< May 3	May 5 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User skiier[edit]

This userbox is redundant since the ((user ski)) exists, besides, the spelling is wrong. --Tone 21:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't look like anyone is using it; will there be a great hue and cry if I simply delete it? Mackensen (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's because I updated all the links to point to ((User ski)) after seeing this entry. Hbdragon88 01:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant please :) -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 21:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 17:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WP:NOR[edit]

Template:WP:NOR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No longer needed. Was part (as an example) of the proposal Wikipedia:Full meta links, which did not gain consensus, mainly for technical reasons. --Ligulem 21:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no longer necessary; serves no useful function. --Marysunshine 03:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Darn; we're not getting rid of the NOR proscription as well?? :) Delete per nom. Joe 23:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in case anyone wants to use it. No consensus was gained in favor of the proposal, but neither was any gained to prohibit the use of the templates. In any case, the technical issues in question were not in fact issues. Since nobody is using the template, it would seem to be fine to delete, except that that would allow any recreation to be speedied in case someone does decide he likes the idea at some future point in time. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Um. The thing with speedying is rather odd. I didn't know that. I mean, if there is later a change in consensus to do it as it had been proposed (with those templates) recreation is no problem. And if there is significant opposition there is always WP:DRV to discuss it. --Ligulem 17:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unneeded. Stifle (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 17:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country infobox data Hong Kong[edit]

Template:Country infobox data Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a redundant template, not used in anywhere. Hunter 16:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I created this (and many others like it) when I updated many countries to the Template:Infobox Country standard. It is no longer needed and can be Deleted. MJCdetroit 16:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, of course. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 19:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since its creator wishes so. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 21:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 17:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Analogs members[edit]

Template:The Analogs members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I've made a new template (Template:The Analogs) which is a splited version of Template:The Analogs albums and Template:The Analogs members. I followed by a standardisation in Category:Band templates. Visor 15:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - who are the Analogs?Timothy Usher 05:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:HOLE. Stifle (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 17:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Analogs albums[edit]

Template:The Analogs albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
See above (#Template:The_Analogs_members). Visor 15:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - who are the Analogs?Timothy Usher 05:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:HOLE. Stifle (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 17:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AZSR[edit]

These have been deleted for most other states - a succession box or infobox with a link to the main list can serve its prupose better. Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 1 has discussions on several since-deleted ones. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 13:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This is a template that helps people who may be doing research on the arizona highway system. It may also help in expanding the red links. It does not take up much space, and a succession box would be do difficult, for example, if someone was viewing State Route 48, and wanted info on State Route 101. Not to mention, with all of the un-written pages, the succession box would only link 5 pages. DragonFlySpirit 18:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, it's also redundant with the category and the list, which already appear (or at least they both should appear) at the bottom of each State Route X (Arizona) page. Succession boxes would be a great addition, provided we know for certain which route numbers are and which are not skipped, and probably once we get the majority of the articles actually written. For the benefit of wiki-roadtrip-style navigation, we typically add junction lists, so if any two documented roads connect to each other, the articles will be mutually linked. Eventually we should be able to navigate (via road articles) between any two cities on the same continent without touching the keyboard. Despite the work I put into cleaning up this template, I don't find it necessary to keep it, so delete. — May. 5, '06 [00:44] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Delete per SPUI and Freakofnurture. JoshuaZ 04:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 17:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User favourite jet fighter is the F-22 raptor[edit]

Template:User favourite jet fighter is the F-22 raptor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused template. I saved it from CSD, but after more than a week, I think it's time for it to be deleted. The template isn't used anywhere. I can't speedy it as other people created, tagged, and untagged the template. It's also not very helpful. Hbdragon88 03:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Mackensen (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since it appears to be used nowhere and is not really necessary. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 21:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unused, not likely to be, cumbersome name. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Created by a user with a history of bizarre edits. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 08:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy better than deletion. --Dschor 01:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - useless.Timothy Usher 05:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy kept per WP:SNOW _→AzaToth 14:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spoiler[edit]

Template:Spoiler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template goes against Wikipedia's policy of not censoring material. It is currently a proposed guide, but not a policy, and is thus open to go through a tfd Chuck 00:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Template:Endspoiler should be deleted as well if this will be. - Zero1328 _Talk? 06:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest possible keep. This template is one of the most visible on Wikipedia, one of the most used, and has been the subject of considerable discussion. Why? Because it is useful. Featured articles isn't policy either, should it go through WP:MFD? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Featured articles violated Wikipedia's actual policy's, then sure, it should go up for MFD. Just because it is the most used, does not make it appropriate. People are under the misconception that Spoilers are neccesary and/or required. My argument will be, that if warnings about grotesque material (not just to minors, because obviously Wikipedia cannot be censored to minors, but to everyone who would take offense to, say, pictures of torture) are not allowed, then neither should the Spoiler warning. Both are a common coutesy to the reader, and both do the same exact thing: Warn the reader that material that follows may not be something that they want to see/read. I am not on a personal vendetta to get rid of the spoiler tag, just for the sake of an argument, but rather I believe the tag looks ugly, and interfers with the normal reading of articles by viewers. Chuck 00:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That analogy fails because, as JoshuaZ stated below, looking at a picture is not within the same order of magnitude as reading the ending of a book. There's data in articles unrelated to the plot, which a reader might be interested in reading, but then stumbling into details that might not be wanted is annoying. Furthermore, the damage to the book's value after the ending is read is considerable, and someone might not read the book after reading what would be within the spoiler tags. That would be in direct competition with the book publisher, which would give them an argument in the rare occasion they wanted to sue. Having the spoiler tag at least gives us a bit of a "we tried to warn them" defense that should not be removed. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I doubt publishers have a better ground to sue if there were no spoiler tags, but also, Spoiler tags are often placed in the wrong place and a lot of times even unneccesarily (according the the actual Wikipedia guideline about it). The reason that there is no warning on the pictures is because there is no definitive place about where the line of visual discomfort is, just as there is no fine line that represents what is destructive to the readers literature/movie/game pleasure, and what enhances their reading/viewing/playing experience. Chuck 02:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then try to perfect the guideline or get one established. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't exactly understand the baby and the bathwater (and that's alright), I do not believe that there is a guidline that will detract from the unsightliness of the tag. Chuck 02:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per my comment above. Chuck 00:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not worthy of an encyclopedia. --Doc ^ask? 00:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Just because Wikipedia is not censored, per WP:NOT, doesn't mean we can't warn users who don't wish to see content that reveal important plot points (in movies, games, books, ect). --lightdarkness ^(talk) 00:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But then I ask why "we can't warn users who don't wish to see content that reveal" images of a grotesque nature, as in Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, where any kind of warning or image free version was not allowed? Chuck 01:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (After thinking about it more, abstaining with a slight lean towards deletion, it really is a non-encyclopedic warning, although basic logic of later comments still follow) The Abu Ghraib comparison is fallacious, since if you think we should provide such warnings then argue for that, don't engage in WP:POINT. Furthermore, spoilers have their own unique problem to them. Someone can see a disturbing picture and it won't ruin anything for them permanently. However, a spoiler permanently, irrevocably ruins a book or a movie. Furthermore, there is no censorship issue since all the material is on the page. JoshuaZ 01:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by it's not a censorship issue because all of the material is on the page. I was not engaging in WP:POINT, and do not wish to see Aby Ghraib thing changed right now, but am merely drawing a comparison. I disagree with what you say about permanent damage by a picture or by a plot ending. Someone seeing a picture can irrevocable ruin that person. Having a spoiler in an encyclopedia is ridiculous, as someone reading that article, is there to do just that, read the article and learn about the topic. If they don't want to hear about the ending, then read the back of the book. Chuck 01:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for misunderstanding your comment about Abu Graib. As for the other matters. In regard to censorship, my point was that since all the material is still on the page, putting the spoiler warning cannot be considered censorship. As for the other matters, forgive me if I'm skeptical but I have trouble seeing someone ruined by seeing a picture, and have great difficulty seeing someone ruined by pictures as (for lack of a better word) tame as the Abu Graihb pictures. JoshuaZ 02:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that I would be in favor having an image free version of the Abu Graib article linked at the top of the article but that's a separate discussion. These things seem to be decided on a case by case basis, see for example in the article on the cartoon of mohammed where the decision was made to only have a very low resolution picture of them directly on the page. JoshuaZ 02:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say, "These things seem to be decided on a case by case basis....", but obvioulsy they are not, as there is a generic template to be added to narrative works with plot endings revealed. Chuck 02:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP I am pretty much in a blind rage right now. How could you be so ignorant? Summaries of movies, games, and books are needed and this template tells people where to skip if all they want to know is the name of the main character. I urge the admins to no delete this. It is VERY much needed. --mboverload 01:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I urge that this vote be discounted, as it is clearly a personal attack upon myself for what I belive to be trying to follow Wikipedia policy to the best of my knowledge. Also, Caps words are indeed another form of rudeness. We can understand you keep vote with the writing of '''Keep'''. Chuck 01:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck, with all due respect, I urge you to get a thicker skin. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. This has been hashed over many times before. --Carnildo 02:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please point me to a link where this template has been up for deletion before, or where a clear consensus was reached to keep it. Chuck 02:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Is this a joke? Please tell me this is just someone trolling. --Banana04131 03:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sorry, I'm not trolling. You obviously did not read the other comments I made about the reasons wht this should be deleted. Just because this is a widely used template makes it neither silly or a joke that it be put up for tfd. Chuck 07:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 'STRONG KEEP The "WP is not censored" doesn't apply here as it's not censored. It's only a warning, and if the reader chooses to ignorei, he or she can. I've done it numerous times. (I probably shouldn't have. Now I know what happens in X2.) It's not censored. Hbdragon88 03:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is silly...MiraLuka 03:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I think it's silly to vote Keep because you think it is silly that it is up for tfd. Please read my other comments above. Chuck 07:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This template is currently in such wide use (and even mentioned in some Help entries) that it is practically policy. Vint 04:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there is no practically policy in Wikipedia, just guidlines and policies. This is the former, and just because it is used very much does not mean that it can't go against policy. Please really consider this, rather than just thinking I'm going for some silly attempt to delete something popular. Chuck 07:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. How does it censor anything? It just notifies people that they're going to see something that ISN'T censored; indeed if we censored anything we couldn't have this template at all! --Rory096 04:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. This is an enormously useful template, and has nothing to do with "censorship," any more than ratings on a movie or a newscaster's warning that "The images in the report may be disturbing to some viewers." - Nhprman 04:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous, I'm gonna try to make an analogy to a similar situation, but someone will undoubtably throw WP:POINT back at me. Regardless, since you brought up the idea of newscaster's warnings about images, as being similar to the spoiler warning, then so in fact would be warnings on Wikipedia pages about disturbing images...but that is not allowed. Therefore, your comparison is flawed. Chuck 07:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I won't throw WP:POINT back at you because that is reserved for people who create templates, articles or take other actions simply to make a point (often to show that what they are doing is wrong.) I'm assuming you aren't against this template simply to make a point, but because you genuinely believe it to be bad for WP. I disagree, in that the template serves a very useful purpose in the encyclopedia - to warn readers that more than the average "review" is being posted in the article. As others have mentioned, this is unique to WP, and isn't really found elsewhere. The header "Plot" in a printed encyclopedia may simply note the bare details, but not give away minute details and even the ending, of a film or novel. So as a common courtesy, this template makes sense. Believe me, if it was a frivilous template or unused, I'd be with you. But this is heavily used and very useful. I also have to note that this template has been widely copied and used frequently on Wikia (formerly Wikicities.) - Nhprman 18:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, of course. - Mailer Diablo 05:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course is not a very good reaon. Chuck 07:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, this template censors nothing because nothing is removed by it. It only slightly preempts a section to tell someone that reading it might ruin the plot for them. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as completely and utterly unencyclopedic. The tag is a prime example of redundant and distracting tag-cruft inappropriate for a serious encyclopedia. We're not a movie or book blog. And we shouldn't try to look like one either. People come here to learn about various topics, and warning them with a large tag that a section named "plot" or "synopsis" will actually contain information about this is just silly and makes wikipedia look stupid. I challenge anyone to find an encyclopedia that contains a warning like this in any article. Shanes 06:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Things will be different in this type of encyclopedia. There will be infoboxes, templates, special formatting, and so on in that fashion. Also, normal enecyclopedias tend not to cover the kinds of things this template applies to. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Is this a joke? The spoiler template doesn't censor anything at all. It just warns readers that something that may upset the reader is ahead. It doesn't remove anything, or make a bias at all. A big letter R on a DVD case doesn't censor it, it's a warning. - Zero1328 _Talk? 06:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're accusing others of joking, I'm gonna go on and assume that your keep vote is a joke. Be serious about this and don't dismiss it as something petty. It's a serious thing, that many people have had qualms about, even if thos people don't make it to vote in this tfd. Chuck 07:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite determined at deleting this, aren't you? You're dismissing alot of keep votes for strange reasons. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, I'm asking if this is a joke. - Zero1328 _Talk? 07:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I will answer simply, no joke. I would like to ask which strange reasons you are talking about. Chuck 08:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — a spoiler warning is not censorship, just alerting readers to what the article contains. Tim! 06:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and I'm rather surprised this was nommed, but I guess no worries. ++Lar: t/c 06:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per WP:POINT above reasons referring to WP:POINT --Moby 07:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and because the spoiler warning is a good thing... --Moby 09:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and because this is not an example of censorship. --Moby 09:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you use WP:POINT. I am not making a point, but rather following Wikipedia policy and track record. Chuck 07:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

better? --Moby 08:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really...since it is not true that I am trying to make a point, then your reason as that to keep the template is not really valid. Please vote with a reason about the template, not about me. Chuck 08:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

debating everyone here does not help your case. --Moby 09:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't think this is an issue of censorship. Thanks for keeping the wikipedia honest, though. It is not censoring, the template just gives a bit of advice to readers. Your reasons are pretty good, but I think that it should stay based on the above reasons. --Eva ^db 09:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and what a nontrivial piece of advice it is: If you read a section called "Plot" you will learn about the plot! Who would have known. I'm sure nobody. So we need the "spoiler" tag there to tell everyone. After all, we have to be like the Usenet groups. Cause they are so cool. They even invented the "spoiler" word. We must of course not just write quietly about the topic like every other encyclopedia. People could mistake Wikipedia for being one. Maybe we should make the "advice" even bigger? And in colors. Maybe an animated gif with a guy waving a big flag reading "spoiler"? Or put lots of white space in the tag so the reader will have to scroll down a few pages to read the section he came to read about? I've seen that alot on Usenet. So it must be good. Or maybe we can put a big spoiler tag around the whole Wikipedia: "Spoiler: This encyclopedia contains information!" The Germans got long ridd of spoiler tags in their wikipedia, but I'm not very optimistic about the same hapening here. I guess it's a culture thing. When the plot section of Romeo and Juliet has a spoiler tag around it, there's not much hope left. Shanes 09:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [1]. Eric119 19:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think this is an important part of Wikipedia, and should not be deleted. It's not so much about censorship as courtesy. That template doesn't censor anything! It warns people that there is material they might not want to read. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 09:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Do we want Wikipedia to be convenient to the reader? I say yes.  Grue  10:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep common sense. --Mais oui! 11:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As Shanes said, it is a bit redundant to title the section 'plot summary', and then 2 centmetres lower say that plot details follow. Where is the logic in that?
• Spoiler, its a keep!! To say this is an issue of censorship is just plain silly. The whole idea is that if you dont want a plot to be revealed for the ending, then you should skip the section. Its not censorship as the information is not missing. The spoiler tag is overused IMO, and should only be used when talkign about the endings or signficgant plot twists. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 14:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete utterly useless template in an encyclopedia. -M^ask 19:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Chuck, you have excellent rhetoric and dialectic, but I have to speak up. First, if the template is deleted, then we are in effect implying that there are no such thing as spoilers, right? Obviously, if spoilers exist, they have to be denotated and marked, or else they lose the signifigance which makes them spoil a plot. Extending that, we can see that obviously, without spoilers, the entire plot must be flat and boring, because any plot twists or unexpected changes would constitute "spoilers," and we eliminated that word from our vocabulary when we declared them to not exist. (Remember doublethink?) Thus, you would be in effect saying that we as a community deny the existence of plots which turn suddenly or have shocking images just because we attempt to disclose everything in advance. Ridiculous ad absurdum but true.
• On a different path, you say that the spoiler tag is a form of censorship, but how so? What does it hide? What does it remove? What does it attempt to keep away from the public eye? The answer is nothing. It is a neutral warning to the user. That's all. Also, it's hard to see, but you had a fallacious argument earlier. You noted that pictures have been censored in articles like Abu Ghraib prison and autofellatio. The nature of the censoring was removal of the images. What does this have to do with a temmplate that does not remove content? Absolutely nothing!
• Of course, the last thing I need to say is that the tag is not useless, as someone noted earlier. If the tag is useless, then we are explicitly denying the existence of spoilers. See above. I think that's all I need to say. - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ ^{Rock on, dude!} 20:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nominator needs to clarify how having a template tag on the page results in censorship and who, exactly, is being prevented from reading the information. Nominator may also find it useful to explain why he should not be blocked immediately for a textbook violation of WP:POINT.MilesVorkosigan 21:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this seems useful and convenient for the reader, who may want to read a summary of basic information about a work -- author, topic, background, date of publication -- without reading crucial plot details. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, spoilers are not censorship, just courtesy. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, it has nothing to do with censorship, it's just being nice to a reader who doesn't wantto know the plot. --Tone 23:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If I, for some reason, didn't want to know the plot of a movie, why would I be reading the article? — May. 5, '06 [00:46] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
  • Perhaps to know who is acting on it? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Christopher Parham, useful template in my opinion Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. By marking off sections as spoilers, we're providing a service for the reader (and one I make use of when reading). The information is all there, though - it's not censored. -- Mithent 01:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While I can see some arguments against spoiler warnings, the bottom line is that they are beneficial to many readers, and because of that I support them. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; the nomination strikes me as an example of WP:BOLD while not avoiding recklessness on the part of the nominator. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; unlike templates warning of nudity, profanity, etc. While the true censorship templates actively discourage users from reading text by suggesting that it is inappropriate, this template cannot be construed as anything but courtesy. It does not suggest that this is anything inherently wrong with the following text, just that a reader may prefer to read the book/watch the movie/see the play first. —Cuiviénen, Friday, 5 May 2006 @ 01:56 UTC

• Keep. Censorship of material people may not want to see is completely different from warning people about things they may not want to see. And for the record, I'm staunchly in favor of any potentially offensive images having some kind of warning before them, so that people who don't want to see them can stop reading before they do see them (or better yet, some way to disable images for the page in advance). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This templete is (usually) not used to warn people about offensive images. It is used so that an article does not give away the plot of a movie or book to someone who does not wish to know it. --Banana04131 02:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This has absolutely nothing to do with censorship. Sumahoy 02:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Warning about spoilers is not "censorship"; it's basic politeness. It has a long history in on-line forums and it's perfectly appropriate for Wikipedia to follow it adopt it also. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an online forum...it is an encyclopedia. Chuck 03:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A poll is not the place for long debate or pontification, so I didn't make this point before and won't belabor it now, but: Wikipedia is a very different kind of encyclopedia. I didn't say that it was an online forum, but it's much more than a traditional encyclopedia, and, yes, it does share some aspects with online forums. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious keep.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not for any reason having to do with censorship... I just feel that spoiler warnings are unprofessional and don't belong in an encyclopedia. The only argument I've seen advanced in favor of keeping spoiler warnings that I accept is that people may find a page off google and not realize it's an encyclopedia... But I think the majority of netizens know Wikipedia now and would understand that Wikipedia tries to tell the whole story. I think the template is ugly, unencyclopedic, disruptive to the flow of the article, and absolutely inappropriate. Further, in articles where discussion centers around a plot twist, often the majority of the article is under the spoiler heading and this makes the articles seem pretty pointless to me. Ferret-aaron 06:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, and well put. I think the template was set up for deletion using wrong arguments, and would have prefered to see people who want it kept argue for why spoiler tags belong in an encyclopedia in the first place. Though, I doubt the outcome would be any different, no consensus at best. People are so fond of tags here that I fear to see how articles will look in a few years. For instance I saw someone seriously sugest a "no spoiler" tag, to put on top of articles that didn't contain a spoiler. This shows how far it's gone. I believe the only way to limit the damage is to get ridd of it on a per wikiproject basis. The fine people at WikiProject Opera was sensible enough to ban it from all opera articles, and I'm sure there are more projects, especially on classical subjects, where people will agree that the tag just looks really silly. Shanes 07:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In response to some, if it needs to be reworded to be more encylopedic, then do it but something along the lines of this is necessary.--preschooler@heart my talk - contribs 07:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Very bad nomination, one which the contributor must have known was not going to pass. Loom91 12:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Exteremly useful. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 13:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Some people get really angry when they accidently see spoilers, and come on, its not stopping anyone who wants to see the material from seeing the material. Homestarmy 19:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Encyclopedias don't have spoilers. If you're reading an article on XXXX, you should expect spoilers for XXXX. It's that simple. Artificially mangling an article into a non-spoiler intro and a spoiler section is harmful to the overall flow of the article. The most telling sign that ((spoiler)) is being abused is that it is being used on articles on literature that is centuries old, such as Hamlet. That's ridiculous. --Cyde Weys 19:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It isn't clear to me why a spoiler warning should be less relavant on an older, more literary work. If (for example) one didn't know the ending of The Scarlet Letter one might be very annoyed by the twist at the end. Similarly, for another famous (but somewhat old story) An Occurence at Owl Creek Bridge, the entire story is ruined if one knows the ending. These are both old literary works where spoiler warnings make just as much sense for modern day novels and movies. The only argument against their use is that in certain cases almost anyone reading it will know what happened and/or the author expected the readers/watchers to know what happened (such as in Hamlet, where the basic plot was well known in Shakespeare's time). JoshuaZ 19:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a kindness, to say nothing of a guard against editors who reveal too much of a literary work's plot in the article. Until we've educated said editors, or banned them for life, we need this template. Mackensen (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. I started to close this myself, but edit conflicted and figured that was an omen to ask someone else to do it. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 20:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Super-strong keep Is this a bad joke or what? It's used everywhere!!! -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 21:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that something being used everywhere means it can's be put up for deletion. Hell, there's even a FA up for deletion. Nope, not a joke. Chuck 02:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ultra-Extreme, Super Strong, Very Obvious Keep!!! This is a very good, easy to use, highly informative template which is vital to our function. Not only that, this is probably one of the most used templates we have! There are tens of thouasands of uses. If the nominator wants to go and spend the rest of his life fixing every single one, then delete it. Otherwise, keep it and dont create enormous amounts of senseless work. Tobyk777 02:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, a bot could probably orphan this in less than a week prior to it's deletion. But that's not happening, so there we are. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment though it looks like this will turn out to be either no consense or just plain keep, if this gets deleted then ((endspoiler)) needs to go, too.
• Keep as template is heavily used and does not violate any Wikipedia policy. Placing a warning is not censorship, as several others have noted. No, it's not a device typically used in encyclopedias, but most encyclopedias are not revised on a daily basis or contain information about current events (such as new movies and books).--Marysunshine 03:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes, it seems rote or redundant to include it for sections labeled "Plot" or similar, but I have found occasion to use it in sections where it is not completely obvious from the section title that there will be spoilers (e.g., in describing "behind-the-schenes" material, it may be necessary to discuss how people involved handled the production of a particular scene, etc.). — TKD::Talk 05:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete as I feel that if Wikipedia intends to carry itself as a true dictionary it needs to give information. It is so unbearably reminiscent of fandom to warn everyone about spoilers. The fact that the Anakin Skywalker page actually has to redirect to the Darth Vader page is ridiculous. There aren't spoiler warnings in hard copies of dictionaries and encyclopedias. If you come to Wikipedia seeking information, you should expect all types of information, not just what you can "handle" at the time. Vaguely 06:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This has nothing to do with censoring as that is not what it does, it is a warning, as some users (like me) don't want to be told about it and just want a summary of the book\Tv Show etc. Lcarsdata ^{Talk | @ | Contribs} 13:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Widely used template that has nothing to do with censorship. No reason for deletion. Obviously people find this useful considering how many thousands of articles it appears on. Angela. 13:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG keep. Perhaps speedy under WP:SNOW. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.