and leave a summarized and carefully-reasoned message asking for those who deleted the spoiler tags to be removed from AWB registration until an officially recognized decision on future such use has been made. I forecast that it won't happen. Milo 22:35, 15 June 2007"
(Quote from Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage #Requests for revocation) 
:" *    
:Using AWB to make controversial edits (removing spoiler tags without consensus), edit warring with AWB. --Random832 06:29, 16 June 2007"  
(A 15-some post perfectly civil pro-con debate followed.)
:"04:06, 18 June 2007 Alphachimp (Requests for revocation - this conversation is pointless, vindictive, and irrelevant to this page. archiving. you should know better than to create rancor here.)"diff
Rancor means: "resentment: a feeling of deep and bitter anger and ill-will" 
Translation: you should know better than to criticized members of the clique.
Subtext message: 'How dare you even ask for justice at Wikipedia AWB'.  
I checked, Alphachimp is an administrator. Is this ethical admin behavior or what? 
But beyond that, no visible enforcement of the AWB guide. Apparently members of the 500+ edit clique can do whatever they please with AWB. Looks like the Wiki-wide metamorphic risk is bigger than I thought. Milo 06:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, well we just bunged him a monkey and he dropped the complaint. </sarcasm> --Tony Sidaway 07:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clique fix is in: Formal AWB complaint dismissed as "rancor" 

message: I've removed this bit from that the 'recent works' section: "Make a note on the talk page that the spoiler warning is intended to be temporary." Users shouldn't have to complete meaningless  paperwork to add spoiler tags.--Nydas(Talk) 18:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable.  The tag's currency is easily checked. If nothing appears on the talk page and the film is no longer current, the tag has obviously expired. --Tony Sidaway 18:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paperwork