The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

((spoiler-blank|This discussion uses some examples of spoilers Explicit examples/sections should be labelled below.)) Some indirect references might be unlabelled.

Key issues[edit]

Are spoiler tags a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy[edit]

This claim holds that spoiler tags are a violation of Wikipedia's policy of "Neutral point of view", or "NPOV". This claim is held on the grounds that they are specifically geared to the purpose of suggesting to readers that they may not wish to read this information, a non-impartial judgement made on the basis of an editors' own interpretations and assumptions. The spoiler warning (in fact created to serve that very purpose and called just that: a warning) is, by its very nature, an example of an editor inserting their opinions into an article to influence readers' decisions to read or not read specific information. A warning can only exist if someone has passed their judgement upon it and then creates a notice based on that judgement. In this case, that is what is taking place with spoiler warnings, and that personal judgement of editors is being passed on to the readers.

NPOV was ipmlemented for the specific purpose of keeping editors' personal opinions out of articles, and not allowing these opinions to reach readers to the effect of influencing what information they absorbed or how they perceived it as they absorbed it. An aspect of this policy is known as "Let the facts speak for themselves". The detailed plot information within an article will identify itself as such on the basis of what it is offering. It need not be specifically targeted with a banner that strives to suggest to readers that the information may be inappropriate for them to view.

Discussion[edit]

Most, if not all, spoilers can easily be agreed on by most editors and readers. If not, then visit the issue on an article by article basis.

What would be a point of view is how that spoiler might affect someone's enjoyment of the text. If we commented on the tags, like saying "this is a class 10 spoiler!" or "You won't laugh as much at this scene", that would be point of view. There are some fictional works where, based on by past or current experience with similar work, I can spoil myself and still enjoy it. But other stuff can really effect the enjoyment of a work of fiction when you know something prematurely. Spoiler warnings don't comment on the why and how, they only comment that it is a spoiler. I do not see the labeling of spoilers as a POV.

We are labeling information, just as we label protagonists and antagonists, major themes, or any other element. Some readers might use these labels for navigation, some might not.

People might get some feedback from the editor based on how an editor writes or formats an article, such as what parts of the topic the editor chooses to focus on. In any case, the effect spoiler tags have, in my experience and others, is as insignificant as how something is formatted. -- Ned Scott 13:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POV is the judgement that the information will affect someone's enjoyment of the work at all. The censorship that follows is the actions taken to "save" the readers. This isn't labeling, which has only the purpose of making information more accessible. This is an attempt at warning people not to read something for fear of their enjoyment of a work being "spoiled." Hell, look at that word: "spoilers." Does that sound like a neutral word? It's only called that because of the belief that people knowing things about a story in advance "spoils"/ruins it. Ryu Kaze 13:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A "spoiler" simply exposes - spoils - the otherwise unknown parts of a plot. It makes no judgement call, even if the term carries some perjorative weight with some people. It's not a POV term at all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's POV to say that information spoils/ruins a plot in the first place. The word itself carries a negative connotation because it's implying "This is going to be ruined if you read this." It's not a neutral word, mustless capable of being used in a neutral manner. A spoiler warning is something based on an individual's personal judgement in the first place. How can it be neutral? Ryu Kaze 16:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So if we rename the spoiler tag, does that fix it? If we remove the linje "spoiler warning," is that all it needs to be fixed? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no POV issue inherrant to the spoiler tag. What point of view is advanced by saying that the following information gives away plot or ending details? The point of view that the ending to the Sixth Sense was not an important ending detail? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not saying any political agenda is being furthered by their use, but that the personal views of an editor (that this information could damage someone's ability to appreciate a fictional work) are being inserted. That is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, those views are being inserted for the explicit purpose of suggesting to readers that their ability to enjoy a fictional work could be "spoiled". Thus, the origin of the word "spoilers". Ryu Kaze 16:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you asking me to cite sources that believe that the ending to the sixth sense is a plot or ending detail - the POV endorsed by the tag is "Plot and/or ending details follow." This is like saying that the title of our Railroad article endorses the pov that reality exists and is not just a series of pictures projected onto a cave wall. - I believe Plato would require proof. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't pretend that this is about labeling. It's about trying to get people not to look at things "for their own sake", on the basis of an editor's own judgement. No matter how good the intentions, they're supposed to keep their nose out of it. Period. Ryu Kaze 17:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it's not. It's about allowing people to choose not to look at things that they do not wish to get information on. You alledged that the statement "Plot and/or ending details follow." was a violation of NPOV. NPOV is set in stone. Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates is not. If you want to talk about the basic reason not to include them, please don't discuss NPOV, which is what this section is about. What is the other POV? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ryu, I think it is bad faith to accuse another editor of "pretending". I think you need to accept that some people do see this as another type of label, that is no more problematic than any other label. Johntex\talk 17:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hm. Perhaps you're right. I just can't see how someone can arrive at that conclusion given the thought processes that goes into placing that tag. I truly can't understand how anyone would think it's not POV in light of how and why a spoiler tag gets inserted. But, okay. I'll try to accept the notion even if it makes totally no sense to me. Ryu Kaze 17:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is the other POV? NPOV requires that we find both notable sides of a disagreement and cite both. Who thinks it's not a plot/ending detail? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not the issue. No one thinks a plot detail isn't a plot detail (that I've seen anyway). The POV aspect is the belief that this knowledge is somehow going to harm someone's enjoyment of a work. That's the NPOV violation. The censorship violation is taking a step to influence someone's decision to read or not read that specifically-targeted information with the promise that it's going to "spoil" the work for them and prevent them from enjoying it. Ryu Kaze 17:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So it's just the word "spoiler warning" before the plot details thing? We can fix that - amended onto my edit protected request. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, isn't it even more of a contradiction to have a disclaimer tag when we have a "no disclaimers" guideline? And both are guidelines? Ryu Kaze 17:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NDT was edited a long long time ago to carve out ((spoiler)) and derivatives. See the guideline for rationale. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There wasn't any rationale. The claim that once you've read something you can't unread it applies to all the information here. Information which is no different from plot details according to encyclopedic princicple. As I've said before, I don't care if someone who came to this body of knowledge attains knowledge, and neither does the encyclopedia. You're not supposed to care either. You're supposed to be building the encyclopedia. All of us are. That's all we're supposed to be doing. Wikipedia's very first policy says so: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its goals go no further." Ryu Kaze 17:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason it is carved out is that, unlike other disclaimers, you need to read spoiler BEFORE the info, while if you read some medical advice you might say to yourself "wow, how reliable is this shit? I should check the disclaimers!" Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This comes back to the issue of how the things actually aid or don't aid the encyclopedia. Why do people need to be warned about knowledge? Ryu Kaze 18:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Encyclopedia's are in the buisness of serving readers and storing knowledge. Putting in a statement that "the knowledge you are about to see contains plot details and endings" is serving readers. It does not stop us from storing knowledge. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Encyclopedias serve readers by giving them knowledge. That's the be all and end all of it. Wikipedia's very first policy even says as much: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its goals go no further." We're not here to provide any courtesy other than the information itself. We're not going the extra mile or some nonsense. We're here to do one thing and one thing only: provide the information in a comprehensive, neutral manner. If people don't appreciate that, then they should look elsewhere. It's quite simple. Ryu Kaze 18:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being useful is inherently part of our objective. It is not "going further" to be useful. It is where we should be to begin with. Johntex\talk 19:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Useful things are only part of our objective in so far as they directly contribute to the objective of being an encyclopedia. As said many times, useful things are not inherently placed in an encyclopedia. This includes phone books, and any number of things that might be based on POV. Plenty of useful things out there. Not all of them conform to the principles of an encyclopedia, though, which is our only basis for what goes here. Ryu Kaze 20:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Phone books contain POV? you've lost me, man. -- Ned Scott 21:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Read it like this: "This includes phone books. It also includes any number of things that might be based on POV." Ryu Kaze 21:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still an odd example, usefulness isn't a POV issue.. -- Ned Scott 22:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No one said it was. However, some things that are useful are POV issues. I see spoiler tags as one of them. It's also worth noting that some things are useful only in their appropriate context. Which is not to say that they're not doing what they're intended to here. I'm just pointing out that something being useful doesn't make it a magical thing that could never have anything wrong with it. Sometimes useful things don't belong in places. Ryu Kaze 22:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought of a good example of how something is borderline POV that editors include in many articles: genre. I've seen debates over what genres people think a TV show falls under, and worse. Are those labels in the same boat as spoiler tags in that sense? -- Ned Scott 22:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's why editors shouldn't say "This work of fiction falls into this genre" unless its creators have identified it as being part of that genre. Sometimes they make a point of differentiating what they think it should be called in interviews. If an editor cannot verify that it's part of a certain genre, then they should say that it contains elements of "this" genre and "that" one, or that it contains elements usually associated with "this" or "that" genre. Ryu Kaze 22:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The NPOV vio is in the targeting of specific information for the disclaimer. Using it on all the information (as is done in the universal disclaimer) is impartial. Ryu Kaze 22:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remember, this is neutral point of view, not no point of view. You're taking the word impartial slightly out of context there. I recall it being said on a page (can't remember which one) that sometimes it's better to follow things in spirit rather than to the letter. We must look at why we have the NPOV policy and what that policy is actually trying to do, which is to minimize opinions and bias of article topics. -- Ned Scott 17:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POV IS inherent in the spoiler tag. Why do some plots get spoiler warnings but not others? Judgments are made to determine this case by case. Travislangley 21:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, it can have POV as long as it's neutral POV. Why do some have tags and not others? Probably the same reason some articles have spelling errors or don't have this or that; things on Wikipedia are a work in progress. Although, reasonable consistency is something that can to be addressed in the guidelines. -- Ned Scott 23:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The tags say "may", right? So it's not really POV. This is done for the reader's convenience, so the weasel word is excusable. I mean, just having an article implies that it's worth a read, which is against WP:NPOV. Karwynn (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That isn't how NPOV works. Wikipedia's NPOV policy assumes that all information within an article has already met criteria for inclusion. At that point, the info is all supposed to be presented impartially, or with an NPOV. By the way, actually, the tags don't include "may", but even if they did, "spoilers" is a negatively connotated word (something that would "spoil" a work is obviously not something one would consider good). Ryu Kaze 21:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Based on the answer above, it sounds like you don't think spoiler tags are POV, but should go away for not meeting some other criteria for inclusion. (As an aside, NPOV is part of the criteria for inclusion. For example, if there's a lot of verifiable and sourced info from crackpots, we won't include all of it because we don't give undue weight.) On the word itself, I agree that spoiler has an inherent "bad" meaning, although in current use some people actively seek spoilers, especially from works still in production - so in some contexts it's regarded as a good word. Some media actively promote that they have the newest juciest spoilers, for example. Plot twists, plot details or ending details are all more neutral words. --GunnarRene 22:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I definitely think they're POV due to how they're implemented and why. I, of course, understand that the intentions are good, and anywhere on the internet that wasn't claiming to be an encyclopedia should have them, I think, but I still see them as inherently POV in both conception and implementation. The issue to me isn't so much that they're inherently evil as it is that they're out of place here. Like a boat on an airport runway. Ryu Kaze 22:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess we see them as useful signage on the runway....-plange 22:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Use of spoiler templates doesn't violate NPOV anymore than using Template:Current or Template:Cleanup. Both express opinions about what content is in the article and how it is presented, but they don't actually affect what content is in there, nor do they affect the points of view expressed or not expressed in the article. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you've expressed my feelings on this as accurately and succinctly as is possible.Darquis 19:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to remind everyone again that it's neutral point of view, not no point of view. Almost everything has a point of view, but it's about how it's neutral or not. If spoiler tags are not neutral, in what context are they not neutral? -- Ned Scott 21:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want to make an argument that I'm not seeing above, although perhaps I'm missing it. I think spoiler tags are POV not so much in their specific application to a portion of a media article, but in their application to media articles in general, as opposed to other articles. I think this represents a general cultural bias on behalf of the editors.

We do not, for example, have a spoiler tag on evolution articles warning that reading said article might shatter one's narrow religious beliefs, or on religious articles warning that reading them might spoil one's narrow materialism. Why not? Is it more important to protect a movie-goers comic enjoyment than it is to protect someone's entire worldview? Perhaps these are apples and oranges, but I can imagine crossover cases. For example, should the article on Job have a spoiler warning so the reader does not prematurely learn that Job gets his family back (in the edited version).... Ethan Mitchell 02:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your example is covered below (relating to the Bible). Works that claim to be non-fiction are treated as non-fiction, and we don't need to make a POV judgement as to whether or not it is historical or fictional. As for your first point, the ancient reasoning from WP:NDT applies: You can choose if you want to believe in what you read about medicine (or religion) and perhaps check with other sources, but once you've read a spoiler there's no turning back except for amnesiacs and lobotomy victims. --GunnarRene 03:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can say that about anything. Pornography or images of mutilation included (perhaps especially). Hell, those are probably easier to recall than plot details of a work you've not yet seen/read/played. I for one am still flabbergasted by this "need" to "protect" people from any kind of information at all, mustless the least "harmful" of the information here on Wikipedia. "Hm... images of women giving oral sex to men and women: sounds like family-oriented material to me. Pass. What have we here... fields full of dead bodies... US soldiers torturing their prisoners, at least one of whom died from the mistreatment he suffered: wholesome. Pass. What's this? Oh — oh my God... oh my God! It's plot details! Hide the children! Break out the blindfolds, quick! Oh God save us!"
Sorry. That's just how absurd it seems to me. Ryu Kaze 10:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. I think, GR, that you are equating two processes that people experience quite differently. One is the comparison and weighing of different (conflicting) information. The other is filtering out unwanted information, whether it is the punchline of a joke, a PTSD trigger, hate speech, a really concise argument against the Papal Succession, or whatever. People who object to seeing an image of a flayed baby are not going to be satisfied that they can then compare it with another image of an unflayed baby, and decide which 'information' they prefer. What they want is to never have the information enter their consciousness at all.
Now, we don't cater to that desire (re: dead babies), and I believe that we shouldn't cater to it. But I think it sends a very bad collective message if we do cater to that desire in contexts that are (A) much less important in the potential trauma caused to the reader, and (B) culturally specific to Northern/Western media to a very large extent. The implicit message is that wikipedia thinks its fine if we shatter your illusions about God, or make you see the Naked Lunch, or whatever, because in some sense we don't want you to be the kind of person who believes in God or shies away from horrible images. But we do respect you in being the kind of person who likes to enjoy movies and cheap novels, so we will arrange the site to accomodate you.
This, I think, can be correctly percieved as a cultural bias. Ethan Mitchell 13:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems to be a central theme in the anti-spoiler warning arguments that they seek to hide information. Your argument about cultural bias also suffers from that misconception. The spoiler warning does not try to censor information, but allow the reader to find out on his/her own.
You refer to the spoiler warnings to cater simply to the kind of person "who likes to enjoy movies and cheap novels". This is unfair, Ethan. The spoiler message is equally applicaple to great works of literature. Moreover, by classifying some works as cheap, you are yourself committing an act of cultural bias.
However you may like to classify works of literature, some will (this is the nature of a good number of them) be of great benefit to the reader if he/she makes certain discoveries on his/her own as the author intended. As an example, let me suggest Haruki Murakami's Norwegian Wood which provides many startling twists as a way of invoking certain emotions.
In reply to your question: yes, when you compare works of literary art to scientific theories, you are comparing apples and oranges. --Swift 21:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Sigh). I am not describing my own reaction, I am describing what I think a very plausible reaction is from many readers. I like Terry Pratchett, I like Murakami, etc. etc. What I am not clear about is that this "great benefit to the reader" created by putting spoiler tags in a Murakami article can be defended in a way that is relatively culture-neutral, given that we are not putting spoiler tags in other kinds of articles for which comparable or greater emotional reactions might result.
Already, we have particular cultural biases and priorities based on the demographics of our editors. The Endor Holocaust page, about a debate over something that may or may not have happened in a sci-fi series, is roughly as long and detailed as the Nun page, covering all types of nuns from all religions. Fine, cool, we can fix that. But in the meantime, it tends to send a message that wikipedia cares about A and not B. It seems to me that spoiler tags only reinforce that message. Ethan Mitchell 02:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe editors do care more about A and not B, but then you are describing something that is a much larger problem than what we are currently looking at. If I choose to spend more time on one article vs another, that's my own damn right. I don't think it's right to be deceptive about our priorities in order to appear more professional. And the spoiler tag is not about emotional reactions.. it's about spoilers.. which may or may not be... anything.... -- Ned Scott 02:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think this has much to do with cultrual neutrality. I can't see how cultural background will make a text a spoiler to some, but not others. The question whether certain article contents deserve a spoiler warning will ultimately be up to the editors. This will inevitably be as culturally biased as the neutral point of view that Wikipedia strives to achieve. It is a futile task, but we haven't done too bad in the past.
Which articles are you referring to as not getting spoilers for "comparable or greater emotional reactions"?
I may be too much of a cultural relativist for you here, but I would say that by claiming Endor Holocaust not to be worthy of the length of Nun is itself an act of cultural bias.
As Ned pointed out, there is no rule as to how detailed articles should be. The openness of Wikipedia allows everyone to concentrate their efforts where they see fit. This is considered a Good Thing and personally, I find this no less dishonest than if there was an editorial board deceiding on the size of articles. --Swift 04:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Which articles are you referring to as not getting spoilers for 'comparable or greater emotional reactions'?"
How about those images of naked people, dead people, mutilated people or tortured people? At least one of which has an actual basis for making a concern over, considering that there's documented cases of horrific images causing people to seek professional counseling. No one's ever tried to explain how warning people about these things is any different warning them about plot details (I refuse to use that sickening, presumptuous word "spoilers"), even while they claim that the situations are entirely different. I don't see how they are, as both would be a matter of trying to warn people about things in an effort to "protect" them from certain information for the sake of their quality of life. However, unlike warnings for plot details, warnings for both of the other things have been shot down on more than one occasion on the basis of NPOV policy and no censorship. There's definitely some kind of double-standard at work when it's considered that telling someone the ending of a novel on a page that they have come to in order to find information about said novel is a horrible thing to do, while showing to a child a porn star giving oral sex to multiple people (of multiple genders at that) or showing to a sensitive person images of torture and a field full of dead bodies is just fine. Ryu Kaze 12:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a fundamental difference between the two. The spoilers are there, not to stop readers from finding out, but to allow them the choice of how they find out.
It may make you a bit queasy, but (as you evidently are well aware of from your participation in this discussion) Wikipedia has a no-disclamers policy. If you feel that spoilers are a disclamer, you can try to make that argument, but that is a different thread in this discussion all together. Alternatively, you may try to introduce changes to that policy. --Swift 15:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As has always been said, they make that choice for themselves, not with help from us. That's entirely the point of NPOV and no censorship. We don't get to pass judgement on information and then give that judgement to the readers wit hthat information. All information is supposed to be presented neutrally, not with a word that is — by its very title — suggests "This information will ruin this work of fiction for you". Ryu Kaze 19:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is nothing biased about the labelling of information. The only bias may be in whether the information may (notice I'm not using "will") spoil. This can be settled in the same way as other NPOV issues here are. I think we've now thoroughly cleared the topic of cultural neutrality. ;-) --Swift 23:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The labelling of information can easily be biased. It's a warning. There's no seperating judgement/bias from a warning. Both the process of deciding something needs to have a warning and the implementation of the warning itself are biased practices, which then gets shoved in the faces of the readers. It's impossible to seperate bias from something like that because of the nature of a warning. Even if what you claimed was true, the tag very clearly claims that the tag will ruin someone's experience with a fictional work ("spoiler"; the etymology and connotation of this word is obvious, as its intended suggestion). Ryu Kaze 01:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once again, twice again, I am not saying that I think the Endor Holocaust is not worthy of as much discussion as all the female religious orders on the planet or in fiction put together. What I am saying is that there are probably readers who come here who do have that impression, and are a bit taken aback to see the current allocation of our editing efforts. We need those users, because they are the ones who are going to flesh out the Nun article, while I am going to be spending my time in sub-bellicose revert campaigns about whether or not the comet Hale-Bopp existed, and equally useful stuff. One way to hang onto those users is to not have editorial codes that reinforce the impression that wikipedia takes Haruki Marukami (and/or Quentin Tarantino) way more seriously than, say, religion or mental health. Ethan Mitchell 13:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry to make you rehash your earlier statements. As for users being taken aback; I don't think that we should base our policies on assumptions about what type of reaction will bring us the most editors. It could equally be said that it is the lack of content on certain articles (e.g. Nun) will much rather convince knowledgeble people to contribute. Are you suggesting that we dumb down articles that large populations see as "inferiour" in order to recruit them (this would surely be cultural bias)? I feel like I'm misunderstanding your point. --Swift 16:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Swift, you asked "Which articles are you referring to as not getting spoilers for "comparable or greater emotional reactions"?" I think we have all discussed the sex-and-violence stuff, but for some reason the pro-spoiler-tag folks see this as a completely seperate issue. Some examples that seem to me much closer to the spoiler-tag setting are pages like Freemasonry or Scientology which include information that is normally revealed to initiates only after a lengthy process. This seems like a very close equivalent to 'spoiling' the ending of a book.
Again, if the argument for spoiler tags on works of fiction is to protect the reader's enjoyment, then why does this not extend to factual information that might impact the reader's enjoyment? For a significant number of readers, learning that Tennessee Williams was gay will spoil their enjoyment of A Streetcar Named Desire just as much, if not more, than learning the ending in advance. Yet it would never occur to us to place that information under a spoiler tag. What is rationale for this distinction? Ethan Mitchell 14:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has already been mentioned that since the Bible claims to be truth, it should have no spoiler warnings. The same could be said of Scientology. If works of fiction, these would both be excellent candidates for spoiler warnings.
The spoilers aren't there simply to "protect the reader's enjoyment" but more generally to allow the reader to experience (joy, sadness, repulsion or delight depending on the work) as the author intended.
As soon as we venture into the realm of facts, the author has no claim over which facts are presented and in what order.
Had Williams kept his sexual orientation a secret in order to reveal it in the course of the book, it might qualify for a spoiler warning (on the book article). We, however, cannot make the POV assumption of how the facts will affect the work for him. --Swift 16:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By their very nature, the use of spoiler tags involves making a POV assumption of how facts will affect things for people. Simply because the plot details of a work of fiction are not reality doesn't make their existance any less a fact than the reality of information in a biography of Francis Ford Coppola. Ryu Kaze 19:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The spoiler warning doesn't say anything about how facts affect people, simply that they do.
"doesn't make their existance any less a fact". Which is why it is included. It doesn't forbid it from being labelled differently. --Swift 23:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has already been mentioned that since the Bible claims to be truth, it should have no spoiler warnings. The same could be said of Scientology. That is not a rationale, that is a restatement of the distinction. If the spoiler tags are, as you say, meant to allow the reader to experience X as the author intended, then I think Scientology is a very valid comparison. Scientology initiates are intended by the authors of the church to experience the church teachings in a certain order and context, just like Murakami intends the reader to experience the wild sheep chase in a certain order and context. What is the rationale for protecting the latter, because it is fictional, and not the former, which is meant to be factual? Ethan Mitchell 20:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The rationale in the case of the Bible is clear as, in my understanding (sorry I'm not a Christian and have my knowledge largely from friends), the information cannot be spoiled — everyone is invited to experience the message of God in whichever way they choose (well, or: God chooses for them). In the case that you draw up with Scientology, the line becomes more blurry.
Frankly, I doubt there can be any rules to deceide on where to place the lines (not even in the case of normal fiction) which is why I would neither want to see them in a policy nor removed. I see cases where they aren't needed and others where they are benefitial. I don't see the need for a deceisive line between them to allow the use in one group and not the other. If that were the case, we wouldn't have any guidelines — only policies.
Specifically on Scientology: If indeed the publishers of Scientology books and classes would request it, I believe I'd support their request. --Swift 23:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not making myself clear. What I am looking for is some general reason why we should use spoilers in case X (certain kinds of fiction) and not in case Y (everything else). All I can find, and all I am hearing in this discussion, is a hodgepodge of specific rules which I am not even clear are spelled out anywhere: we don't use spoilers when about purportedly factual articles; we don't use spoilers when experiencing the message of God; etc.; and in the remaining cases, we do use spoilers when we feel that audience enjoyment of something might be compromised by learning plot details.

The very absence of some general policy seems to me extraordinarily precious. If we are so concerned about our readers having enjoyable experiences, why aren't we interpreting that point more broadly? And if we are equally concerned about all this side constraints--factuality and God and who knows what--then what is the unifying proposition behind these constraints? If I say that Jack and the Beanstalk shouldn't have a spoiler warning, because it involves legumes, where is the general line of argument to shoot me down?

What I'm contending is that the unifying principle here is one of cultural norms, and unless someone suggests something else, I have to continue thinking that. Ethan Mitchell 00:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are spoiler tags a violation of Wikipedia's censorship policy[edit]

As a consequence of the previous claim, this claim holds that spoiler tags are a violation of Wikipedia's policy of "Wikipedia is not censored". This claim is held on the grounds that — "censorship" being defined as "the act or practice of censoring", this latter word itself defined as "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable" — spoiler tags are a case of the unstandardized regulation of information with regards to the presentation of its content as appropriate or inappropriate to some.

While Wikipedia certainly doesn't include all information, policies such as "Wikipedia is not censored" or "NPOV" are designed to prevent the inclusion of an editors' own assumptions and judgements concerning information that has already met the requirements for inclusion here, most notably verifiability and relevance with regards to the subject. In other words, if information has been found to merit inclusion in the article, then it is simply relevant information that is then supposed to be presented to the readers as impartially as any other information, whether this information be spoilers or not. It is to be treated as any other information would be and offered to the readers as such.

As can be seen by clicking on the encyclopedia-wide disclaimer at the bottom of any Wikipedia page, there is already a notice to readers that any and all sections of any and all pages may contain detailed plot information. This serves as a universal notice that identifies all information within this encyclopedia, and, thus, it is an impartial and standardized regulation. Spoiler tags, however, target specific information selected by an editor on the basis of their own judgement of what they feel may be seen as inappropriate by some.

Also, unlike simple headers (such as "Development" or "Gameplay"), spoiler tags are not designed to the function of making information more accessible to the reader by grouping it into coherent sets that flow from one to another. They, in fact, aim to suggest readers not look at specific information. The spoiler tags are designed to serve as a warning, a deterrent, a suggestion of what is one's best interest. For that matter, the word itself carries a negative connotation. "Spoilers" is so-called due to the idea that knowing plot details before viewing a work will spoil/ruin the later experience of viewing that work — this, in itself, being a judgement based on editors' assumptions.

Wikipedia's policies already inform readers that there are things on Wikipedia that some may find inappropriate. This includes, but may not be limited to, images of pornography, abuse and torture of humans, genocide, prostitutes, female genitalia, exotic dancers and also artwork of children or individuals with child-like appearances in sexual situations or imagery alluding to sexual situations. In fact, several such images and even entire articles have been targeted for censorship of various kinds in the past (examples: opposition to a pornographic image, attempt to have the Lolicon page deleted, creation of a censored version of the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse page, creation of a censored version of the Clitoris page), only to be protected on the grounds that Wikipedia is not censored, regardless of concerns over what is appropriate or inappropriate to some. In fact, one particular warning tag (much like the spoiler tag being discussed here) attempting to warn people about images of torture was also denied.

Discussion[edit]

Just to get things started for the pro-spoiler-tag side:

The censorship accusation would only hold water if people used the warning itself as a reason not to read information, rather than their own decision to read or not to read. If a reader wishes to read only some information and not other, that is their right as a reader. Giving readers that option makes Wikipedia more useful. People know what we mean when we say "spoiler warning", they're not going to freak out over some misunderstanding and think the text is somehow dangerous. And spoilers, unlike pictures of aborted babies and dead puppies, aren't "offensive" or political or anything like that, so the spoilers themselves and any warnings about them are in a totally different league than what we think of as censorship. If the tags were an attempt to influence the reader, then maybe, but informing the reader to allow them to make their own choice is different than trying to influence them. -- Ned Scott 13:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Um... that argument kind of contradicts itself. "We're going to give this warning to the reader to avoid some information and if they thereafter avoid it, it has nothing to do with the warning itself"? That doesn't make any sense. In fact, that doesn't even make any sense with regards to the purpose of the warning. It's not making the decision for them, but no warning does. That doesn't make it any less a warning that's going to influence the decision they make. Which is not something editors are supposed to be doing. That's the whole reason we have policies to prevent editors from trying to influence what people take from articles.
And they get their choice when they show up and see the word "encyclopedia" plastered everywhere, even if they do avoid the site's disclaimer and policies. Which is their own fault anyway. People afraid of knowledge shouldn't be coming to what aims to be the most comprehensive body of it in the world. Ryu Kaze 13:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The tag do have something to do with the readers choice, but only because it's there, it's data. I don't have to know if a picture of a vagina is what it is, I only have to know that the article on vaginas has pictures. If Wikipedia said, this article contains pictures, would that be censorship? no, but if they said "this contains nasty lookin' pictures of this chick's muff" that'd be censorship.
Articles aren't supposed to be detailed retellings of the plot, but rather should have information on reception and production. I don't read an article to know "who done it", I read an article to see who produced it, or who voiced a character in an animation, or what inspired the main artist (assuming that information was not speculation, but based on comments the artist made, of course). Articles can include great levels of detail if there is a need, but that is not a requirement for a good article on a fictional work. I myself go to articles all the time to only get such basic info, many times while I'm reading/ watching something and have yet to finish it.
Being comprehensive doesn't have to include spoilers, so it's no surprise when people show up here not expecting to see them. Even if they did avoid Wikipedia altogether because they knew it included spoilers, how is that any less of an "influence" than them avoiding a single section of an article? That argument contradicts itself. -- Ned Scott 14:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where did you get the idea that articles aren't supposed to be comprehensive? That runs entirely contrary to our purpose here. Being comprehensive means we're going to detail the plot. Ryu Kaze 16:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being comprehensive absolutely has to include detailed information about the plot. Otherwise, it's not being comprehensive. That's a seriously cut and dry issue. Ryu Kaze 16:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, don't break up my comments like that, it's confusing. Second, no, being comprehensive does not mean including every detail. I don't know how long Bill Gates's penis is by his article, do I? You need to read some stuff: Wikipedia:Fancruft, Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes (which even has a direct statement that reads:
"Elements which are best avoided in any episode article: A scene-by-scene synopsis. An overall plot summary is much better; the article should not attempt to be a replacement for watching the show itself, it should be about the show")
-- Ned Scott 21:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spoiler tags are not a violation of our not-censored policy. They are a violation of our no-disclaimer-templates policy (or guideline), but they are a specific exception designed to increase the value of the encyclopedia. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are a specific exception in the No disclaimer templates guideline so they can't be a "violation" of that guideline. --GunnarRene 11:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exception? Based on whose judgement? And how do they increase the value of the encyclopedia? As noted in the issue summaries here, the very first policy of Wikipedia states that tools not beneficial to our mission have no place here. In what way does this tool contribute to our mission of being a comprehensive body of knowledge? Ryu Kaze 16:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"I really would like to know the name of that little kid who is playing the lead role in the sixth sense opposite Bruce Willis that I have just rented and am watching for the first time with no knowledge of what is about to happen. I'll check Wikipedia!" We just lost a reader. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And to that I have to say "So?" We're not here to count readers like a (hmm!) fansite. We're here to build an encyclopedia. If people are afraid of knowledge, they shouldn't be here. Besides, they shouldn't think that Wikipedia's a film fansite in the first place. They have IMDb.com for that. Ryu Kaze 17:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An unread encyclopedia informs no one. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly right. Let's strive to make a "useful, well-read" encyclopedia. Does anyone really think it is OK if we build an encyclopedia and no-one wants to read it? Johntex\talk 17:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it more important than an encyclopedia live up to being an encyclopedia before anyone reads it anyway. If it doesn't, who cares if it's read or not? It wasn't an encyclopedia. Ryu Kaze 17:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see no reason that a label causes us to fall short of that in any way. Johntex\talk 18:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, that's the issue being discussed. I do, because it involves the insertion of a readers' POV to dissuade people from learning specific info. That, and it's something that doesn't actually aid our goal (and is supposed to be removed on those grounds alone, mustless any others). As far as I can see, the concept is in no way compatible with Wikipedia's policies (based in encyclopedic principle), and it isn't even compatible with one of its fellow guidelines for that matter (no disclaimer templates).

But you already know that, so I'll try to stop this particular line of discussion here so we don't end up going in circles. Ryu Kaze 18:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "First, don't break up my comments like that, it's confusing."
That's how we've been responding for weeks now.
  • "Second, no, being comprehensive does not mean including every detail."
It means covering all the notable subjects. I'm sorry, but the plot of a work of fiction is quite relevant to a work of fiction. Summarizing that means you're going to include beginning-to-end details, because a plot is itself the beginning-to-end framework of a narrative. Ryu Kaze 21:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're really off on that, you need to read those pages I linked to you. It would depend on the work of fiction and what kind of story it had. The insinuation that all articles must tell "the ending" or any spoiler to be comprehensive is just wrong. -- Ned Scott 22:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you're suggesting an exception be made for what is already an exception? Stories that don't have beginning-to-end details that are actually relevant to the work itself are few and far between. Ryu Kaze 22:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, you are suggesting that articles require all spoilers and have to give away the ending in order to be a good article and/or comprehensive. But we're getting off track here, and debating a sub-issue. It's pretty clear how we both feel on this little sub-issue, so .. yeah.. I don't really have much more to say other than I disagree with you on this. -- Ned Scott 00:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you been reading what I've been saying, Ned? Where did I say all spoilers (i.e. the whole bloody script) should be included? I said the relevant/major/important beginning-to-end plot details. That is a summary of the plot. Ryu Kaze 01:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To suppress, in the context of censorship, would not mean "to press down" some text because of a line-feed; suppress would mean " to keep from public knowledge: as a : to keep secret b : to stop or prohibit the publication or revelation of". Wikipedia censorship thus includes removing information that allready exists in the server (either by deleting it on the Wikimedia servers, or some intermediary party removing it from their physical distribution, or by firewall blocking) or stopping/disuaiding submission of information from entering the wikimedia servers (by blocking, carried out by wikimedia or by intermediaries, or by threathening the editors). In the case of porn or democracy information, there exists intermediary parties like parents, ISPs, employers or governments who try to block content for the users on their network, or who would like the content removed from the servers. If we had a tag or template for such content, it could provide technical assistance for these would-be censors, and in my opinion that might be one reason why the community does not want such templates. It might help real censorship. In the case of spoilers, however, I have seen no examples of a party that would block spoilers in the network, even if I've asked for such examples. --GunnarRene 22:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're ignoring that censorship was defined as exclusion or suppression, meaning they're two different things. Here's the definition of suppressio that applies in this case: "to restrain from a usual course or action". Given that plot details' presentation is being marred in a way that of all the information around it is not, we have a case of unstandrdized/unusual presentation for the purpose of making it not as acessible as other information. And as I've told you before, this isn't about the text being pushed down one inch by the tag (though, that alone, is enough) to qualify: the main aspect is the intellectual obstacle it serves to create. You get in someone's way of doing something a lot more by saying "If you do this your enjoyment will be gone" than you do by putting a three inch box in their way. Ryu Kaze 22:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not ignoring it. Excluding applies to removing something from something that exists, while suppresion applies to preventing it from comming into being or from being revealed to the world. When looking at the definition, it is useful to see who is doing the censoring and who are being censored. As you'll see when the verb "censor" is used in the English language, what is being censored are ideas, secrets, facts, expressions, and the people who are trying to express them. Writers of books, newspapers, or letters from the war front to their families, creators of movies etc. are being censored. The readers are not being censored. The readers are not being "restrained from a usual course or action" but the would-be publisher was "restrained from a usual course or action". If the editor is being restrained, you could say that (s)he is being restrained from not including spoiler tags/templates, but in the wiki environment they can just include the information, and then, if it meets the other standards of Wikipedia, another editor can put the spoiler tag/template in without affecting the first editor. --GunnarRene 23:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S: The things that are really censored are ideas, secrets, facts, expressions (such as text, images) and not the people who write them. We sometimes write that "Agnar Mykle was censored by the government" in the same sense that "Agnar Mykle was a published author", but poor Mr. Mykle himself wasn't literally passed through the pressing machine and distributed in book stores. --GunnarRene 23:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not the readers that are being censored (not sure where you were going with that to be honest). It's the information they're viewing. It's being suppressed with regard to the standard of presentation. Ryu Kaze 23:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I thought you were going in that direction. You rejected my assertion that suppresion of here means "to keep from public knowledge: as a : to keep secret b : to stop or prohibit the publication or revelation of" [the information/ideas/facts] and that the applicable sense is "to restrain from a usual course or action". Since information doesn't have free will, and the readers aren't restrained, who are being restrained? --GunnarRene 00:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, it is in the information that is being suppressed, as it is not being presented in the standard fashion that all the information gets. It is, in fact, being given a banner that says "Don't look at me or you might not enjoy something that you came to see to me learn about". This is intellectual suppression. Ryu Kaze 00:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you holding that the information is suppressed becuase it's "restrained from a usual course"?--GunnarRene 02:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, exactly. Thank you. Remember that censorship isn't just the exclusion of info. It's also the unstandardized regulation, and given that what we've got here is restrainment from a usual course, I think that qualifies. Am I making any sense at all? Ryu Kaze 03:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are making sense if you say that censorship is "unstandardized regulation" of information, but to me that sounds not like censorship but like bias, POV, which is really the NPOV issue above. Some things are censored (disclaimer templates) but others are not censored (spoiler tags). I think I understand your reasoning now, so I'm satisfied with this branch of discussion. --GunnarRene 13:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just noting my opinion that the censorship argument, though it's been sufficiently explained, is false and a misuse of the term censorship. The issues of "professionalism" and of potential "uglyness" seems to me as the best arguments against spoiler tags.--GunnarRene 15:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The idea that information is being suppressed by the inclusion of spoiler tags is incorrect. If anything, the opposite is true. We are providing more information to the reader. We are letting them know that what follows is either not available through primary sources (in the case of promotional or solicitation info from the publisher/producer/whatever) or may be something that the author/director/whatever used as a piece of mystery or intrigue. There's a big difference, say when summarizing an Agatha Christie novel, between saying it takes place in the English countryside and revealing that the butler did it. There's a big difference in a comic book article between information available from the comics themselves and what is provided in solicitations. We are merely acknowledging that difference. CovenantD 02:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My view on the matter is one of simplicity - it is a simple lie to claim people would not read wikipedia if spoiler tags were absent. We are ethier comprehensive or we are not. We're an encyclopedia or we're an dumping ground of information. If we must warn people we are an encyclopedia meant to teach them (especially when "wikipedia the free encyclopedia is a standar on any external link and pronounced everywhere on site) than this is not an encyclopedia. Its all quibbling in semantics. "People might be harmed by seeing a spoiler" or "We don't want to ruin it for them." What does that have to do with the encycloepdia's goal of evicerating the state of ignorance...? -Randall Brackett 10:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neither do I think that killing spoiler warnings would be the "death of Wikipedia". It's not a "lie" that some people will stop or restrain their reading about fictional works, authors, actors, directors and other entertainment here if we remove spoiler warnings. Wether or not that is a good thing is up to you. On the positive side, it might reduce the systemic bias here that makes us have vastly more content about Neon Genesis Evangelion than Sierra Leone, for example. --GunnarRene 20:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: torture images in original argument: this shows a dispute tag, which alerts about a content dispute, stating that it's claimed to be wrong to include the content in Wikipedia and that it should be removed. Not quite analogous. Just thought I'd mention Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy is slightly more alike, since it also had people trying to move the images down on the page, but again, the strongest opposers wanted to remove the images completely. (Which is not suggested for spoiler content, only tags/warnings/templates) --GunnarRene 11:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed censorship argument on the main page, if it was censored the the text would be blanked/not there etc, however this is not the case and this is simply nonsense. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 11:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are spoiler tags considered encyclopedic and/or professional[edit]

This claim holds that spoiler tags are an unprofessional and unencyclopedic tool, that — while, perhaps, useful to those who would rather not see spoilers — has no place in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is designed with the intention of being a comprehensive body of information on many subjects, including works of fiction. By the very definition of the word "encyclopedia" (appearing in the subtitle of Wikipedia, and visibile in two places on every single page of the encyclopedia), readers are informed of what to expect from this encyclopedia. In addition, the site's universal content notice (accessible from the bottom of every page of Wikipedia) and Wikipedia's policies serve also to make this known.

Those who do not wish to view comprehensive information, thus, should be aware already that by reading this encyclopedia, they may be viewing detailed plot information. Moreover, it is Wikipedia's very foundation to serve as a neutral, comprehensive body of information that puts principles of encyclopedic conduct before any thoughts of courtesies to readers when they do not directly aid the encyclopedia's mission. The encyclopedia's very first policy states "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its goals go no further, and material that does not fit this goal must be moved to another Wikimedia project or removed altogether". Simply being considered useful by some is not grounds for a tool's inclusion in Wikipedia, especially if that tool calls for certain allowances concerning foundational policies, in this case, "NPOV" and "Wikipedia is not censored".

Additionally, the image of Wikipedia as a professional, uncensored and unbiased encyclopedia is tarnished by such exemptions to policy. Furthermore, these exemptions serve to set a precedent which may be cited in the future by others who wish to secure the inclusion of additional forms of censorship, as was attempted during the above-mentioned creation of a censored version of the Clitoris page with regards to the creation of a censored version of the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse page. Such exemptions can and will lead to further demands for exemptions. Once a double-standard has been established, it need only be consistently reiterated and looked to as the example for it to become the example of standard conduct.

A single exemption is as a thousand. The double-standard need only exist for the recognition of those policies being avoided to already be null and void. The standard has already been abandoned and an encyclopedia's image as a professional, uncensored and unbiased body of comprehensive knowledge is stained. A body of text either is an encyclopedia or it is not. There are certain principles that it must conform to in order to be one. Given that Wikipedia's mission is to be an encyclopedia, it must recognize the principles reflected in its policies in order to assert that it is one. Wikipedia's image is a direct reflection of the reality of its governance and the practices thereof. If there are exemptions and double-standards being allowed, they will not be invisible.

While there are certain professional bodies that do allow the inclusion of spoiler warnings, such as the New York Times, these professional bodies are not encyclopedias. Being professional in the context of journalism is sometimes significantly different from being professional in the context of encyclopedic behavior. For one, the journalism approach calls for the analyzation of information, and the presentation of conclusions drawn from that study. The encyclopedic approach, as used here on Wikipedia, calls for the presentation of raw data for the purpose of allowing others to analyze and draw their conclusions. In other words, an encyclopedia is something that one might reference if they were writing a newspaper article. As such, an encyclopedia cannot to be held to the standard of such a drastically different professional body.

However, where newspapers offer critical evaluations of art and commentary upon events, they are more similar in their approach to the encyclopedic one. Here, being professional in the context of criticism is similar to being professional in the context of encyclopedic behavior. Critics professionally analyse, evaluate and then present conclusions, as can be seen in this spoiler warning free review of Superman Returns by Philip French in The Observer. This piece discusses the film in a critical manner and analyses specific plot points and images for that evaluation, somewhat similar to the approach an encyclopedia takes. Also, critcal reviews are something editors to Wikipedia use as a reference when writing articles. As such, an encyclopedia may be held to the standard of such a professional body in certain situations. In general, however, journalism and encyclopedias take an entirely different approach.

For examples of the encyclopedic standard, we can look only to the principles of the concept at work, and the illustrations of those principles as displayed by Wikipedia's contemporaries. Such bodies as Encyclopedia Britannica, World Book Encyclopedia, Compton's Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Americana, which do not include spoiler warnings in their articles about fictional works. While one might argue that paper encyclopedias cannot be considered as among the fraternity of an electronic encyclopedia, nowhere in Wikipedia's policies is such an ideal reflected. While Wikipedia is not paper, this has no bearing on the objective Wikipedia is striving for, nor the principles associated with reaching that goal. All Wikipedia's status as a paper encyclopedia alters are its limitations in achieving — or exceeding — the quality of its contemporaries. By virtue of its electronic nature, a number of additional tools are present to allow Wikipedia to more easily meet the aspects of its goal related to being comprehensive and rendering information easily accessible.

If, however, we were to look only to the electronic versions of Wikipedia's above-mentioned contemporaries, we would still find that these also do not include spoiler warnings in their articles about works of fiction. While some might argue that this is also not a valid indication of what Wikipedia should be striving for given that these other encyclopedias do not include often up-to-date information on in-progress television programs or upcoming films and books, to that one has to ask: if we are not looking to the princicples of making an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's own policies which reflect these principles (and which present themselves as the standard by which we are to follow) and Wikipedia's contemporaries, then where would we be looking, given that Wikipedia is not attempting to redefine the word "encyclopedia"? By virtue of its own policies and goal, Wikipedia identifies that it is attempting to be exactly what its goal and first policy says: an encyclopedia, and one that fits the previously established criterion of what that word entails.

Additionally, the use of a begin-spoiler and end-spoiler template approach to articles imposes the notion that spoilers must be contained "inside the box". This can lead to organization and layout issues, or incidents of "spoiler tag spaghetti", such as this one.

Given all this, Wikipedia's professional image can only be tarnished by the presence of spoiler tags, a tool popularized by usenet and fansites, not professional encyclopedias, with such practices have been strongly opposed by Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales. Again returning to the earlier point concerning tools that might be useful to some, Wikipedia's first policy states "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its goals go no further, and material that does not fit this goal must be moved to another Wikimedia project or removed altogether". Given that spoiler tags offer no actual boon to Wikipedia's purpose of being an encyclopedia, they have no actual place here, useful to some or not. Also, given their dubious nature where Wikipedia's policies and encyclopedic foundations are concerned, they are more likely than not a tool counterproductive to its purpose.

Discussion[edit]

I've been waiting to actually make comments, but I can't really let that last edit go about the whole Superman newspaper review. The damn review didn't have a spoiler, thus there wouldn't be a spoiler warning. Who cares if Usenet or fansites also use spoiler warnings, they've used a hell of a lot of stuff that is now standardized, (like custom signatures, which many of the anti-spoiler editors use, or terms like 'spam messages'). The concept of spoilers and even the word itself pre-dates the web, the only reason we see it a lot in the web is before people talked about movies and such instead of typing it out. Encyclopedias don't talk about fiction in this depth, that in itself is 'un-encyclopedic' by this definition, but we accept those articles as a new standard that Wikipedia is creating.

Just because no one has done it on such a large scale only means that we're the first. (first only in that it's a single entity, where as other uses have been scattered) A lot of people I don't want to associate with out there use terms and words that I use, I don't stop using those words because someone else I don't like uses them. Ask a random reader if they thought a spoiler tag was out of place on a wiki article (although I would agree with you that the tags on the classic fiction is a bit dumb, but I'll address that later). You want to second guess how readers perceive the internet, then go ahead, but the argument is completely unfounded and without any proof. Newspapers and paper encyclopedias are used to doing the things they've done for years, and are a hell of a lot less likely to change and grow, unlike Wikipedia. Just because fansites use them too, give me a break. I know people who, last year, thought things like internet chatting and instant messaging were just kids stuff, and now use those thing. This is an issue of POV that we can't predict, not what the view is now, or how it will be in the future. If anyone has actual proof or real feedback about how spoiler tags affect a readers view on wikipedia, then please, show me. -- Ned Scott 13:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm unsure of the point over the inclusion of the Superman review myself, but I don't think Hiding's point there had anything to do with actual spoilers. I think it was more to do with... well, everything else he mentioned about it. Anyway, as for usenet and fansites, obviously the venue is entirely different. Encyclopedia articles aren't discussion boards or fan-oriented. They're information and education-oriented only, and there's still the matter of the policies to consider. In any event, we're not creating a new standard with regards to fiction (the policies and mission statement makes no such allusion). We're just doing what paper encyclopedias don't have the room to always do: be as comprehensive as possible.
Anyway, truthfully, yes, we should very much be distancing ourself from the principles of fansites. That's not we're about and we shouldn't be implementining the foundation of their philosophies into ours, especially when it creates a conflict due to what foundation we already have.
Not too sure about your point about asking random readers questions, though. If the spoiler tags are doing what they're put there to do, the reader wouldn't be able to tell you if it was well-placed or not, as they wouldn't have looked at what they were being warned not to read, right? And original research can't be used here anyway. Ryu Kaze 13:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You seem to be mistaken, original research can't be used as article sources, but doing something like a survey is acceptable to gain input in a case like this. And to avoid something simply because a fansite is doing it is almost as bad as doing it because they're doing it. That's no different than saying "Oh no, that loser is wearing the same t-shirt that I am! I have to change my shirt." -- Ned Scott 13:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The principles are incompatible with an encyclopedia's. Ryu Kaze 13:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's your opinion and I respectfully disagree with you. -- Ned Scott 14:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its not simply his opinion. Its a strongly opposed venue taken by Jimbo Wales himself in that social networking ideals are irrelevant to the construction of an encyclopedia. -Randall Brackett 09:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not making an argument for social networking ideals, such a statement is, as you like to point out, a straw man argument. -- Ned Scott 19:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, It isn't. -Randall Brackett 00:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And this section really repeats a lot of the previous two sections, which really defeats the purpose of setting this RfC up this way. Lets focus on the professional/encyclopedic views other than NPOV and censorship, which have their own discussion headings. -- Ned Scott 13:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, the subjects are all interrelated, so they're going to overlap at times. However, the points being made about each are pretty logically seperated. The first two sections focus on the princicple of the matters itself, while the third focuses on the effect this has professionally. Ryu Kaze 13:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, they're interrelated, but repeating yourself and making a section over bloated in an attempt to rail road the issue really undermines the debate. -- Ned Scott 13:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Explaining something in detail (which is why this section is here) is not an attempt to "railroad the issue." It's an attempt to explain the issue in detail. Ryu Kaze 13:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spoiler tags are a dramatic violation of our encyclopedic tone, and as such their use should be constrianed to places where the value of the ending to the plot at large overweighs our desire to be completist with information. Examples - M. Night Shalaman movies. Most other tags should go. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC) ((spoiler-blank|Plot details from Superman Returns follow))Reply[reply]

I personally do not endorse the the term "spoiler" or the template's intent to warn of being an encyclopedia. Its similar to saying, "watch out, we're comprehensive and you might learn something". Its utterly absurd to warn someone about the learning process when people are supposed to come to learn. How is one subject more justiposed than another...? All subjects in an encyclopedia are treated equally.
And no, I'm not concerned about people jumping about, protesting "nah, nah I don't want to hear that". As editors in wikipedia, the quality of many of our articles has a very long way to go. Our reputation as a encyclopedia stil has yet to be fully established. This amoung other issues and yet editors are mistaking the quality of the encyclopedia for placing irrelevant tags about, rather than referencing articles, expansion of stubs and copyedits. The last thing neutral editors should have concern for is "harmful" or "Spoilish" information in a comprehensive source of knowledge. If spoiler warnings have a place here than this is not an encyclopedia. -Randall Brackett 17:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Spoiler tags have been used for almost five years, according to the edit history of Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. In that time I have not become less impressed with Wikipedia because of any spoiler tag, or thought of Wikipedia any differently because of those tags. They're here, and I'm pretty sure we're still an encyclopedia. Like I've said before, the definition of encyclopedia doesn't even comment on spoiler tags, and we only have examples which do not follow current fictional works in this level of detail. We're the first to include them on a large level, but who's to say we'll be the only ones? This isn't the first time Wikipedia has changed the way we think of encyclopedias. -- Ned Scott 21:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Straw man. You are attempting to rebute arguments I did not even raise. -Randall Brackett 09:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then I apologies for any confusion, it was not my intent. I must have misunderstood your statement. -- Ned Scott 19:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm kind of floored that this doesn't end the debate. Of course spoiler tags are unprofessional. They're using a neologism to flag the fact that encyclopedia articles on a topic reveal information about that topic. It's completely absurd - we ought not be using a neologism like that, first of all, and we ought assume that people coming to Wikipedia are looking for information. This is not a fansite, we ought not engage in such blatant fanservice. Phil Sandifer 04:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So when I decide to do a little research about a movie before I watch it, say I want to know who is in it or who directed, I should be exposed to the entire plot although that had nothing to do with the information I actually desired? Anyway, I'd hardly call that fanservice..why do the fans need such things, they're the ones who actually follow the show/comic/movie/book/what have you. And calling it a neologism is certainly misleading, the term has exited for longer than I've been alive (I'm 24). Maybe not widespread in the early 80's, but I'd argue since the mid-90s on at the very least, it had become a well known word (in English, I can't speak towards other languages).Darquis 05:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's fair to call a word that appears neither in the OED nor in Merriam-Webster a neologism. (And this is the OED including 1993 and 1997 additions, so mid-90s words should have made it in). And if you want to know who is in it, or who directed it, one would assume that you would, in that case, do things like avoid the parts of the article labeled "synopsis" or "plot." As for it being fanservice, if you think that fans are the ones who are familiar with the text already, you have clearly missed the joy of debating how many countries an episode of a TV show has to air in before you can talk about it without spoiler tags.
Put another way: find me a reputable and mainstream general reference text that includes the word "spoiler," little yet gives spoiler warnings and I'll agree. We should not try to set the trend though. Phil Sandifer 05:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Phil Sandifer 05:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry Phil, but you are completely incorrect. For the word: [1], [2], and a non-online one: New Webster's Dictionary and Thesaurus of the English Language. Page 959: Lexicon Publications Inc. 1992. ISBN 0717246078.((cite book)): CS1 maint: location (link) For the exampe of mainstream media using the word spoiler and giving a spoiler warning: [3]. -- Ned Scott 05:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, yes, but neither of those definitions are the one you're using with a spoiler warning. And the New York Times article is in the first person and uses the phrase "whipped up" - not exactly the style we're going for. If you can find me a major dictionary that has a definition of spoiler in the context you're using it or a mainstream publication writing in a more or less academic tone then I'll buy that it's not a neologism and that it's reasonable to use in an encyclopedia. Otherwise, my point stands. Phil Sandifer 18:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How can spoilers be unencyclopedic? Just because they don't exist in paper encyclopedias? Users don't always read articles for their entire content. Often they are simply interested in a limited number of sections. That is why we have sections and they do just as much dictate which paragraphs are read.
We should professional enough to break out of the stagnated paper version encyclopedias of the past (some of which have been copied to the Internet). --Swift 06:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, but that doesn't even make sense. Yes, we break with paper encyclopedias - in breadth, and in how we are written. Not in style. In fact, we actively avoid breaking with them in style. Phil Sandifer 14:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow. Here we have a big gap to fill: I don't see your statement making sense. How is "how we are written" not "style"? This may be a semantic misunderstanding. How do you define these two concepts?
My arguemnt had to do with the difference between writing style and content structuring. The reasoning is that readers use structuring to locate interesting conent within an article. Sections are one form of structuring and so are spoilers.
The encyclopedic tone is seperate from this and so it doesn't apply to spoilers as an argument. --Swift 18:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I meant "how we are written" in terms of "the method by which we are written," that is to say, open contributions. I would put style and structuring both under the header of things we model ourselves primarily on existing encyclopedias in terms of. Phil Sandifer 18:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that the style should be modeled encyclopedic tradition, but why the structure? Where is the encyclopedic value in that? --Swift 19:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are spoiler tags useful to users of the Wikipedia[edit]

Given that we are building an encyclopedia which is to be read, and given this incarnation of the Wikipedia exists on the internet, it has been argued that readers will expect spoiler warnings, given their usage in other internet resources. It has also been argued that, given Wikipedia's high profile in google searches, readers arriving at a page may not be aware of the purpose or nature of Wikipedia articles. It is felt by supporters of this argument that it is reasonable to assume that every unique article may be the first point of contact for a reader, and we should thus include spoiler warnings where appropriate on that basis.

Discussion[edit]

I've created this section in an effort to address concerns below. I'm not wholly convinced by the argument, but I think there is merit there. It's worth noting that a print version of Wikipedia oughtn't to feel bound by the style guidance of the online Wikipedia. Hiding Talk 22:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand the sentiments associated with the issue, for sure, and it's certainly one that needs to be addressed (good idea bringing it up here). I find it respectable that some people are looking to put people first and foremost, but those who do so, I don't think this project is for them. By its very nature, an encyclopedia must disregard people's feelings for its mission. We're not going to warn mothers that their kids are about to look at an image of a woman performing oral sex on a man (or possibly even a woman), we aren't going to warn the squeemish that they're about to look at images of humans being tortured by gutless idiots in a prison, we aren't going to warn the sensitive that they're about to see a field full of the bodies of innocent people slaughtered because of how they were born and we shouldn't be warning people that they're about to read details about the plot of a fictional work. Even if we were to make an exception for one of those things, of all the things to try making an exception for, the one that's not going to educate them in the ways of "adult behavior" or play on their emotions hardly seems to be the most important of the group. Ryu Kaze 22:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am an experienced editor and reader, and I continue to find spoiler tags a benefit to my experience on Wikipedia. Are you saying I have no place here? Also, I'm 23 years old, I am no child. This has nothing to do with age or being mature, as spoiler tags are not an issue of maturity. The idea that only little fanboys use them on usenet is really irritating. You assume too much. Being comprehensive does not mean Wikipedia loses it's ability to be a valuable reference to those who wish to read things other than the spoilers in the plot when researching fiction. You cannot ignore how many readers use Wikipedia for such information. -- Ned Scott 00:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Up to you to decide if you have a place here, mate. I'm also 23, by the way. I've made no statements regarding age, so I'm not sure where you're going with this angle as, quite frankly, I don't care how old anyone here is. I've also said nothing of "little fanboys", and, really, you seem to be the one attaching some kind of age connotation to concepts, given that you can be a fanboy no matter how old you are (some of us here more than likely are; I know I'm one).
I also don't care how many people use the place. If it's going to be an encyclopedia, it should be conducting itself a certain way. If it's not going to be an encyclopedia, then, fine, I don't care if it throws spoiler banners on its front page, demands their use, and promises strictly enforced punishment if they aren't used. But as long as it's claiming to be something, it should live up to that. Ryu Kaze 01:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How's this: Talk:Spider-Man 3#SPOILERS? Obviously, people hate spoilers and want to be warned. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 04:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Wikipedia isn't made for users, it's made for the readers. As far as encyclopedic goes, well, this isn't exactly a typical encyclopedia. How many print enyclopedias contain have info on Puff puff pass or Mr. and Mrs. Smith? Karwynn (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You mean not made for the editors (users who make edits), but for the readers. And I partially agree with you, because editors are readers too. :-) --GunnarRene 21:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible solutions[edit]

The following are proposed solutions to the issues discussed above, and the results of discussion here, here and here. Please be aware that users may add their name to the support of more than one solution. In such a case, please indicate preference. A simple placement of "(preference)" beside your name will suffice. Remember that this is not a vote, and if you list your name below be sure to indicate your reasons.

Note: additional solutions may be proposed and offered support. Please add new proposals to the bottom of this section.

Hiding spoiler tags by default[edit]

One possible solution to this issue that has been presented is the notion of spoiler tags' default status being that they are turned off. In other words, someone accessing the encyclopedia would be approaching a default version in which there were no spoiler tags. They would, however, have the option (whether logged in or not) to turn them on.

Support (hiding tags by default)[edit]

  1. Ryu Kaze — If they're going to be here, then they shouldn't be on the default setting of the site, turning it into a hypocritical mass of fan-dedicated muck. Principles come before courtesies in creating an encyclopedia every single time.
  2. Randall Brackett 17:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Certainly. The templates had no value to begin with.Reply[reply]
  3. RobbieG 09:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC) - I see this as a perfectly acceptable compromise. If there was a little button at the top of the page reading "Show spoiler tags", it shouldn't be a problem for anyone.Reply[reply]
  4. Lee Bailey -- After some thought, this may be the best compromise position.
  5. Richard0612 >< Best solution in my opinion, see below for full details.

Oppose (hiding tags by default)[edit]

  1. badlydrawnjeff talk 12:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. I thought it was a good idea at first, but it will just cause more problems that it would "fix". Ned Scott 13:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC) - no overbearing need for this people just need to read carefully each article (and spoiler notice)Reply[reply]
  4. Johntex 15:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC) - Spoiler warnings are useful and should be kept, and kept visible. Requiring a new user to figure out how to turn them on is not a good idea.Reply[reply]
  5. juppiter talk #c</font> 16:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Then what would be the point of having them?Reply[reply]
  6. Hipocrite - «Talk&raquo; 16:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC). Removes all of the substantial value from the templates.Reply[reply]
  7. DyslexicEditor 18:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 19:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC), per Johntex.Reply[reply]
  9. Plange - an innocent reader would have no idea they were turned off and should somehow turn them on. Do you realize how many complaints we'd get on Film talk pages that complained we didn't warn them about spoilers?? -plange 21:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. They'er useless if they're hidden, and most people won't be able to turn them on. Tobyk777 01:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Most first time and casual readers won't know to look for a switch, and those are the people we need to think of with this issue. CovenantD 02:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 02:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. I don't see the logic in this. Plus it would set precedent that might force Wikipedia to allow people to hide other things by default, such as adult language, images... too much hassle. 23skidoo 02:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. as per 23skidoo. Grey Shadow 06:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Shane (talk/contrib)
  16. Then what would be the point? BryanG(talk) 05:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Color me just don't get it. Optional spoiler tags that three people will use? --Dhartung | Talk 06:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment. "That three people will not use" you mean? I think there might be more than three who support and seventeen oppose by the time discussion "ends". --GunnarRene 07:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment I think he just means it will be unlikely that a lot of readers will even know about this feature, let alone think ahead to turn it on. -- Ned Scott 07:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment Example: [4], [5], except think something like "hide spoiler warnings" which makes for a hell of a long tab text. Or a disclaimer above.--GunnarRene 07:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Censor the censorship? Madness. --Revlob 11:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Maddness per Revlob Bryan 18:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. As someone who sometimes browses logged off or on a public terminal, I don't want to have to log in to get a full version of an article. demeteloaf (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment there seems to be some confusion on this, only the tag itself would be hidden, not any of the article text. -- Ned Scott 23:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Force10 00:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC) - too much trouble. New users should not have to learn how to turn on hidden templates.Reply[reply]
  23. This overwhelmingly defeats the purpose of even having spoiler tags. - CheNuevara 15:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. PeregrineV 03:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Bondegezou 16:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. WHAT? o.O Um, no. It's a LABEL. It tells you what kind of information you can expect to see in that section. It's useful, in the same way that labels about "Characters", "Plot" and "Cast" and so on are. Certain BASIC details should be in the introduction, just as they are in say, the official descriptions for films or books or games (which usually have some minor spoilers of some sort, but nothing major). However, more detailed plot descriptions include both key basic information (such as you might see in say, trailers for a film or game), and twists and such, those should be in the other parts of the article. Now, if people were to actually label things like "the first twist" or "climax" and "falling action", fine, but even then, what of the plot details that almost inevitably will seep into some characters' descriptions, or in descriptions of say, (relatively) famous literary analyses that assume familiarity with the plot? That's why the "spoiler" tags are THERE. Just as a person looking only for the cast list might skip over everything else, someone wanting only basic information (and no ending details or details of big twists in the plot) will want to know which information may or may not be basic information that most people reading the back of the book or watching the trailer would know. Similarly, people wanting to know the whole plot or the end will not skip the "plot or ending details" revealed in the Plot section. It does not imply that a section should not be read, it only helps the reader to be more well-informed about the kind of information about to be detailed (just as "Characters" tells you that section is about the characters). Personally, I think spoiler tags are preferable to most of the alternatives: not including some of the plot beyond the basic premise makes the entry inccomplete; not labeling the information basically leaves it less well-organized, kind of like having no seperation or poor seperation between the introduction/overview and the rest of the article (in that people wanting just a general overview will end up with more than they wanted, and people wanting big details might miss them because they skim past the introduction); and, while a potentially excellent compromise, including "Premise" (read: basic idea/gist/gimmick of the film without big details) and "Detailed plot summary" as two seperate sections takes up a little more space, and probably would end up being slightly redundant. Also, the latter still doesn't cover when plot or ending details seep into character bios (for instance, the page for the ongoing comic Runaways, last I checked, mentioned some characters as being "presently deceased", which is a huge plot point, and nonchalantly mentioned one character as having betrayed the others - the mystery of the identity of the mole being a huge plot point first couple of volumes of the series, well, yeah. Some people just getting into it won't be wanting to know ahead of time that it was that character that tried to betray the others, they might just want an overview of what the characters are like. Were it not for spoiler tags, people would not know that some of these sections did include major plot points). Long way of putting it and I apologize. But, in short, oppose, because having this as the default would be silly, it's like saying "turn off all labels for sub-sub-sections", it makes it less organized. Runa27 22:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. I agree with Johntex. TheronJ 21:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. If you hide things, then you are censoring. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 11:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. east.718 01:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Wai Wai (talk): It should be the reverse. Spoiler appears by default. It can be hidden if the user wishes to. -- 04:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Karen | Talk | contribs 05:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC) It seems clear that more people would want spoilers on than off. Hence, hiding them sould be something a person annoyed by them seeks out, not something an unwary reader who would want them must seek out.Reply[reply]
  32. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC) - The public opinion clearly indicates there are more people that would prefer them enabled; default option should be the most common one.Reply[reply]
  33. --Chris Griswold 08:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Without spoiler warning, new editors will remove spoiler info. It already happens. If the spoiler tags are gone, it will get in the way of editors being able to do their work.Reply[reply]
  34. jwandersTalk 00:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC):None of the anti-spoiler arguments have convinced me they aren't a good thing.Reply[reply]
  35. Markeer 21:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC) I feel hiding the spoiler tags isn't a true compromise as it doesn't address the criticisms of spoiler tags but does weaken the positive arguments regarding them.Reply[reply]
  36. Marc Shepherd 15:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) – Although I think Spoiler warnings are ugly and unencyclopedic, they aren't important enough to justify changing the software.Reply[reply]
  37. Swift 23:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. A bit of courtesy doesn't hurt. After all, this isn't a discussion about removing spoilers (which I would strongly oppose), merely a debate on the usefulness of warning tags (which are a great idea). Brisvegas 00:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Lkjhgfdsa 00:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleting spoiler templates[edit]

Another solution suggested is that spoiler templates be deleted altogether.

Support (deleting spoiler templates)[edit]

  1. Spoiler warnings are not appropriate in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia contains information. That's what encyclopedias do, and warning about it is silly. The standard disclaimer at the bottom of every page is enough, and we should do like the Germans did and simply ban them. Shanes 14:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Utterly unencyclopediac. Irrelevant to the construction of an encyclopedia. -Randall Brackett 15:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Inappropriate. o/s/p 16:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Ryu Kaze — Preferred solution, though I'd accept the "turned off by default" compromise if others would agree to it. As said there, principles come before courtesies in creating an encyclopedia every single time. If someone's offended that this place is a comprehensive body of information, then maybe they shouldn't be coming here. We're here to make an encyclopedia, not jump at every problem a reader might have with relevant content.
  5. Wikipedia will never be a truly spolier-safe environment as long as it's freely editable. Meanwhile, the tags themselves have a negative effect on article organization, since they encourage editing to keep spoiler-information together. My strong preference would be to either get rid of them, or as a second choice, to find a way to limit their use to the most critical cases. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 17:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Movie Encyclopedias don't use spoiler warnings. What does that make WP? AMHR285 (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Spoiler notices on Wikipedia have always struck me as the equivalent of saying, "Warning we are about to tell you things about the subject you asked us to tell you about!" If someone doesn't want to be 'spoiled' about something my very first suggestion would be to not look up a comprehensive encyclopedia article on that thing. Further, the argument that, 'oh, but spoiler warnings do no harm', is unfortunately untrue. I've seen too many articles mangled by absurd convolutions where essential/fundamental facts about the subject are banished from the lead because they have to be contained within a designated 'spoiler section' - which then generally has little organizational logic to it except that someone felt the information in there required pre-warning. Or every other paragraph has to be 'spoiler-warned'. Wikipedia articles should be free to be organized in a way that makes sense for an encyclopedia... not as if they were some random Usenet message that the reader just happened to stumble upon and which they might not realize was going to be about a subject they don't want to be 'spoiled' on. --CBD 10:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Despite having had some plotlines spoilt for me (on talk pages no less), I am deeply uncomfortable with the appearance of the spoiler tags and the impression they give. It does look very unencyclopedic and I feel that editors of articles should think carefully about how to write an article to indicate that spoilers are about to be mentioned, without the need for slapping a template on something and shoehorning things into certain sections as "spoiler material". Fundamentally, I think use of spoiler tags is lazy, as a bit of thought and careful writing generally does the same job and looks better. Carcharoth 11:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. I believe spoiler tags to be superfluous to the site-wide policy, unreliable, and contradictory to Wikipdia's goals. --Revlob 11:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. In a properly structured article, what on earth does the template add? The template could perhaps be useful for articles like Untitled_Evangelion_Project or Spider-Man 3, but I doubt it. Ultimately, I cannot support a policy that, applied consistently and taken to its logical extreme, would require placing under the warning such things as the Bible's account of the Crucifixion, the Sack of Troy in the Illiad, or the Emperor's demise in Return of the Jedi. [I have placed this above Travis' vote to preserve the final count.]--Monocrat 17:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Spoiler warnings are superfluous and violate the NPOV policy. For a section titled "Plot" to have a spoiler warning is redundant. For any plot to having a spoiler warning invokes POV. Why do some plots get spoiler warnings and not others? It's ridiculous. Travislangley 21:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment: But what about places where plot twists are revealed in other areas other than the plot synopsis, as shown here? Reading about the true nature of Saffron would completely ruin the episode she appears in. It is THE main twist of the episode -plange 21:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Phil Sandifer 02:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. An Encyclopedia has to show knowledge in a neutral point of view and has not to warn against knowledge. Wikipedia is also NO film-magazine, that hides relevant information of movies for commercial sake or likes. Has one ever seen a "spoiler-warning" in the Encyclopædia Britannica wheresoever? --Wittkowsky 13:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    False comparison; EB doesn't include up-to-the-second information on current TV shows, video games, and films. Powers T 14:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose (deleting spoiler templates)[edit]

  1. badlydrawnjeff talk 12:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. I don't think they need to be removed at all, and removing the template will only cause editors who still disagree to make their own forked templates and messages. Then we won't even be able to regulate their appearance or turn them off at all. -- Ned Scott 13:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC) - Now that would just be silly!Reply[reply]
  4. Johntex 15:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC) - Very useful and not problematic. They should be kept.Reply[reply]
  5. juppiter talk #c 16:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia broke the encyclopedia mold.Reply[reply]
  6. Too far. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. DyslexicEditor 18:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 19:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)- Spoiler tags are beneficial to readers, and in the end, that's what this entire encyclopedia is all about.Reply[reply]
  9. Per EWS23 and others. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. I can't believe this is even a discussion. This is standard stuff on any website that discloses plot details. It is not giving a POV that it will be ruined but rather warns users that plot details will be revealed and lets them decide themselves whether to proceed plange 21:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. On a website that gives plot details it's a must. Wheather it's an encylopeida or not. It is unprofensional to not include them. Tobyk777 01:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Spoiler tags are a must Konman72 02:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 02:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. This solution completely ignores the fact that Wikipedia is different from a print encyclopedia in that information can be updated and accessed immediately, often before a primary source is actually available, such as with promotional material. Reader have a right to evaluate and discriminate the source before they read the information. There isn't a scholarly imperitive associated with Wikipedia that they MUST learn whether they like it or not. CovenantD 02:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Since when do we force people to come to wikipedia...? -Randall Brackett 13:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. IMO this falls into the "it's causing no harm to anyone" category, plus it is simply common courtesy, particularly for recent material. 23skidoo 02:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. as per Plange above. Grey Shadow 06:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Shane (talk/contrib)
  18. Oppose to the nth degree. (I wrote a bit of an essay on this earlier, which can be read here. Removing these comments since I wrote an individual user statement below). 08:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  19. RobbieG 09:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC) - I'm strongly opposed to this. Spoiler warnings are a valuable aspect of Wikipedia's style.Reply[reply]
  20. Hidden or shown, I could go either way. Hidden only as long as their existence are revealed to new users in some way above the article (tab, informative disclaimer link, etc.) --GunnarRene 12:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Much ado about nothing. --Dhartung | Talk 06:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Without spoiler warnings, I personally would not want to browse randomly as i sometimes do, with the constant fear of having something be spoiled for me. Removing spoiler warnings would basically make me less likely to read and work on wikipedia. demeteloaf (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Force10 00:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC) - we need to keep the spoiler tags, for sure.Reply[reply]
  25. As a member of both WP:BUFFY and WP:FIREFLY, I have to say it would be ridiculous not to have them. They're incredibly useful. - CheNuevara 15:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. PeregrineV 03:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Alsaan 04:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Bondegezou 16:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Per comments above. TheronJ 21:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Spoiler templates give warning for those that do not wish to have storylines spoiled, it is absoultley silly that a select few wish to compromise the integrity of this encyclopedia by removing them. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 11:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Spoiler templates are useful, they are needed for readers, they are not disturbing the article text — what more do you need to call something "good"? --Akral 19:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. east.718 01:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Wai Wai (talk): Spoiler tag is useful. What hurts to leave it here? Reasons for deleting the spoiler tag are not sound. The personal feeling like it's annoying or looks bad or un-wikipedia and so on, does not really matter because 1) it's just personal feeling (different people have different feeling anyway). 2) There's always alternative to satisfy both parties (eg user can select whether to display spoiler by default). After all, it should be kept due to its benefits.--04:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Karen | Talk | contribs 05:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC): The annoyance of people who don't like or want spoiler tags seems to be outweighed by the number of people who like them and rely on them. I agree that guidelines should discourage their overuse, but there are clearly times when people legitimately benefit from the heads-up. The tags do not advocate that no one read the next bit, but give the reader a choice. The idea that because a print encyclopedia doesn't use them and therefore Wikipedia should not ignores the qualities that give this medium advantages over print, particularly its ability to be updated nearly instantaneously when new information arises and its ability to accomodate large amounts of popular culture information without pushing aside more traditional subject matter.Reply[reply]
  35. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC) - The benefits of these tags outweight a couple extra lines, and there are no actual violations.Reply[reply]
  36. Thelb4 08:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Rubbish. Remove spoiler tags? Even though the world is full of technology, the only ones to look at these pages will be people, who'd be very dissapointed if they weren't warned that they discovered the end of a book or film.Reply[reply]
  37. jwandersTalk 00:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC):None of the anti-spoiler arguments above have convinced me they aren't a good thing.Reply[reply]
  38. Swift 06:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC): Spoilers are a useful addition to conventional aids such as section headers to guide readers to the content they are seeking.Reply[reply]
  39. per Frazzydee here: "You can choose to ignore medical-related content on Wikipedia, but once you've read a spoiler, you can't just pretend you never read it." --Zoz (t) 16:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Markeer 21:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Unlike other encyclopedias, Wikipedia is in real time and needs to adjust itself to thatReply[reply]
  41. Marc Shepherd 15:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Although frequently mis-used, in limited circumstances these templates are useful.Reply[reply]
  42. Brisvegas 00:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC) Per own and others' comments above.Reply[reply]
  43. Lkjhgfdsa 00:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose this process (deleting spoiler templates)[edit]

  1. I oppose the process of what is essentially a TfD done without notification on the template itself and outside of the existing TfD structure. ~~---- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kunzite (talk • contribs) .
    This isn't the deletion process or a vote, but an attempt to gain structured feedback from users. However, notification via the template might be appropriate. -- Ned Scott 12:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ...if the solution/compromise/whatever moves toward template deletion, then a proper TfD with notification on the template still has to be conducted. We're just gathering comments now.--GunnarRene 13:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Also note that this template underwent a TfD about two months ago, with an overwhelming consensus of keep. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 21:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still maintain that this question is not appropriate for this forum or this discussion and that any action suggested by the RfC for these two questions (which are pretty much one in the same) would be inappropriate because of lack of notification and deviation from established procedure. --Kunzite 23:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: That "overwhelming consensus" was actually not a consensus at all. Consensus on Wikipedia is determined through logical discussion and solid counterpoints, not a show of hands or people saying "Keep", "Are you insane?" and "This is a joke, right?" TfD even cites it as mandatory that people provide reasoning for their positions, yet most of the "keep"ers there ignored that. The very few people involved in that discussion who even bothered to provide a reason for keeping spoiler tags only cited "They're useful" without addressing NPOV and no censorship violations, or the fact that many useful things are not included in Wikipedia because they don't help the encyclopedia's mission or outright contradict it. It's been said many times, but always gets ignored: usefulness alone doesn't merit inclusion here. The policies make this quite clear. Of course, we have plenty of people here who think courtesies are more important than the integrity of encyclopedic principle, so it doesn't matter, I guess. Ryu Kaze 22:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you mind assuming good faith here? That was almost uncivil. CovenantD 22:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes... that's why we're all here on the RfC... and it's very clear that you feel that way, so there's no need to re-explain yourself every time someone says something you disagree with. -- Ned Scott 22:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ryu, you are also incorrect. While it is true that polls don't generally build concensus, they do eventually determine concensus in the sense that they are used to determine if consensus has been reached, and if so, what that consensus is. As to your statement about people addressing whether the templates are POV or not - I would like to point out that people don't have to follow your agenda. If they don't feel your POV theory is worth responding to, then they are under no obligation to do so. Johntex\talk 00:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, you kind of do have to address somebody's argument in a discussion. It's kind of required. You can't just pretend somebody's not talking and your side's motion pass. Not supposed to work that way.
Anyway, I wasn't part of that discussion, so not sure what your point is.
Moving on, as far as I know, I've never said that a poll doesn't ultimately determine consensus, but that's only after issues have been discussed and one set of reasoning has defeated another. Didn't happen in that case, so I'm not sure what your point is there either. Now can we please get back on the subject? Ryu Kaze 00:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you need to quit implying we are off subject when we are not. There are too many people on Wikipedia for one set of reasoning to "defeat" another in the minds of all people. We will end up going with what the supermajority want to do, as we do routinely in other cases. And again, everyone does not have to respond to every argument. They are free to make their own points without responding directly to yours. You don't get to dictate the path of the discussion and what everyone else chooses to address. Johntex\talk 19:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The part where I said "Now can we please get back on the subject?" was after the third or fouth time a personal comment had been made directly at me. That comment you responded to there is almost 24 hours old now.
Anyway, even if every person involved doesn't address a point, it does have to get addressed by someone arguing for the opposing side. That is required. Points left outstanding are still "in play" so to speak. This is how it goes in TfDs, FACs and the like. Ryu Kaze 19:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep spoiler tags[edit]

Keep spoiler tags with options to revise guidelines to see when it is appropriate to use the tag or not.

Support (keeping spoiler tags)[edit]

  1. badlydrawnjeff talk 12:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Per the comments I'll eventually write up once I calm down, but in any case, I am totally opposed to the complete removal of a spoiler tag. Ned Scott 13:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC) - It ain't broke - so!Reply[reply]
  4. Johntex 15:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC) - Keep them as they are.Reply[reply]
  5. juppiter talk #c 16:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Getting rid of them could upset peopleReply[reply]
  6. Use needs to be substantially curtailed. See my edits to template coming shortly. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. As per my argument below. If we remove spoiler tags, then let's spoil the next Harry Potter book on the front page! DyslexicEditor 18:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 20:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)- I've always been a big proponent of spoiler tags, though I've generally stayed out of the current discussion due to time constraints. Spoiler tags are important to readers, and therefore should be important to writers.Reply[reply]
  9. Per EWS23 and others. They are helpful. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. plange 21:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. A must Tobyk777 01:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Almost all my edits are done on fictional articles and I know the importance of spoiler tags. They may not be perfectly encyclopedic, but the flexible nature of Wikipedia means that we get information up much faster than a written encyclopedia, which drastically increases the chances of posting of spoilers. They are a must! Konman72 02:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 02:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. With the caveat that the guidelines will be revisited. CovenantD 02:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Making note of Plange's caveat below, based on current wording as of my timestamp, I saw keep but I have no objection to guidelines being examined. 23skidoo 02:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Shane (talk/contrib)
  17. RobbieG 09:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC) - This'd be better than doing away with them completely, even if it means we haven't progressed.Reply[reply]
  18. GunnarRene 12:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC) - Consistent with my other opinions.Reply[reply]
  19. This is reasonable, and will allow for some flexibility and article-by-article consensus. --Dhartung | Talk 06:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Force10 00:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC) - Keep for sure. They are needed.Reply[reply]
  22. Karwynn (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Why throw away a harmless reader convenience?Reply[reply]
  23. With no spoiler tags, you could ruin many movies for people who didn't want them to be ruined. Surprises in movie are part of why we see them. It would be ridiculous to remove them. Definitely keep them.RoryS89 02:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)RoryS89Reply[reply]
  24. The NPOV and censorship arguments don't seem to hold up under any weight. And while Wikipedia is encyclopedia, it is not professional ... if it were, none of you would be editing it right now. - CheNuevara 15:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. PeregrineV 03:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Alsaan 04:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Keep 'em, they can be helpful. Colonial One 06:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Keem them as is, they can help and never hurt. Categorizing information as "spoiler" or "non-spoiler" isn't any more OR than categorizing information into "plot," "references to other works" or any of the other subsections. TheronJ 21:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Spoiler tags are informative, though so may not be of much help. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 11:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Spoiler tags are simply needed by readers. When I read about a book, I don't want to accidently know the ending. At the same time, it's very easy for me to read it, the information is not hidden in any way. Akral 19:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. east.718 01:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Wai Wai (talk): Spoiler tag is useful. What hurts to leave it here? Reasons for deleting the spoiler tag are not sound. The personal feeling like it's annoying or looks bad or un-wikipedia and so on, does not really matter because 1) it's just personal feeling (different people have different feeling anyway). 2) There's always alternative to satisfy both parties (eg user can select whether to display spoiler by default). After all, it should be kept due to its benefits.--04:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Karen | Talk | contribs 05:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Keep, with guidelines discouraging overuse, per my comment in previous section above.Reply[reply]
  34. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC) - The benefits of these tags outweight a couple extra lines, and there are no actual violations.Reply[reply]
  35. jwandersTalk 00:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC): Keep them; a new guideline page seems unnecessary, given the lead of WP:SPOIL says pretty much everything that need be said.Reply[reply]
  36. Chris Griswold 10:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Spoiler tags keep new editors from deleting appropriate information.Reply[reply]
  37. DrunkenSmurf 15:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC) I think the NPOV an censorship arguements above are completely ridiculous.Reply[reply]
  38. Marc Shepherd 15:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) I think they are useful in limited circumstances, although the guideline needs revision to constrain the situations in which they are used.Reply[reply]
  39. Swift 23:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. SnowFire 02:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC) I too am opposed to deleting Spoiler tags. The alternative is to delete all spoiler information from Wikipedia, which would greatly hamper its operation, or have spoiler information in separate "plot analysis" pages which would seem horribly clunky. I like being able to read articles and be told if it's "safe" to read on; if I didn't have that guarantee, some useful articles would simply go unread completely. (Edit: Forgot important word in there.)Reply[reply]
  41. Lkjhgfdsa 00:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC) As a catalyst behind Template:Endspoiler (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29&diff=prev&oldid=11227499), I'd like to see further exploration into show/hide toggles for spoilers.Reply[reply]
  42. Intelligence3 04:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Keeping spoiler tags serves the needs of users best. It gives alert to the ensuing content in a user-friendly way, being the most clear to the most users, allowing them to choose whether to read further.Reply[reply]

Oppose (keeping spoiler tags)[edit]

  1. As per my support to their removal. Shanes 14:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Inappropriate in an proffesional source of knowledge. Has no value in an encyclopedia.-Randall Brackett 15:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Ryu Kaze — As per my support to their being removed.
  4. As stated above. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 00:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. --CBD 10:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. --Revlob 11:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oops. Missed the need to oppose the keep option. 23:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carcharoth (talk • contribs) .
    Comment:Well these two options (delete and keep) are almost complete opposites, except that this one suggests guideline changes too. --GunnarRene 07:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Delete it per above.--Monocrat 17:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also Oppose this process

Comment (keeping spoiler tags)[edit]

someone just changed this definition AFTER people had signed.plange 02:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That would be me. I don't think I actually changed the meaning of this proposal, but added that if they were kept then the appearance could even be looked at. Which is something one would normally assume, since on Wikipedia nothing is set in stone, but I thought it might be good to make it clear. Here's the edit. If you feel that I have changed the meaning of this proposal then by all means change the wording back. -- Ned Scott 05:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, I took out the little blurb about the tag apperance. The last thing I want from all this is for someone to say that the results are somehow invalid because of something small like this.. :) -- Ned Scott 07:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Allow spoiler tag usage to be decided case by case[edit]

To clarify, this concept can go hand in hand with the idea of the guideline. "No guideline is absolute, and whenever there's a gray area things can be taken to the talk page of that article." vs "guideline trumps all". -- Ned Scott 02:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: Some of the opinions below were added before the above clarification.--GunnarRene 04:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support (case-by-case spoilers)[edit]

  1. badlydrawnjeff talk 12:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC) - Leave to community and trust the majority of editors.Reply[reply]
  3. Leave to community, but curtail use to only eggregious spoilers. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Offer guidance on how to use, offer guidance on where to use, but make it clear they are not the default and should be discussed on a case by case basis. Hiding Talk 18:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. As most other things in the encyclopedia. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. I don't see a difference between this and the solution above. Spoiler tags are already, by default, decided on a case by case basis. That's what a guideline is all about. CovenantD 02:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. A template is a template. If there is a difference of opinion of whether it should be included in an article, removed from an article, or its location in the article changed, that should be discussed on the article's talk page — as with most controversial changes and changes where there are disagreements. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 02:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support only if accompanied by a guideline as well. Guidelines shouldn't be absolute and should allow editors to discuss gray areas, if need be. Spoiler tags require context, different works of fiction treat things in different ways. -- Ned Scott 05:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. I'm not opposed to guidelines, but editors should be free to handle specific instances with some flexibility under consensus. --Dhartung | Talk 06:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Conditional support Guidelines should be made about when spoilers should be used. Most works of fiction should get the tag. (However, there should always be exceptions.) The tag should be unobtrusive, but visable. (Current state is fine.) It should be uniformly at the top of the page, below the lead, but above the TOC. (This is the way other language wikipedia's do this.) I would like to see ONE and only ONE spoiler tag per article. Opening and closing spoiler tags per article section is just silly. --Kunzite 12:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Force10 00:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Leave it up to the individual editors. They are most likely to know what is appropriate for any particular article.Reply[reply]
  12. PeregrineV 03:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC) - This makes the most sense. King Kong doesn't need spoiler warnings, but other works of fiction may. Case-by-case makes the most sense.Reply[reply]
    Comment Why doesn't King Kong need spoiler warnings? I know the ending of the film with the sky scraper, but I don't know anything else that happens. I haven't seen any version, but I'm thinking of seeing the remade version soon, and I'd be annoyed if people went around spoiling it for me. RobbieG 07:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. east.718 01:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support, this is a pretty central princple of all disputes. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Conditional support, subject to revision of the guideline so that there will be some reasonable guard-rails around the practice. Marc Shepherd 15:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Swift 23:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose (case-by-case spoilers)[edit]

  1. Always have spoiler tags. DyslexicEditor 18:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. As I stated above, I support removing spoiler tags, but if they stay, we need to have clear guidelines on when it's appropriate to use them. Unpredictably-applied spoiler tags are un-helpful to the reader and unprofessional-looking, the worst of both worlds. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 00:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Always have the tags. They're a must. Tobyk777 01:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Trying to decide on a case-by-case basis would open things up to NPOV vs. POV. Better to err on the side of tagging. 23skidoo 02:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Agreeing with 23skidoo Shane (talk/contrib)
  6. RobbieG 09:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC) - This sounds awfully like a violation of our NPOV policy.Reply[reply]
  7. I agree with RobbieG. Keep them in all cases. - CheNuevara 15:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Actually, I prefer more flexibility, and leaving them optional would be fine - but this petty issue just isn't worth debates which would start. I'd suggest, though, that if article's editors have a consensus about removing them, the guideline should be no objection. - CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment (case-by-case spoilers)[edit]

  • As per my op. below, I think we need a guideline on how they're used, as well as reasonable limits for when to use them, with editors making the case by case decision fitting the subject of each individual article but based on the guidelines. --GunnarRene 00:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I request clarification of this point. Case by case on how, when, or whether to use spoiler tags? --GunnarRene 02:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wonder if we should scratch this section or not, due to the possible confusion. It is something we can decide after we know if spoiler tags will be included or not and/or if there will be a guideline status. -- Ned Scott 03:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Case by case in that people can't say "Look, Wikipedia:Spoiler warning is a guideline and so clearly states that I can insert this spoiler template into this article on the crucification, because it's spoilage." My view is that we should offer a style guide on how to use spoiler templates, but that where they should be used should be settled on a case by case basis, with guidance on what constitutes a spoiler kept brief to avoid wikilawyering. Note that we have people opposing this, stating that spoiler templates should always be used. I hope we all agree that comment needs clarifying. Hiding Talk 11:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the guidline says anyhing about when to use spoiler tags we would avoid the problem mentioned above. As I said, let editors work it out within the outer limits of the guideline. If we say "for fictional works" the editors can work out how to apply this to the Vedas, etc. If we really need elaboration on this it could be: "Real events (historical or current), as well as mythical or religious texts that claim to be non-fiction, don't need spoiler tags. Examples of works not needing spoiler warnings: The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail , The Bible. Examples of works needing spoiler tags: The Da Vinci Code". --GunnarRene 12:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, I see we basically have the same opinion on this point. :-) --GunnarRene 13:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guideline, essay or rejected status[edit]

Spoiler templates were previously listed as a guideline, but it has been proposed that they be downgraded to essay status — a document that expresses the opinions and ideas of some Wikipedians, but that doesn't necessarily reflect Wikipedia's policies or actual consensus — or rejected as a proposal that failed to gain consensus.

Editors may also wish to read WP:PAG#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc. this link added 17:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Support of essay status[edit]

((spoiler-blank|Plot details from Star Wars follow))

  1. Ryu Kaze — If they remain, then they most definitely shouldn't be a guideline, which gives the impression that a comprehensive body of information supports censorship and shielding of knowledge.
  2. At the very least 'spoiler' concerns should be downgraded to something which some people feel should be used in extreme circumstances. Currently we have separate articles on Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker, despite them being the same person, in part due to 'spoiler' concerns. Tell me... how many people did I just 'spoil' that for? He was also Luke Skywalker's father! Wow, huh? The fact that we have spoiler warnings all over these facts that virtually everyone knows is frankly absurd. We twist articles into pretzles trying to 'warn' people about things most of them know and for which they shouldn't be here if they don't want to know. Maybe it would be reasonable to have spoiler warnings on books/films/et cetera which have just come out... but doing so for facts which are decades old is just silly. --CBD 11:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support of guideline status[edit]

  1. badlydrawnjeff talk 12:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Clearly, any inclusion would need a guideline. Calling it an essay won't discourage editors from using it, if that's the goal. -- Ned Scott 13:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC) - a guideline is understandable - I can't even get my mind round what an essay is in this context!Reply[reply]
  4. Johntex 15:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC) - It should remain a guideline spelling out suggested good uses.Reply[reply]
  5. DyslexicEditor 18:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 20:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)- This is quite simply not an essay; it is not an opinion piece written by a single author, it is a way of doing things that is in wide use throughout the encyclopedia.Reply[reply]
  7. Per EWS23, Johntex, and others. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. I support a style guide for use of spoiler tags/templates for consistency of how it's used, as well as reasonable limits for when to use them, and editors sorting out the details on the individual article. --GunnarRene 00:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Essays are useless. Keep it as a guideline, but if necessary review the guidelines. 23skidoo 02:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Keep it as a guideline. Grey Shadow 07:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Must be guideline Shane (talk/contrib) 08:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. RobbieG 09:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC) - What would be the point otherwise?Reply[reply]
  13. plange 15:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC) per Johntex aboveReply[reply]
  14. Conditional per clarifications on when and where to use. --Kunzite 12:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. - Force10 00:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC) - Yes, it should remain a guideline.Reply[reply]
  17. What more is there to say? They should be used. - CheNuevara 15:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. They're a guideline. Changes to the guidline consensus, if any, can be reflected in the guideline itself. TheronJ 21:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. This must definitley be a guide line. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 11:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. east.718 01:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC) - Essays are plain useless. Their status fits with guideline just fine; it's a problem that some people use guidelines like policies, not that this has lower status.Reply[reply]
  22. jwandersTalk 00:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC): Guideline seems the best compromise in this case; Personaly, I'd expect them to be policy, but there's obviously enough users who'd have them removed that guideline-level seems the right balance.Reply[reply]
  23. Chris Griswold 10:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC) I don't know what to add to the discussion.Reply[reply]
  24. Keep it as a guideline. --Zoz (t) 16:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Marc Shepherd 16:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Support as guideline, although the current guideline needs rewriting to give more concrete guidance as to when they are, and are not, appropriate.Reply[reply]
  26. Swift 23:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support of rejected status[edit]

  1. The silly warnings should simply go, and if anyone wants to complain about how Cinderella now has been ruined for them, they can write a userspace essay and rant about how "useful" the warnings were there. Shanes 14:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Per "..a document that expresses the opinions and ideas of some Wikipedians, but that doesn't necessarily reflect Wikipedia's policies or actual consensus." -Randall Brackett 15:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Ryu Kaze — Per Randall's quote of the essay description.
  4. Per reasoning by User:Ryu Kaze and User:Randall Brackett. o/s/p 16:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. If the spoiler-tag is not deleted, we need a guideline that suggests reasonable limits as to when the tag should be used. Since I believe most editors would agree that there are cases where it is okay to not use a spoiler-tag for basic plot information (Hansel and Gretel springs to mind) I believe it would be better to spend further time coming to an agreement about when and how they should be used, then ratify a guideline only when we've decided specifically what cases the tags should apply to -- we shouldn't just approve a guideline as-is with the intent of radically altering it later. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 21:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. --CBD 10:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. These "guidelines" have quite resoundingly been rejected for operas, and we need to recognize they are ludicrous in many other instances. We have a spoiler on Beowulf? Please. - Nunh-huh 17:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Missed this as well. There are too many options to vote on!! It's like voting in a European parliamentary election.... Carcharoth 23:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Monocrat. Ryu, Randall and Lee make compelling cases.
  10. Phil Sandifer 02:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categorize spoilers more clearly[edit]

There seem to be several reasons for spoilers. The 3 main ones seem to be:

  • "solution" based (magic tricks, and mysteries)
  • "Soap-opera" based (ongoing plot), such as comic books and television series, or even how a game, film, or book progressed the plot to build toward an ending.
  • And "ending" based, such as how a game, a film, or a book ended (or even how an event within a subsection ended, depending on the situation).

For simplicity, we'll call these "events".

Each of these events could be split into fiction and non-fiction, and also by media type (book/film/TV series/video game/live performance (includes recorded ones)/etc.).

By this, even such things as sports games and the Olympics apply. So we should consider Wikipedia:Current and future event templates in this discussion, as well.

One issue is that some parts of the world receive the information (in publication/broadcast/etc.) before others. In addition, the "Soap-opera" based events often release solicitation information, or other advertisements.

So given all of this:

  • Current Events:
  1. There is no reason that Wikipedia should attempt to keep track of who has or hasn't experienced the event in question.
  2. The unique situation of wikipedia being able to show "current" information, rather than as one that is published in a "closed form", means that wikipedia may have "current" content that a "closed" encyclopedia might not.
  3. Therefore, wikipedia should have some way to make it clear to the reader what is a "current event".
  4. A current event is ongoing by nature.
  5. There should never be a case where a section requires a current event tag AND a spoiler tag. A current event is the larger consideration, and, as such should ALSO be considered a spoiler.
  • Spoiler tags:
  1. WP already has Template:Magic-spoiler (Though it should be renamed Template:Spoiler-magic for consistancy of naming.)
  2. WP already has Template:Solution - Use should be considered expanded for uses in the solution of mysteries (such as Sherlock Holmes), and puzzle-like games, including Video games. (Perhaps should be renamed Template:Spoiler-solution for consistancy of naming.)
  3. Template:Spoiler-ongoing - Used for ongoing plots involving the setting, characters, situations, etc. (such as in comic books and television series). Should use the format of Template:Spoiler-about.
  4. Template:Spoiler-ending - Used for the final "end" of a series, a film, a book, or even a subsection (such as the details of the death of a character within a film). Also may be used to show the winner(s) of a game event (such as a tournament). Should use the format of Template:Spoiler-about.
  5. Template:Spoiler-solicitation - Use includes any information gleaned from advertising or promotions.
  6. Use of the generic templates Template:Spoiler, Template:Spoiler-about, and Template:Spoiler-blank, should be kept to an absolute minimum.
  7. Template:Spoiler-other - As a combinative spoiler warning, it should be removed, since it does not differentiate between types. (Alternately, it could be potentially re-worked to include such differentiation.)

Support (categorize spoilers more clearly)[edit]

Oppose (categorize spoilers more clearly)[edit]

  1. While some of the ideas aren't bad, I'm definitely opposed to including any of the "current" templates and events that are not fiction in these guidelines (even for reality TV, sports events, game shows, etc). That just opens up a whole other mess and there's really no reason to not have "current" be it's own thing. I also think we should simplify the tags, maybe to the extent of simply saying "Spoilers follow", rather than start to branch off and have specific spoiler templates. I can see solution, a generic spoiler tag, and a spoiler tag with a variable message. I think solution should be a "spoiler" of sorts that isn't about a plot, like a puzzle or magic trick, but still isn't about a real life event. -- Ned Scott 05:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Per Ned Scott Matthew Fenton (contribs) 11:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Per Ned Scott --Shane (talk/contrib) 07:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Per Ned Scott RobbieG 07:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Agreed on excluding the current event tags from this, but I think the variable spoilers have merit. -- nae'blis 16:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment (categorize spoilers more clearly)[edit]

I'm a little confused about this. Surely you aren't proposing that we start labelling the current event tags as spoiler warnings? They serve a completely different purpose, equivalent to "Work in progress" signs. I'd be happy for you to change the names of templates to make them more in line with the accepted structure, but I'm not quite sure what your suggestion is. Anything more radical I'd be hesitant about. RobbieG 08:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Robbie here, I always thought of the current tags as more of a cleanup / incomplete / verifiable warning / etc type template. I wasn't aware that people were using them to warn readers of the outcome of events. Works of fiction don't really know time, since when you read or watch fiction, it happens "now". WP:1SP#Check your fiction says: "Works of fiction are generally considered to 'come alive' when read and exist in a kind of perpetual present tense, regardless of when the fictional action is supposed to take place relative to "now". Thus, generally you should write about fiction using the present tense, not the past tense." Another reason to not link current templates and usage with WP:SPOILER. -- Ned Scott 08:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to add the same proposal below, without the question of "current events" tags, since that part has been the most misunderstood. - Jc37 17:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Categorize spoilers more clearly (Mark II)[edit]

There seem to be several reasons for spoilers. The 3 main ones seem to be:

  • "solution" based (magic tricks, and mysteries)
  • "Soap-opera" based (ongoing plot), such as comic books and television series, or even how a game, film, or book progressed the plot to build toward an ending.
  • And "ending" based, such as how a game, a film, or a book ended (or even how an event within a subsection ended, depending on the situation).

For simplicity, we'll call these "events".

One issue is that some parts of the world receive the information (in publication/broadcast/etc.) before others. In addition, the "Soap-opera" based events often release solicitation information, or other advertisements.

So given all of this:

  • "Current" Events:
  1. There is no reason that Wikipedia should attempt to keep track of who has or hasn't experienced the event in question.
  2. The unique situation of wikipedia being able to show "current" information, rather than as one that is published in a "closed form", means that wikipedia may have "current" content that a "closed" encyclopedia might not.
  3. Therefore, wikipedia should have some way to make it clear to the reader what is a "current event".
  4. A current event is ongoing by nature.
  • Spoiler tags:
  1. WP already has Template:Magic-spoiler (Though it should be renamed Template:Spoiler-magic for consistancy of naming.)
  2. WP already has Template:Solution - Use should be considered expanded for uses in the solution of mysteries (such as Sherlock Holmes), and puzzle-like games, including Video games. (Perhaps should be renamed Template:Spoiler-solution for consistancy of naming.)
  3. Template:Spoiler-ongoing - Used for ongoing plots involving the setting, characters, situations, etc. (such as in comic books and television series). Should use the format of Template:Spoiler-about.
  4. Template:Spoiler-ending - Used for the final "end" of a series, a film, a book, or even a subsection (such as the details of the death of a character within a film). Should use the format of Template:Spoiler-about.
  5. Template:Spoiler-solicitation - Use includes any information gleaned from advertising or promotions.
  6. Use of the generic templates Template:Spoiler, Template:Spoiler-about, and Template:Spoiler-blank, should be kept to an absolute minimum.
  7. Template:Spoiler-other - As a combinative spoiler warning, it should be removed, since it does not differentiate between types. (Alternately, it could be potentially re-worked to include such differentiation.)

Support (Categorize spoilers more clearly (Mark II))[edit]

Oppose (Categorize spoilers more clearly (Mark II))[edit]

Comment (Categorize spoilers more clearly (Mark II))[edit]

Oh, are we still voting? Well, I'm still not sure about this proposal. I mean, if we use the example of a video game, I'm not sure that any of the above would be sufficient. You make a distinction between solutions (like: doing such-and-such kills the end boss) and plot details (as in: in the end cutscene such-and-such happens). Would games therefore need 2 warnings? RobbieG 09:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what this is suggesting, as spoilers aren't necessarily dependent on when they occur. I'm not even sure what these categories are supposed to help us do. -- Ned Scott 10:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm still wondering why we haven't closed the RfC. We moved into the guideline page over two weeks ago and this thing is more active than that one. I think we've pretty much concluded that this will remain a case-by-case thing anyway. Unless someone comes along with something brilliant and poignant on many levels. Ryu Kaze 01:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:MatthewFentons proposal[edit]

  • Spoiler tags should by default be set to on in the CSS.
  • For pages which are primarily spoilers (IE: A dedicated page to an episode of a tv series) spoiler tags should not be used as it is generally intended for that page to be primarily composed of plot details which can be considerd spoilers.
  • For lists (IE: A television episode list which summarises and contains more then one episode) spoiler tags should be used.
  • The rewording of ((spoiler)) from "Plot and/or ending details follow." to "This article or section contains spoilers including plot and/or ending details.".
  • A tutorial on how to turn off spoiler tags via CSS on the spoiler page (linked via the spoiler tag)
  • Only ((spoiler)) should be utilized, all others should be removed and forwaded to spoiler for cohesion.

I believe that the above proposal is fair. If you have any points you may wish to add comment below.

Support (MatthewFenton's proposal)[edit]

  1. As the proposer i support this. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 09:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose (MatthewFenton's proposal)[edit]

  1. jwandersTalk 00:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC): Even after reading the above discussion, I disagree that the arguements against a spoiler tag outweigh its benifit, even on a page where one should expect spoilers.Reply[reply]
    • Sacrifices had to be made in order to make the proposal fair. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 00:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. I see the value in varaible message spoiler tags, and tags should be used where ever needed. -- Ned Scott 03:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. I thought we'd already moved on to guidelines? plange 06:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, we haven't really "moved on", rather, guideline discussion is happening in parallel to the RfC. The results of the guideline discussion will be brought back here to see if they address any additional anti-tag concerns. Although Matthew should have probably made his suggestions there than here. -- Ned Scott 06:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Per jwanders. RobbieG 18:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment (MatthewFenton's proposal)[edit]

Individual user statements[edit]

To help prevent discussion from looping through repeated comments, this section allows editors to summarize their overall views on the issues above. Editors may revise their statements provided they link to previous versions (please use diff links from the edit history) of their statements so as to avoid confusion.

When offering comments on this matter, please place a header immediately below with your username as its title. Then offer your views of the issues presented. If you wish, indicate which proposed solution(s) you would support (you may be neutral or present your own proposal), as well as which you would be most in favor of (please be specific in this regard), as well as any potential pros or cons that you feel may follow as a result of recognizing one solution or another. If you are in support of a proposal mentioned above, please add your name to its list of supporters. Again, you may support more than one proposal, but please indicate preference.

User:badlydrawnjeff[edit]

  • Few of the "against" arguments hold up under greater scrutiny. As spoiler tags have been widely used, it's safe to assume that the content disclaimer and section headers are not enough. I don't see how a spoiler tag at the start of a plot summary violates NPOV, nor is it censorship, as the information still exists. With that said, a "spoiler" is not really subjective, but the use of the tag may be, which is an education issue, not one that should be dealt with via abandonment.
  • The only argument I can see making sense is the one about it appearing unprofessional and/or unencyclopedic, but we're not your typical encyclopedia. In a situation where we're linked to as references all over the web, and easily accessable, it becomes a courtesy issue, since it's not an issue otherwise.
  • In other words, leave it to article consensus, and leave the guideline as is. If it ain't broke... --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Kevinalewis[edit]

  • When the usual queation asked is why does wikipedia contain spoilers - why are we even debating the careful use of "spoiler tags" to mark where such spoilers are to avoid reading that section of an article. I have seen, congent debate for hiving all spoilers off to completely separate (and related) articles. This not a real option and neither was that. At least in most instances. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Randall Brackett[edit]

In my time with encyclopedias and my capacity as an editor on wikipedia, I would really say that considering any information with the intent of informative intent as a "spoiler" is quite misleading and utterly destroys the purpose of an encyclopedia. Put simply, an encyclopedia is meant to distribute knowledge and all other quibbles and the like derived from the social crowd are irrelevant. As editors of wikipedia, this our duty as volunteers on the project. The encyclopedia comes first. Always. When an editor or editors presume outside needs of a networking group deserve the attention at the integrity of the encyclopedia there is a serious problem.

On earlier discussions, it has been established the spoiler tag was intended as a cooup-out for people who came to wikipedia for entirely the incorrect reasons, such as the false view of a review site, that of a online catalog and dumping ground of information from all veins of subjects. This is entirely the wrong view we wish to give wikipedia. And I've no idea why we should encourage those kinds of people in the construction of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia, first and foremost. The unique premise of wikipedia as an online source of information is only in effect to permit the variable tools we utilize to improve the quality and wide range of content for encycloepdia. In that wikipedia is a new and different venue of sharing this knowledge is true, but our expanded content does not permit the we neglect what an encyclopedia is and how it treats information. An encyclopedia treats all of its information on equivilent standing as to verify its proffessional and neutral take to give each individual subject equal care. The goal of wikipedia is not to re-invent the spirit of the encyclopedia, but to expand, elaborate and provide complete inclusion on all sources of knowledge. As such, a video game such as Dead or Alive should and is demanded to recieve the same amount of neutral content and attention as the scientific subject known as the Sea Urchin. That's what wikipedia was intended to do - take the usual encyclopedia and expand the amount of knowledge it can hold. Additionally such implemtations such as talkpages, userpages, image uploads, templates, basic-level editting tools exist as sofar in they assist the encyclopedia. Things that do not directly assist the encyclopedia get deleted.

Many editors in support of the template raise functionally sensible arguments that are very appropriate - in an website that did not thrive upon knowledge and build upon elaboration such as plot details, specifics and other related data in the course of it being an encyclopedia. However, some editors became sidetracked; such falsely believed the social ideals derived from external websites were appropriate for the encyclopedia. As such the main arguments include "People like it", "some people think its useful for looking up data not relevant to an encyclopedia" and my favorite: "They don't hurt anything". Had this been an acceptable view such unencyclopediac content would not be disposed of at AFD and DRV (Although I must concced those processes are slightly broken at the current time).

I'm sorry, but that's the most mindbogglingly stupid thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia.

Apparently, a "spoiler" is a common term constructed in internet conversation and forums, designed to warn others of inappropriate introductions of story content in non-relevant discussions. Those websites are nowhere near the realm of an encyclopedia and do not document themselves as such. It would be silly to warn to someone whom has come to partake of knowledge at the outset, and furthurmore catering to those who continue to make a point of flaunting their wish to stay ignorant. Ignorance is a foriegn term to encyclopedias, great institutions and other great sources of knowledge. Its one that shouldn't even be considered, much less endorsed. Apparently, somewhere along the line editors percieved wikipedia's unique premise as a carte blanche for the introduction of this ideal and declared it as "essential to the workings of an encyclopedia". Go figure.

Spoiler tags are paticularly irrelevant to the basic tools provided to wikipedia editors and readers; the headers and Table of Contents in paticular make it entirely redundant. In addition, many reports have established the tag as placed directly below the header "Plot" or above the TOC. Um, the header doesn't accomplish that how...? Soem might suggest that elaborates upon the content contained, but I utterly refute that claim on the basis people have common sense and people see stuff - If the header says "Plot" than the spoiler tag clarifies nothings. If the prose in question is several pharagraphs in length than of course there will likely be substantial elaboration. Everyone knows how to look at things. Everyone knows an encyclopedia is comprehensive. To presume a reader has no knowledge of this and present the template as a "courtesy" is an utter lie. Stupid people don't read encyclopedias. And by its nature, wikipedia is very simplistic in nature concerning navigation, especially in the article namespace.

This is an entirely friviolus template, concieved on imaginary conceptions outside the well-being of the encyclopedia itself. They incite confusion, including the false interpretation about what Wikipedia is for (many editors have described it as helpful for those coming to look up information for game reviews and the like; that's not what this site was intended for); they look unprofessional and they trod upon article format, paticulary in thumb ing images. And they are extremely subjective. You cannot define what is and what is not a "spoiler". For example, the Juggernaut (comics) features a redundant spoiler at the start of the article. Compare to Spider-Man, which has a spoiler and end spoiler in a individual prose nearing its conclusion. This is very, very unhelpful. Why aren't these artcles tagged similarly...? Why is this left to the neutral editors of an encyclopedia...? How does it assist the encyclopedia's purpose and quality to others...?

If spoiler tags needn't be removed for the sake of an encyclopedia than I suggest we remove wikipedia's status as an encyclopedia itself. This hasn't any purpose in the course of a goal to build a great encyclopedia. -Randall Brackett 16:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Hipocrite[edit]

  • The majority of oppose arguments do not focus on the value of the encyclopedia to the readers, except for the damage to our tone. I propose we change the template to have the word "major" or "substantial" in the template (Substantial plot and/or ending...) and use it as infrequently as possible. The template is damatically overused, currently.(CF - Book of Esther (removed by me) Bubble_Bobble (also removed by me)) and scores of others. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I add as a post-script, however, that if it becomes impossible to successfuly limit the use of spoiler tags due to editors hastly reverting over the most minor change in position, it will be necessary to delete them entirely. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ryu Kaze[edit]

Basically, my reasoning for — at the very least — seeing spoiler tags taken off the default version of the site (though I'd prefer to see them deleted) is that they are based in individual editors' points of view concerning what may or may not be appropriate for readers to see. This judgement is then passed on to the readers in an attempt to influence them not to learn something specifically selected by the editor.

Our NPOV and no censorship policies were created for the purpose of keeping editors' opinions out of the articles. They're not supposed to be trying to influence which information the readers do or do not read, or how they absorb it. All information here that has met the criteria for inclusion is supposed to be treated the same. None of it is supposed to be given a banner that says "This might ruin your ability to enjoy a story," and I honestly don't care if it does ruin someone's ability to enjoy a story. We're not here to put courtesies before principles. As our very first policy says, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its goals go no further, and material that does not fit this goal must be moved to another Wikimedia project or removed altogether". Wikipedia's founded on encyclopedic principles. If it's going to be an encyclopedia, it's going to have to conform to these principles, and that means spoiler tags (a POV editor-based judgement intended to present specifically-targeted information in a biased light) should not be here. If they're here, then this is a glamorized fansite, and not an encyclopedia.

The bottom line is this: there's a certain integrity involved in being an encyclopedia, and the hypocrisy imposed by allowing spoiler tags to be present undermines that. If they're going to be here, Wikipedia's not an encyclopedia and shouldn't claim to be one. If my fellow editors do not have enough concern for the principles and integrity of what we're here to do to ensure that they are upheld, then I will personally think that we should push to see the claim that Wikipedia's an encyclopedia removed. If it's going to be a fansite, it shouldn't be masquerading as a professional, unbiased, comprehensive body that is serious about knowledge. If it's going to babysit the notion that knowledge is harmful and that shielding people from information is okay in a setting that's supposed to be impartial, then it should not be claiming the dignified title of "encyclopedia". Wikipedia either is an encyclopedia or it isn't. If it isn't one, then it shouldn't be claiming to be one. Pretty simple.

Note to Jimbo Wales and the Board: I understand that the idea behind the project is pretty much to let it govern itself. I understand that you guys hope for editors to agree in the best interests of the encyclopedia. I understand that you don't want to interfere. But is this just an experiment to find out if the concept can work? That strangers from all over the world can actually agree and make an encyclopedia? Or is it an attempt to make sure that the mission is fulfilled? I know you guys don't want to interfere in things like this, but if you want this to be an encyclopedia, one would think you'd make sure that it is one when guys like Randall and I can't, when our authority is non-existent or too limited. As editors here, all of us, even those I disagree with, should be working to make this place an encyclopedia. We should never have been able to even argue over this matter. Someone should have stepped in to make sure that the principles outlined were upheld if this place is truly to be an encyclopedia. Sometimes you can't just let the system work when the system is rigged to undermine itself. Sometimes you have to straighten it out and make sure it works.

Now, I'm not blaming you guys, because I understand why you don't like to make decisions for us and that you probably have more pressing matters on a regular basis, but I think that — just as the editors of an encyclopedia must put the princicples of an encyclopedia before courtesies — that the system we all hoped would work in the creation of this encyclopedia must sometimes be put on the backburner for the integrity of the mission itself. The purpose must come before the practice. Ryu Kaze 17:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Hiding[edit]

I think one of the things we've got to work out is that perhaps we're going to have to be clear that there's no consensus for the use of spoiler templates, but that we're going to have to offer guidance on how they should be used if there is consensus within a given article to use them. I think it might be an idea to look at offering an additional template, rather broader in scope to be placed at the top of an article, for articles where agreement is hard to reach. Hiding Talk 17:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:DyslexicEditor[edit]

I support the use of warning people about spoilers. To anyone who believes we should remove the spoiler warnings, how about once we know the secret to the next Harry Potter book (or whatever spoiler), let's put the spoiler at the top of the article (with no warning) and feature that article on the front of wikipedia so everyone gets spoiled by it? Would anyone really be okay with it? DyslexicEditor 18:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well there is a comprimise where the spoiler tag also spoils the plot. Harry potter example (contains spoiler). I'm using this as an example of why wikipedia's current spoiler tags are good. DyslexicEditor 18:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response to DyslexicEditor

What are you talking about...? When people come to wikipedia on a fiction-driven story such as Harry Potter, they expect to read upon the plot. The very Plot itself is integral to the HP articles as its the book's selling point. -Randall Brackett 13:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please discuss these things in the above sections or in the general discussion below. Comments on user statements should be more like "How would you feel about this?" or "can you give an example of what you are talking about". -- Ned Scott 23:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:EWS23[edit]

I have long been a proponent of spoiler tags. Apologize that I have not been involved in the most recent discussions, as I've had some time constraints to my time on Wikipedia, but I have been following it from afar, and I'd like to thank all parties involved for their dedication towards trying to find a solution and consensus.

The bottomline for me is, and always has been, that spoiler tags are beneficial to readers. Perhaps not beneficial to all readers, but there is certainly a large chunk of Wikipedia readers who find spoiler tags helpful and informative. I myself have benefited from them in my casual reading of the encyclopedia. While I certainly understand the arguments against them, particularly from writers who feel constrained working around them constantly, we have to remember that this encyclopedia should be optimized for readers moreso than for writers. Yes, we should strive to be professional, but part of being the best encyclopedia we can be is being the most reader friendly that we can be. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 20:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Shanes[edit]

I believe people supporting spoiler warnings because they might be "useful" are missing the point. There are tons of things we could add to articles that can be seen as useful, but we aren't adding them because we are writing an encyclopedia. I could add to the Oslo article which pubs are the most popular, have cheapest beer, what beer brands, what it costs, when they are crowded, etc. This would be information that I would find useful if I were living elsewhere and planned on visiting Oslo and read about the city in Wikipedia. But this is simply not stuff we include in an encyclopedia. Useful or not. On Wikitravel beer prices might be appropriate, though. And on many movie-blogs, slashdot, and fan sites, spoiler warnings are expected and often used. But that's there, and not here. Being useful has nothing to do with it. The warnings make the articles look so silly and amateurish that it's ruining not only the articles they're in, but the whole encyclopedia. If an encyclopedia is what Wikipedia is. I'm starting to have my doubts.Shanes 20:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:LtPowers[edit]

I am not just an editor of this encyclopedia; I am also a reader. As a reader, I find spoiler warnings to be useful. I recognize that there is a legitimate argument to be made that usefulness is not our primary goal. However, I reject the premise that creating an encyclopedia (where "encyclopedia" is defined narrowly as conforming to certain strict rules) is more important than reader courtesy. An encyclopedia is, inherently, a courtesy to the reader. Without readers, the encyclopedia is only so much data. First and foremost, the encyclopedia must be useful and helpful to the reader. Every single one of our guidelines and policies are pursuant to that, in some way.

Normally, I would be tempted to agree that a section labeled "Plot" or something similar should serve as sufficient warning for spoilers. However, it is extremely common for plot summaries in other media to go out of their way to avoid revealing spoliers. This is particularly true for just-released fiction, something which print encyclopedias simply cannot cover. As an encyclopedia which is quickly updated with the most current information on fictional works, some of which are yet unreleased, we are in a unique position among encyclopedias. As such, we must take that into account when we are determining how to apply our primary goal (that is, being useful to the reader).

-- Powers 02:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:23skidoo[edit]

People need to stop trying to see Wikipedia as a clone of Brittanica or other classic encyclopedias of years gone by. This is a totally different animal and the rules are different. Articles can be written within minutes of an event or an announcement, and as a result there will be copious amounts of material written on films, TV shows, books, etc. which contain spoilers. Just because Alice in Wonderland is a classic that's been around for 100 years doesn't mean that everyone knows how it ends. I never found out until I took it in university. Now, I will agree that spoiler tags are often misused; not everything mentioned regarding a book or film or TV show is a spoiler. But given the tendency for editors (and I'm one of them) to post detailed synopses, I think spoiler tags are a necessary evil (for lack of a better phrase; I don't consider them evil at all). The only alternative would be to establish a Policy (not a Guideline) banning the presence of detailed synopses in articles. However that's a debate for another forum. And the only way to make Wikipedia exactly the same as Brittanica is to ban amateurs like, well, 99.9999% of people who contribute to this site. 23skidoo 03:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Lee_Bailey[edit]

  • I disagree with the assumption that spoiler warnings "don't hurt anything". Whether the costs outweigh the benefits is debatable, but I do think it's obvious they have some effect on article organization. Often, I think the spoliers-begin-here-spoilers-end-here format is harmful, because it encourages editors to lump anything that could be considered a spoiler together in a single section rather than primarilly basing such decisicions on logical organization and article flow. In some cases, it may even lead to good, useful information being left out in attempts to avoid the use of an excessive number of tags. At best, it's still one more thing to worry about which may prove a distraction from our core encyclopedic purpose.
  • If we do wind up deciding to use spoiler tags, we need to hold a discussion about what contitutes a spoiler. I don't think erring on the side of caution is an acceptable substitute. Right now, in many articles, all discussion of plot is treated like a spoiler. I believe that most people would agree that basic premise information the likes of which would be found in an advertisement for a fictional work does not really "spoil" a story. Similarly, the revealing endings of certain stories which are extremely well known (folklore, for example) seems non-controversial. If we use these tags, we should aim to adopt the least invasive usage-guidelines possible.
  • I know this seems like a stupid question, but are spoiler-warnings really all that useful, anyway? I know a lot of editors seem to think so, but I also know if I were reading an article on, for example, a novel I was reading, if a quick glance revealed a lengthy "plot" section, I would assume the article containing plot details, and not read it until I wanted to know about those things. I wouldn't consider that a hardship, particularly. Besides, are we really doing our readers a service by using these tags which suggest that Wikipedia is spoiler-safe? Wikipedia is freely editable -- anyone can add anything with or without a warning tag. Considering this, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that readers who are highly allergic to spoilers exercize the same care they would reading reviews, looking at jacket covers, or just chatting with friends who have already seen a movie they intend to see. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 05:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:RobbieG[edit]

I am completely opposed to the deletion of spoiler warnings. I maintain that they are neither biased nor censorship, and therefore I see no reason to get rid of them. However, many people disagree with this, so I'm going to present my complete argument below.

Spoiler warnings need not be biased

Sounds like an oxymoron, doesn't it? But it's true, providing we do away with the actual term "spoiler warning" and replace it with something more neutral. Why? Well, plot details invaribly do follow such warnings. All we need to do is to make a definition of "spoiler" that is universally accepted. For example, if we say that all plot details are spoilers, or all plot details not printed on the cover of a story/movie/game.

Where spoiler warnings are biased

  • When we discriminate between which spoilers need to be labelled. That would be a direct violation of the NPOV policy. For example, I have never seen Citizen Kane. I no longer see the point in watching it as it has been spoiled for me by countless sources. The ending of the movie is a big part of our popular culture, but it's still a spoiler, and the movie is possible to spoil. Likewise, some people think public domain works don't need spoiler warnings. So, have you seen Shakespeare's King Richard II? Because I haven't. I have no idea what happens. A possibly even more extreme example would be The Little Engine That Could. A children's classic? I'd never even heard of it until somebody listed it as an example of stupid spoiler warnings. I don't know what happens in the story, and frankly I don't care, but it is spoilable, and therefore the most objective thing to do is to include a spoiler warning.
  • When we actually pass judgement on the spoilers themselves. This is actually kind of the same thing. We must not say: "The following section contains information that can and will spoil the plot for you if you haven't seen the movie", "The following section contains unnescessary spoilers", "The following section contains spoilers and if you read it prior to reading the book itself you'll be really gutted", "The following section contains mild spoilers", "The following section contains type 3, grade 0.2 spoilers", "the following section contains spoilers. They are evil! Read it at your own risk!!!", "OMG spoilage below!!!!!1", or anything similar. Some of those are pretty obvious, but some of those might actually get used. I regard all of them as direct violations of the NPOV policy.
  • You know what could also be regarded a POV? That spoiler warnings should be deleted. It's a specific POV held by certain people. That makes it biased. The assumption seems to be: "if we can't come up with a neutral definition of what requires a spoiler warning, let's do away with them completely." However, that doesn't actually make that much sense, when you think about it, because it's basically catering specifically for the POV of those who feel that spoilers are no big deal. That sounds pretty subjective to me. I'll admit that this argument is not terribly strong, but I still feel it's worth considering.

Spoiler warnings are not in themselves censorship

I'm frankly astonished that the censorship argument is still being used. Spoiler warnings are plainly not censorship. We are not withholding info. We are not preventing people from reading anything they want to read, because if they want to read it, they'll just ignore the warning. The only people who'll heed it are those who do not intend to read the plot anyway. Wikipedia is not compulsary. I don't think that's on WP:NOT, but frankly, it bleeding well should be. I can't emphasise this any stronger, Wikipedia is not compulsary! Wikipedia is not compulsary! Yes, it's obvious. So why are people ignoring it? Wikipedia users do discriminate between what pieces of information they want to read. An encyclopaedia aims to be useful. I can't imagine anyone would consider it to be encyclopaedic if people who came here to research bicycle pumps ended up reading instead about traffic control, or people looking for a description of quarks wound up reading about Knaaren. There are people who won't read Wikipedia at all. Spoiler warnings do serve a useful purpose in the encyclopaedia. They don't really help people find the precise information they are looking for, but they do help them avoid reading stuff they don't want to, which is basically the same thing. That's not censorship, because people do it anyway.

Where spoiler warnings would be censorship

On the guideline discussion there was a proposal to create a device to hide spoiler content on Wikipedia. I think that goes too far. We have to draw the line somewhere. If we delete information, we are censoring it. Likewise, it's definitely censorship to only include spoilers in sections labelled "Plot" (or similar). It's way too restrictive. The spoiler warnings actually prevent such restrictions.

What's an encyclopaedia?

I'm not trying to be stupid here. Seriously, what is an encyclopaedia? It doesn't really mean anything. It's just a collection of information. An encyclopaedia of supercars is hardly going to be NPOV, but nobody can claim it isn't an encyclopaedia. Britannica has been known to print bias as well. We don't do that here. Wikipedia follows many of its own rules. We present a NPOV, we are not paper, we are not censored for minors, we are not a crystal ball, we have categories, we use hyperlinks, we cite sources and oh, we use spoiler warnings. All encyclopaedias are different, so the argument that something is "not encyclopedic" is laughable.

But the spoiler warning template looks ugly!

Which is also a POV. It looks fine to me. Besides, we're an encyclopaedia, not a piece of artwork, so I don't see that aesthetics are crucial to the debate.

There. That's my argument. I have got more I could say, but for now I think I've gone on long enough. If you'd like me to clarify my position on something, I'd be happy to, so just ask. Thanks for reading. RobbieG 11:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course it's "POV". That's his point. I say, if someone wants to redesign it, let's discuss it. It can be made to be more aesthetically pleasing. Nightscream 19:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would have no objection to someone redesigning the template to make it look neater. In fact, I'd welcome it. I do think that right now we have more important concerns, however. RobbieG 21:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Dharmabum420[edit]

I just want to add an observation to this whole thing; Wikipedia articles are often top-3 Google hits, and almost always top-10. 20 years ago, someone who went to Britannica to read about Hamlet expected a spoiler, and if they didn't, it was their own problem for spoiling it for themselves. Many people click on a high-ranking Google hit looking for casual information.

We live in the Internet age, where information can appear much more rapidly than it ever could before. People here are talking about how it's tough if Citizen Kane or Casablanca are spoiled for some people. What if a major new release such as the latest Pirates of the Carribean movie is spoiled for a guy doing a Google search for a trailer, 3 days before the movie is released, by a Wiki editor who watched a bootleg video they found on BitTorrent?

I also see "censorship" thrown around. Censorship is the omission of information, not a qualification about the information about to be read. Removal of spoiler tags will lead people towards omission rather than qualified inclusion, and that's censorship.

Spoilers are not a recent internet fad, although the term may be relatively recent. Film critics 65 years ago would have been fired if they told their reading audience what happened at the end of Casablanca. Wiki editors today have the same responsibility to respect the feelings of their readers.

I remember someone posting the identity of the character who dies in the most recent Harry Potter novel minutes after the book's release, as they had flipped to the last few pages to get the scoop. A casual Harry Potter fan reading that page looking for a release date coming across such a major plot point with no warning would be justifiably furious, and this is where we do the project wrong. If spoiler warnings were removed wholesale for some vague notion about their "encyclopedianess", or a POV notion about their aesthetic, people would run into situations like this all the time - and many of them would never click a Wiki link again, nor think of contributing. It would just make them dislike the whole project. Who benefits from that? - dharmabum 09:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Karwynn[edit]

This'll be short for now, but gve it some thought anyway: the spirit of NPOV is for fairness and reliability for readers, right? How many readers come across a spoiler warning and think to themselves "WTF, since when does Wikipedia judge what is or isn't a spoiler, or what is or isn't good or bad about reading a spoiler?! That's bias!" A reader who goes to Howard Dean and reads "Howard Dean is insane, and Democrats have ruined their chance at destroying the country by making him head of the DNC" is going to think "Wow, what conservatively biased crap, so much for being an encyclopedia." But if they come across a spoiler warning and decide it doesn't matter if the article ahs spoilers and read on, they're not going to think "Man, these guys think I should think twce before reading this next section just because they assume I don't want the plot revealed to me? I'm not gonna read that crap!" SOmething to think about. Karwynn (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Jtalledo[edit]

The key issue here is of style. Some spoiler tags have been deleted from plot summaries in articles with the rationale that it's obvious that the plot section will contain spoilers. In effect, this just gives reason to orphan the spoiler template and further the anti-spoiler warning cause. The fact that the user should expect that the plot section will contain spoilers doesn't really hold water. The style of how plots are divulged varies widely between articles. While Leroy & Stitch spoils the whole film, the article on Wet Hot American Summer doesn't spoil much of anything. Going from two articles like these that vary wildly in how they divulge the plot, a user doesn't know what to expect in terms of how much of the film will be spoiled. In this respect, a spoiler tag would be useful.

I agree with the point that "Choosing to add the tag or not is similar to other decisions in the editorial process", but that's about the only point on either side that I agree with. I don't see the harm in including them, as they are quite useful for some users and aren't truly censorship. It's a more clear decision about what a user would consider to be a spoiler is over what a user might find objectionable. That having been said, I don't Wikipedia would be any worse off without them either. Users would eventually learn that Wikipedia freely displays spoilers and would be more judicious in reading articles if they need to do so.

There's a lot of problems with Wikipedia that might stop it from being viewed as a professionally done encyclopedia. A few of them are the inclusion of articles on topics that would not appeal to a general audience (articles on web site forums come to mind), imbalances on article length, bias towards certain topics and substandard prose. In the end, there are things that are a lot more unprofessional and unencyclopedic on Wikipedia than spoiler warnings. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Deckiller[edit]

I have decided to remain neutral on this particular issue. Under the circumstances, my opinions are irrelivent because I do not want to get involved in such a heated debate that has very little return for me as an editor. In other words: I don't really care either way. While I think there should always be a compromise, is the yield really worth the effort for any party involved? Mediation, professionalism, and so on are key to Wikipedia; however, in this case, I feel that there are more pressing matters to work on, such as editing and content policy or guideline disputes. Let's prioritize.

User:Monocrat[edit]

Swimming against the tide, I'll try to keep this brief. Delete the tings, or at the very least deprecate their use. If retained, made a guideline, and applied consistently and thoroughly (as a guideline should be), we would end up with spoiler warnings on the Illiad, Tale of Genji, King Lear, Exile and the Kingdom, One Hundred Years of Solitude, or even operas like Marriage of Figaro, Don Giovanni, Aida. This would culminate in tagging even the Bible and the Avesta. Simply ridiculous. Beyond this, the tags and general warnings add nothing in well structured articles, and both are eyesores in all instances. As for dealing with recent publications and films, there are consequences to hunting for information on a book or film you haven't seen.--Monocrat 17:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:MatthewFenton[edit]

I find it extrenley silly that those that oppose spoiler tags seem to believe this is a censorship or that it violates NPOV, if some one would care to elaborate?

    • It would be censorship if the content was blanked/hidden or made difficult to see.
    • It also does not violate NPOV as in all tags i have seen no point of view is expressed, saying spoilers follow can not be classed as POV as it is truth if it has the potentioal to spoil a storyline.

I am extremley disgusted that some users may wish to remove spoiler tags as they not only aid articles but provide integrity to the project (Wikipedia) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 11:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Richard0612[edit]

While I try to steer clear of highly controversial issues, this one hit me in the face. I came across this while carring out Maintenance. Personally, I despise spolier warnings, and feel that better, encyclopedic organisation under categories should be used instead [i.e. "Plot", "Conclusion"]. If they must be used, I feel that they should be hidden by default, with instructions made available to activate them. I am not opposed to the spoiler tags in principle, just to the way they have been used, especially the unilateral application to classic literature [does the article on the Three Billy Goats Gruff really need spoiler tags]. Also, people's perception of 'spolier' differs depending on their understanding, and familiarity with the subject matter. I feel most of this controversy is down to people not using their common sense! ><Richard0612 UW 16:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General discussion[edit]

Place any discussion or comments that do not fit into any of the above sections here.

  • I object to the structure of this RfC on the grounds that the top three sections are all biased against use of the spoiler tags. This is giving the new reader a very unbalanced view of the topic. Johntex\talk 17:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • That's entirely the point. Those are the issues being addressed, and since the issues are inherently biased toward the spoiler tags, their presentation will be. That's why I made sure to add "This claim holds that" at the beginning of each, so it's clear that these are the sentiments that led to this discussion. The reasoning for the claims is hopefully what will help someone make their decision, rather than the claims themselves. Anyway, if everyone thought that spoiler tags were okay or everybody thought they were garbage, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Ryu Kaze 17:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • But the point is that some people think they are OK and should be left as is, and none of the starter-arguments reflect that view. They all start with the premise that something is wrong and change is needed. That is biased. Johntex\talk 17:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Well, obviously some people think they are okay. The status quo is that they are here right now. If the issues didn't involve the belief that something is wrong, there wouldn't be issues for us to be discussing anyway, right? Heck, the fact that we're calling them "issues" denotes a belief that something is wrong. Ryu Kaze 17:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The very issue and implementation of the templates is biased in and of itself. The long-time stance of spoiler tags and the vast and uncontrolled introdution aross articles is a a very unbalanced view of the topic. -Randall Brackett 17:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But that's just your opinion. If you want to get comments from other people, then you shouldn't start out by poisoning the well with multiple pages of complaints about the current system. There is no conclusion currently that anything is wrong with these templates. Johntex\talk 17:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • John, I doubt anyone would object if you wrote up a section on Spoiler warnings may be expected by readers. I certainly wouldn't, and I think it's an issue that may require discussion. Hiding Talk 18:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • No one would object, no. I'd think it wouldn't make much sense since by placing it up there as an issue you'd be saying there was something wrong with people expecting that, but if you want to do it, feel free. Again, the fact that these are the issues means that there's a belief that something is wrong and those details up there are identifying what is believed to be wrong. Ryu Kaze 18:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Um, can't follow your reasoning here. Presenting arguments at an RFC is supposed to be done in a neutral manner, there shouldn't be a presupposition that all issues inherently imply a flaw. Could you clarify your reasoning for me. You seem to be presenting a bias as to what this RFC is for. Hiding Talk 18:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Sorry. I'm saying that in light of the status quo (spoiler tags present), an issue with that implies the belief that something's wrong with it. It probably has to do with what you're using as your point of reference, I guess. If your point of reference is the status quo in this case (the one I assumed we were going by, but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong), an issue is that something's to be changed about it. After all, if we thought the status quo was fine, it wouldn't be the point of reference for an issue, right?
        • Anyway, use whatever point of reference you want and present whatever you'd like at the top, John. If you want to add something else to the issues, feel free, but given that the argument of something like "Spoiler warnings may be expected by readers" is more of a counterpoint to the other issues, it would make more sense to put it there. It would also keep things organized, hopefully. But, again, do what you wish. No one will object. Ryu Kaze 18:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • I would think the RFC starts from the premise that the nature and usage of spoiler tags is in dispute, and allow arguments to be presented from any point of view within that framework. That's presenting an issue from a neutral stance. The central issue is that the nature and usage of spoiler tags is disputed, there is currently no status quo, and it is arguable what the status quo is. Hiding Talk 18:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • Basically, the status quo was dismantled once RfC began and we're trying to establish what it is then? Fair enough. Ryu Kaze 18:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • Well, the status quo was dismantled when the disputed tag was placed on Wikipedia:Spoiler warning, but yes, that's the broad point, we're here trying to work out where the consensus lies, and all voices should be heard as equals for the community to decide. Hiding Talk 18:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A proposed template wording avoiding the phrase spoiler[edit]

There seems to be some consensus for avoiing the word spoiler in any warning. Perhaps instead we should amend the template, or create an alternative to read Plot details follow which may spoil enjoyment of the work. Any thoughts? Hiding Talk 18:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The meaning in "Spoiler warning: plot and/or ending details follow" and "Plot details follow which may spoil enjoyment of the work" is exactly the same. The new one's only more straightforward in its presumptuousness. Ryu Kaze 18:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about it is presumptuous? Hiding Talk 19:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The notion that knowing plot details in advance spoils/ruins a work of fiction. It's based on the editor's POV. That's been one of the main issues at stake here. And this one's even more obviously a warning, really, as it spells out what "spoilers" means. Ryu Kaze 19:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So then it's equally presumptuous that knowing plot details in advance would not spoil/ruin a work of fiction, and is equally based on the editor's POV. Best if we end this circular argument here and work out where the consensus lies. Hiding Talk 19:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about
Look good? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Personally, I find the grey bars too intrusive. Hiding Talk 19:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks Hipocrite for the suggestion. I think it is "not bad", but I like the existing one better. Johntex\talk 19:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think Hipocrite's suggestion looks pretty good, I'd support it. -- Ned Scott 21:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given that it links to the spoiler warning page, it's just another example of the same thing with a different face. Same opinion as before, consequently. Ryu Kaze 21:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't say it wasn't, it's just "toned down". Incase you haven't noticed by now, I'm for the inclusions of these tags, so I'm not sure why you are pointing that out to me. -- Ned Scott 22:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wasn't. I had just been responding to some things you said previously a few minutes earlier, in which I used colons to space my text beneath yours. As such, I did so when I got down here instead of thinking to hit the asterik instead. Just like you did when offering your input to Hipocrite, apparently. Ryu Kaze 22:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Guy6s, perhaps you'd prefer to discuss this issue on your individual talk pages rather than bloat this section overly. Hiding Talk 22:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was addressing Hipocrite, not Ned. Ryu Kaze 22:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The phrase "may spoil enjoyment of the work" is terribly POV. Pass. Hypocrite's version is much better but to be honest the current version is fine. The term "spoiler" has joined the words "blog" and "ipod" in the lexicon of the year 2006. Get used to it is what I suggest. 23skidoo 03:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, "spoiler" is an older word that is found, in this meaning/sense, in paper dictionaries as early as 1992(?). In any case, it's older than "blog" and "ipod", even if those are SO last year. :-) --GunnarRene 04:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, and when I think about it, we don't want people to start tagging all plot details, just ones that are considered spoilers. hmmm.. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I remember the subject header "NO SPOILERS PLEASE" from the Prodigy online service in 1991-1992. The whole point of the thing is that some readers want to find out about some aspects of a fictional work, while avoiding details the readers themselves feel might spoil their enjoyment. A spoiler notice accommodates people with that preference, and does not attempt to dissuade others from reading the material. Taking the words "spoiler" and "warning" out of the notice probably makes this even more true. As for overuse, I agree that this is a problem. I've seen them on so many innocuous plot descriptions that I thought I was "supposed to" include them pretty much all the time. I think from now on I'll use them sparingly - but if someone wants to add one, I probably won't object. Karen 06:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May contain nuts[edit]

This article discussing a fictional work may contain plot details

This could go across all fictional articles. It's similar to the may contain nuts approach on food labels. Hiding Talk 11:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like it, but I'd prefer it if it could go at the top of sections rather than articles. That would be more flexible and less likely to deter readers, but it wouldn't disrupt the flow of text in the way that the current template sometimes does. RobbieG 12:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An adaptation for sections:

This section discusses a fictional work and contains plot details

This would be more specific, but still refrain from attempting to define what actually is a spoiler, and so could be used for all article sections to which it applies. Hiding Talk 12:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like these two templates, and I am tempted to use them anyway, as it seems there is precious little consensus around here. For the record, I refuse to use any template that mangles the English language by using the "and/or" phrase. Carcharoth 13:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I truly dislike the "post it everywhere" approach. Unless the template is only used rarely, it is better used in the general disclaimer. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with Hipocrite. -Randall Brackett 15:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like them. Randall Brackett, I'm surprised, since you're so worried about not infringing the NPOV policy, that you are so willing to discriminate between which plot details are spoilers and which aren't. RobbieG 15:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concured with Hipocrite's comment, not the implementation of templates. -Randall Brackett 15:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think to hone in on what Randall believes, and correct me if I'm wrong, that he wants the template gone completly, and regardless, it's massivly overused. I want the template to stay, but think it is massivly overused. The crossover you see is that we both think it's massivly overused - a point that I think has wide agreement. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my view, "dicusses a fictional work" is superfluous in section headings because plot only apperas in fictional works. --GunnarRene 15:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There might be another type of spoiler: Taped "reality" and game shows on TV, where information is leaked by contestants or audience. But that only lasts untill the episode has aired, while fiction spoilers last longer (or forever). I think we'll stick with spoilers on fiction only.--GunnarRene 13:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry Randall Brackett, I guess I got the wrong end of the stick there. I feel inclined to agree with GunnarRene, except that sometimes plot details are given for a work that is not the subject of the article itself. Then the template could read:
This section discusses [insert name of fictional work here] and contains plot details
Any good? RobbieG 15:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see how the organization of using appropriate headers doesn't get the job done. I think the template is incredibly lazy and encourages users to not make good arrangement in articles as should normally be done.
We should discuss upon making our MOS style guidelines for organization stronger, not using a silly template to sugar coat stuff. -Randall Brackett 15:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but that's pretty restrictive. In fact, I'd go as far as to call it censorship. This template avoids that. RobbieG 15:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree. I've no idea how its censorship to make our standards of construction higher. -Randall Brackett 16:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's censorship to say "You can't write that there, it's got plot details, put it in the plot section of the relevant article" when plot information can often be notable outside of such sections. For example, a certain Internet meme gives away the plot of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, but information about the said meme is not appropriate for the plot section of the Harry Potter 6 article. To exclude that information on those grounds is censorship. RobbieG 16:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're using a strawman argument. I didn't even raise that point. No-one has raised that point against spoiler tags, looking about the rfc. -Randall Brackett 16:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry. I must have misunderstood your comment. Please assume good faith, and please don't call my argument a strawman, it isn't supposed to be. It was just a mistake, for which I'm genuinely sorry. I must have just grasped the wrong end of the stick again. Could you please explain to me what you are actually suggesting? Thanks, RobbieG 16:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the previous discussion, it was suggested that plot details should be kept inside a "Plot details" or "Plot" section. So that is not a strawman. Perhaps he was referring to something else?--GunnarRene 16:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm merely saying we remove spoiler tags and focus on improving the organization, quality and prose of the encyclopedia itself, rather than that of worrying how a random passerby might die from learning something new. I also think its redundant to an appropriate header. -Randall Brackett 16:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't think this proposal states that all sections containing plot have to be labelled "plot details", but that they should be headed with terms that identify their nature, so in the internet meme and Harry Potter example, a header stating "The crucial plot detail revealed" could be thought to be enough. What's being asked for with this suggestion is that where it's possible to avoid using the template through well written headers, let's do so. I don't think a section in Hansel and Gretel titled "Summation of the story" needs spoiler templates, does it? Let's try and work out guidance which best suits the nature of the text rather than one size fits all. Hiding Talk 13:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obviously, if the template read "This section may contain plot details", it would be redundant under a heading such as "Story", "Plot summary", etc. But it would be useful in other situations, like the Harry Potter example. RobbieG 07:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What does "Always use spoilers mean"?[edit]

This comment is being made a lot to oppose the case by case argument, and could people just clarify what it means. Should a spoiler template be inserted in every sdingle article? Because I can't see what it means if it doesn't, and yet I can't believe it means use them in every single article. So could people outline what they mean, as their opposition to the point isn't clear. Should the article on the United States have a spoiler template? I know this seems like I'm being facile, but I'm not. We need to get a good idea of what people think constitutes a spoiler, so that we can work out what we all agree is definitely a plot detail that needs a template. Hiding Talk 11:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhpas not facile, but perhaps facetious? I'm not sure what they mean. I think it means one of two things: 1: Allways include plot/ending details, or 2: Allways enclose plot details in spoiler tags. The only non-fiction content that I know some people don't want to have "spoiled" are sports events that they record for watching a few hours later, but these people make a concious effort not to watch/read news untill they've watched it. See also Spoiler (media). --GunnarRene 12:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My point is that if we are hoping to build a consensus here we need to explain our opinions, and yes, it would be nice to know which of your two ideas they mean. That I conveyed it with humour is surely a good thing. Hiding Talk 12:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Searching the text here, I see thay say "Always have the tags", which means 2 above, instead of re-starting the discussion on a case-by-case basis. That wasn't so hard to understand. --GunnarRene 12:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, but I'd like that clarified by people making such comments. I notice your own vote in that section seems to argue for case by case and yet opposes it, so I'm getting rather confused tracking what people mean. I apologise if you find my confusion frustrating, I'm not going out of my way to be difficult here, I'm simply trying to engage people in discussion to build consensus. Hiding Talk 12:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The comment means that on every article where plot details are disclosed, sploier tags are necisary. Tobyk777 22:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please lose the "and/or" bit from any templates[edit]

While there are a lots of eyeballs looking this way, I'll bring up a personal bugbear of mine. I hate the use of the phrase "and/or" in the template. It is jarring and unprofessional. The Wikipedia manual of style says not to use such and/or constructions in the articles (see WP:MoS#Slashes), so why has it been allowed in a widely used template? Carcharoth 13:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very good question. I suggest, since it looks likely that we're going to end up changing the template, any new one avoids this clumsy construction. RobbieG 15:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where to use spoilers[edit]

Again, since a lot of people seem to be reading this page at the moment, I'd like to point out some cases where I have had plot points spoilt on talk pages and in other places. To my mind, spoiler tags are much better used on talk pages, as they are much more like the discussion forums where such spoiler tags first arose. I would expect to find spoilers in the articles (and so don't need spoilers tags there), but I find it easier to inadvertently stumble across a spoiler on a talk page. This is why in this edit I added the spoiler tag at the top of this talk page (there is currently a Superman Returns spoiler on this page), though maybe I should have put the tag in a more precise location. Hopefully that will explain things to the editor who removed the tag with this edit summary. I also take umbrage that this editor responded to my "no - seriously - this page DOES contain spoilers!" edit summary with: "rm stupid tag. I presum someone is attempting to be funny." thus showing that there was no attempt to assume good faith or even an attempt to look through the page history for the edit summary explaining the addition of the tag.

The other case where I encountered a spoiler was in the non-visible tags that are sometimes placed on article pages, but which are visible when you click "edit this page". For a discussion of this issue (and it involves Harry Potter spoilers), see here. In some very real sense, this raises the question that editors could use spoiler tags to restrict editing to only those editors who have read the latest books in a series. That can't be right. Carcharoth 13:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That sounds sensible. My apologies, I presumed it a jest similar to Template talk:Spoiler. I agree spoiler warnings are more appropriate in discussions. -Randall Brackett 13:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I moved the spoiler template to where spoilers occur. I think editors should be able to take part in discussion with at least some of the spoilers tagged.--GunnarRene 15:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, GunnarRene, and apology accepted, Randall Brackett. Another point, which I didn't make above, was that by their nature, discussions range over a wide range of topics, and the subject can change quite quickly (less so than in a single encyclopedia article, though browsing an encyclopedia can replicate the shifting topics found in a discussion), hence it is easier for a spoiler to suddenly appear - hence the rise of spoiler tags in (I think) Usenet. Carcharoth 16:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but wikiepdia articles are not discussion. They are mediums through which to obtain knowledge. Not close encounters of 'what happens'. -Randall Brackett 16:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. I don't like spoiler tags in articles any more than you do. Carcharoth 17:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I find the addition of the tag underlines the problem here though, since if the plot point is spoilage it undercuts Ned's point that it isn't, and it also undercuts the point that spoiler warnings are used in other media. The detail revealed wasn't tagged in the article, a critical review, so I'm not sure it should be on Wikipedia. I'm not going to revert the tag, but I really think this is an issue which causes edit wars because the templates are so intrusive. I think it can be quite an emotive issue. Hiding Talk 19:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's why I think it would be preferable to avoid using the term "spoiler warning" because it isn't NPOV. I'd prefer something like

This section contains plot details

That could be placed above all plot details indiscriminately, thus avoiding bias. RobbieG 21:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jimbo's suggestion is similar - he believes a header simply called "Plot details" would be more appropriate. I agree in the sense it achieves the same goal. This template is entirely redundant. -Randall Brackett 21:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, but as I said above, that's way too restrictive. I'd say it was censorship. If an article on Internet memes wants to mention a certain plot detail from Harry Potter 6 as it's a popular meme, we should allow it to, not confine that info to the Harry Potter plot details section, where it doesn't belong. This proposed template would avoid that problem. In a sense, it would be just a label. RobbieG 21:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've nothing to do with that; I didn't even arrive at the idea of restriciting such data to one section. That's another reason for deleting this trash in my view. Editors seem to believe they dictate organization and construction in wikipedia. -Randall Brackett 21:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And yet you maintain that the "Plot details" heading is all that is needed? That doesn't make sense. We should be allowed to put plot details elsewhere, and that's where these templates would be helpful. I get the point that you find the whole concept of spoiler warnings ridiculous, but there are many others who do not share this view, as evidenced above. RobbieG 21:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

for instance, here's a page I'm heavily involved in where we have it wrapped around not just plot, but also themes and cast, because some of the details discussed in the latter two could potentially ruin particular episodes. One in particular is the minor character Saffron -- if you read about her, the episode she appears in would be completely ruined as it's the huge twist for that episode and is what defines that episode. -plange 22:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm utterly baffled as to how a "plot details" section is any more restrictive than having to stuff spoilers in between spoiler tags. These little "spoiler sections" seem far more restrictive. Plot sections would at least match the look of rest of the 'pedia. AMHR285 (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's because a "Plot" or "Plot details" section is offered as a save-all that would do away for the perceived usefulness of spoiler tags in all cases (i.e. plot details discussed only in that section). There can only be one plot details section in the article, while one spoiler tag can cover several sections, or many spoiler tags can be used in the same article to cover different sections or subsections (or paragraphs, that's another discussion). The point being that if an editor wants to illustrate something with a potential "spoiler" elsewhere in the article, or even in an article about a different fictional work, then with the tags the editor could go ahead and do it with tags, while with the "every plot detail in Plot details" solution, the editor would be restricted to discuss plot details in the "Plot details" section of the work's article. --GunnarRene 01:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, it's an even better solution if we all just acknowledge that relevant information goes where relevant information belongs. But that won't happen, I guess. Ryu Kaze 01:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Spoiler tags don't exclude that relevant information goes where relevant information belongs. If more spoilers are relevant, the editors can include them and just expand the area covered by the tag from a single section or paragraphs, through multiple paragraphs, until the entire article except for the first sentence of the summary ("X is a character in [work Y] by Z") is covered by a spoiler tag. In most cases so much of the article wouldn't need coverage. Perhaps only some subsections of the plot sections, a few parts of cultural influences and reception, maybe. --GunnarRene 02:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A partial solution could be to say that spoiler tags are un-needed in the plot section of a work itself, but would be used outside plot sections or outside the work's article. A minor point against that is a possible lack a way to separate between general plot setting and its details (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/ArticleTemplate for example)) . --GunnarRene 01:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure where to start. Ok, first, I think "these little spoiler sections" are far less restrictive, and that's how I've been using them myself. We shouldn't be deciding things here based on how to use something badly. Also, for crying out loud, Ryu, Randell, don't be a dick. Insulting the people who you are trying to convince is not the best way to win a debate. -- Ned Scott 23:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please stop citing "dick" for everything you don't like to hear. Your declarence to cite it so numerously against editors with good intent is mortifying. Anymore and it constitues a personal attack. Stop. -Randall Brackett 23:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know, it's actually helpful advice if you were to listen to it, because, well, you are being a dick. And I've only cited it against you and Ryu. If someone asks someone to not be so disrespectful to other people's views, and that someone doesn't listen, you are saying that telling them again is.. wrong? And as I said, this helps you:
"Generally speaking, if you are being a dick, the likelihood that whatever point you are trying to make (or whatever you're doing) will reach the ears of your intended audience damatically diminishes. Why? Simple: no one likes listening to dicks, no matter how correct or in the right they are, and dicks often offend their listeners."
Statements such as "Of course, it's an even better solution if we all just acknowledge that relevant information goes where relevant information belongs. But that won't happen, I guess." and "That's another reason for deleting this trash in my view." are examples of being a dick. Note it even says that it doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, you're still being a dick.
If you wish, I'll use another word or find another essay that says the same thing, but it won't make you any less of a dick. -- Ned Scott 00:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've already acknowledged that I have had full intentions of being what some would consider a heartless bastard or a jackass because I'd ignore courtesies in favor of strict adherence to the encyclopedia's mission and its associated principles, so I'm not going to be heartbroken if you consider me a dick, Ned. You know this.
And, really, I personally don't care how someone delivers a statement if they were right. If they're being a fabulous bastard at the time, then all the better. Ryu Kaze 00:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Warning us ahead of time that you intend to behave badly is no excuse for behaving badly. Please be more courteous and avoid the sarcastic statements. Johntex\talk 00:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Never said I intended to behave badly. Just said I intended to be what the majority of you were going to consider a jackass (the one who goes against the majority tends to get this title) because I don't put courtesies before the concepts involved in building an encyclopedia. You guys might consider that behaving badly, but please be aware that I think the same of your stance. As I've said before, this goes back to what we value more, upholding the spirit and letter of a concept without exception or making exceptions for courtesy's sake. I don't doubt that the majority here considers me the black hat, but that in itself is POV, eh? Now, can we please return to the subject of spoiler tags? Ryu Kaze 00:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll modify my statement then. Warning us ahead of time that you intend to behave in a way that most poeple would consider to be bad behaviour is no excuse for engaging in such behavior. Please be more courteous and avoid the sarcastic statements. You ask to return to the subject of spoiler tags. Will you be more civil when we do so? Johntex\talk 01:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it means that much to you, I'll maintain my stance of the resident jackass while trying not to include so much of his usual form of expression. Good enough? Ryu Kaze 01:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I understnad you correctly, yes that would be good enough for me. Thank you. Johntex\talk 01:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Welcome. Ryu Kaze 01:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ryu, that is simply not acceptable. I should not have to explain this. We're trying to address issues, not piss people off. If you really want to continue to be our resident jackass then it'll probably get you blocked from the discussion from an admin. -- Ned Scott 02:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because disagreeing with you is a totally bannable offense? What? Ryu Kaze 02:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure you understood what "resident jackass" means. Ryu Kaze 02:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This has nothing to do disagreeing with me or not, your behavior at this point is unacceptable. The talk box at the top of the discussion page contains links that will fully explain this to you, if you wish to read them. -- Ned Scott 02:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Near as I can tell, you're the only one trying to make an issue here, mate. It's not just my attitude that's getting some limelight, if you follow me. Now if you haven't already come to understand that what I said is the guy who goes against the majority is the one typically labeled a jackass, and that I fully intend to remain as such given the current leaning of the majority, perhaps you will now get it. Johntex seemed to have understood it just fine and I have agreed to — as much as it may pain me — honor his request of sugar coating my messages. Now, I have to ask, why are you seeking a battle? Given that you guys seem to have issue more with how I express myself than what I am expressing, you don't have anything to be complaining about at the moment. Now will you please allow me to keep my word to Johntex (which I have been doing successfully so far)? Ryu Kaze 03:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At least three of us have commented on the way you present your case, Ryu, so to try to paint this as being Ned's issue is incorrect to say the least. CovenantD 03:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I won't say that this sarcasm isn't a little bit tiresome, especially when it seems to be missing the point of other people's arguments; however, I don't think these personal attacks are in any way justified. Ryu Kaze, for example, does not strike me as being a particularly bad-tempered editor, or at least, no more so than several others I could mention. As I see it, the only times when Ryu's behaviour has overstepped the mark between what is acceptable and what is offensive is when he has been the victim of an unfair personal attack, in which cases his responses were surely justified! Ned Scott, and others, please do not be so easily offended. Thank you. RobbieG 07:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Robbie, though I think there were a couple of times where I was sarcastic prior to being provoked. In any event, CovenantD, you seem to have quite misunderstood what I was saying: this is the present, not the past. Johntex and I discussed the issue and I gave him my word that I was going to sugar coat my messages for the sake of those who take offense to my unceremoniously honest presentations. I was staying in accordance with this agreement. I have done so. Yet I'm still receiving complaints. This is going to be my last response on the issue, because I'm quite tired of this off-topic irrelevance, especially given that complaints are being issued after you've already received what you asked for. If you don't notice that this message is unnaturally nice (for me), then you really need to take a step back and look at it again. Now please drop it and focus on the purpose of this RfC. Ryu Kaze 12:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A stab at summation so far[edit]

  • Is it fair to say there are three schools of thought on this? That the general disclaimer and well written headers are enough; that they aren't and a template to sit above a section is desired; and that they arent enough and the text itself should be wrapped in a template?
  • Would it therefore be an idea to look at discussing the pros and cons of the three approaches and try and build some guidance on what to use and when? It could be that a number of approaches could be included in the guideline depending on the situation. Hiding Talk 19:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's still early in the RfC, lets just watch some more comments come in. -- Ned Scott 19:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • What do you mean by wrapping in templates? Is it related to this: Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/Guideline status2#Hiding spoilers and warnings with code? (Hiding the spoiler content itself was not brought forward into to this RfC, only whether or not to hide the tags/templates.) Or are you talking about the difference between using spoiler templates per section or per paragraph? If you mean the latter, then I think that is something rather minor, that may have to wait until the tags/no tags debate has receeded. The examples on the RfC front page show both ways of using them. --GunnarRene 19:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I've seen instances where the tags are inserted into the flow of a paragraph, you know, spoiler begins here and spoiler ends here, that's kind of what I was referring to. From my point of view, that's a style that shouldn't be used, it's far too intrusive. I'm also not convinced the tag or no tag argumetn can be resolved. I'm wondering if we should build guidance asserting that both styles are acceptable - either well written headers are used or the tags are used. Hiding Talk 19:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I see. If there's to be no hiding of the actual spoiler content, then parhaps what you suggest would be workable. --GunnarRene 20:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment on RobbieG's position[edit]

It seems to me you are advocating a general template on the top of all fictional articles, something like "This article discussing a fictional work may contain plot details". I would be perfectly happy to support that. Hiding Talk 11:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That would be a reasonable suggestion, yes. The only thing I would object to there is that we already have a spoiler warning template which can be inserted wherever it's appropriate, which is more flexible. I would say that there is no need to label "Joe Bloggs directed this movie" as a spoiler, or even arguably "this film is set in outer space", but if we say "The scene in which Joe kills John in the sixth book was the origin of a controversial Internet meme" that is a spoiler, even though it's not part of the plot section. RobbieG 11:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But then we descend into POV over what constitutes a spoiler. Far better to simply tag all fictional articles as potentially containing plot details, in a manner similar to food products being labelled with may contain nuts. I'm not sure I understand your position at all. You seem to want spoiler warnings on everything you consider spoilage, which to my mind can't work. Hiding Talk 11:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's why I think we can only make real progress here once we've settled on a widely-accepted definition of the term "spoiler". What I'm saying is that things that obviously don't tell you about the plot are not spoilers, but anything that does is. If we start saying "Oh, this is not a spoiler 'cause everyone knows it's his sled", we are being biased. Also, just to clarify, I think a spoiler warning at the top of every page would work, but I'd be concerned that people might be put off by it. I might look at a page about a fictional work (A) that contains a spoiler because I want to find information unrelated to plot (A). Or I might look at an article about a different work (B) or a real-life subject and be annoyed by the presence of an unexpected spoiler for work (A). You see my point, right? RobbieG 11:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So would a template on the section help, similar to the above? I think it's the insertion of the templates into the flow of the text which makes us look somewhat unprofessional, and also leads to disputes over what constitutes spoilage. Hiding Talk 12:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it could be inserted at the start of sections rather than pages, then yes. In fact, I think that's possibly my favourite suggestion anyone has made so far. I'd certainly be supportive of that. RobbieG 12:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I don't think we should be having comments areas on people's positions within their comment sections (the idea was to avoid discussion tornados like we had before), I do want to say one thing since Hiding has made one here: Robbie, of course it's POV that spoiler warnings should be deleted. It's also POV that they shouldn't be. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the NPOV policy, which is related to information that is placed in articles. Ryu Kaze 12:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I understand that, but couldn't one argue that an article did contain bias if it included spoilers without warning?
Sorry, I think I basically encouraged people to comment here. I didn't realise that was wrong. My bad. RobbieG 12:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robbie, I appreciate your view, but with regard to your POV argument, you seem to be operating under the assumption that there is a concrete, NPOV definition of the term "spoiler" which includes all plot information. I disagree here. Most dictionary definitions I can find refer to a spoiler as a published piece of information that reveals a "surprise or a plot twist" in a work of fiction. I don't believe one can really argue all plot information in any fictional source is intended as a surprise. To borrow your example, the fact that The Little Engine That Could saves the day in the end is obviously not intended to be incredibly surprising: it's printed on the back cover synopsis of almost every edition, and the image from the page in which it saves the day is also the cover image. To presume that all information in a story should be a secret from the reader/viewer at the time they pick up a work of fiction is POV-pushing -- it pushes the POV that anything other than complete ignorance of the story from the time you read a book or see a movie is a less enjoyable, less pure experience -- in other words, that it "spoils" the experience. By contrast, not making any statement about what does or doesn't "spoil" the story is not POV. If I placed a tag in an article saying "plot information follows, but it won't ruin anything for you if you know about it advance" that would be POV, but not saying anything about the subject of what information "spoils" a story is perfectly neutral. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 13:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lee, sounds to me like you would be in favor of a better guideline of when to use the tag-- just because some people overuse it doesn't mean we should get rid of it altogether-- to borrow a hackneyed expression, that's throwing the baby out with the bath water. We should perhaps instead give guidelines on best usage. Not having a spoiler tag on Usual Suspects or Sixth Sense would generate tons of screaming at editors on talk pages....plange 19:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would be in favor of a better guideline as a compromise position. I still think that the most NPOV option, however, is skipping the warnings altogether, and since many other academic sources don't have the slightest reservation about "spoiling" stories, that's an option that's entirely open to us. As for the baby/bathwater thing, I may stand alone on this one, but I do think the value of the "baby" in this case is vastly inflated. In any case, if we could find a way to keep it down to the truly "secret" plot information, that would make a difference. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 21:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I get what you're saying. I was just presenting my own POV. Also, I would like to emphasise that there's probably a definition of "spoiler" that we could all agree on, we just haven't found it yet. My second definition I suggested did actually say that information on the blurb might be exempt. The problem here is that some blurbs (for example the Samuel French edition of Blue Remembered Hills) contain very definite spoilers. Actually, I think it would be better if we avoided the use of the word "spoiler" all together, as the meaning seems to be ambiguous.
Regarding my argument that excluding spoilers is itself biased, I do still think that excluding the warning does promote a POV. However, that isn't my main argument, and I wish people would pay more attention to the other, more serious arguments I have put forward here, rather than jumping on every flaw as though it somehow makes the rest less relevant. RobbieG 14:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More thoughts on what a spoiler is[edit]

At first I thought the idea of coming up with examples of spoilers and working out what is really a spoiler and what isn't was a silly idea. But the more examples I look at, the more I realise that sometimes you really can tell what a spoiler is, though it is difficult to put into words.

I agree that "secret" plot twists (such as "who did it", and the Sixth Sense example) are worthy of spoilers. At the other extreme, you have events that are widely known, such as the fate of the Titanic (I'm talking here about spoilers for the movie, not the historical article, obviously), or the title kind of gives it away "The Little Engine That Could", for example. And inbetween, you have a spectrum of other possibilities.

One thing that did strike me though was that the blurb written on the back of many books gives away more of the plot than Wikipedia does. There are even some books where the author gives away plot details near the beginning, or the foreshadowing of events is an integral part of the style. The examples I am talking about here are The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion by J. R. R. Tolkien. In the prologue to LotR, the basic outcome is given away to the reader. The same happens to varying degrees in The Silmarillion.

In other words, a lot of this should be done on a case-by-case basis, but I would suggest that the onus be on those using spoiler tags to justify them. They have to say why this really is a spoiler.

In the case of the Sixth Sense, the fact that the ending is a spoiler should actually be mentioned in the article. Something in the lead section should say that "The film ends with a surprise twist that casts the film in a new light. A full appreciation of this <insert technical term here> can only be obtained by watching the film without previous knowledge of the ending. Those who have had the ending revealed to them are said to have had the ending spoiled for them."

Then just use variants of the above in articles with major spoilers. Carcharoth 22:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Silmarillion isn't really presented in the style of a story, but as a collection of "myths". Therefore, I doubt Tolkein ever considered it possible to spoil. RobbieG 22:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The film American Beauty would be another example of what you're referring to I think. If I'm remembering right, I believe there was some discussion a while back at that article over whether the fact that a certain character dies is a spoiler, even when that character tells us he's going to die in a voice-over in probably the first 90 seconds of the film (it may even be the first line -- I can't recall). I don't think a single review was written at the time which didn't mention this character's death, so I'd pretty much call it "not a spoiler", although it is technically the "ending" of the film (it just happens to be the beginning as well). Are cases like this really a good example of why we should evaluate case by case, though? It would seem a guideline/style guide could easilly offer a rule of thumb about similar situations (ie, when the ending is obviously not a secret) -- Lee Bailey(talk) 01:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My all-time most memorable spoiler situation had to do with LotR, actually. When I was first reading it, my then-boyfriend told me how his friend had spoiled it for him by saying, "Is (character x) dead yet?" And I hadn't gotten to that bit myself! As for The Sixth Sense, if I'd read that there was a major plot twist at the end, I'd have spent the film trying to figure it out - which would have been detrimental to my enjoyment. Better to have a spoiler notice that doesn't flag a particular aspect of the story. I certainly agree with the Titanic example, though. Karen 01:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to disagree here. Virtually every box cover or movie review will mention when a film has a twist ending. I'm pretty sure most people don't think saying "there's a twist at the end" constitutes a spoiler. This is partially why I'd prefer to see the tags not used at all; using them paves the way for other editors to come along and start saying they find other things to be potentially ruinous to their enjoyment. It's really tempting for nice people to want to bow to these requests out of courtesy, but the more we use these tags, the more collateral damage they can potentially do it terms of prose quality, page layout, information exclusion, and general drain on community resources. I'm not trying to pick on your specific concern, Karen, I just think it illustrates that what constistutes a spoiler can be quite subjective indeed. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 01:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Carcharoth brings up some interesting points, and I think his suggestion of simply including the existence of a surprising plot twist in the prose is a good one. If we can say something in normal English, there's no need to use artificial tags. It might even make for better article prose overall, having editors forced to think through why this and that is surprising and how to describe it in normal English. (Just as expanding on a trivia list at the end of many articles is so popular since it's so easy to do, it usually makes for a better article if the editor invests some time in reading the article and try to include the fact in normal prose in its right context.) And often there aren't really any big surprises in a story, and the straight forward plot is all there is to it. Then the "Plot" section header should be enough imo. For, as has been said, who's to say that knowing the plot in a particular case is spoiling a movie/book/play? Does having read the LOTR plot (i.e. the book) spoil seeing the movies? Does knowing in detail the life of Oskar Schindler spoil Schindler's List? I don't think so, quite the opposite, actually. But people will disagree. While some will say that "you have to know this and that before seing this movie" others might prefer to not know anything, not even basic historical facts. This disagreement can also be included in the text with citations. And then we aren't taking side by using a specific tag. But if there undoubtedly is a big plot twist, like many examples mentioned here, describe it as such in normal English. The bigger and more important the twist, the more words we can defend using, maybe even a separate section discussing only the plot surprise, with the section named as such "The big plot surprise", or something. And let it be up to the reader if he wants to continue reading. Shanes 04:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure if I totally agree on this. Like what Karen said, you can spoil by saying what kind of spoil it is. In the end, I think it comes down to context. I think anything that forces the editor to actually think more about each spoiler and if it really is a spoiler is a good idea, for that reason alone. Though, we kind of already have this with ((spoiler-about)) and ((spoiler-blank)). I think things like "this is a spoiler for season 5 of blahblah show" would be acceptable, as well as other things that Carcharoth mentioned. Being less generic would likely cut down on how much people use the tag, since so many put spoiler tags on sections that mention the plot but might not actually contain spoilers. I also think it's possible to tell information that might be seen as a spoiler, but if out of context means nothing to the reader. I think this idea is worth looking into. -- Ned Scott 07:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But the movie Titanic has a fictional subplot with two characters, so the spoiler tags are still needed, at least when covering what happened to Jack and Rose. United 93 also has spoiler tags as well, specifically for the ending, since it isn't quite true to the 9/11 Commission's story. Hbdragon88 16:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think his argument went more towards the fate of the boat itself (which, I agree with, is not what I would call a spoiler) as opposed to the fates of individual fictional characters (which, again, I agree, is a spoiler).Darquis 17:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The off-by-default compromise revisited[edit]

...been thinking about this a lot, and I think the optional spoiler warnings off-by-default option is still probably the best compromise position, in terms of potentially being acceptable to the widest number of editors. I've noticed, however, it's got a lot of oppose votes above based on the idea the tags would be pointless if off by default. So, by way of compromise yet again, how would people feel about something like what I've attempted to illustrate here [6] ?

By default, one "warning" message only appears at the top of any article with tagged spoilers. This message gives the reader the option to switch the normal warnings ON for the article without being logged in. In theory, logged-in editors could set a preference somewhere to always show spoiler warnings, never show spoiler warnings, or use the default and go by a case by case basis. I believe this would be technically possible to implement. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 23:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That would be acceptable to me. I can even see the message being tweaked to be less intrusive. -- Ned Scott 23:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The exact level of prominence could be debated. The graphic I've offered is just to show the idea -- it's not my exact recommendation of wording, font size, color, or any such thing, and is not binding in a court of law. :) -- Lee Bailey(talk) 00:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like this idea. Can you get a working example that we can click and play around with? Carcharoth 00:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After mucking around in the sandbox a bit, I'm not sure I could demo this easily, but I believe it would be possible for a developer to achieve by playing with the CSS, altering the tag's div class to "display:none" using a variable or even a separate skin. Without access to variables, the best I could do would be to create a version that was dependant on there actually being two different versions of the example article... would that still be useful?-- Lee Bailey(talk) 02:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I appreciate the creative suggestion, but it doesn't change my opposition. I think Spoiler warning should be "on" by default. Johntex\talk 00:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like the wording, Lee, and if this banner would appear on every article — whether they had spoilers or not — and with that exact wording, I'd support it. Would that be acceptable to everyone? Ryu Kaze 00:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It might be confusing if it's on an article without spoiler tags, since when the reader clicked on it nothing would happen. -- Ned Scott 00:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They shouldn't be confused. The wording is "may contain spoilers". There's no guarantee that it does. Readers could just take the extra measure if they wanted to. And, really, it should be utilized such that turning it on at one article would turn it on for every article for that user.
Anyway, the important aspect of putting that on every page to me is that all information would be getting the same treament then, which is what I've been wanting to see happen here all along. If every last bit of it's getting the same notice, then any faults I have with it are much less. Ryu Kaze 00:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd be against that. As I've stated before, I do not believe tagging some articles and not others is a POV issue. If an article literally does not have a spoiler tag, then it literally does not have a spoiler tag. -- Ned Scott 00:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd also be against it for the same reason. The tags simply are not a POV issue. - Johntex\talk 00:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whether you or I think spoiler tags are an issue of POV or not has nothing to do with whether or not it's non-impartial to place that kind of notice on one page and not another. That's one of those black and white subjects that even value assumptions play no part in. If all articles get it, that's impartial. If all don't, then it isn't. There's no way around that one. POV has nothing to do with the matter in this case. Ryu Kaze 00:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Since the prevailing opinin (as evidenced by the straw poll above) is that spoiler warnings should be "on by default". Why not reword this template to say "This article contains spoiler warnings. To turn them off - click here"? Johntex\talk 00:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That isn't much of a compromise then. Ryu Kaze 00:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First of all, there is nothing that says we must or should compromise. If consensus is to leave the system alone, then we should do so. Creating a compromise for the sake of compromise would be pure folly. Secondly, it actually would be a compromise if what we do is give the reader a button to turn off the warnings. The reader does not have that now. Johntex\talk 00:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not really. The issues at stake were concerns over the site's integrity and presentation on default. Your concerns — if I've followed you correctly — have all been for the "sake of the readers". With spoiler tags off by default, you guys get your option to "protect" the readers, and we get to be at peace with the notion that the encyclopedia's integrity and professionalism are upheld. That would be a compromise. This is other suggestion is — to me — like saying that matters of integrity and professionalism are secondary.
Even if you don't understand why we see it the way we do and honestly don't care, it's still courteous (there's that word) to seek a solution we can all be happy with. Hell, I'm willing to see your concerns' met with regards to the spoiler tags remaining (even though I'd prefer them gone) so long as ours were. Ryu Kaze 01:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you saying that if consensus is to leave the tags alone that you will not abide by / respect that consensus? Johntex\talk 01:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I don't exactly have the power to oppose whatever happens. Whether Wikipedia is an intended democracy or not, there's no denying that victory tends to favor the majority here. But I guess that doesn't answer your question. My view would certainly be no different. I'd just more or less be in little position to do anything about it. Whether or not you choose to agree to the specific version of the compromise I requested is only the difference between how much gnashing of teeth and argument we see before the RfC is over.
Way I figure it is, if we all agree on something that involves a little give and take (as we seemed to have when the RfC began), things end a lot faster than they otherwise would, and with less animosity to carry away from the matter. It's obvious there will be no agreement on removing the spoiler tags. It's obvious there will be no agreement on things remaining the way they were. So we can either fight some more or we can just find something to be happy with and let it be over. What do you want? Ryu Kaze 01:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, if you wouldn't be happy with spoiler tags not being there by default, then I guess you wouldn't find happiness in the compromise. I just think that my suggestion would be better because everybody gets what they want. You guys get to keep the spoiler tags (you even get a little message at the top of every article about the things) and we get to feel like the encyclopedia's being both professional and ethical. It's not a complete victory for either side, no, but it's co-existance, and that's reason enough to do it. Ryu Kaze 01:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(reset indent) Thanks for the explanation. I disagree that there will be no agreement to keep things the way they are now. The poll on keeping the spoiler tags is currently running at 21 in favor vs 7 opposed. That is pretty strong consensus to keep them the way they are. (Assuming things continue as they are, of course). The strongest consensus of all the polls (again assuming things stay on this track) is the consensus to keep the spoilers on by default (22 to 4). That is why I find it puzzling to put energy against that emerging consensus.
It is also why I suggest that a better potential compromise would be to rework the above template to say:

This article contains spoiler warnings. To turn them off, click here.

Advantages to this are:

  1. Sticks with the emerging consensus on this RfC
  2. Spoilers are on by default, which is good since it is clear that the majority want to have spoiler warnings.
  3. There is no way to "undo" having the article spoiled for you so it makes sense to err on the side of caution not to present spoilers.
  4. People who hate spoiler warnings have to just click once to remove them.

This is a compromise compared to the current situation, since right now you have no way to turn off the spoiler tags. Johntex\talk 01:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Once again, I completely agree with with Johntex. -- Ned Scott 02:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, Johntex. Been away from the page for a bit, playing in the sandbox. In response to your earlier remarks, I thought this idea could be considered a compromise that's between the off-by-default and on-by-default models. One warning is "on" at the top of the page by default; I don't think too many people would have a problem noticing it. Just so I can better understand your position, can you tell me what you don't like about this idea? The reason I don't support "all warnings on by default" is that in any given article, it will be the minority of readers accessing a page who want spoiler warnings in that specific article. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 01:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lee, how do you know it will only be a minority? That's your assumption, but our assumption is the opposite, hence why we think they should be "on" by default (if we go this route). Unless we do some kind of poll of Wiki users we cannot know whether it really is a minority or a majority, but I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption to extrapolate from the number of people who want to keep the tag vs. those who don't that it would be the same. -plange 02:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Plauge: I'm sorry, I think I didn't explain what I meant very well! I didn't mean to say that the minority of editors will support spoiler warnings. What I mean is that if spoilers can be turned on and off for a single user on a single page, most people won't need spoilers to be on most pages most of the time. Say for example, I support the use of spoiler tags. I will still only need spoiler tags for things I haven't seen or read, and then only the ones I care about seeing. A reader who wants spoiler warnings for Spiderman 3 may not care at all about Superman Returns. This way we could keep the advantages to not having spoiler warnings in cases where we don't need them and still have spoiler warnings we want, with a minimum of clicking back and forth. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 02:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does that mean turning tags on at one article would turn them at every article for that user or no? I'm not sure I understood you. Ryu Kaze 02:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The compromise I'm thinking of would accomidate both. The default, logged-out position would be warnings-off, with the option to turn warnings on and off for individual articles. If a logged-in user wanted to turn warnings on or off for all articles, they could have that option as well, by setting "preferences". -- Lee Bailey(talk) 02:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still don't see how it's a compromise. Me seeing the spoiler tags in no way harms me, nor does me turning them off in any way help the image of the encyclopedia as a whole, which is all I'm concerned about. If this weren't an encyclopedia and I weren't considering the princicples of that concept, I'd be right there with you on endorsing spoiler tags. The situation being what it is, though, my only concern is the maintenance of the encyclopedia. At first, even I was vehemently opposed to their removal, but eventually I acknowledged that I understood what the place was when I started working on it.
Again, this particular issue has nothing to do with you or me or people who love the tags or people who hate them. As far as I'm concerned, it has nothing to do with people at all. Yeah, I know encyclopedias are made for people, but even if there weren't any humans in existance, an encyclopedia can still be an encyclopedia. Ryu Kaze 02:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason my proposed compromise constitutes a compromise is because I (and I believe others) are not interested in a way to turn spoiler tags off. I think it is a bother and I'd prefer not to have to deal with it. I'm willing to consider a way to turn them off, but only if they are on by default. Johntex\talk 02:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Guess we won't be able to see eye-to-eye on this. I don't see it as a compromise because my attention is mainly only on preserving a particular concept, and what concern I would lend to people seeing the things is in the light of comparing the encyclopedia's practices to its foundations. Ryu Kaze 02:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally, I'm not convinced there is a real need for "compromise". I'll support one (such as Lee's or a version of that) if there is a need. Spoilers have had to been defended several times in the last few months, I'd like us to have a lasting decision now, not a quick fix. Not that I'm calling the current suggestion one, simply, we shouldn't choose something simply because it's less of a headache, because next month it will just come up again. -- Ned Scott 03:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Johntex, you raise some good points. My take on it is that there seem to be two basic "camps" in disagreement with each other here. One one side, users who protest the use of warnings feel that the tags look unencyclopedic, and that labelling certain information a "spolier" may not be NPOV. The other camp feels that spoiler tags are helpful to the reader,and that the practical benefit of having these tags outweighs the negatives, which are somewhat subjective. I agree that the majority of Wikipedians are probably in the latter category. However, a majority is not a consensus -- there is still a fairly significant minority that disagrees. This is why I attempted to find a compromise.
I assume a "off-by-default" solution makes the most sense not because I want to put the burden on the extra click on people who support spoiler-warnings -- obviously, I see how it makes sense to put that burden on the smaller group. However, because the editors who want to remove the warnings are largely concerned with the appearance of the encyclopedia to readers (ie, appearing professional, promoting a balanced point of view), I don't think a "warnings-on-by-default" solution addresses their concerns at all. Unless I've misevaluated the situation, editors who want the warnings just want them to be available to readers who want warnings. We can satisfy the demands of BOTH groups by asking one extra click from those who want to see the warnings, but not by doing the reverse. I realize you and others are not interested in a way to turn spoilers off, but I believe it is in everyone's interest to find solutions that appeal to the broadest consensus possible, not just the majority. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 03:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would definitely support Lee Bailey's proposal. Whilst I am in favour of spoiler tags, there is no reason why we can't have them switched off by default, and this version of that idea would be perfect, as there would be no way anyone who objects to spoilers can have a work spoiled. If they did, it'd be their own fault so they couldn't complain! Lee Bailey, congratulations. You came up with what could well be the best answer so far. I'd certainly be supportive of this. RobbieG 07:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • While I appreciate the creative thinking, I am opposed to this solution for several reasons. Among them:
  1. Most people who have registered an opinion here want the spolier warnings visible by default.
  2. I think there is less burden (for those who don't care about the warning) to simply scroll past it, than there is to make a click to see the warnings and wait for a page reload.
  3. Since I don't agree there is any merit to the argument that the tags are somehow POV, I don't want to create any sort of precedent that might malign these and potentially other similar tags in the future.
  4. If they are hidden by default, fewer editors might take the time to add them, which I think would be a shame since they are useful.
I have created a new section (below) around the idea that perhaps we can take this idea and turn it around so the warnings are shown by default and the click is used to hide them. Johntex\talk 21:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that the spoiler warnings themselves don't violate NPOV, but I have come to think of the actual term "spoiler warning" as being biased. "Warning" implies it is something you should be concerned about. Definitions of "spoiler" seem to vary greatly, from my definition of any plot details that are not stated on the cover, to the occasional definition that has been put forward implying that a spoiler has to be both recent and largely unexpected. RobbieG 21:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another Alternative[edit]

I generally agree that Lee's idea would reduce the 'unprofessional presentation' complaints of many, but unfortunately it doesn't address my primary concern. Specifially, the problem I have with 'spoiler warnings' is not the tags themselves, but the reshaping of articles caused by the concept. Central facts which would normally be included in the lead are removed to prevent 'spoilage', all 'spoiler' information is concentrated into a single segment in the middle of the article rather than appearing where it would more naturally fit, et cetera. Unfortunately, hiding spoiler tags will not eliminate this problem... there is an inherent difference between writing in an encyclopedic style and writing in a 'spoiler safe' style. On 'the other side' this inherent conflict in goals leads to complaints about 'spoilers outside the spoiler section' or articles not having spoiler warnings (the disagreement over whether Beowulf should have spoiler warnings being a good example).

As such I'd like to suggest another option... same concept of the banner at the top with clickable options and defaults settable somewhere, but instead of turning 'section spoiler tags' on and off it instead turns the spoiler text itself on or off. Write the entire article with no concern whatsoever for spoilers and then go through and mark sections or individual sentences/clauses to not display if spoilers are a concern. By default you get the banner which has an on/off toggle for 'spoiler text' with such defaulted to display just as in Lee's proposal (possibly having a preference setting to default to spoilers hidden). Someone who doesn't care about spoilers at all could set an option to hide the banner itself and thus always see an article written in an encyclopedic organizational style with no banner or tags. We haven't used 'hidden text' for spoilers to date primarily because of concerns about unprofessional appearance and technology issues. I think the first is less of a problem if it is something you have to 'opt into' - and it can help to remove the equally problematic tags. The tech issues could be eliminated entirely with a MediaWiki change, but at present are really only a concern for a handful of old browsers and screen-readers (well under 1% of users)... which would receive the spoiler warning banner, but no option to hide the spoiler text.

I can see where this might still result in different writing style than if there were no spoilers at all... breaking sentences so that a spoiler fact is isolated from non-spoiler facts, having a couple of lines in the 'plot' section which are very generic non-spoiler text (e.g. 'The Empire Strikes Back picks up X years after the events of the first Star Wars film and continues to follow the characters introduced there.') that continues to display when the rest of the plot is hidden, et cetera. However, these would be comparatively minor and could be smoothed out. Everyone would receive a top of the article spoiler warning unless they specifically chose not to, clunky 'spoiler section' tags would never be displayed, and all but a very few (or everyone if a MediaWiki change were made) could choose to read a non-spoiler version of the article. Thoughts? --CBD 12:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see your point, but I'm not sure I like the idea. The spoiler tags themselves are basically inoffensive and harmless. If this system was abused, whole big portions of text could be made hidden. RobbieG 12:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CB, the issue about organization is one of the biggest problems I have with spoiler tags. Right now, I think there is a tendency to group spoiler information together to prevent having lots of "begin spoiler/end spoiler tags", which can adversely affect layout. If the waring-tags were hidden, though, this would only impact the readers who chose to see them, who would be choosing to temporarilly sacrifice the cleaner layout in order to have the warnings. Therefore, my thought on this is that having the warning-tags switched off by default would allow for placing spoiler information in any section where it's appropriate, just by using multiple sets of the standard tag. I don't know if that addresses your concern. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 13:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My agreement's with Lee and Rob here. A system like that is just begging for the vandals — and people who, for instance, would like to pretend the sequels and prequels to Final Fantasy VII don't exist — to take advantage of it by blocking non-spoiler info into the template and getting it hidden from the eyes of many. Lee's suggestion would take care of everything just fine because relevant plot details could be placed where needed throughout the article without concern for grouping it, and anyone who chose to implement spoiler tags would be aware that there might be some flow issues as a result. This way, those who want spoiler tags get them, and those, like yourself, who loath the notion of ignoring relevant placement of information for the sake of putting spoilers "inside the box" don't have to worry about it. Ryu Kaze 13:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lee and Ryu, unfortunately I don't think it will work that way. While it may seem counter-intuitive, I'd argue that the majority of people supporting spoiler tags don't particularly like the look of them either. That's why they try to group the spoilers into just one section... because they recognize at some level that those tags just look bad. You will never get a lead on an 'Anakin Skywalker / Darth Vader' article which mentions that he is Luke Skywalker's father because then you'd have to put spoiler warnings around just one sentence in the lead paragraph... which would split the lead paragraph apart. It looks dumb... even to the people who like spoiler warnings. Do you really think they are going to want the 'normal' (from their perspective) version, with the spoiler warnings, to look terrible? No, they'd reformat it to minimize the 'chopping up' impact of the spoiler warning lines just as they do now. I see your concerns about people 'hiding text which does not need to be hidden', but that would only happen if someone clicked the 'hide spoilers' link... and they'd see huge blocks of text disappearing. I don't really think it would be a vandal magnet or difficult to spot/correct... there isn't anything stopping vandals from doing this now, yet they don't. --CBD 10:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While true that vandals don't try abusing it too much right now, it's not as potentially disruptive either. Given how many vandals do "blanking", this seems like something they'd get into. Ryu Kaze 12:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Remove Spoiler Tags[edit]

I will shortly write this essay, which states briefly that I believe spoiler tags should be use sparingly and only when revealing the detail so tagged would substantially negatively impact the ability of a reader to enjoy the work so spoiled, and that the spoiler has not entered mainstream culture enough that the vast majority of readers are not already spoiled.

As such, I have, and have been, throughtout this discussion, removing spoiler tags from every article mentioned. I have not been reverted. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Well, I think there's a case to be made for advocating the two approaches, since there is no consensus here on what constitutes a spoiler. I think we're going to have to guide that if a spoiler template can be avoided, avoid it, and where it can't, don't, and that people shouldn't edit war on the issue. There's certainly no consensus that spoiler warnings should be used arbitrarily. Hiding Talk 14:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Ironically, my removal of the American Beauty spoiler tags were instantly reverted. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re "that the spoiler has not entered mainstream culture enough that the vast majority of readers are not already spoiled". Hm. How does this affect non-American readers, or those who choose to read/watch an old book or film? --GunnarRene 14:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC) You're welcome to move this section to the talk page of that essay though. --GunnarRene 14:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I am not oblivious to the fact that a substantial minority of our readers are from other countries. Old books and films, however, such as citizen kane, have been spoiled for the vast majority of people who would read the article on citizen kane. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • If you look at the article on Spoiler (media) out of those 16 "classic" spoilers in the ToC, I'm still not spoiled on 8, and unsure about 1 (I'm not confirming because I don't want to be spoiled). So that makes at least 50% of those classic spoilers unknown to me. We intend to distribute Wikipedia on paper or other media to 3rd world countries. (Not all obscure fiction articles might be included, but that depends on the medium). They might not have the same education in classical English literature or might even be using us while studying literature/film, etc. --GunnarRene 15:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hipocrite, you are incorrectly stating on article talk pages that there is a consensus to do away with these tags. That is simply false, as a look at the straw polls here easily reveals. I've reverted you twice and I will keep doing so if you insist on this crusade while the matter is still being discussed and while your view is in the minority. Johntex\talk 14:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • There is and was consensus that the tags were only to be used for things that spoil plot twists. The guideline only supports tagging plot twists. There are no plot twists in the spoiler sections I have removed, except for possibly Citizen Kane, and everyone who would read the article knows the plot twist there. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is not correct. In the case of Flight 93, for instance, the plot section tells you exactly how the movie ends. I do agree, however, it would be better for the spoiler to be further down the page, instead of applying to the entire plot. I've move the spoiler notice to a better position. Johntex\talk 14:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Er, the passangers overpower the terrorists and win. This is not a plot twist - everyone in the world knows this. I've begun a discussion on the article talk page re this. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Why do people sometimes want to start their written statements with sub-syllables? Does it help make the argument?) Er, and I replied to you there as well. This is a fictional movie. The prospective viewer can't be expected to know if the movie follows the actual path of history or not. Johntex\talk 14:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hm. This is one of those borderline cases. I haven't watched United 93 yet, but I have watched Titanic (1997), and my opinion is that spoiler warnings are only needed on any fictionalized portions of the movie. In the example of the Titanic movie, that would be information about the fates of the fictional main characters. --GunnarRene 14:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does United 93 claim to be an accurate re-telling? If it does, then it doesn't need spoiler warnings at all. Divergence with the 9-11 commision report is then irrellevant to the question of spoilers. If it claims to be all non-fiction -> no spoilers. --GunnarRene 15:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the case of Citizen Kane as well, the conclusion of the movie is a spoiler. For every person, there is a first time they learn the ending of a movie or book. They should be warned before that ending is presented to them in an encycopedia article. As with United 93, I moved the spoiler tag in Citizen Kane further down the plot section, so that the reader may get an overview of part of the plot before encountering the tag. Johntex\talk 14:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everyone on United 93 died and there are only a partial cockpit voice recording, a few cell phone calls + forensic evidence to tell us about the end of the flight. The movie is necesarily fictionalized because it has had to make stuff up to fill in the gaps. We don't know ahead of time how closely it sticks to known facts. At the very least, the revelation of when the movie ends (pre-crash, post-crash) is a spoiler. Johntex\talk 15:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please don't tell me you intend to add spoiler tags to Gospel_According_to_Matthew (JESUS IS RESSURECTED AT THE END). If you do, and there's no strong consensus that you are wrong, I will be forced to change my opinion on this whole matter. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Works that claim to be non-fiction do not need spoiler tags at all. For example the Bible or Holy Blood Holy Grail. A book that needs them is The Da Vinci Code --GunnarRene 14:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This way we don't need to make a judgement about whether the works are truly historical. The crux is what the authors present them as.--GunnarRene 14:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would generally agree that works that claim to be non-fiction do not need a spoiler tag. There may be an exception some where, but I can't think of one. Johntex\talk 15:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can I just say - I am not American, and I'm not familiar with every aspect of American culture. I also don't watch every film as soon as it's out. I only saw Jurassic Park first time a few weeks ago! Quite plainly, there are people for whom plot details that Americans consider a part of "mainstream culture" are in fact massive spoilers. So you may not be presenting a worldwide view. RobbieG 15:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, this is a rather ironic example, in that even before the prologue of The Da Vinci Code, the book implies that — the characters involved aside — all the information being presented is historically accurate. What then would be done? According to your suggestion, Gunnar, The Da Vinci Code would not get spoiler tags, despite its prominent place in current pop culture. There's a bit of a double-edged sword at work there. Not that I really care where spoiler tags end up going so long as we're still considering the possibility of them being off by default, but I do think there's a bit more consideration needed in these matters.
Even taking it on a case-by-case basis, you'd end up having editors deciding which works claiming to be accurate did or didn't need spoiler tags. I don't think you're going to find a standard solution for the matter, and, really, the more you guys get into discussing when and where spoiler tags should be used, the more you're going to get into matters of POV. For this reason, if no other, spoiler tags off by default are getting more and more attractive. Ryu Kaze 18:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I deliberately chose that example to be illustrative of a borderline issue. Holy Blood Holy Grail doesn't need spoiler tags because it claims to be totally non-fictional. The "The Da Vinci Code" does need them, since it has fictionalized parts. As I said in the structured discussion (what happened to structure?) there should be a guideline that says how to use spoiler tags and puts a boundary on when it's good, and when it's not good to use them. Then editors use good faith inside those boundaries. One question is which parts of this kind of fictional work should be tagged. Only the self-claimed fiction, or also the claimed non-fictional history? I would think that is a subject for the talk pages of those articles, and that the guideline could state "Information from narratives claimed to be completely non-fiction does not need spoiler warnings. Information from narratives that mix claimed historical fact with admitted fiction, may in some cases need spoiler warnings." Kicks to Dan Brown for providing the example. And to Peter Smith (judge) for speaking the truth. :-)--GunnarRene 20:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To clarify, I'm not concerned with what's decided about when and where they're used so long as they aren't presented by default. However, I do think that you guys are going to need to put more thought into this, as — if POV is a potential concern for you guys in the spoiler-tagged version of the encyclopedia (again, it wouldn't be a concern of mine; just pointing this out for your benefit in case you're concerned with it) — it's beginning to look more and more like situations would be dependent on the POV of the editors involved. I'm not too sure how well the system would work, and it's not going to be as simple a matter as it might have seemed previously. Just an observation. Ryu Kaze 18:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since I don't think there is any POV problem in applying the tags, I am not teribly worried about whether they are used perfectly consistently in the few fictional works that make some allusion to being a factual work. Consistency is valuable, but so is good writing and good sources, and tons of other things we need to worry about as more pressing matters, IMO. Johntex\talk 18:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, but I still don't see this as POV to use spoiler tags, so until you can convince us of that... I know you guys mean well and have the best interests of WP at heart, but this still seems like much ado about nothing, IMO. There are MUCH bigger problems with fiction (in-universe writing vs. out-of-universe, fancruft, etc) that endangers WP from being taken seriously as an encyclopedia and I just seriously do not see spoiler tags as being unprofessional or unencyclopedic. -plange 19:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think either of you followed what I was saying there. Perhaps I didn't explain it clearly. I'm saying that even if you think spoiler tags are not POV, the deeper the discussion goes about when and where they should or shouldn't apply, the more POV gets inserted. The fact that there's even a little bit of disagreement going on among the pro-spoiler tag people on this subject should indicate that if nothing else does. Again, I'm not saying that I would be concerned about that as long as the things were off by default (why would I care in that case?), but for those of you who don't feel like spoiler tags' use has been POV and wants to see them stay, the current discussion of their implementation is increasingly POV. I hope that was clearer. Ryu Kaze 19:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, I'm not concerned with it, but for those of you who would be — while thinking that their recent use hasn't been POV — that would be a change to definite POV. So far people have been using them in a blanket fashion. Under this development, it's becoming more of a net. Ryu Kaze 19:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(reset indent) Again, choosing to use a spoiler tag or not is no more a POV question that any other editing decision we make, such as whether or not to include a specific image, or a specific reference. Johntex\talk 19:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A specific reference isn't a POV issue, we should reference what we write from the source we got it, and again with images, we should use the most free image available. Still these issues get edit warred upon. Spoiler template use is entirely POV, that's the consensus on this page since no-one agrees when and how to use it. The people who always want to use one object to the one we already always use, i.e. the disclaimer, and also object to a generic template. The wjhole thing is subjective. There's a discussion above about a plot point regarding the new Superman film where one spoiler template advocate insists it isn't a spoiler and another inserts a spoiler template around it. To state this isn't a POV issue is wrong. It might not be POV in the WP:NPOV sense, but it is a subjective issue and I can't see a clear consensus forming on how or when to use them, only that they exist for use as individual editors see fit. Hiding Talk 21:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Disagreeing on the best possible use of spoiler tags certainly does not indicate they have NPOV problems. As you say, it is a subjective debate, and that does involve the opinions of the editors, but that is not the same as a POV/NPOV problem. The same sorts of debates happen about whether an article has too many images, which image better shows the subject, whether a section is too long or two short. Those are editting debates, not POV problems. Johntex\talk 23:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The difference with those kinds of situations, though, is they don't try to determine which information is unsuitable for absorption and then take a measure to put a neon sign (or template with a blue link as the case may be) around it so as to make readers think "Maybe I shouldn't see this specific information". There's a fundamental difference in concept between which image better illustrates a concept and which information should, perhaps, not be seen. Ryu Kaze 23:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason I don't accept that to be true is that I don't view the spoiler tag as an attempt to hide information. To the contrary, I view it as a way to better inform the reader about the content of the article. Johntex\talk 23:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't said that as far as I know. It's not an attempt to hide information, but an attempt to suggest to readers that it may be inappropriate for them to see it. Since that suggestion is based on the editor's own determination of what may or may not be suitable for someone else to see, that's the part I call a violation of NPOV. We're simply not supposed to single info out like that with regards to suitability or accuracy. With an encyclopedia article, I don't believe that's ever acceptable. Ryu Kaze 23:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exemplum Biblicum et cetera[edit]

Note: Feel free to move this sub-section to where on this page you think it fits.
We have an article called Criticism of the Bible. Some Christians might believe the Bible to be infallible and don't want to see critisism of their faith could avoid that article to keep away from most of the critisism, could they not? Is that an obstacle to learning? The Bible article has critisism spread throughout, but a similarly loyalist Michael Moore fan could keep away from Michael_Moore#Controversy_and_criticism and be spared most of the critisism. And if you're an Ann Coulter fan, there's three "Negative" sections that you can avoid learning if you want to. Somebody made a judgement that the section contained something negative about Ann Coulter, and now the course of that information is restricted into those sections, and then restricted from being read by the reader (see censorship section above). And the editors of those articles have the point of view that the information is "critisism" and not support (POV?). In fact, WP:NPOV itself suggests making those kinds of sections. Section headers do not correlate directly 1-to-1 to spoilers, but it's a good enough approximation for the process of assessing and categorizing information. --GunnarRene 23:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another thing: Somebody browsing Category:Christianity can avoid the Criticism of Christianity article, and with machine assisted filtering, they could block all articles in the subcategory Category:Biblical criticism. There goes the critical people and their theories. Assesment. Classification. Censorship or Avoidance by reader. --GunnarRene 00:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The title "Criticism of the Bible" is not an obstacle to learning. Someone's own inability to accept that something they like could be criticized negatively would be the obstacle there. In any event, we're not supposed to consider something like "This might be offensive to so-and-so, so we should stuff it in a section/article to itself", and that wasn't the case there. There's just far too much to say about various aspects of the Bible. In fact, NPOV says that all info should go in a single article if possible. The Bible article has like two dozen daughter articles, of which the criticism thing is only one. It's just not reasonable to try including all of it.
There's nothing restrictive about the Michael Moore or Ann Coulter sections either. Criticism on them can fit into the main article just fine, and it's not being placed in that section because it's negative and they're trying to "protect" their fans. It's grouped like that because it's logical to group related information together such that it flows coherently and doesn't jump around. This makes it easier to access the criticism information, not harder, and it makes the article as a whole more sensible.
In any event, "criticism" is not negative by definition. Criticism can be positive or negative. It's just got a negative connotation because people don't like being criticized. And where does NPOV say anything about trying to isolate criticism to "protect" sensitive people? Ryu Kaze 00:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said, not 1-to-1 relationship. It is done to structure the information. But the information still goes through a similar process, and the results of the process can be applied in a similar fashion. Re, words: Critisism neutral by definiton, negative by use (or positive in other use). Spoiler negative by definition, usage sometimes negative, positive or neutral. Other sections discuss how wording can be changed. --GunnarRene 00:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I truly don't see how there's anything similar. "Criticism" is not only negative. Criticism sections tend to contain both positive and negative views. Look at Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy VIII for some examples of what these sections are supposed to do. In any event, even if some overly-sensitive paranoid person wouldn't look at a criticism section for fear of seeing their beloved media object/personality receiving some negative comments, the title isn't there for the purpose of suggesting to that person that they not look and the word is not inherently negative. It's a neutral term that is identifying where that information has been clustered for easier access. That's it. Ryu Kaze 00:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure what your point is about someone choosing to block their own access to articles related to Biblical criticism. That's something the reader would be doing to theirself, not something we'd be suggesting. Ryu Kaze 00:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just stating that categories could be used for both actual censorship (such as blocking in the network, see 2nd argument section), and for an unstandardized regulation of content that the readers choose to act upon theirselves. --GunnarRene 00:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None of that is stuff that we regulate, endorse, intend or suggest. Ryu Kaze 00:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Keep spoiler tags visible by default[edit]

I have no intention of creating the above essay, but it makes for a good section break. Judging from the straw poll above, it looks like most people (so far) are in favor of spoiler tags being shonw by default. Therefore, I think we should put some energy into systems that would keep the spoiler tags on by default. I have made one suggestion that I will make again here to kick off the new section:

This article contains Spoiler Warnings. You may turn them off.

I think this has several advantages:

  1. The casual reader gets to see a useful warning.
  2. The new user doesn't have to figure out any complicated preference system.
  3. Since most people seem to support Spoiler warnings, it avoids putting the click-burden on the majority of people.
  4. It does provide a way to hide spoiler warnings for people who don't like them.
  5. It avoids penalizing spoiler warnings based upon a minority viewpoint that they violate some Wikipeida policy. I think hiding them by default could later be interpreted as a recognition that viewpoint had merit, which I personally believe it does not. Therefore, I do not want to see such a precedent set.

I look forward to your thoughts. Johntex\talk 19:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with this. There can be a desire to find out what a movie or book (or whatever else a spoiler may apply to) is about without wanting to know every detail about that piece of media. For example, I may want more information about Episode V of Star Wars without wanting to know anything about Darth Vader's identity (the first example that sprang to mind). I'd certainly want to be alerted before stumbling across something like tat. I honestly don't even see the need for change. What POV is being pushed by saying that the following portion of an article contains information that is not inherently obvious to someone who has not read/seen the work (or has already encounered the information in question)? Darquis 19:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How, absent developer help, could someone turn them off without editing magic pages (monobook.css/js)? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh. My. Gosh. No, no, no, Johntex! Why? I would support this idea - if Lee Bailey hadn't already proposed a similar, better one. If we're going to make changes we ought to accomodate those who are objecting, otherwise we may as well leave things as they are. As Darquis said, there's no need to change anything if that's your view. I think Lee's suggestion actually caters for those who like spoilers as nobody can miss it. Also, how is it a "burden" to click a button? RobbieG 20:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, re-reading, I didn't want to sound that aggressive. No offence was meant. And don't get me wrong - your idea would be good, but Lee's is more sensible IMO. With Lee's suggestion, the casual reader does get a spoiler warning, and there is no need for any complicated preferences options. RobbieG 20:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC) No harm done. Thanks, - Johntex\talk 20:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it's a burden (at least, any more than it would be to click them off), but it seems like this is a small minority (redudant much, eh?) who would still have the ability to get what they want (via a saved setting). That aside, I think it best to err on the side of caution (that is to say, spoilers off). I say this for two reasons. One, I believe there's a tendancy for people to not read directions, and if one doesn't read the information about how to turn on spoiler tags (or whatever formt hey take) and just scrolls on down..well, that's the point of no return. Secondly what if there is a link to a Wikipedia article that does NOT link to the top of the page? Certainly we can control the links within Wikpedia (for the most part) to prevent this if necessary, but how do I stop Google, or some guy's webpage, or whoever else from linking to the middle of a page? And thereby bypassing our handy notice on how to put on spiler warnings? Plus, I'd like to reiterate John's point. Spoilers off by default gives the impression that there is something inherently wrong in having them on by default. (this better not edit conflict a third time)Darquis 20:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Darquis, Hipocrite, and RobbieG for your initial thoughts.
Hipocrite, you are right this would require a development request. I have no idea how much development work would be involved. I made this suggestion specifically because Lee Baily has made a similar suggestion (above). However, Lee's suggestion would have the spoiler tags hidden by default which is not consistent with the majority opinion. I find that unacceptable.
RobbieG, I believe that is the reason why this proposal is better than Lee's proposal is because his proposal goes against the majority opinion that spoiler tags should be shown by default.
I agree with Darquis that I see no reason at all for a change. I don't like the idea of taking up any development time to implement a change. However, this does give spoiler-warning-opposers a way to turn the spoiler-warnings off. If they think it is valuable, we can ask about the development resources needed to make this change. If they don't think this is valuable, then I'm fine with making no change at all to the current status quo, but I'm definitely not OK with hiding spoiler-warnings by default. Johntex\talk 20:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As mentioned above, it's incorrect to say that the option to turn them off from a default "on" setting gives us opposers what we want, even a little bit. We're not concerned about ourselves and what we see. After all, we're the guys who readily acknowledge that if even we see some plot details we weren't already aware of, we only got what we had coming to us.
Only the professional image of the encyclopedia and its integrity are our concerns, so this doesn't give our stance anything, actually. Ryu Kaze 20:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know you're not happy with this proposal, but I want to see if any of the spoiler-template-opposition find it to be useful. If no one finds it useful, then I'm OK with making no changes at all. I just wanted to toss out a compromise I could support. Johntex\talk 20:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then it sounds like we're at an impasse Ryu and it would be in keeping with the majority opinion to keep as is and work on creating better guidelines on when to use them and work out when they are used too freely on article talk pages. -plange 20:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia is not a democracy. The majority doesn't always 'win'. The problem with what Johntex's saying is that... oh, Ryu's already said it. The anti-spoiler warnings don't want it for themselves, they think eveyone would benefit from spoiler warning-free Wikipedia. I'm not sure why, as I think spoiler warnings are beneficial, and me, Ned Scott, Johntex and others have given many reasons why they shouldn't be deleted, but you just have to accept that nobody who is opposed to the way spoiler warnings are currently implemented would prefer your suggestion. RobbieG 20:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I totally understand why this isn't acceptable to them (didn't mean to give the impression I thought otherwise), but was just trying to underscore that we are at an impasse. I know it's not a democracy but it's also not ruled by minority opinion either, right? They have convinced me that it is used too much and so am all for tightening the guidelines about proper use, but they haven't convinced me that they have to go completely. I also don't think having them off by default is a good compromise because too many people will not "get it" and then complain on talk pages that the movie (or whatever) was spoiled. I'm a web developer by trade and have dealt with way too many end users of websites to know that they either won't see it or it won't "register" to them that they need to turn them off to preserve from being "spoiled". -plange 20:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it is a matter of "what's coming to you". If I read a snyopsis of say, the Civil War (were it a piece of fiction (movie, novel, or otherwise)) I wouldn't expect them to spell out to me "The North wins, Slaves are freed". That seems to be the result of what you're advocating..such information could be readily included within the summary or synopsis of the plot, and someone would stumble across it with no warning. I honestly think that, more than having the tags themselves, lacking them would make us look unprofessional. Darquis 20:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Furthermore, I think having a line at the top of every page (or at the very least, any that has spoilers marked within) makes for a far more unprofessional appearance. Darquis 20:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Johntex, I realize that most people stated they were against a "spoiler-warnings-off-by default" system in the poll above. Reading the responses listed in that poll, though, the impression I got was that many of the editors who voted against the idea disliked it because they thought it meant that people would be at risk of seeing spoiler information until they turned them off. The concern that keeps being brought up is that 1) people won't know that there's an option to turn warnings on, and will see spoilers or 2) the system will be too hard for people to figure out. I proposed this compromise as a way of demonstrating that it's possible to have spoiler off by default and to have adequate warning for those who want to see them. I'm certainly not trying to go against any majority, but I agree with what Robbie and Ryu have said already: the compromise you have promposed doesn't actually address the issue that those who are opposed to the warnings have. My understanding of this is that most people in the anti-warning camp have expressed ideological opposition to having these warnings "officially" exist by default in Wikipedia, while most of the pro-spolier-warning editors I've seen seem to be concerned mostly with preserving the practical purpose of these tags. Either way, there's a mild inconvenience to whichever side winds up off-by-default, but my point is, the off-by-default system seems to satisfy everyone except for that unavoidable inconvenience; the on-by-default system only satisfies one side. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 22:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Lee. I was hopeful that the opportunity to give the readers control over turning off spoilers would be sufficient to address this concern of a professional image. I can't personally support any solution that includes hiding the tags by default. I am ideologically opposed to any suggestion that there is something wrong with the tags. Since I believe the tags are proper, I won't support anything that might be seen as setting a precedent that they may be improper in any way. Also, since I think that these tags are a great service to the reader, I feel it would be unprofessional for us not to provide them by default. Johntex\talk 07:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just want to be clear I can't support any proposal to have the templates hidden through coding as a solution to this debate. It solves nothing, and I can't understand why the templates have to be on by default. They should be an opt in rather than an opt out. Otherwise we start from a flawed premise. Perhaps the easiest solution would be to have no spoilers by default, and see how many users turn them on. Then we could see how many users want them, and could settle this once and for all. Since we are proposing an addition to the code, I think the default has to be off, since that's the position Wikipedia started with. I think accusations of unprofesionalism are inane until I start getting paid for this. As Wikipedia launched without them, I think the precedent was set that they are improper. Hiding Talk 11:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some sort of quantitative test would be a good thing. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of the people the spoiler warnings are meant to 'protect' were already aware that encyclopedia articles contain spoilers for the topic of the article. We could just set a planned/announced date to turn all the spoiler tags off for 24 hours to see what would happen. --CBD 11:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We actually have a quantitative measure up above in the straw poll. It is currently 22 to 4 in favor of having the spoiler tags on by default. Johntex\talk 16:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think he was talking about a site-wide poll, John, and in the context of the things being down for a day (though I'd think more than a day would be needed). I'd suggest something like losing them for three days and then asking everyone if they noticed/had any problems/hate us and will never look at Wikipedia for random media again. Ryu Kaze 16:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see, thank you for the clarification. In that case, I am against that proposal. We can tell the majority of people want spoilers from the straw poll. There is no reason to temporarily hamper people's enjoyment and use of Wikipedia. Johntex\talk 16:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I think the suggestion is a good idea, I'm not sure if 24 hours would be long enough to acquire sufficient data. 48 to 72 would be better for something like this. But also, we'd have to find a way to monitor people who tried acting like more than one user, so I'm not sure how helpful the quantitative part would be. If not set up properly, it'd have all the reliability of an internet petition. Ryu Kaze 12:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This proposal is essentially what we have currently plus another 'spoiler warning' banner at the top of each page with an 'off toggle'. There seems little point. Those who don't want to see spoiler warnings currently can use;
.spoiler{
 display: none;
}
I added that to User:CBDunkerson/standard.css a few months ago and haven't been plagued by ugly tags since... but that doesn't solve the problem. Most users aren't familiar with using CSS or the 'spoiler' class and anons don't even have the option. The same would be true of a preferences setting... alot of users wouldn't know about it and anons don't get them. Further, even once the tags are hidden the article is still reformatted to lump all the 'spoilers' somewhere in the middle rather than where they would normally appear in the article. People are putting spoiler warnings on things which are centuries and even millenia old... or 'spoilers' that virtually everyone knows about. We need spoiler warnings for the end of Three Billy-goats Gruff? That's just ridiculous. The big goat knocks the troll off the bridge. Spoilage? Get over it. Both sides here are arguing for what they think is 'better for the users', but I still see spoiler tags as ludicrously redundant... it's an encyclopedia! Of course it contains 'spoilers'... in every single article. That's it's purpose. Why so much effort chopping up articles to state the blindingly obvious? Who are these people who do not understand that reading an encyclopedia article on a subject you don't know about will tell you things you did not know? Even for random Google searchers... Wikipedia is now one of the top sites on the Internet. Nearly everyone who might come across a Wikipedia page knows that it is an encyclopedia... and before too much longer that 'nearly' qualifier will be unneccessary. If someone reads a Wikipedia page on something they should expect 'spoilers'... and we shouldn't be putting warning labels on centuries old nursery rhymes to say that. If every section of every article in Wikipedia can be expected to contain 'spoilers', as they should, then we need to make that fact known as widely as possible as our site wide 'spoiler warning'... rather than trying to pick and choose which facts do and do not need warnings - as people's opinions on such clearly vary greatly... leading to a hodge-podge of inconsistent standards and people getting 'spoiled' anyway; because based on other pages they expected 'Beowulf' to have spoiler warnings, but came by during one of the periods where someone who thinks spoilers should relate to things from this century had removed them (like now). Or they expected all character details to be hidden by spoilers, but found out that shady seeming 'Strider' was really Aragorn, the rightful king, because one name redirects to the other and his nobility is stated in the lead before the spoiler section. We give away spoilers constantly even with the ugly tags and chopped up articles... yet people still seem to use Wikipedia. Just as they did before spoiler warnings became widespread. Because most of the people you are trying to 'protect' know that reading an encyclopedia article on a subject is just about the best way possible to be 'spoiled' on it and proceed accordingly. --CBD 11:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find nothing persuassive in the argument that poeple use Wikipedia even though it contains spoilers. It contains errors too, but we keep working to make it better. I agree with you that we need to tag only what is legitimately a spoiler. A spoiler-template guideline, such as we have now, is the best way to do that. We can work together to improve those guidelines and their implementation. Johntex\talk 16:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Treat spoilers like porn[edit]

I think we have to bear in mind that we don't currently tag articles which contain porn, do we? We make sure such images are appropriate to the content and that's about all, we let the general disclaimer handle the rest. I think the same approach should be used here. If people coming to articles on porn are clear on what to expect, then people coming to articles on fiction are too. Hiding Talk 11:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On this point, see also Are spoiler tags a violation of Wikipedia's censorship policy --GunnarRene 11:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, although I am looking at arguing a different point, one already rejected through the Toby proposal. The community was quite clear that tagging and allowing people to hide content was a no go. This looks like getting that proposal enacted through the back door. Let's treat all content the same. Hiding Talk 11:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So that would apply to both hiding spoiler tags and their content. Hm. There seems to be an emerging conensus here against the compromise of hiding either one by default, from both sides of the yes/no to spoiler tags issue. --GunnarRene 11:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would also apply to tagging spoilers. Hiding Talk 11:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There are three fundamental problems with the logic here:
  1. There is a flaw in the premise that people going to porn articles know what to expect. That is not reasonable to assume. Here are three examples where it would not be the case:
    1. A young child at school is called a dildo or a pussy. He doesn't know what it means, so he looks it up. Since we don't present a site-warning prior to loading the first page, if there are pornographic images on the page he will see them with no warning.
    2. A non-native English speaker encounteres the word autofelatio so they look it up with no preconceived idea about what they will find.
    3. Someone at work mentions an actresses name and you go look her up without knowing that her career included pornography.
  2. There is a flaw in the premise that people expect spoilers when reading about fiction. They may be used to movie reviews that give a general synopsis without revealing the ending. They may legitimately expect to see a short synopsis prior to reading the anything that constitutes a spoiler.
    1. Even with fiction, they may not know it is a work of fiction. I could easily imagine a name of a book or play being mistaken for something else, like the name of a painting, for instance. I could imagine someone not knowing what The X-Files are, or a comic book they've never read, etc. They may click on the link to simply learn what the thing is, in which case they probably appreciate a warning about spoilers.
  3. Toby was a sweeping new proposal about tagging all sorts of things. That is not the case with regard to spoiler tags.
    1. For one thing, they are not new, they have been here for years. The effort to eliminate or hide the spoiler tags is what is new.
    2. Second, spoiler tags are not nearly as sweeping as the Toby proposal.
    3. Third, Toby required developer resources. Keeping spoiler tags the way they are requires no such resources.

For all these reasons, I think the comparison is faulty and that nothing in this comparison lends any support for the idea of hiding or eliminating spoiler tags. Johntex\talk 19:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On point one nothing changes then, we still compare like for like and we don't do content warning there so we don't do it here. On point two, any errors you note would be mistaken on arriving at the article, and on point three, spoiler warnings have always been contentious, there is nothing new in people opposing them. Check out the archives. Every time they are discussed there is no concrete consensus. They aren't the status quo. Hiding Talk 20:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible guidelines[edit]

Trying to draw this into something we might be likely to all agree on:

  • Plot details which may spoil enjoyment of a work should not be added to Wikipedia liberally, especially details which relate to newly or soon to be released works.
  • Where added, all effort should be made to use identifying headers, for example in a section summarising plot, consider using a sub-header titled "Ending details", and the text clarifying the nature of the point to be revealed, example: not The big Billy Goat Gruff knocks the troll off the bridge in the end, but rather At the end of the story the big Billy Goat Gruff knocks the troll off the bridge.
  • Given Wikipipedia's guidance on writing about fiction and that wikipedia is not a plot summariser, discussions of plot details which are relevatory to the ending or central to the work's nature should be discussed in an encyclopedic manner, noting the point's significance to the work and the audience and not added simply to reveal the details.
  • Warning templates should generally be placed at the top of an article or just below the section header in which the details are discussed.
  • Warning templates should be brief in their wording to remain as succint as possible. Whilst they should be visible, they shouldn't be too obtrusive.
  • Templates should generally only be considered on plot points revealing details which relate to newly or soon to be released works.
  • Outside of article space, care should still be taken to avoid revealing plot details, and to identify them editors should simply use spoilers for foo and spoilers end around the text. Note this is not advocated for articles.

Any thoughts, objections, changes? Hiding Talk 12:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll answer in the order proposed:
  1. That's already supposed to be the case. We only add what's relevant. However, with regard to upcoming works, most of the relevant info about those will be what little is known of its plot. As an example, take Pirates of the Caribbean 3.
  2. Terribly unnecessary in my opinion. A plot header that reads "Plot" is obviously going to summarize the plot, which is defined as the beginning-to-end framework of a story. However, the wording "At the end of the story..." could be used. It's better structure.
  3. Actually, to be entirely comprehensive (such as for an FAC), you do have to have a plot summary that touches on all major story arcs and their resolutions. This can be done by simply recognizing writing about fiction's suggestions of writing from an out-of-universe perspective here and there to emphasise that this is a fictional work, not creating the page such that the plot summary is all that there is to the article and making sure to cite the fictional work itself as a reference at various points within the article (a good rule of thumb used in this practice is two references per paragraph).
  4. I'd say the top of the article (on every article) so that no information's getting singled out.
  5. Agreement, of course. While I want them to be set to "off" by default, it couldn't do anything but help those who'd be seeing them for them to be unobtrusive.
  6. No particular comment. Not that I couldn't think of something to say, but I'm not too sure that this particular line of discussion is something I have a part in.
  7. If spoiler tags were off by default, I'd have no problem with that. If they weren't, then I'd simply feel that relevant info goes where relevant info belongs and the subject matter would convey to anyone too timid to read spoilers what they were about to see. For example, in the case of the Holy Grail page, there's a section clearly labeled "The Da Vinci Code". Quite a red flag. Ryu Kaze 12:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for this suggestion, here are my views on each point:

  1. The first part is true, but not needed, in my opinion. I think it is clear we are trying to be fairly comprehensive. The second part saying "especially" up-coming works I disagree with. If anything, we should be more cautionary about upcoming works just becuase of verifiability issues. I'd change this to simply "Don't be afraid to add spoiler information to an article if you preceed it with a spoiler tag"
  2. Since it seems spoiler tags are here-to-stay, this suggestion seems redundant. The section heading can be very short (E.g. "Plot") since the spoiler tag itself will provide the other information about what is to come.
  3. Agree with Hiding - a summary is a summary, not a recapitulation of the whole work and every twist and turn taken along the way.
  4. I disagree about suggesting to place the tag at the top of the article. Labeling the whole article as a "spoiler" is not helpful to the reader. The point is that the reader should be able to learn a little a fair amount about the subject and then decide if they want to read the spoilers or not. I don't think we can make a blanket statement about where the tag should be positioned in the article. The guideline should be something like "Pleceed the spoiler tag with a short summary of the work and with details that would not generally be considered spoilers, such as as cast information. Plasce the spoiler tag(s) above all spoilers. Discuss on Talk page what constitutes a spoiler for the individual work."
  5. The standard warning templates should be used as opposed to allowing creation of individdual labels. Standardization will ensure the wording is standard, short, and clear.
  6. Totally disagree. Spoiler tags are appropriate for all works of fiction. We should not be spoiling Moby Dick for someone who has not read it, or The Sixth Sense for someone who has not seen it.
  7. Change to: "Spoilers should be avoided outside of article space. Within article space, editors are encouraged to mark them with spoiler tags. If in doubt about what constitutes a spoiler for a given work - discuss on the Talk page."

Best, Johntex\talk 16:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On point two, I don't follow your reasoning. Whilst there is consensus that some form of spoiler warning template should exist, there's no clear consensus on when they should be used. There is no consensus on this page as to what a spoiler is. Hiding Talk 17:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think what we've maintained is that the purpose of this RfC is to determine if spoilers should stay or go and it seems like the consensus is to keep them but with the caveat that clearer guidelines should be worked out. If we agree on that, discussion on what constitutes clearer guidelines should be worked out on the guidelines page for the template, right? -plange 17:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is my thought exactly. The purpose of this RfC should be primarily to determine if spoilers stay or go. I'm happy to fine-tune the guidelines on their use (though my inclination is to leave a lot up to discretion on a case-by-case basis), but I don't think we need to extend our suggestions into the realm of changing the wording of headings. Since the spoiler-tags will be available, the heading does not need to do the work of a spoiler tag. Johntex\talk 17:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, don't follow you. There should be guidance on modifying header text since it is quite clear spoiler templates shouldn't be used wily-nily, and using more descriptive headers would avoid there use. Since you support a case by case basis for the use of the tem[plates, and that view has the consensus, I can't see any reason not to guide to use clearer language when spoiler templates are unnecessary. We've already decided there are cases where they are unnecessary. Hiding Talk 21:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So on point 7, are you suggesting that only in actual articles should the spoiler tag be used, but not in their talk pages? I wanted to clarify this point because you also said that if in doubt, a spoiler should be discussed on the talk page. I may be getting a bit nitpicky, but is it possible for editors to not want things spoiled (particularly when it comes to editors in foreign countries (who may get works released at later times) or on works that have yet to come out) and thus some sort of warning also be found there? Other than that, I agree, particularly with the "don't put the tag at the top of the articles". You may as well do away with them for all the help that it would be in that case(NOT that I am advocating the removal of spoiler tags by any means). Darquis 17:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You raise a good point that I had not considered. Off the top of my head, I would say that I expect someone who is visiting a Talk page that is directly related to an article, is probably past the point of wanting to avoid spoilers related to that article. So, I would suggest the guideline be to skip the spoiler tags on the Talk page of the article in question, but to try to avoid revealins spoilers at all on other article Talk pages. For example, there is no reason on this page to reveal the surprise ending of The Sixth Sense. We can refer to the fact that the movie has a plot twist without needing to descibe what that plot twist is. Johntex\talk 17:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with your thinking here; the only exceptions that come to mind are people overseas get behind on comics (like, a few months) so the most current plot details may spoil for them and the work on future movies. Both, I think, could be easily remedied by a disclaimer at the top of the talk page such as "Discussion about current or future plot details may follow" on a talk page for an article with spoilers. If I'm the only one who thinks that's a good idea, I'll drop it. That being said, I agree that there shouldn't be any spoilers that aren't related to the actual article on teh article's talk page. For example, when reading about Iron Man on his talk page, I don't need to find out the identity of the Winter Soldier (just something random)Darquis 17:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, many American TV shows are shown much later on British TV, Lost, for example. The same also applies (less frequently) to British shows being shown in America (e.g. Doctor Who). Both of those examples are extremely easy to spoil, particularly Lost. RobbieG 07:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A truly stupid spoiler?[edit]

I never thought it would happen, but I've finally found a use of the spoiler warning that baffles even me - "it's a small world". What? It's a ride (and a particularly irritating and tacky one at that!), it doesn't need a spoiler warning because it has no real plot. I'm not going to remove the notice as that would be pretty much hypocrisy coming from me, but I expect somebody else will. I've found new sympathy for those who think spoiler warnings should be decided on a case-by-case basis. RobbieG 08:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's removed by now. --Akral 19:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old literature[edit]

It's all very well arguing that older works don't need spoilers, but how many people here have actually read the Iliad? What about King Lear? Moby Dick? Beowolf? A Tale of Two Cities? The Canterbury Tales? I'll bet there are people here who have never even seen King Kong (and I'd win that bet. I've never seen it!). In fact, I haven't seen or read any of the above, but there's nothing to say I won't. I watch old films, after all. I've read A Christmas Carol and Bleak House and Through the Looking-Glass, and I've seen A Midsummer Night's Dream and Twelfth Night. It's perfectly possible to spoil an old story for somebody. I'm not saying we should plaster spoiler warnings all over (there have got to be other solutions), but I think that should be taken into account. RobbieG 12:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll repost something I added to the talk page after removing a spoiler warning from Othello:
Spoilers are there to prevent enjoyment of a work being impaired by foreknowledge, yet surely the enjoyment of Shakespeare comes from the language, characterisation and/or the performance, not the plots (which are generally hackneyed by modern standards and were derivative even in Shakespeare's day). I've been to countless performances of Shakespeare (one of the perks of living near Stratford) and must confess I have never once heard anyone utter "wow, I never saw that one coming".
I'd argue that pretty much the same arguments exist for most classical literature. And that's setting aside the issue that classics are routinely referenced on an almost daily basis in pop culture; to avoid knowing the ending of Moby Dick, for instance, you'd not only have to not have read the book but also have to have avoided countless films, sitcoms, newspaper and magazine articles and so on. I'd be interested if anyone could point towards a single solitary comment on a talk page from someone complaining about a spoiler in an article about a piece of classical literature. --Daduzi talk 13:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your claim may be true of Shakespeare, and perhaps also therefore Chaucer and Homer, but Victorian English was very similar to the English of today. Both the Dickens novels I've read worked very well as novels. Bleak House was full of plot twists. Anyway, J.R.R. Tolkein considered Beowolf to be just as good a saga nowadays as it was when first penned, as did a number of students to whom he read it. As for popular culture, I've lived my life this long without finding out the end of Moby Dick. All I know about it is that there is a character named Ishmael and a captain who's fanatically obsessed with killing a particular whale. Also, popular culture doesn't tell you everything; I know how King Kong ends, but I don't know anything else about it. RobbieG 13:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The number of people who read, say, Beowulf for the exciting plot is still very small, though, (if there are any) and I'd be willing to wager those kinds of people would not be astonished to find plot details in an encyclopaedic article about the work. Again, I'd be interested to see if there's been a single complaint from a user about spoilers in an article on a classical work. --Daduzi talk 14:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, that's fair enough, but we are supposed to show a NPOV. Actually, I'd be perfectly content if we all just went away and carried on using spoiler warnings as before, deleting ones we find unnecessary and adding those we think are required. Wikipedia is self-policing, after all. I only got involved in this debate as I'd heard a rumour that they were planning to delete spoiler warnings completely, and I can't allow that to happen. RobbieG 14:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia would cease to be an encylopedia if suddenly all the spoiler warnings were deleted. or wait...was it the other way round? --Elian Talk 17:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but what are you saying? I'm afraid I don't understand. Are you in favour of spoiler warnings or against them? If you're saying that the presence of spoiler warnings is somehow making the site less encyclopaedic, then can you please tell me a defintion of encyclopaedic? You see, there doesn't seem to be one. RobbieG 07:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What next[edit]

Well, things have started to die down in this debate, so it might be a good time to reflect on where we're at so far.

I think it's pretty clear that a straight deletion of spoiler tags or spoiler notification won't be in the near future. If one where to take the feedback under the proposed solutions as a poll, then keeping the tags would win. However, even as a pro-tag editor I'm not very content with just that. Before coming to any "conclusion" I think it might be a good idea for pro-tag editors and those with guideline concerns to come up with guideline revisions. Then come back to the main discussion and present the revisions and see if this addresses additional concerns.

There are things, such as now spoilers might impact where people put information (inside the "box"), handling classic fiction, people mistaking the guideline as policy, etc, that could easily be addressed without total spoiler tag removal. A lot of arguments have been made on both sides, and now it's time to put our money where our mouthes are. Just because spoiler tags will be kept doesn't mean that we can't improve on the situation or address some of the issues brought up. -- Ned Scott 03:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is imperitive we modify the guideline/template to make it clear it is only to be used on eggregious spoilers. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, I have to say, that in a discussion about spoilers, due to the examples used, there is a spoiler warning at the top of the page : )

I strongly think we need to retain "some" warning, especially due to overseas usage. (Or even timezone differential.) And I don't think we should differentiate classical works from modern works in spoilerage, to do so would be to make a judgement (POV) about the works themselves, which I wouldn't think we would want to do here.

In addition, something to think about in the case of publication/broadcast/etc... There is a difference between a spoiler due to the official distibution, leaked information prior to the distribution, and advertisements prior to the distribution.

And I agree that spoilers aren't for talk pages (since one has to discuss them "somewhere" : )

That said, I also agree that an update of the warning(s) might be appropriate.

I think we should retain the word spoiler in the template. It's widely used on the internet, which makes it a useful clarion. And I think it's good as a "guideline".

I like the idea of just dropping "and/or ending" from each spoiler warning (since the ending is technically a plot detail)?

Also, while I think we need some spoilers for things that are not fictional works (Dancing with the Stars, for example), the following or something similar likely works well enough:

This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable. The latest updates to this article may not reflect the most current information. Feel free to improve this article or discuss changes on the talk page, but please note that updates without valid and reliable references will be removed. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

- Jc37 17:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want to make some sort of "warning" for non fiction, then that would be it's own thing. It's pretty clear that Wikipedia:Spoiler warning and its templates are only meant for works of fiction.
A "judgement" on if something is a spoiler or not isn't really a POV issue, or at least it doesn't have to be one. You can have a point of view on something, but when you write an article it should be in a neutral point of view, not no point of view. It would really depend on the work, and couldn't easily be grouped like "all classical fiction should do this". For example, Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker, they're father and son! that used to be a major spoiler, but on one hand it became so widely known and used outside of the film. Not only that, but if someone who was completely new to Star Wars was to watch the movies, including the new ones, and do so "in order", they would already know who Darth Vader really is long before they would know who Luke is. We definitely don't want to step into the world of spoiler critiquing, but there are some clear cases that we can point out. In other words, the guideline should say something like, if you're in a gray area and are not sure, don't assume, etc, blah blah. But if everyone generally agrees that something isn't a spoiler, then there's no point in tagging it.
I know this has a lot of people worried, that we might start even "rating" spoilers or something crazy like that. But I think we can avoid this by stating a few examples and then asking that it be brought up on the talk page of that article for further comment when it's a gray area. This would avoid an overly detailed, binding, complicated guideline on what to include and what not to include. -- Ned Scott 23:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, here's my rough proposal:

  1. Avoid redundant warnings. In essence, that means that there's no point putting spoiler tage warning that a section contains plot details in a section headed "plot". Yes, I know, not all plot sections contain spoilers, but all contain details of plot and given that it's subjective as to what exactly constitutes a spoiler any reasonable reader concerned about avoiding plot twists wouldn't read a section labelled "plot" in an article on a work they intended to read/watch, spoiler tags or no spoiler tags.
  2. Favour headings over warnings. In other words make it, if not a guideline, then a piece of advice that editors concerned about revealing plot twists should place plot details within a clearly labelled section (or article) rather than resort to templates. If, of course, there's good reasons to keep plot details outside of a clearly headed section then warnings can be used.

This would reduce the use of spoiler tags to a bare minimum without outlawing their use and without increasing the likelihood of readers having works spoiled. --Daduzi talk 02:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I see the logic in that, some of the concern is that people are so used to being able to read things under the heading "Plot summary" and not read spoilers. And I like the concept of being able to intro the plot summary (in addition to the article intro) with a little bit of non-spoiler text (the basic set up that you see established, characters settings, main conflicts). And, even if the header pretty much sums it up, just the inconsistency of the tag usage might throw readers off. It's not that we need to make the usage less as much as we need to make the usage more logical and consistent. If we're just looking to lower the number of tags being used simply for the sake of making that number smaller, then logic isn't much better than to delete the spoiler tag concept all together. -- Ned Scott 05:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't agree that the logic of reducing the number of spoiler tags is just as bad as deleting spoiler tags altogether; if the number can be reduced without increasing the likelihood of spoilerage (if that's a word) then why is that a problem, unless the removing of spoiler tags is inherently a bad thing regardless of whether or not they are useful? I'm sure people may be used to seeing "plot summary" headed sections elsewhere without spoilers; I'm equally sure they're also used to seeing them with spoilers. I don't think inconsistency will be that big of an issue, either, most likely very few articles with "plot" sections will end up using the tags (to judge from the fact that the vast majority of tags currently in use exist in "plot" or "synopsis" sections). In any case, the current system is also inconsistent as it is left to individual page editors to make up their mind whether or not to include tags. As a consequence the Canterbury Tales has no tags but The Divine Comedy does. I've yet to see any evidence that users are negatively effected by these inconsistencies. I would honestly be very surprised indeed if removing spoiler tags from "plot" sections resulted in a flurry of angry talk page comments. --Daduzi talk 07:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's simple, a plot summary article is just about as likely to have a mix of spoilers and non-spoilers as the article itself. And readers who aren't familiar with our standards for "Plot summary" will probably not be familiar with the use of article talk pages, so I doubt you'll get that kind of feedback. This is just the "redundancy" argument all over again. Personally, if I felt that "Plot summary" was enough then I doubt I would have defended the tags like I have here. -- Ned Scott 07:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree, especially given the fact that there would seem to be no way to verify the existence of these hypothetical readers for whom it would be an issue. --Daduzi talk 21:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An idea[edit]

To help avoid groupthink and get some fresh ideas on how to approach updating the guidelines, I was thinking that maybe we should approach some of the fictional WikiProjects. Many projects incorporate WP:SPOILER into their own guidelines and suggestions, and it would be interesting to see what independently (or semi-independently) groups come up with. Not to say that those of us who aren't apart of those projects shouldn't come up with ideas. We should still continue conversation here (here being somewhere in the Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning pages or sub pages, since this one is so long we might want to sprout out another page or go to the main talk page).

For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate uses a lot of spoiler tags with specific notices to what season they spoil, and have even included "spoiler free" versions of their episode lists (they're actually just the lists without summaries at all, just air dates, episode numbers, and titles).

I'd like to hear from some of the smaller show specific Projects as well as the larger ones, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga. Ask all these groups to start a discussion about how they and their editors typically use spoilers and what they think could be done to improve their usage, then take those responses and put them back here.

-- Ned Scott 05:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't get those projects involved here. I question the dedication of many of their participants to an informative, useful encyclopedia. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please don't display your own prejudice here. I actually admire people who have the "dedication" (the word you yourself used!) to even join a Wikiproject. I certainly haven't; I'd probably always get bored and wander off onto a humour site or something... Anyway, I think that since fiction is central to this debate it would be a great idea to involve some fiction Wikiproject members. RobbieG 18:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, I happen to take offense at Hipocrite's statement since I'm the organizer of WP:Firefly and consider myself very dedicated to ensuring quality, and our scope and goals for the project are to weed out cruft and write more out-of-universe style. I'm also a member of WP:Novels, another fiction project, but just to show my scope, I'm also involved in writing articles for WP:MilHist, a non-fiction project.plange 18:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do either of you truly believe the majority of people involved with those projects are dedicated to an informative encyclopedia? Be honest. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not either of the people who objected to your previous comment, but let me jump in here anyway. Of course the majority of people associated with Wikiprojects are dedicated to an informative encyclopedia. They sign on precisely because they are willing to volunteer extra time to improve the quantity and quality of information in their areas of interest. The fact that the informative nature of their work may be in a niche, relating to a particular writer, tv show, etc., does not render it unencyclopedic or uninformative. It merely results in Wikipedia having better coverage of certain aspects of popular culture than would a more traditional reference work. It does not in any way detract from other areas of Wikipedia, and may actually inspire people to explore other areas and add their input. I'm personally involved in the Television and Novels Wikiprojects, and consider my niche - Madeleine L'Engle and neglected television articles for older shows - quite informative and encyclopedic. None of which has much to do with the value and usage of spoilers, btw.  ;) On that issue, I'm wondering whether separating a premise heading (spoiler-free) from a plot details one (potentially spoiler-rich) might be helpful. Karen | Talk | contribs 20:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Go crazy then. Don't fault me when the result is that spoiler tags need to be customized for each show under the sun and plastered in every article that is remotely related to any TV show or movie. Spoiler tags for Albert Einstein and John Nash are on the way.Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uh-huh. Notice that there isn't a spoiler tag anywhere in Zorro (TV series) or Route 66 (TV series), both of which I worked on, both of which have plot details from decades-old episodes. Please don't assume that individual editors cannot take a sensible approach to whether spoiler tags are needed for a given subject. Karen | Talk | contribs 21:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hipocrite, what is your problem here? Can't you just assume good faith? The assumption that all Wikiproject members are irritating fanboys and fangirls seems to me to be groundless. As I've said above, they are probably some of the most dedicated Wikipedians out there! RobbieG 11:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes Hipocrite, I am a member of the Stargate project and I will tell you first hand that they are very dedicated to creating an honest encyclopedic Stargate section so I would appreciate you not calling our validity into question. The reason we adopted such extreme spoiler regulations was because many countries have not aired certain episodes or seasons due to a delay in broadcasting. So we list out what section has spoilers and for what season (in other words your "slippery slope" argument, which is fallacious by the way, is irrelevent since most shows do not suffer this type of delay and thus would only need to list that an article contains spoilers and the reader would know what it meant). For example, a certain ship is debuted in an early season that takes place in a battle in the current and preceding season. Someone browsing the article on the ship, which contains only spoilers for the earlier season, would find a link to the article pertaining to the battle in which the ship played a role. If the user followed that link he would immediately see a spoiler warning for seasons 9 and 10 and know that he/she would not want to read that article. Without those tags they would not know, thinking the battle had already taken place according to the episodes they had seen and they had merely forgotten or not known the official name. Spoiler tags are quite relevent to this encyclopedia and should be used wherever a community consensus deems them necessary in my opinion. Konman72 11:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spoiler Standards[edit]

I think that, given the discussion so far, the consensus has been that spoiler tags are to be kept, but there need to be guidelines or standards in place to better control them. One concern I've seen repeated is that there isn't consistency, and that we have warnings on things (such as the Three Billy Goats Gruff (whether we do or not, just an example) that shouldn't require such. Perhaps we can find some common ground and build from there? For example, anything that has yet to be published/aired but gives away important/signifigant plot information qualifies as a spoiler? Is that something everyone could agree on (assuming spoiler tags are here to stay) if it were worded better? Darquis 06:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, a spoiler is considered not just a detail of the plot, but a detail of the plot that might significantly lower the enjoyment of that fiction if seen prematurely. -- Ned Scott 18:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's the problem though, isn't it? That's one of the reasons we're still having this debate. I mean, saying which plot details "might significantly lower the enjoyment of that fiction if seen prematurely" is pretty subjective. For example, I would consider knowledge of Boromir's fate in the Lord of the Rings to be a spoiler, but I know people who disagree. I think that the identity of Rosebud and the ending of Harry Potter 6 are the biggest spoilers around, but many people don't think so. I also feel that knowing the story for certain detective-themed levels in Paper Mario 2 definitely spoils them, but there are people who find the very idea of spoiling a video game (particularly a Mario game, not known for its plot) to be laughable. RobbieG 22:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The idea is to find stuff that a majority considers not a spoiler. When one editor things something is a spoiler, and one editor does not, use the tag. It's not much different from how some editors feel one character might be notable for it's own article vs editors who don't feel that way, except here we'd use the spoiler tag by default when a "consensus" can't be reached. It might be a good idea to have the guidelines have instructions / advice on how to conduct these discussions on individual talk pages. -- Ned Scott 01:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree! We should take a "better safe than sorry" approach when applying a spoiler. After all, it doesn't have any practical harm to place more spoiler tags, while it is helpful to warn potential readers from reading the spoilers. --Wai Wai (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That makes sense to me. I would still be concerned about the nature of these guidelines - they'd have to be carefully written to avoid infringing the NPOV policy - but this seems a good suggestion. RobbieG 08:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You guys do realize that using a spoiler tag by default will pretty much mean that nothing will be different form before (with the exception of some general agreement that placing them in sections called "Plot" is as pointless as anything could possibly be), because there's always going to be someone who thinks the most minute plot detail is a spoiler, including the characters' personalities, right? Ryu Kaze 13:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No one ever said that everyone had to be convinced/happy about this. Concerns were stated, and addressed, even if you disagree with what was said and even if you don't feel the response you got was "good enough". (I disagree with your "exception", I still think the tag has a place in the plot section of an article, but that's for our next step, the guideline revisions.) At most, this is consensus to keep spoilers, and at least this is no-consensus which defaults to keep (as it would on an AfD, etc). So it really doesn't matter how you look at it, for now the tags are here to stay. If I were in your situation and had lost the debate, I'd still try to help out with the guidelines as "damage control". Think of it this way, it's better than thousands of embedded messages that don't use templates and can't be tracked/regulated, which would have likely happened if the tags and this guideline were removed. -- Ned Scott 13:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I realize that. No one said this was a monumental, or even any sort of change. There's not the consensus to remove the tags at this time, nor do any of the other suggestions have the support that outright keeping the tags do. And if people are going to label Darth Vader being evil as a spoiler, well, that's why wikipedia isn't edited by one person alone, other editors can step in and discuss what is and is not a spoiler. Darquis 20:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ned, you didn't even remotely address what I said. o.O If the practice is that any time someone cries foul at the removal of a spoiler tag that it gets put back in, then there's going to be spoiler tags everywhere forever, even if a page were to be labeled "The comprehensive plot of [insert fictional work's name here]". That's a horrible practice, and would be used to the same effect as literacy tests before people could vote were. In any event, most people on both sides of the fence from what I saw have agreed that using a spoiler tag in a section labeled "Plot" is absurd.
I don't particularly have any interest in the writing of these "guidelines" beyond it being emphasised that they're not a policy that has to be recognized, being emphasised that it's ridiculus to put a banner saying "plot details follow" in a section marked "Plot", and the idea that they're used "when in doubt" not be recognized (because that would become a loophole to get them used everywhere). Ryu Kaze 21:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ryu Kaze, I think what you have to appreciate about Ned's point of view is that he and many others had no problem with the spoiler warnings in the first place, so from our point of view this is a good idea. I realise that you won't be happy if nothing changes, but some people in favour of the spoiler warnings will be. This is simply our POV, and you have your own. RobbieG 22:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ryu, you've seemed to have skipped over my comments that suggest the guideline could provide advice on how to resolve such disputes. This would be done in the same way any dispute is resulted on Wikipedia. So no, if one user comes up with a weak argument for labeling something a spoiler, and other users have strong reasons for not using the tag, then it won't be used. But if there is no-consensus, then use the tag. You have little to no faith in your fellow editors. -- Ned Scott 22:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All I saw was "When one editor things something is a spoiler, and one editor does not, use the tag". Which section was the elaboration in? There's been a lot of editing in here in the last few days. And I'm sorry, but it's difficult to assume good faith after what happened at the beginning of this RfC. The idea of us moving to RfC was supposed to be based on us having reached an agreement, and the moment everyone "agreed" and RfC began, suddenly that agreement was out the window. It looked very shady, and I haven't been able to assume much good faith since then, but I will try to, ok? What's done is done, so just point me to your elaborated idea for this guideline and I'll try to focus on it and the future developments of this matter for now. Sorry for missing it before, by the way. Ryu Kaze 22:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But Ryu, that agreement was made between only 7-or-8 people, I seem to recall. Then we moved the discussion here and more than 20 completely different people got involved who had made no such agreement. Besides, several editors, including Ned Scott and yourself, voiced misgivings about certain compromises before we even started this RfC, and Ned decided he'd rather not compromise after all. Which is fair enough. Why should he? We didn't sign a legal document or anything. At least, I don't remember doing so! RobbieG 22:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, the original people were the ones jumping ship (except for you; you actually stuck to the agreement, so thank you). Ryu Kaze 22:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Finding something acceptable and finding something preferable are two different things, and people are allowed to change their minds when presented with additional statements by users. If users never changed their minds then what would the point of a discussion be? -- Ned Scott 23:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Minds were changed before anyone new ever entered the equation. The original suggestion was that we come to an agreement and then pitch that in the RfC. That's as much as I'm going to say on the matter. Let's just try to focus on the stipulations thing. Ryu Kaze 00:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, could you tell me what the specifics of Ned's suggestion were? He hasn't responded yet and I've not located them. There's so many edits on this page. Ryu Kaze 22:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"The idea is to find stuff that a majority considers not a spoiler. When one editor things something is a spoiler, and one editor does not, use the tag. It's not much different from how some editors feel one character might be notable for it's own article vs editors who don't feel that way, except here we'd use the spoiler tag by default when a "consensus" can't be reached. It might be a good idea to have the guidelines have instructions / advice on how to conduct these discussions on individual talk pages"
That's all I've said so far, and I haven't stated that I've said any more than that. -- Ned Scott 23:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You said that you had commented that it would provide advice on how to settle disputes. All that you've quoted here (apparently I didn't miss anything after all) is that if there's a disagreement, the rules should be that the spoiler tags stay. You didn't say anything about weak arguments or strong arguments (not to mention that determining that would largely be subjective, and would more than likely end up falling to the "majority rules" thing again). This could certainly become an abused loophole. Ryu Kaze 00:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

move talk for guidelines?[edit]

Should we move to the main talk page (Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning) to discuss the guidelines, make a new sub page, or continue here? I'm not saying we should close the RfC yet, as people still seem to be coming in with comments, but.. this page is already very large, and we'll be addressing specific guideline issues instead of the over-all concept of a spoiler tag. I think it would be wise to organize our discussion for the guidelines off this page, maybe with an occasional "check-in" or something as long as the RfC is still going. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 13:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea. We need to start hammering out guidelines....plange 19:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment on Richard0612's position[edit]

Your argument is flawed, disabled by default? Also i believe the name spoiler is pretty self-explanatory.. it is designed to spoil things. So warning users is only fair. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 17:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What? Spoilers were "designed to spoil things"? Spoilers exist because stories exist. I'm sorry, but that's absolutely the most ridiculus thing I've seen said on the matter. Comprehensively covering the plot of a fictional work (as we're supposed to) is not a diabolical attempt to ruin people's lives. It's doing what we're here to do: be an encyclopedia. Not to mention that such an argument doesn't even touch on the fabulous double-standard that it carries in the face of us not censoring pornography or images of human mutilation, the latter of which actually being something that has been known to impair people's quality of life as a result of psychological damage.
In any event, people are warned. There's a universal content disclaimer and the word "encyclopedia" plastered all over the site. Ryu Kaze 21:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hence the name spoilers, s p o i l Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, what I meant to say was hidden by default. My comment has been amended. However, I agree with Ryu Kaze. People ARE warned, and why would someone be reading an article on a book/movie that they haven't seen yet. As I stated in my comment, please use common sense. ><Richard0612 UW 21:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a regular editor of comic book related articles, editing a character's article or maintaining it can result in spoilers every Wednesday by editors trying to be the first to add the newest thing to happen in the character's comic book to their article. Just an instance of when someone would read an article about a book they haven't read yet. --Newt ΨΦ 18:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please refrain from attacking me. Also where is this warning, also maybe to retrieve info such as budget info, producers or actors or publisher? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No-one here is trying to attack you, I am sorry if my reply gave that impression. Please clarify what you mean by "also maybe to retrieve info". ><Richard0612 UW 21:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The universal content warning is at the bottom of every page on this encyclopedia. Ryu Kaze 21:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
heh, and the circle keeps going... -- Ned Scott 21:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(also, "Not to mention that such an argument doesn't even touch on the fabulous double-standard that it..." we DO NOT have to address every issue in every response. If Matthew wishes to address one issue or comment, then he is allowed to do so.) -- Ned Scott 22:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What good is the warning if one only would read it after they read a spoiler? "Hey, pal, Jesus gets crucified. BTW, this page included spoilers" That argument strikes me as illogical. If you want a blanket warning instead of the tags (which, to be clear, I am against) it should occur before the information that spoils, not after. Darquis 22:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They may not be going into the article to be spoilers, tags help users avoid text whic may spoil them; Allowing them to IE: Do there research on say a movie: the producers or actors, or say a book: the publisher or writer. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
heh, and the circle keeps going... -- Ned Scott 21:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Sorry, this was suposed to be in reply to Ryu. -- Ned Scott 22:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dont expect the circles to end anytime soon :-P, It looks like these proposed policys stay running for years. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 22:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ned, what are you talking about with "we DO NOT have to address every issue in every response"? I'm saying that argument defeated itself because it's a double-standard. Ryu Kaze 22:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are circling more than ever; I was only away from Wikipedia for a day and the entire US population seems to have edited this page, there have been so many edits! To think, here I was, under the impression that the discussion had died down. Oh, silly RobbieG! ;)
To MatthewFenton, I think what people are so incredulous of is your remark that spoilers were "designed to spoil things", which sounds just plain daft when you think about it. "Designed" means we did it on purpose and we don't want to spoil anyone's story, we are just trying to write a comprehensive encyclopaedia. I suspect that that was just a typo or a miswording or something, and what you meant was something completely different, right?
In response to Ryu Kaze, how many times must I state that "encyclopaedia" is meaningless? It just means a collection of info, and says nothing of how that info is presented. Therefore, "encyclopaedia" can't be viewed as a warning. As for the disclaimer, I see your point there, although I don't think the spoiler tags hurt anyone, and I also wonder how many people actually read those things. Not many, I'll wager.
Ohmigosh, there's no end to these edit conflicts!!! RobbieG 22:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Encyclopedia" conveys a lot, Robbie, because "comprehensive" is one of the key words in its definition. Ryu Kaze 22:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, i shall try woding it better: "The general idea of a spoiler is to give away crucial elements of the plot that you may not wish to know. Hence the name spoil, they can "spoil" the plot. It is only fair to give due warning !before! the spoiler alas it also does no harm to warn." Sound better? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 22:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That doesn't help any, no. Spoilers aren't something people made up to ruin things. If a story exists, it has plot details, which people have been calling "spoilers". Ryu Kaze 22:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, it does do harm to warn when one of the tenets of the concept behind an encyclopedia is that you don't warn people about knowledge of any kind that is contained here. The most important thing here is the mission of building this encyclopedia and the concept behind it. People come second to this. Ryu Kaze 22:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What!? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 22:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Assuming a NPOV in the presentation of information (a policy here) would require that we not warn people not to look at something. It's also a policy that we don't censor anything. That's why I've been opposed to spoiler tags. Refer to the issue summaries at the top of this page for more specific details on the subject. Ryu Kaze 22:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're looping again. You've already stated your view on this in detail in the above sections. The accusation that spoiler tags voliate NPOV has it's own section on this talk page... -- Ned Scott 23:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How am I looping? Matthew asked me to explain my position. Ryu Kaze 23:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sigh* Theres no censoring nor warning not to look at it, you are warning people that its there, it exists and so proceed at your own peril if you wish to be spoiled. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 23:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uh... how is there not a warning when we have a spoiler warning tag? And that's exactly one thing we aren't supposed to. Information's supposed to be presented impartially and not without the suggestion that some specific info is inappropriate for readers to see.
Did i say there was not a warning, no. I said theres not a warning that says dont look at it. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 23:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you're putting a warning on text... then obviously the warning is for not looking at it. Ryu Kaze 23:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gah, this inline/outline stuff is getting headachey, it's starting to become difficult following who's commenting/responding to what. That aside, the warning on text is not "obviously" a warning to not look at it. The warning is more akin to a sign that says the floor is wet, the road ahead is an s curve, or something of that nature. It is a warning that allows you to make a more informed decision. Do you want to chance spoiling the plot, slipping on the floor, driving in S curves? It doesn't forbid you to read it, nor does it encourage you one way or the other. It just tells you what is. Darquis 23:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It singles out specific information with the suggestion that certain people not read it by the very nature of what it is. Example: you put up a sign before a flashy show that would harm someone with epilepsy, obviously someone with epilepsy is not then going to want to look at it. If you put up a spoiler warning in front of people who are scared to learn plot details, then they're then not going to look at it. Is this a courtesy to those people? Of course. Is that our mission? Not at all. Ryu Kaze 23:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it doesn't suggest people not read it. It informs people of what it is, and lets them make their own decision. Much like in the case of a person with epilepsy, one can ignore the warning at their own discretion. Does this detract from our mission? No, the information is still there. Unless our mission is to force people to read things regardless of if they want to know the details of an ending or a plot twist, the spoiler tag doesn't interfere with our mission. It simply informs people further. People can choose to read or not read articles on their own, and do so all the time even without spoiler warnings. That's the choice they make, and it can be based on any number of factors. Unless you propose to eliminate all the factors by which someone can decide to read or not read an article, I don't think spoiler tags should be eliminated; they're just one more form of information (note, I indented your comment so as not to throw off the flow of in/out comments, rather than have it appear as a rebuttal to a comment it wasn't.)Darquis 00:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it's not there to suggest that people not read it, then it wouldn't really have a reason to be there, would it? That's what a warning for specific information is for. And how is not being subjective, not labeling things that we personally think that someone else might not want to read and not taking measures to suggest to them that they might not want to read it forcing someone to read it? They get their choice when they come here. We're not supposed to sit there and consult them on it. It's a violation of the concept behind the project (the impartial presentation of comprehensive information). This is the same reason we don't allow warnings for images of pornography or human torture and mutilation.
While their decision to read can be based on any number of factors, it runs contrary to this encyclopedia's purpose that we add an additional factor to influence that decision making process, particularly when that factor is based on our own opinions of what may be unsuitable for others to see. While it's a courtesy, it's a misplaced one. Our objective requires that we -- for lack of a better term (i.e. don't get offended please, Ned) -- be assholes and not care about readers' feelings in the editorial capacity. As an editor here, I accept that it's a part of the mission. We're only supposed to care about readers learning, and the notion of them learning something is not supposed to make us go "Oh no!". Our objective is only to provide comprehensive, verifiable information, present it impartiality, and add only that which makes this information more accessible to the reader, whether it's something they would want to learn or not.
(The indentation is fine. Sorry if I made it confusing before.) Ryu Kaze 00:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dont see any things in the gudielines about ass-hole'ation --Fact is the tags are there, they dont stop you. The person has free will if they wish to proceed. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 07:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You should be looking at the policies, then, instead of the guidelines. One of our policies states that we don't censor anything relevant, regardless of whether or not is something someone might find offensive. That also goes in line with another policy that demands we present things impartially. We also have the site-wide disclaimer informing people that anywhere in the encyclopedia, there might be something they might not like. So, yes, we do have to be assholes in our mission here. We're not here to babysit people's insecurities. Some of our policies demand that we don't. Ryu Kaze 13:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You fail to produce evidence that anything is being censored so i can only assume you are lieing, after all i have told you before. They do not stop you from reading the text, free will is involved, if a user wishes to view the text then they can. Nothing has stopped them except a polite notice. Also a content disclaimer may warn of spoiler but theres also no harm in given due warning before the spoilers start. Its only good faith, it would be bad faith if we removed them and thus i can only assume you are acting in bad faith in attempting to have them removed. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm acting in an attempt to preserve the integrity of this project, which is based in indifferent encyclopedic principle that cares nothing for concerns of those who fear knowledge and cares only about the impartial presentation of verifiable information in an easily accessible manner. "Censorship" is not just the analysis of information followed by the removal of that which is deemed inappropriate. It's also the supression or irregular presentation of it, in whole or in part. In other words, singling out some specific info to slap a warning on -- and on the basis of your own judgement about what might be inappropriate for others to see, no less -- is an irregular presentation, because you're not doing that to everything else. It's censorship in the most simple of terms.
My concern here is as an editor, solely concerned with this project, its integrity and its operation. In the capacity of an editor, I, thus, care nothing about courtesies that do not directly benefit the improvement of this project, nor do I care for putting anything above the mission and its operating princicples, including the concerns of readers or other editors about what information is contained here, and how appropriate it may or may not be for people to see. Ryu Kaze 14:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Funny, i believed you where attempting to destablize the cohesion of the project, simply put definition: "If i can read it freely, it is not censored." a'o.k? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Putting the emphasis back on the project's principles isn't undermining it. It's ensuring that it remain an example of what it's supposed to represent. That it has integrity. Anyway, what you just said: again, just because you can read something doesn't mean it hasn't been censored. Censorship is just commonly interpreted to mean "exclusion" because that's the most blatant form of censorship. Ryu Kaze 14:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It sounds to me like your attempting to define censorship as you going along. Again if i can read it, i do not believe it to be censored. from a dictionary "deleting parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances" nothing has been deleted, has it? Please stop making your own definitions up. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Making my own definitions up? I beg to differ. If you're analyzing something, passing judgement on it and then passing that judgement on to the reader in an attempt to impact how they perceive information (under a preconception you gave to them rather than none) or whether they aborsb it at all, you are censoring it. Plain and simple. Ryu Kaze 14:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Um, Ryu, Wikipedia defines encyclopaedias as comprehensive. Not to speak ill of the project, but since when have we been the world's most reliable source? My dictionary here says that encyclopaedias are by definition "wide ranging" in their information, not necessarily "comprehensive". I own several encyclopaedias, and I don't think any of them spoil any of Shakespeare's or many of Dicken's works. Also they don't even mention such classic spoilers as Luke Skywalkers's father's fate, the identity of Rosebud, the guy who was really out to get the Philosopher's Stone, or that our princess is in another castle. Actually, they don't actually make any mention of Citizen Kane, Harry Potter or Super Mario at all. Hardly "comprehensive", yet they're still encyclopaedias. RobbieG 23:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the dictionary I have includes the word "comprehensive", though the fact that we use the word to define the bodies of knowledge here makes for quite another double-standard if we then suggest that it shouldn't be expected that we'd attempt to be comprehensive, doesn't it? In any event, I'll concede to your point here since it's likely that there are different definitions across different dictionaries. Ryu Kaze 23:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Our objective is only to provide comprehensive, verifiable information, present it impartiality, and add only that which makes this information more accessible to the reader, whether it's something they would want to learn or not"? The first part of that sentence, up until the comma after "reader" is absolutely correct. Yet spoiler warnings do make things more accessible. If you've read my statement above I hope you'll forgive me for repeating myself, but this site isn't compulsary. We don't expect people to read stuff they never intended to read. As for the rest of your sentence, what kind of encyclopaedia tells people about compact disks when they want to read about wine gums? Not a very useful one. What encyclopaedia spoils the plot of a book for somebody who came to read about the director? Again, not a useful one. The spoiler warnings do, therefore, make information here more accessible. RobbieG 07:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How do spoiler warnings make things more accessible? They're not a link in the table of contents on an article. They're simply in the way once you get to a section. In any event, we don't make expectations about what people are going to read at all. It's not our concern. Our concern is just that the information be here, be verifiable, be presented impartially, and in an accessible way (so your analogy about using a section marked "Director" for "Plot" doesn't work here; if, however, plot details were relevant in discussing the director, they would be included, in the same way that discussing Henrick Ibsen's life calls for discussing the plots of his works, which served as commentary on society).
So, yes, again, our mission is to supply the information in that way, regardless of whether or not someone wants it. If it's relevant, it goes in. That's the be all end all of it. Ryu Kaze 13:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let me explain in more detail how it makes it more accessible. Supposing I want to read about a director, I specifically am not interested in reading about the plot of his works, and a section of his article contains plot details. The spoiler warning tells me to skip that section because it isn't what I'm after. I'm in no way inconvenienced by the spoilers presence; on the contrary, it's useful, as it allows me to move straight onto the stuff I'm looking for and not waste time on the stuff I don't want. RobbieG 18:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When writing about a director it is natural to describe some of his works in the bio section as a way to explain or even document his personality and character. And if I wanted to learn about a director, I'd be very interested in what kind of movie plots he liked to work with. But be that as it may, even if using a certain structure in an article could be excused on the grounds that it makes it easier to find information, we can't structure the articles that way if it breaks with the established way encyclopedias should read. For instance, the article about a director could be rewritten into a bulleted list with facts. No prose and no extra blah blah, just list when he was born, family, university he attended, movies he has made, and so on. Every fact that we now "hide" within the article prose we could include in a list. Sorted into sections on, say, personal life, work, education, trivia, etc that would make for an article with very accessible information, allowing the readers to move straight onto the facts they are looking for, as you and many people like. But, of course, we can't structure an article like that. It's not how an encyclopedia article should read. An encyclopedia article should be made up of well written prose, even if it makes for harder to find information. I like reading trivia-lists. They are easy to learn from. But still I trim or delete them when I come across these lists here. And in my opinion trivia lists should be banned from Wikipedia as it's not something an encyclopedia article should contain. The facts should be included in the prose. And for the same reason should we ban explicit spoiler warnings. They don't belong in an encyclopedia, even if some people might find them useful in some instances. Shanes 19:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with you Shanes, at least as far as trivia lists are concerned, but I still think there is no good reason why an encyclopaedia shouldn't contain spoiler warnings. RobbieG 09:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the risk of reigniting an old, and well worn, line of discussion I just feel it worth pointing out that no other encyclopaedia, even including fiction-specific encyclopaedias, include spoiler warnings. While that may not be sufficient to show that there's good reasons why an encyclopaedia shouldn't contain spoiler warnings, it is sufficient to show that the editors of virtually all other encyclopaedias believe there to be good reasons why an encyclopaedia shouldn't contain spoiler warnings. --Daduzi talk 10:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've yet to see any citable evidence that actually shows that there really are no other encyclopedia's that don't have spoiler warnings. And as many have pointed out, this might simply be a problem that one doesn't have with a paper encyclopedia, but does have with an online or otherwise digital one. Not to mention that access to fictional-based encyclopedias is no where near the accessibility that there is to Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 10:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There will never be any citable evidence that shows that there are no other encyclopaedias that have spoiler warnings as it is impossible to prove a negative. However, perhaps I should rephrase my original statement to read "I am not aware of any other encyclopaedias"... and await an example of an encyclopaedia that does use spoiler warnings. Given the vast number of encyclopaedias (both printed and digital) available that deal with fiction (either primarily or tangentally) if spoiler warnings truly are considered encyclopaedia worthy it should not be too difficult to find a single example. --Daduzi talk 13:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except that even printed encyclopedias of fiction can never be as up-to-the-second as Wikipedia is. Wikipedia often includes major plot details for unreleased films. Powers 14:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which are usually difficult at best to verify, and extremely problematic because of it. Phil Sandifer 15:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I take it then that you believe spoilers should be limited to films that are as of yet unreleased? --Daduzi talk 16:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or recently released (as in, still in first-run theaters, for films), yes. I don't mind spoiler warnings, and I don't think they wreck the encyclopedia in anyway, nor do I think they violate policy. But limiting them to unreleased and recently released works is, I think reasonable. The number of people benefited by a spoiler warning decreases damatically once a work has been out for a little while. The few remaining cases where an unexpected plot twist is a key part of the plot (The Sixth Sense, The Crying Game, The Empire Strikes Back, etc.) can be written in such a way to avoid springing the surprise on an unsuspecting reader (e.g., "This movie is known for its suprising plot twist" in the lead, with the details later on; or "At the end of the film, in a plot twist that many reviewers[7] called "surprising", ...."). Powers 17:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have to say, I think The Crying Game and Empire are prime examples of what's wrong with the spoiler policy. It seems to me idiotic and pointless to write any kind of overview of either film without taking the twist into immediate account. The major advance of Empire is the addition of the Skywalker legacy and the tragedy of Darth Vader. The major interest of The Crying Game is its portrayal of gender. Without those two things being immediately put up front, anything you say about the films is so massively incomplete as to be not worth saying. Phil Sandifer 20:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems that we can write our articles in such a way as to "protect" readers who do not want spoilers, without having an actual spoiler tag. If the opening paragraph mentioned "the movie book/porno is known especially for its surprising plot twist at the end", then I think our average reader would be able to figure out that they might want to avoid the plot section (or perhaps the rest of the article) until they've seen the work, if they want to avoid being spoiled. This section has gone on way too long by now, but maybe this is a way out. -- nae'blis 20:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm making a more basic point. I think the first sentence of The Crying Game, to be an honest and decent first sentence of an encyclopedia article, needs to read something like "The Crying Game is a 1992 film known for its controversial engagement with issues of sex and gender." And the second sentence should begin "The film's twist ending, in which the female lead, Dil, is revealed to be biologically male..." Anything else is an opening that buries the most pertinent information about the film, which is bad encyclopedia writing. Phil Sandifer 21:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you enlighten us: what is "the established way encyclopedias should read"?
Should one take your argument against "bulleted list[s] with facts" to apply as well to Infoboxes? If not wherein lies the difference? I frequently visit country article for specific information in Infobox country. Should the all infoboxes be rewritten in paragraph form?
"[...] even if some people might find them useful in some instances". So the purpose of this encyclopedia is some abstract ideal rather than usefulness? I thought usefulness was part of the ideal. --Swift 13:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given the description of Wikipedia's purpose, I would certainly say that its intention is an ideal with the possibility of usefulness being a hopeful side-effect, rather than the direct intention: "an effort to create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language". I doubt that such an ideal could ever be a reality. And as myself and others have said, there's plenty of useful things that could be here but are discarded or even outlawed because the mission is more important than courtesy or usefulness. Ryu Kaze 20:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Infoboxes are fine. They are also quite common in other encyclopedias, paper or electronic. Spoiler tags aren't. I was just giving you an example of how usefulness is of less concern than staying true to the conventional encyclopedic style in that an article consisting entirely of a bulleted list could be considered more useful than lots of prose (easier to find information), but we don't write articles that way because then it wouldn't read like an encyclopedia article. In my opinion the same goes for spoiler tags. To me they make us look much less like an encyclopedia, and more like a fan or review site. We are already rather different from traditional encyclopedias in scope and the way content is generated and published. And that's fine. But when it comes to writing style, we should be more conservative. And to me introducing the concept of warning readers about something called "spoilers" is so different in style from every other encyclopedia out there, that we should avoid it.
It might sound counter productive that usefulness has to go for being true to the style of an encyclopedia, but we make priorities like that all the time. We delete long lists of external links even though having such links could be considered useful and informative. We don't have HOWTO's in wikipedia, even though they sure are useful some times. We don't include phone numbers either, even if they would be useful in many articles (hotels, restaurants, etc). We don't include all these useful things (and more) because this is only an encyclopedia, and nothing more. Shanes 14:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again: what is "the established way encyclopedias should read"?
I think you have completely lost the sight of the purpose of Wikipedia. It does not exist in order to look like an encyclopedia. It exists in order to be an encyclopedia — to provide information to people on a broad range of topics. It exists as a means to an end. You will not find any policy that says WP shall conservatively conform to anyone else. There is no normative encyclopedia.
From Encyclopedia[8]:
An encyclopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopædia,[1] is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.
Read the article, read the policies and guidelines. You will find nothing that confines an encyclopedia to conform to any specific structural norms. --Swift 15:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Piffle. You can't claim that there's no normative standard of encyclopedia to which Wikipedia can be held in the same breath that you say that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. If we are supposed to be an encyclopedia, there must be standards to which we are held, and those standards, if the term is going to have any useful meaning, must be comparable to those of other respected encyclopedias. Phil Sandifer 15:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Swift, the moment you assign a title to something, you have just placed standards upon it and defined it. Ryu Kaze 20:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Header[edit]

The header's just there because I noticed how long this page is getting; please ignore it, it's just for the convenience of Firefox and Google Toolbar users.

Phil Sandifer, I don't see that spoilers are anything to do with standards. If anything, they could be argued to be higher standards than most as it shows that we look out for people who stumble across here by mistake and have stuff spoilt for them, which is likely to happen. BTW, since I mentioned it, there can be no parallel there with porn or violence, as people who don't want to see them are unlikely to be searching for them in the first place, whereas the very existance of spoiler warnings proves that there are people who don't want plot details spoilt but do look for info on movies or books.
Also, I feel I need to remind people once more that Wikipedia contains a number of things that traditional encyclopaedias don't, such as NPOV, hyperlinks to sources, detailed information about current events and popular culture, and, most notably, the whole "anyone can edit" wiki thing. I suspect that most people who oppose spoiler warnings on the grounds that other encyclopaedias lack them have no problem at all with any of the above. I think the majority of editors feel that they actually add something to the encyclopaedia. I say spoiler warnings are the same. RobbieG 19:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

None of those, with the possible exception of hyperlinks, are stylistic issues, though. And in the case of NPOV, it's hardly an invention of Wikipedia. Again, you're arguing for the inclusion of a blatant neologism that appears, in the definition you're using it, in no major dictionary that anyone has found, and arguing for its use in a way that no comparable reference work uses it. This is not good, and not the sort of revolution that Wikipedia should be engaged in. We're radical in our means of construction, progressive in our methods of formatting, and conservative in our standards of acceptability. Phil Sandifer 19:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Um, what's wrong with being innovative? Who cares if it's a neologism? The funny thing was I was thinking of responding with a sentence saying that we're a groundbreaking, revolutionary idea and should not be afraid to embrace new things when you wrote that yourself at the end. I'm puzzled. "We're radical in our means of construction, progressive in our methods of formatting, and conservative in our standards of acceptability" -- I couldn't have said it better :-) plange 20:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an issue of acceptable language, though. It's not construction. Nor is it formatting - this is not a matter of utilizing hyperlinking (Which is really our sole formatting innovation, and it's hardly ours). This is a matter of acceptability - is it OK to use a neologism supported by no dictionary and no other serious reference work in pursuit of including content warnings that no other serious reference work sees a need for. I have not seen any reason beyond personal preference to break with this tradition. Phil Sandifer 20:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Robbie, NPOV is something that traditional encyclopedias contain. That's why it's one of the foundations of Wikipedia. As for hyperlinks, that hardly makes sense. Paper encyclopedias constantly tell readers to check out related articles or provide some kind of indication that terms brought up have their own articles. You can't exactly poke that term on paper and be taken to the page in question, though.
As far as current events goes, a paper encyclopedia is limited in what it can cover given that it's not even distributed as regularly as a newspaper. We're not. That doesn't mean what we're trying to do is any different. As far as anyone being able to edit goes, again, that doesn't mean what we're trying to do here is somehow less than what paper encyclopedias are trying to do. All editors are expected to conform to certain ways of conducting themselves. The concept is "Anyone can edit so long as they follow specific principles", not "Anyone can edit and put anything they want to in here and it be treated just like the information that was included in accordance with our objective and principles".
By the way, your suggestion that there's no correlation between spoiler tags and trying to warn people about pornography or images of violence is a terrible argument. I highly doubt that people looking up information on the Holocaust (a major part of history) would only be looking it up if they wanted to see fields full of dead bodies. I doubt that people looking up information about the US soldiers who tortured their prisoners in Iraq (a hot button current event that has impacted the way the rest of the world sees the US and the way US citizens see their own military) would only be doing that if they wanted to see those people being tortured. I somehow doubt that someone looking up information on the life of a notable porn star would necessarily be expecting or hoping that her biography picture was a screenshot of her in action from one of her hardcore features. Hell, Sharon Stone's page (the woman being a well known Hollywood actress) had a memorable shot of her from Basic Instinct, a scene where the camera was positioned in a very interesting location.
I can just as easily argue that someone looking up an article on a fictional work would only do that if they wanted to know about its plot. Does that mean it's true? No. But do we care? No. Or at least we're not supposed to. We're supposed to assume that readers are here for all of it or none of it. We're not supposed to single some out based on our own assumptions and preconcpetions of what might be unsuitable for someone else to see. Courtesy is not the most important thing in the creation of a project that strictly denies granting certain courtesies in the first place.
People can stop trying to defend that spoiler tags aren't a double-standard, because they most certainly are. As far as it goes, of all the things to be "protecting" people from, this is probably the least meaningful given that the life of a child discovering images of pornography for the first time is more likely to be affected (not necessarily negatively, but affected nonetheless) by that than someone is by learning the ending to The Little Engine That Could, or given that there's been documented cases of horrific images of mutilation requiring people to seek psychological counseling. Seriously, if protecting people from "harmful" information is so important that we've got to do it regardless of what Wikipedia is here to do, you're focusing on the peashooters instead of the tanks and rocket launchers. Ryu Kaze 20:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I say they most certainly aren't a double standard, and you can't convince me otherwise by just stating that they are. I still can't think of any good reason anybody would look for a porn actress online unless they were hoping to come across porn, and as for violence, you need a pretty strong stomach to even read about that stuff, so I hardly think that's a comparable issue. As I've actually said before, I don't fully agree with the censorship policy, as I feel some things, in particular (and I am not a Muslim, I'm just respectful of people's religious views) Muhammad cartoons, are so obviously offensive that they really shouldn't be shown here, but the point is that we can't start labelling what is offensive and what isn't without breaking NPOV. I can't think of any other good reason for not censoring Wikipedia, but I'll support the uncensored policy purely for that reason. Plot details are not a NPOV issue. Plot details are plot details. Plain and simple. There can be no other POVs about it. Yes, spoiler warnings are redundant under a section marked "Plot", but not elsewhere.
Oh, and by the way, I don't know what encyclopaedias you've been checking, but I've yet to come across a paper encyclopaedia that contained a purely NPOV. And yes, that includes Britannica. RobbieG 21:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not trying to convince you by just stating that they are. I'm pointing out that we behave one way with one thing, and then behave completely another way with something very similar. Only in this case, the tamest of the "harmful" information is getting the restrictive treatment.
In any event, regardless of why you think someone might be looking for information about a porn actress, you have no actual reason to believe that someone is only doing that if they're hoping to find porn. Hell, speaking logically, if you want to find porn, you're not as likely to come to Wikipedia to find it as you are to go to Google. In any event, we're not supposed to even be assuming why people would come here at all. We're supposed to pretend that the readers might as well not exist when it comes to the actual construction of the encyclopedia. We're supposed to be trying to achieve an unrealistic ideal, not make something that only thinks about how it might be useful to people. It's, of course, hoped that it's useful to people, and if constructed properly, it will be useful to people, but it's not supposed to think of putting usefulness or courtesy first.
By the way, actresses who have been in pornography are often well known names with semi- or full blown celebrity status. Don't you think it's assuming just a little much that someone would never have a reason to search for information about these people unless they wanted visual information about them?
As for violence, we have institutions called "schools", Robbie. People have been writing reports about the Holocaust for how long now? People will be writing reports about the mistreatment of prisoners by US soldiers too. That doesn't mean they must have some kind of sadistic nature that will take pleasure from the images associated. It's a terribly unfounded assumption to conclude that someone could only look up articles about well known public figures who have been in pornographic media if they wanted to see pornography, or that someone would never have a constructive reason to be looking up an article that featured violent images... but then to assume that someone looking up information about the plot of a fictional work probably doesn't want the details of the plot. That in itself is a baffling double-standard.
See the kind of ridiculus scenarios that come as a result of even bothering to assume that someone might or might not want to see certain information, or even bothering to care about courtesy and people's feelings in a heartless medium? It becomes laughable, because you can't be both a heartless medium that focuses solely on facts as they are while also catering to people's feelings. The two concepts will always conflict with one another. That's why we're supposed to stick with being heartless when we're acting as editors, never assume what someone might or might not want to see, care only about presenting the information by way of the most relevant, objective and acessible means, and simply not care about anything else in this capacity.
Does that mean that we're those kind of people? No. I myself am someone who thinks that compassion is the most important thing in the world. But not here. Here, compassion is something to be observed, dissected and catalogued, not something to be practiced. Ryu Kaze 13:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, regardless of whether or not you personally feel that NPOV presentation is a common practice in encyclopedias, Jimbo Wales has said that here, it's "absolute and non-negotiable".[9][10] Ryu Kaze 14:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First off, I want it known that I never meant to suggest that all people looking up violence were sadists, just that if you've got the stomach to look up and read about violence, you should be able to cope with the illustrations. Just thought I'd clear that up. Didn't want to cause any offence. Secondly, I would like to point out that if an actress is best known for non-pornographic work but also appears in a porn movie or something, surely it's a more relevant illustration to have a picture of her doing what she's best known for anyway. Thirdly, I never, ever so much as suggested the NPOV policy is negotiable. I think the opposite, it's a rule we must abide by here, and a very sensible one at that. It is actually starting to irritate me the way people constantly claim spoiler warnings violate NPOV even though they plainly don't, because plot details is plot details is plot details. Full stop. The reason I mentioned NPOV was to illustrate how Wikipedia isn't afraid to set its own standards, most of which are, IMO, higher than those traditional encyclopaedias. Spoiler warnings are one of those higher standards. Fourthly, I probably ought to remind you that most people will probably find us via Google, which is one of the reasons I think spoiler warnings are essential. Finally, I want to point out that there is no point at all in an encyclopaedia nobody reads. We live in the real world here, not some self-contained Wikipedia fantasy land (no matter what Uncyclopedia might have you believe!). RobbieG 18:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You still haven't (at least on my reading) explained the distinction between spoiler warnings and porn/violence warnings, surely every argument you've made against porn/violence warnings also applies to spoilers (it could just as readily be argued that if a user is reading an article on a work of fiction they should have the stomache to handle spoilers), and every argument you've made for spoiler warnings applies to porn/violence (people come to articles containing pornographic or violent images from Google, too). Basically, I'm still not seeing the distinction. Also, I don't think it's justifiable to claim that spoiler warnings are one of the "higher standards" of Wikipedia; they're a debatable guideline, not a policy and certainly not one of the five pillars. There's no way you can liken NPOV to spoiler warnings. --Daduzi talk 19:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know spoiler warnings aren't policy, I'm just saying that I think they are a high standard, and I feel the same way about NPOV, sources, hyperlinks etc. Also, I keep pointing out the key difference between spoiler warnings and offensive material warnings (e.g. Toby): We are not going to be able to agree on what is offensive and what isn't. Some people might well consider The Da Vinci Code to be more offensive than nudity. I think violent images and porn are offensive, but some people might well disagree. We can't include (for example) Toby and remain unbiased. Plot details, on the other hand, are plot details. I'd be perfectly happy for us to change the wording of the spoiler warning to make it more neutral, but I see no conflict at all with Wikipedia policy in the labelling of plot details. RobbieG 19:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "First off, I want it known that I never meant to suggest that all people looking up violence were sadists, just that if you've got the stomach to look up and read about violence, you should be able to cope with the illustrations. Just thought I'd clear that up. Didn't want to cause any offence."
Ok. No harm done, I guess. But by the same token, as Daduzi has said, the same argument can be made for plot details: if someone can look up a work of fiction or an article related to one, they should be able to handle the details of its plot.
  • "Secondly, I would like to point out that if an actress is best known for non-pornographic work but also appears in a porn movie or something, surely it's a more relevant illustration to have a picture of her doing what she's best known for anyway."
Unless — as in Sharon Stone's case — it's a career milestone, I would agree. Rarely would it add something extra. However, that doesn't address the example I was bringing up: many women who have been involved in pornography are well known names. Some are known beyond just being involved in pornography for that matter. Heck, Jenna Jameson appeared in an episode of Family Guy and will be in Sin-Jin Smyth, slated for release in October.
  • "It is actually starting to irritate me the way people constantly claim spoiler warnings violate NPOV even though they plainly don't, because plot details is plot details is plot details."
Exactly. Plot details are plot details. So why are some being singled out for a suggestion that they may be inappropriate to some readers, despite NPOV?
  • "'Fourthly, I probably ought to remind you that most people will probably find us via Google, which is one of the reasons I think spoiler warnings are essential."
As Daduzi said, that applies to all pages on Wikipedia, including the pornography page.
  • "Also, I keep pointing out the key difference between spoiler warnings and offensive material warnings (e.g. Toby): We are not going to be able to agree on what is offensive and what isn't."
So why cater to one opinion of what is while ignoring others? Why would we have NPOV and no censorship, and then recognize any opinion of what some editors think readers should be warned about?
  • "I'd be perfectly happy for us to change the wording of the spoiler warning to make it more neutral, but I see no conflict at all with Wikipedia policy in the labelling of plot details."
It isn't impartial. Its very existance involves the opinions of editors, which they then present to the readers along with the information that they're labeling. Its purpose is to warn people. For that matter, it isn't standardized. Do we bother to say "Development details follow"? "Critical response details follow"? "Audio details follow"? Of course not. So why this? Why this unstandardized presentation that is based on editors' opinions? Ryu Kaze 20:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hope you'll forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but plot details aren't actually offensive. If I do find out who Luke's father is prior to seeing Star Wars it won't mentally scar me. My point above was that this is a totally seperate issue from Toby. It's just courtesy to warn people that you're about to spoil the plot for them. I don't see a problem with that. I know Wikipedia doesn't exist to be nice, but we aren't out to deliberately wreck people's fun either. It isn't our job to be cruel. Or are we all just heartless gits?
Heh, when you minimise this page it reads "Wikipedia talk:Spoiler war". How very apt indeed... RobbieG 21:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait, so if something is liable to cause offense and/or distress that's a reason not to warn against it, but if it's likely to cause only mild annoyance that's a reason to warn against it? I'm really not following the logic there. --Daduzi talk 21:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's part of the laughable double-standard that I've been trying to make people see here since the beginning: it's absurd to try "protecting" people from the least "harmful" of all possible materials present here. In any event, Robbie, why are we bothering to care about courtesy in this venue? Looking at your edit summary, you wrote "I never realised it was our job to be stealing babies toys, kicking people in the ribs, and pulling the wings off flies". How is focusing solely on the impartial presentation of information doing any of those things? There's a difference between heartless indifferent and hearltess cruel. Wikipedia is heartless indifferent. Not that there's anything cruel about presenting information impartially in a venue that demands it anyway. Ryu Kaze 21:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another thing I may as well point out since nobody has so far: you have pretty much consistantly argued that spoiler warnings are biased and that they censor Wikipedia. Yet that would mean we were making assumptions. We aren't. If there is one thing spoiler warnings don't do, it's make assumptions. People make a choice, to read on or stop. If I want to read some plot information, I ignore the warnings and read it anyway. If I don't want to read it, however, I don't read it, I stop at the warning. That's the choice people make. Whilst it's true that the same could be said of audio information, critical response, etc., it's plain that there is no demand for warnings above such things. Spoiler warnings serve a useful purpose. There is no point at all in writing something unless you think it will be read by someone. However, the warnings don't pass judgement on information and they assume nothing of the reader. They make no assumptions whatsoever. I can't see anything to object to. RobbieG 21:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An assumption is made every time it's assumed a plot detail constitutes a spoiler. Without such assumptions spoiler warnings would not exist. --Daduzi talk 21:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As Daduzi said, everytime you conclude that knowledge of a plot spoils something, you have made an assumption. When you take the measure to introduce this opinion to the presentation of information, you have made the assumption that someone would think it inappropriate to see that information, as you have made an assumption about what they may or may not want to see, even though you're not supposed to care. It doesn't matter if spoiler tags serve a useful purpose or not. There's tons of things that do that, but not a single one of them warrants inclusion here on that basis alone, and as I've said many times, Wikipedia's very first policy says that things that don't directly contribute to Wikipedia's purpose of being an encyclopedia should be removed. Being useful doesn't warrant something a place here. Take a look at all the useful things (phone numbers, street addresses, game prices, etc.) we don't include here and then try to imagine what deaf ears the argument "But it's useful" falls upon in the mind of this encyclopedia's policies.
So, to summarize, being useful doesn't mean... well, anything... as far as Wikipedia is concerned, and spoiler tags are — by nature of their very existance and implementation — making assumptions because they are based on the judgement of the editor and that editors' assumptions about readers. You yourself have acknowledged this by making this statement: "Whilst it's true that the same could be said of audio information, critical response, etc., it's plain that there is no demand for warnings above such things". Ryu Kaze 21:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, if you care about what people demand more than universal indifferent presentation, then once again, I have to ask what Daduzi and I have already asked: why are you focusing on spoilers instead of pornography? People have been wanting warnings about that for a long time now. People have been wanting warnings for violent imagery. People have even been wanting the complete removal of the article about lolicon. Of all the things that could be said to matter here, plot details have got to be the last. I doubt that plot details have prompted anyone to need psycological counseling, have prompted a curiosity in seeing members of the opposite sex naked, or have inspired someone to shout "All you people defending an article about sexual depictions of children in artwork are pedophiles!" nearly as often. Ryu Kaze 22:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I say again, violence and porn are entirely irrelevant to my argument. You are confusing two totally separate issues here. You also missed my argument about assumptions. I was saying that we allow people to make an informed decision. That's not making assumptions, people make up their minds. RobbieG 22:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So when it's entirely the same thing (information that some people would not want to see, and, thus, information that some editors feel would be inappropriate for those people to see, and, thus, information that they should be warned about), it's "irrelevant"? The issues are not entirely seperate. They're two examples of precisely the same concept. And, again, this same argument about an "informed decision" could be made with regard to pornography and violent imagery, but it's all based on an editors' judgement of what they assume readers might not want to see. People make up their minds on their own. They don't need us to help them make up their mind and we're not supposed to even care, mustless try getting involved. Ryu Kaze 22:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok guys, shut up already. I'm sorry for being rude, but both of you already know how each other feels about this, and it's obvious no one is going to change the other persons view with comments like these. This is just leading us to get mad at each other and not solving anything. -- Ned Scott 01:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


guideline revision talk page[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/guidelines

Knock yourselves out, and remember, comments on this page are not about deleting spoilers or rejecting them. Keep those comments on this talk page. Since I don't think the guidelines will be a heated debate, I haven't really structured anything like we've done here. So.. yeah.. there we have it. -- Ned Scott 22:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

New spoiler warning discussion (5-15-07)[edit]

Noting new discussion for those who still have this on their watchlists: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. -- Ned Scott 04:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More