Spoiling in lead sections about fictional characters and episodes[edit]

I have been working on Cheers-related articles. I read that spoilers are normally discouraged in lead sections. How would the general discouragement affect character pages, like Diane Chambers, Rebecca Howe, Sam Malone, and Frasier Crane? I already spoiled their last appearances to readers. Also, I am doing my best to not put too much in intros of episode pages, like I Do, Adieu, Home Is the Sailor (Cheers), One for the Road (Cheers), and The Show Where Sam Shows Up. --George Ho (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the spoilers significantly aid readers in understanding the topic, you shouldn't worry about the spoilers being in the lead. As long as the spoilers are not unnecessary or gratuitous and are covered lower in the article, there's not a solid Wikipedia rationale for keeping them out of the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Principle of least astonishment. If I google a character, I'm likely just interested in figuring out who is the actor or something. Thus if you place a 'spoiler' before mentioning who plays the role, than that might be annoying for people. When you start discussing the origins of a character, I can expect that next in the discussion will follow what happened to the character, and thus I can choose to stop reading. If you place the demise of the character before the origin, than you didn't really give me a chance. Just create a little bit of contextual separation. All within reason of course, this is quite different for characters known just for their demise. For instance redshirts. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Spoilers per say are not discouraged from the lead. Quoting from the quideline: "Spoilers are no different from any other content..." So you should be guided solely by whether the content serves an appropriate encyclopedic purpose. For example If the content is central, or important to understanding the subject of the article, then it probably should go in the lead, otherwise not. That it might in someone's opinion be a "spoiler" should not enter into it. Paul August ☎ 18:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded and reworked the leads in Sam Malone, Diane Chambers, and Rebecca Howe. I hope my spoiling the details in the ledes help readers adequately understand the characters without ruining their enjoyments (or anticipation). George Ho (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My question is along these lines. For most TV shows, there are short "episode summaries" on pages for each season - should these summaries for active TV shows include "spoilers", especially when such spoilers aren't yet certain? One example is when a major character is apparently killed at the very end of an episode, yet that apparent death isn't itself the focal point of the episode - yet the show has shown in the past that "dead doesn't always mean dead". I'm not talking Game of Thrones "Snow is stabbed several times by mutineers, including Thorne and Olly" or Dallas "J.R. while working late at the office, is shot." But more Battlestar Galactica "Col. Tigh poisons his wife Ellen" (which is *NOT* in the season-page episode summary.) In the instance I am really curious about, the latest episode has a major-but-not-the-main character apparently killed in the final shot of the episode. Yet this series has shown the ability to "bring back from the dead" characters. Yet the summary for that episode specifically calls out "...fatally injured..." We don't actually know for certain, and it would be a *HELL* of a spoiler for an active TV show for someone who hasn't watched that episode yet. (All the other details are fairly obvious details one could deduce simply from the "preview" shown at the end of the previous episode.) 71.193.197.92 (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As has been repeated several times now, whether a plot detail is a "spoiler" or not should onto be taken into consideration about what plot details to include in a summary. If future information changes the interpretation of a plot detail, then change the detail so that it remains descriptive of the events that occurred at that particular time in the plot. —Farix (t | c) 11:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing a more specific aspect of your post, we write about fiction in unfolding present tense, describing events as they happen. So it would seem to me that if a character "died" in an episode, we would write from the perspective of the present and indicate that the character was poisoned to death. A later summary would reveal our discovery of the twist, that the character was not actually dead. Similarly, if a character underwent gender reassignment, we would probably not retroactively change names and pronouns, because at any point prior to the event, we see the character as gender A, not B. This approach doesn't require consideration about whether the reassignment is a spoiler or not. Rather, we don't mention the reassignment until the in-universe reality occurs. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider, in the first case, saying that the character is "seemingly" poisoned to death if I had the awareness the character was returning later. If that apparent death was that notable in reactions (I'm thinking the case of the end of Thank You (The Walking Dead) with Glenn's fate a matter of major discusison on the Internet), then the article on the episode 1) likely can be created if it doesn't and 2) more context can be given there, knowing what will happen in the future. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at Peaky Blinders (TV series) article and there way too many spoilers before the "Episode Summaries". For instance in the "cast description" section. Tommy Shelby has an OBE, there was no need to give that away, he's introduced in series one as a having a KGM, even that's too much; decorated would have done. Then next are Polly's children, in a breath two series of plot are given away. A summary of her character was all that was required here. I'm scared to read the rest of the article, I've only started watching it. The projects goal as I understand it is to enhance the topic, not blow away the plot right from the start. A quick scan suggests to me there is little or nothing there about the many liberties the programme has taken with history. OK it's a fine line to draw between information and spoilers, but I thought the spirit of the Wiki policy is not give plot away until at least the Episode summaries. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No that is not the "spirit of the Wiki policy". Wiki policy makes no distinction between "Spoilers" and any other content. As this page says: "Spoilers are no different from any other content and should not be deleted solely because they are spoilers." Paul August ☎ 17:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And yet the guideline states "A spoiler is a piece of information about a narrative work (such as a book, film, television series, or a video game) which reveals plot points or twists and thus may degrade the experience of persons who wish to experience the work themselves." and "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." The guideline knows what spoilers are and that there are cases where they should not be included. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With any content, an encyclopaedic purpose should be served when including it. "SNAPE KILLS DUMBLEDORE!" is just as inappropriate in the lead section of J. K. Rowling as "Irn Bru is popular in Scotland". That one of them is considered a "spoiler" makes no essential difference. —Kusma (t·c) 09:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That one of them is considered a spoiler does make a difference. It is a spoiler that is not needed whatsoever. If it (some mention of it) was needed in the lead (because it was career-defining for Rowling) and was de-capitalized (since capitalization is part of the inappropriateness there), that would be a different story. But the guideline specifically notes that spoilers should not be included unless needed, although its use of "unless needed" is currently conveyed with "an encyclopedic purpose," which, as past discussion has shown, is vague and abused on this site. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, speaking of Dumbledore's death (which I personally don't mind being spoiled on, mainly because I already knew that he dies), I see that the lead of the Albus Dumbledore article currently does not mention that aspect. Good. It's too often that people plop character deaths in the lead of Wikipedia articles as if the deaths are actually needed there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can we get a policy change for spoilers to not be in the cast list section? Stranger Things 4 is getting spoiled, a giant huge character reveal. I see no reason behind spoiling in the cast list and it's so frustrating for those in control to see absolutely no issue with it. Yet, many viewers of all types of shows are expressing their displeasure about that. In Stranger Things case, the character was given a fake name to not give away the spoiler. The own network hides it. And just the idea of spoiling something in a cast list. I can not tell you how frustrated I am. We should be able to glance at articles and not see huge spoilers unless we click on the episode summaries. This would save so many headaches. Daleylife (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our policy is that once something has wide public availability, such as availability of episodes on a streaming service, then Wikipedia treats it as verified information, and we are not going to mark or hide spoilers. --Masem (t) 16:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers of works in biographies of real-life persons[edit]

I think the issue is too general to describe. Therefore, I'll provide two specific scenarios. In Scenario A, a biography of a novelist contains spoilers about non-notable works that s/he wrote. How much spoilers can the biography appropriately contain, especially if a work may not garner enough notable reviews for a stand-alone article? For example, Sheila Walsh (novelist).

In scenario B, a biography of a novelist contains some spoilers of notable novels that the person wrote. What if both a biography and an article about the notable novel exist? How much a biography can contain spoilers about a notable work? For example, Jane Austen and Pride and Prejudice; J. K. Rowling and Harry Potter. --George Ho (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, we shouldn't be going into too much detail on the plot of a book in the author's bio page, even if the book is non-notable. However, if it is necessary to mention the "spoiler" in a one or two-sentence paragraph/summary (which may be reasonable to include), then it's probably okay. --MASEM (t) 01:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a plot detail is a "spoiler" or not should not be taken into consideration when determining if said plot details should be in an author's biography. Instead, retaining or removing plot details should be based on whether it is part of the sourced critical commentary relating to the author and serves an encyclopedic purpose. —Farix (t | c) 01:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, quoting from the quideline: "Spoilers are no different from any other content..." Paul August ☎ 22:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The correct answer is: whether it's a spoiler or not should absolutely be given no consideration whatsoever, and by 2017 this shouldn't even be a question that needs asking - David Gerard (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really want spoilers to occur any time, any where? I just got head-butted by a big spoiler in a biography of an actress who is starring in a currently running series. This article focuses on the use of spoilers in articles about works of fiction, and I think by now we users are getting trained to be on guard when consulting Wikipedia about works of fiction. Double that for Wikia, which gives the "status" of a character right up front. But biographies of actors or writers? C'mon!--Bluepost22 (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As suggested above, it's possible that a plot twist related to a particular part is unnecessary detail in the biography of a performer. But that isn't always the case. I don't think we could have a reasonable article about Jaye Davidson, for example, without giving away the plot twist in his debut role. Either way, the general point is that whether a piece of information belongs in an article or not is decided based on other factors, not based on whether or not that information is a spoiler. --RL0919 (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's fully plausible someone wrote in what spoiled you with malicious intent or even innocent that just shouldn't be there. But again, if the information is pertinent (such as something about the person that very relevant to their notability and is a spoiler) than yes, it SHOULD be there. As for Wikia, that has zero to do with Wikipedia. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have been looking up actors. Specifically, since I am watching old Perry Mason shows, and looking up the actors (familiar faces), I often run across the statement "So-and-so played the murderer (murderer's name) in the Perry Mason episode Such-and-such." We do not yet have articles for each Perry Mason episode as we do for "Star Trek" and "The Outer Limits" and it is fine with me if that kind of article contains the surprise ending or other spoilers in the "Plot" section. However, I think they have no place in biographical articles about actors. It is sufficient to note that the actor appeared on that show, and perhaps the name of his character. The spoiler is not part of his biography. It does not serve an encyclopedic purpose, unless he made a career of playing murderers, which should definitely be part of his bio. I think that [WP:SW] doesn't address this directly. Thoughts? Wastrel Way (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC) Eric[reply]
This page does address it, in that it states that such information should serve an encyclopedic purpose and is not required to be included if it does not. Further discussion on the topic belongs on the articles' talk pages or some other project page, and you'd do best to focus on the "does not serve an encyclopedic purpose" argument rather than that it's a spoiler. Anomie⚔ 11:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the information is relevant, then we include it whether it's a spoiler or not. If it's not relevant, we don't include it, whether it's a spoiler or not. Popcornfud (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers in article titles[edit]

What should we do if a fictional character's real name is a spoiler itself? See Talk:Rey (Star Wars)#Requested move 18 December 2019 (but please don't, if you don't want to spoil The Rise of Skywalker for yourself!); I'm trying to decide whether to move that article to the character's changed name.

On other wikis, such as Bulbapedia, there is a soft redirect template for such characters; for example, see the Bulbapedia article about the Masked Man from Pokémon Adventures. The top of the article contains the template "Softredirect", with a note reading: "This soft redirect exists to avoid revealing a critical plot twist without warning."

Could such a template be used in instances like the Rey article to avoid spoilers, or is that WP:FANCRUFT? ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 12:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't do that. Anakin Skywalker is a simple redirect to Darth Vader, no warnings. The title should follow Wikipedia:Article titles, which doesn't consider whether a title is a spoiler. —Kusma (t·c) 15:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, early in the days of WP before the huge discussions/wars about the spoiler policy there actually WAS a soft redirect, for instance here. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More to Kusma's point, WP:COMMONNAME should apply, which is going to work in nicely with the idea of spoilers. Right now, the bulk of the world's population knows Rey as Rey, not the proposed name based on the last film. Maybe in 3-5 years, when the film has been seen by most that Rey becomes to be more commonly referred to as that other name, then we could shift that, but by that point, the SPOILER concern is long since over. (And that's a hypothetical - as the example Kusma gives, just because a more canonical name is given doesn't mean the common name disappears). --Masem (t) 15:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly right; the WP:COMMONNAME for this character is the same one that has been used in numerous sources for the last several years, not one that is used once in the final moments of a new film. Moreover, given that many reliable sources try to avoid giving spoilers, the old name will probably continue to be the one primarily used for quite a while. We don't need any change to existing guidelines to avoid this spoiler. --RL0919 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers where you wouldn't expect to come across them[edit]

The logic behind getting rid of spoiler warnings was that anyone reading an article about a work of fiction should already expect to find information about the plot there. However, that doesn't mean that an article about a tangentially-related subject should include a gratuitous spoiler where there isn't a particular reason to mention it, and I think this article should say so. (For example, the article about Emil Jannings mentions that he appears in a cameo in a fictional setting in the film Inglourious Basterds, which is fair enough, but then it went on to describe how the film ends, which doesn't really belong in an article about a real person, and nobody reading his article would expect to stumble across that information there.) Richard75 (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me the place to discuss this matter is at Talk:Emil Jannings, not here. I don't see any history of argument about spoilers in the edit history of that article or on its talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was just an example. This is the article about spoilers. Richard75 (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A claimed problem with a long-standing guideline needs some compelling examples - David Gerard (talk) 11:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that if that information is relevant from an encyclopaedic perspective then it should be included, spoilers be damned. It's an encyclopaedia, we record facts about the universe, we can't really spend time worrying about which facts readers might not want to know. You might be able to argue that in this case the information isn't relevant, but that's not an issue about spoilers. Popcornfud (talk) 11:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yep. The key point is: if you're considering whether to include a piece of information, then its spoiler-ness is irrelevant - David Gerard (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the only example provided is a WP:WEIGHT issue not a spoiler issue.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers in crime detective synopses[edit]

I would like to see the policy regarding spoilers in tv episode synopeses updated. Including spoilers in tv show episodes ruins any enjoyment for viewers of the show. By example, [episode of this tv show] includes a spoiler, while the other episodes do not, and that one description cannot be changed due to the policy of not making edits to remove spoilers. As was pointed out earlier in this talk page, " the guideline states "A spoiler is a piece of information about a narrative work (such as a book, film, television series, or a video game) which reveals plot points or twists and thus may degrade the experience of persons who wish to experience the work themselves."" Sideriver84 (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is clearly against the intent of "Wikipedia does not hide spoilers". Readers coming to episode articles on a detective/procedural drama show before having viewed it themselves are reading at their own risk, as once the episode has aired, we consider all parts of it fair game. (It would be different if there was a leak that only few had access to) --Masem (t) 19:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That a piece of information may or may not be a "spoiler" is irrelevant for our encyclopedia's purpose. The only relevant issue is whether the information is or is not encyclopedic. So a piece of information which serves only to "spoil" is inappropriate. While a piece of information which is encyclopedic is appropriate, whether or not it is a "spoiler". Paul August ☎ 00:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free content, like images, spoiling plot points[edit]

I've been wondering. Are images and other non-free content spoiling a plot appropriate as lead images, or must they be pushed down into body, like either Plot section or Reception section? E.g. a non-free screenshot in The Boys in the Bar, which I uploaded. --George Ho (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My comment immediately above, applies here as well. Paul August ☎ 12:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers damage the usefulness of an encyclopaedia.[edit]

An encyclopedia at its most fundamental is not simply a receptacle of facts. It is a useful collection of facts categorised and arranged in a way that is most convenient and helpful to a reader. The current stance of Wikipedia with regards to spoilers is essentially caveat emptor, the reader is not safe to look up basic information about a person or character or even tangentially related subjects. If the reader does not feel safe to use Wikipedia then what is it good for? The encyclopedia should strive to present the information in a way that allows the reader to choose what information they wish to access. It should be properly labelled and arranged into sections. It should also do no harm so as to be safe to use. Information that can serve as a spoiler should be restricted to well earmarked sections. For example, an article about Darth Vader should not include the characters birth name in the opening paragraph. If there is feasibly one person who does not have that knowledge, it is not the job of an encyclopedia to reveal a plot element in a work of fiction. It is the job of an encyclopedia to present pertinent information such as the fact that the character is mysterious and that his identity is a mystery. That is who Darth Vader is at the start of the original movie and the user has not requested information of 'character name', they requested information on Darth Vader. This was just an example. The point of an encyclopedia is to be useful, not to contain all facts regardless of how damaging those facts could be. 2A00:23C5:8E81:9201:66E9:323D:C307:F271 (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Useful to who, exactly? Describing the site's approach to spoilers as "damaging" seems way too harsh, and generally the spoilers are always included in places you'd expect to see them. Reading a plot summary or a character's biography and being annoyed that the plot was spoiled is more on you than it is on the site for not giving a proper heads-up. For that matter it only applies to readers who are sensitive to spoilers, which isn't everyone. With out long spoiler headings haven't existed on the site, by now every reader going to Wikipedia will know to watch out for certain sections of articles, or just not to visit certain pages before they've seen a work. Harryhenry1 (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Wikipedia has removed spoiler warnings form article over fifteen years ago so if there was going to be significant damage we would have seen obvious signs of this years ago.--67.70.103.36 (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More