Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Spoiler. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

An edit to the lead section

I have made the following edit[1] to the first sentence of the guideline, for reasons that should be evident from the history of the past four months:

Before:

Wikipedia uses spoiler tags to mark off certain significant plot details ("spoilers") in articles about fictional works

After:

Wikipedia very occasionally uses spoiler tags to mark off particularly significant plot details ("spoilers") in articles about fictional works.

In the above, I have used bold to indicate words removed from the original or added to the new version. This emphasis does not of course appear on the guideline itself. --Tony Sidaway 20:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Tony: I have toned down your edit, for two reasons. One, the change from "certain" to "particularly" is ungrammatical with respect to the parenthetical — "particularly significant plot details ("spoilers")" is defining a spoiler as a particularly significant plot detail, which disagrees with the wording in the tag, whereas in "certain significant plot details (spoilers)" the word "certain" modifies "significant plot details ("spoilers")", so the definition matches the parenthetical. I'm not sure I'm explaining that well, but hopefully you can puzzle the meaning out. :) If you can find a way to word it that equates the tag phrasing with the parenthetical, go to!

I also removed the "very", since I think one of the problems with the previous version was intensifier escalation. It makes the guideline more insistent at the expense of encyclopedic tone and "guideline tone", imho. I'm happy with "occasionally", as I left it, or alternately you could move the "[though] often they [aren't] necessary at all if the article is well-structured" from the third paragraph to the end of that sentence, which I think might convey your intent even better. (Please delete the second occurrence if you do, to avoid duplication!)

I'm not going to make many edits here — it was taking too much of my time! — but I may cavil now and then. --Jere7my 02:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edit sits well with me. It seems to keep the sense of my original edit while answering your own concerns. --Tony Sidaway 20:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like an effort to establish quotas on the number of spoiler tags permitted, rather than judging the cases on an individual basis. If the number of 'permitted' tags grows too high, it will be too difficult for the spoiler police to personally oversee every tag, and it will actually be up to the community.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You've got a point there. Obviously a number of responsible editors, myself included, want to avoid the situation again becoming so bad that we have to perform a mass removal of redundant tags.

I'm sure that we all agree that there were indiscriminate uses of spoiler tags prior to the discussions of May, 2007. Comparisons to the Wild West [2] seem to have struck a chord between at least two editors who haven't yet been accused of being involved in some nefarious plot to subvert consensus [3] [4] , and the original MFD, before it was changed to a RFC [5], showed quite strong opposition to the old tag-permissive guideline. Editing history of articles since then has shown that, where editors actually take an interest in the problem, the tags are kept to a bare minimum and article quality improves. Overlarge plot summaries are tagged, poorly marked sections are renamed, unnecessarily placed tags are removed. All we need for a guideline, really, is to document what good Wikipedians have been doing all along: making Wikipedia better. --Tony Sidaway 23:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing spoiler tags sacrifices functionality for moralising, neutrality for 'fans only' and a worldwide view for a US-centric one. It makes Wikipedia worse.

The editing histories show that people who have added at least one spoiler tag outnumber the people removing them by at least a hundred to one. These are good Wikipedians doing what comes naturally; ensuring that the articles are fair-minded and balanced, rather than fans-only fansite extensions.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You will find this is so with many Wikipedia guidelines and policies. For instance, the number of people uploading unauthorized copyrighted images vastly exceeds the number of editors removing them. Wikipedia's anyone-can-edit approach means you have a lot of novice editors showing up and doing whatever strikes their fancy. That doesn't make it right. It doesn't make it wrong, either. It's just a random factoid that contributes nothing to the debate. Marc Shepherd 15:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Only copyright stuff and WP:BLP come anywhere near, and even then, they're 'Wild West' compared to it. Nor do they have quotas.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is there a quota in the spoiler guideline? I seem to have missed it. In any event, the fact that people frequently add spoiler tags is no evidence that they are "good Wikipedians...ensuring that the articles are fair-minded and balanced." It's not any evidence of anything. Every day, the number of edits reverted for vandalism probably exceeds the number of spoiler tags removed by a factor of 100,000 to 1. (Vandalism accounts for about 6% of all edits; see here.) So the frequency that something happens shows only that it happens frequently; nothing more. Marc Shepherd 19:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The quota is a de facto policy adopted by the anti-spoiler police. As the number of spoiler tags rises, they make it more and more difficult to add one, regardless of the merits of the case. I agree that the popularity of spoiler tags is not evidence, so I outlined their intrinsic benefits.--Nydas^(Talk) 06:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that it contributes nothing. Unlike vandalism or copyright removal, this is not a 'settled issue'. We're arguing over whether the guideline has consensus, and what the consensus actually is on the issue. As such, the number of people who are adding spoiler tags _is_ relevant. It's not solely of relevance, but it is relevant, as it helps to illustrate consensus. With vandalism, nobody seriously claims that vandalism is right for wikipedia. Copyright rules might have a few people opposed to it, but it's a matter of obeying the law. In these cases, it's not usually a matter of the violators being opposed to the overarching issue, it's about them either not knowing or being willfully disruptive. But here we're forging a guideline, and people claim that there is no significant opposition to the guideline as justification for it. So, the number of different people who are adding it, compared to the number of people 'enforcing' it _is_ something to consider. They have a voice in the debate too, and their voice is made at least in part by their edits. (Wouldn't it be lovely if, instead of just edit summaries that assert the guideline as a rule, the anti-warning patrol included a "help us find consensus at the issue over at Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler!" link, but since that's unlikely, we should go at least look at the numbers). Wandering Ghost 11:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

<outdent> I think such an edit summary is a very good idea. It'd be nice to get 'new blood' here as it were. Maybe we'll stop going in circles. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hang on! Nydas, Wandering Ghost, didn't we just get a completely new guideline written by a party who has not yet been accused of being a member of the "spoiler police"? Didn't the new one pass muster with almost everybody who commented on it? The old guideline to which some editors persistently objected is gone. And you're still complaining! --Tony Sidaway 12:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I was addressing a point, made by someone I thought made an incorrect assessment, in an effort to improve things. Perhaps the fact that you have confused it with 'complaining' explains why you have so often been unable or unwilling to address points yourself. But while I'm on the topic, since I haven't said it yet, I do think the current guideline, on the whole, is better than the last, although there are still systemic problems thanks to the uneven editing playing field. Wandering Ghost 11:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The guideline as it stands is OK. The problem is the enforcement. The guideline states that murder mysteries may have them, but we can rest assured that this will not be permitted.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You cannot be sure until you have discussed the possibility with respect to a relevant article. Don't complain until you've had a good go at it. --Tony Sidaway 02:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

A not so brief and (slightly) scientific survey of spoiler tags on the mainspace

I attempted a sort of 'spoiler survey' over the last week, parts of which I have excerpted below. Others have done a little less meticulous surveys on specific types of articles, but I was only paying attention to the occurrences on Wiki mainspace as a whole. Keep in mind that while this is a fairly good sample, it's only itended to suggest usage/removal trends. However I do believe in terms of usage this is more useful than personal anecdotes. Over the course of eight days I did 26 checks at random times (the majority, however, occurred very roughly at 20:00 UTC and in the span before and after). I logged the total number of spoilers, and for new additions noted where they were added; for removals (those that were not clear violations of the current WP:SPOILER guideline), I noted who removed them. Some conclusions, with minimal conjecture:

There are no significant edit wars over spoiler warnings themselves, although I did notice one incident over content itself, which incidentally was marked with tags. Whether or not this is because editors are discouraged upon removal is an impossible hypothesis to prove, so we'll disregard cause and instead focus on measureable effects.
An average of 4.1 tags are on en.Wiki mainspace at a time, with a median of 3 tags at any given point. There were no times logged when there were no warnings on Wikipedia.
Of all the warnings put on Wikipedia, 84% are removed within one day. Only about 8% of spoiler warnings can be expected to remain for a longer period (in this case, a week).
Only 13.5% of all notices were in places other than sections marked 'Plot', 'Plot summary', et al.

{{Spoiler}} linkage

Overall:: less than 2000 occurrences, all spaces.

Talk: 300-400, often as a banner on top of the talk page.

User: 600-700, used rather randomly (see User:Ich; incidentally, Ich believes we are "fascists" for removing spoiler tags. huh.)

Samples of logging

Mainspace: 2007-09-11 19:26 UTC: (2) -- Sosuke Aizen, Miles Edgeworth Sosuke Aizen's warning is used in the lead, and was left after discussion; the reason being that the episode will not air in a market (US, I think) until December.

Edgeworth's spoiler is used in one of the appearances section, for no apparent reason.

2007-09-12 1:55 UTC: (3) -- Now You Know (Desperate Housewives episode) (not-yet aired season premiere) link

2007-09-12 11:31 UTC: (2) plot section of Desperate Housewives removed, no edit summary.

2007-09-12 19:27 UTC: (2) Miles Edgeworth one removed, one added before the lead to Akira (character). Editor's explanation on talk page.

2007-09-12 20:42 UTC: (3) First Love (novella): Added in specially marked section 'Conclusion'

2007-09-13 19:55 UTC: (2) Previous spoilers gone, two newcomers: Slade Carter, which was a serious CSD A7 bio, and I thus deleted; and Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, in the plot section.

On Sosuke Aizen, the spoiler was replaced by a {{Current fiction}} tag by Kusma, reverted and replaced with maitenance tags by JzG. I reverted to the spoiler in lead (leaving the in-universe tags) due to local consensus.

For Akira, the tag was removed by Marc Shepherd as per WP:SPOILER, added back in, and removed by Kusma per the content disclaimer.

2007-09-13 22:16 UTC: (2) back to Aizen, along with Interbang (used to mark the plot). The warning was removed by user Kweeket. Perhaps worth noting the spoiler was added by an anonymous ip.

2007-09-14 00:51 UTC: (3) Added to the mix is Atonement (film), an as-yet-unreleased film (in NA); the spoiler appears in the section titled 'differences between film and book' and seems more reasonable as there is no plot section above it, although one could still argue that plot must by necessity be mentioned.

2007-09-14 11:22 UTC: (6) The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift, My Sister's Keeper, and 28 Weeks Later added. My Sister's Keeper has tags in the plot summary, ditto with TFTF, same thing with 28WL. However, in the latter the spoiler tags are in a section marked 'Plot'; in MSK, it's in "Plot Summary". All the tags were added by anonymous editors; the latter two were added by the same ip, and were that contributer's sole edits.

2007-09-14 19:41 UTC: (1) Back to Aizen. TFTF tag was removed by Tony Sidaway, as was My Sister's Keeper; 28WL removed by user Geoff B - (note, evidence of edit warring on the page, but not in relation to the spoiler warnings.)

2007-09-14 22:52 UTC: (2) added to William Birkin.

2007-09-15 16:28 UTC: (13) a slew added, in varying places. For example, on The Departed, it's used in the cast section (the table has a 'killed by' section; the cast comes after plot). Added by User:Ferengi. In Final Destination, it's used after plot in a 'deaths' section. The Last of the Mohicans (1992 film) used it in a clearly-marked 'Synopsis' section. Also used in plot sections of two Stargate Atlantis episodes, plot summary of Owlflight, and Sati (book).

2007-09-15 19:37 UTC: (2) In Aizen again as well as Chak De India, in the Synopsis section.

2007-09-15 21:36 UTC: (5) An editor added tags to the plot section of unreleased Desperate Housewives episodes.

2007-09-15 23:59 UTC: (3) Aizen, Saint Leibowitz and the Wild Horse Woman (in 'Plot summary') and Chak de India.

2007-09-16 18:43 UTC: (6) Aizen, Match Point (again), Akito Sohma, From the Corner of His Eye, Bridge to Terabithia (2007 film), and, most perplexingly, List of cliffhanger endings. You'd think that one would be enough explanation in itself. Spoilers were added by IPs, except Match Point, which was added repeatedly by YellowTapedR.

2007-09-16 21:25 UTC: (3) Others removed, except Aizen and Bridge to Terabithia; Fracture (film) added; used in 'Synopsis' section marking off the bottom 3/4th of plot; appears that the unmarked portion is the "off the box" plot summary (possible copyvio?)

2007-09-17 20:00 UTC: (6)

2007-09-18 22:03 UTC: (8) Ayreon (I removed, as it's not a fictional subject), Before Sunset (used halfway through the plot summary). Mata Nui (Great Spirit) (for only one line?), Toa Inika/Toa Mahri, (also randomly added, this page should prolly get deleted anyhow), Colby Granger (wouldn't need a spoiler prolly, if it was expanded.) Oh, and La Vie En Rose (film) (used in entire 'Plot' section).

2007-09-19 21:43 UTC: (5)

Discussion

Just an FYI, the tag on Edgeworth was because at the beginning of the game it's mentioned that Edgeworth is "gone" and you don't find out what's happened to him until almost the end of the game. It's irrelevant now, but you mentioned there was "no apparent reason", so I supplied a reason. Kuronue | Talk 23:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Your log is interesting, but only a little more useful than an anecdote. I respectfully object to any suggestion of its being even a slightly scientific survey. I see such suggestion as a failure by your science teachers to convey a basic principle of science: one cannot measure anything without affecting it, so the next best thing is to thoughtfully minimize variables introduced by the observer.
What you actually have is a spoiler police log, or in more neutral terms, a log of activist personal journalism. More useful than previous personal anecdotes? Perhaps, but not by much.
Since you participated in the editing you observed, your log is improperly called a survey. It's not even a typical unscientific one as found in web newspapers, which lack statistically random sampling, but are otherwise unparticipated in by the editors. It's also too biased to call a sample. I'm likely to object to anyone citing the averages and percentages you provide, as being numerical junk. However, I think some things can be cautiously learned from it.
If you want to do this again without personal participation, your work will be far more credible.

"see User:Ich; incidentally, Ich believes we are "fascists" for removing spoiler tags. huh." For the average person the most prominent characteristic of fascism is rigid central control of the details of everyday life, with odious enforcement. While the spoiler guide is undergoing change, it still reflects an unpopular and unnecessarily authoritarian ideology. The clique's May 2007 takedown of 45,000 spoiler tags without local consultation, and with abuse of central due process, is quite properly described as fascist. Milo 02:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

To the actual data; there's a reason I put 'slightly scientific'. But above logging actions on Wikipedia, I was editing to make pages conform to guidelines. Besides, as I am part of the Wikipedia community, I might as well include myself- not doing so discounts a factor in spoiler warning usage/removal. The percentages are entirely valid- especially the 13.5%, which is based off every page I visited and doesn't change even if I removed a tag. The vast majority were in 'Plot' and 'Plot summary', and I removed those which were explicitly against the guideline, and left ones in other sections where their use would be more murky. Similarly, the 4.1 and 3 tags on mainspace are valid, since they are from a mean/median of recorded numbers. I affected personally less than five spoiler warnings, one of those cases being reinsertion on Aizen. That means I affected less than 13% of the pages I logged. David Fuchs^(talk) 11:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Milo, if you find David's study so deeply flawed, why don't you do one yourself? You could show us how it ought to be done. Marc Shepherd 15:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The time commitment would be greater than I have available. However, what I'm doing here as a peer reviewer is useful and indeed necessary when there is a suggestion of (even slight) science. Also, I needn't demonstrate since the details of David's observing methodology aren't the obvious problem.

I'm disappointed that David didn't take the scientific method point of avoiding the observer effect (also see double blind). One useful definition is found in the section on information technology, "the observer effect is the potential impact of the act of observing a process output while the process is running." The scientific method requires diligence to reduce the observer effect if possible, and certainly do nothing to increase it.

David believes that he can adequately discount for his own participatory edits. This gets into presumptions of systemic linearity (like flat earth theory), when systems are defined by, and unexpectedly curved by, feedback loops. In any given instance I may be persuaded that David's participatory-editing discounts are true enough, but such a persuasion is not even slightly describable as based on science. Milo 18:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You have carpet-bombed this page with buckets full of assumptions, none of which you've bothered to substantiate. It may well be that you don't have the time commitment for real analysis, and therefore, can do no more than share your personal impressions, which are probably infected with more biases than David Fuchs's study. But until someone comes along and does a better study, David's analysis—however imperfect though may be—is the best we have. Marc Shepherd 18:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"none of which you've bothered to substantiate" You are wrong. You should have understood my posts before commenting on them; that way you would have avoided losing your credibility. If you couldn't understand them, you should have kept silent. In my review of David's log and followup, I explained the problem, cited two Wikipedia articles, and quoted from one of them. That is substantiation.

Speaking of your lost credibility, I'm still waiting for you to delete the personal attacks in #Disputed guideline message box, where you called me and Nydas trolls. Milo 01:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Milo, check out WP:TROLL. Whether you like it or not, you do have a tendency to come off as "trollish". Many of your comments on this talk page can be construed as "deliberately inflammatory", however this doesn't make you an outright troll. The essay in question states that "people who passionately believe in what they are writing also sometimes behave in a way that may make them appear to be a troll" so I suggest that editors give you the benefit of the doubt until they have reason to believe otherwise. —Viriditas | Talk 04:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've moved this subthread back to the scene of Marc's official policy offense at #Disputed guideline message box. Milo 15:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't add spoiler tags "repeatedly" to Match Point. I added it once when I thought the revised guideline allowed it. I thought it was appropriate because the surprise is rather high up in the plot section, which readers might be checking out just to get a gist of it. After I was reverted, I didn't re-add it because it's not worth the effort. If you go to The Crying Game article, you'll see I recently reverted an edit where twist was taken out of the lead.--YellowTapedR 06:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the page history, you added back in a section containing spoilers, and then did so once more. So argue about 'repeatedly', but you evidently did so twice. David Fuchs^(talk) 11:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you're saying, I said you added it repeatedly the second time. Sorry, I misconstrued your action there. David Fuchs^(talk) 11:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's perhaps worth noting that the recorded removal of the plot section from Now You Know (Desperate Housewives episode), although recorded as "2007-09-12 11:31 UTC: (2) plot section of Desperate Housewives removed, no edit summary.", had been discussed by myself and Pjar (the remover of the content on September 12th) on 3rd and 4th September [6]. The unsourced plot summary of an as-yet unbroadcast episode had thus been restored against apparent consensus, without discussion. --Tony Sidaway 17:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You guys really don't have to defend yourselves. There was no edit summary, but I never said it wasn't discussed at other times (I'm pretty sure you removed the entire section at least once explaining that without a source it was useless.) David Fuchs^(talk) 21:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Local editors" use and misuse

Getting back to the issue of what is meant by the phrase "local editors" —

The problem I observe here may be use of a slang meaning of "local" as incorrectly confused with "regular". If so, editors who don't use the dictionary aren't likely to agree on anything with those who do use the dictionary.
Here are the first two definitions of "local" at m-w.com "local":

1 : characterized by or relating to position in space : having a definite spatial form or location

2 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of a particular place : not general or widespread

"Local", the adjective, means a place in space, in this case cyberspace. Articles on web pages have an address known as a URL (Universal Resource Locator). If one wants to navigate there, a URL is placed in the address bar, and the Go button can be pressed to load the page at that location. When one is at that locale, one is local to it. Whether one has been there many times or only once, one is always local while there, but not necessarily a regular visitor.
Here is the 3rd definition of "regular" at m-w.com "regular":

3 a : ORDERLY, METHODICAL <regular habits> b : recurring, attending, or functioning at fixed, uniform, or normal intervals

and in the inverse, the 4th definition at m-w.com "irregular":

4 : lacking continuity or regularity especially of occurrence or activity <irregular employment>

The confusion of "local" with "regular" may partly arise from informal use of "local" as noun at American Heritage "local":

4. Informal A person from a particular locality.

(Note: I switched dictionaries because m-w.com and COED used the adjective to define the noun.)

In ordinary understanding, a "local" is informally someone who seen regularly in a certain place. When there is confusion, an encyclopedia must default to formal language — but — there seems to be a second stacked-on problem of an informality used as slang. The phrase "local editors", as misused, positions "local" as an adjective, yet it's meaning appears to be that of the informal noun (rhetorically understood as a person seen regularly in a certain place).
So, while I can figure out what Samohyl Jan and other editors mean in a discussion, their apparent usage of an informal noun in a formal adjective position, isn't what is found by consulting a dictionary. Their usage is therefore slang that is not only incorrect for use in a guide, but is usage impossible of consensus.
If my analysis is essentially correct, the simple answer to more closely approaching consensus on this point is for those who are speaking/writing incorrectly to educate themselves, since education is the underlying purpose for which they are working. Milo 01:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Seriously Milo, shut up. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion wouldn't be the same without you, but it sounds like you need a music-intensive Wikivacation to nice up. Milo 02:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly understand this obsession with the term "local" or "local editors", but Wikipedia has been making use of {{maintained}} since December of 2005. This template identifies articles that are "being actively monitored and maintained for quality and factuality by identified users." So the terms in use would be "monitors" and "maintainers"; "active users" or "active editors" would also work. "Local editors" is too much of a neologism and ambiguous to be helpful. —Viriditas | Talk 03:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I've never come across {{maintained}}. It's certainly not typical for policies and/or guidelines to distinguish "maintainers" from other types of editors. Marc Shepherd 03:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a big place. :) {{maintained}} is being used on ~1600 articles or so, but that's not very many considering we have more than two million. Looking at my comments above, you're right in that Wikipedia doesn't use the term "maintainers", however, the term "active editors" does show up quite a lot in discussions, although I've only seen it used on the WP:COI behavioral guideline and in the essay, WP:1RR. If you search the talk and project namespace you'll find the term "active editors" used quite a bit, and "local editors" very little. —Viriditas | Talk 05:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've always been somewhat uneasy about the "maintained" tag, but it's pretty clear that it's accepted as long as the people listed are understood to be there (to quote the template) "to help with questions about verification and sources." --Tony Sidaway 02:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the idea of preferring local editors is a good one. However, I do think there needs to be a distinction between people with some level of involvement with a work of fiction, and those who are on spoiler patrol. There are some edits that are fairly noncontroversial, and for which the spoiler patrol is suited. (For example, there seems to be consensus that spoiler tags shouldn't be used in Plot sections.) For spoilers in other sections, having read (watched, played, whatever) the work is probably necessary to determine how significant the spoilers are. — PyTom (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"there seems to be consensus that spoiler tags shouldn't be used in Plot sections" No, that's just an illusion due to anti-consensus, uncompromising majoritarian force being used on the spoiler guide.

It's the return of the plot=spoilers fallacy. There are many kinds of plots; some plots have spoilers, some don't. The 40+% of readers who want spoiler notices have said that they do attempt to read plot sections that don't have spoilers. This is a habit ingrained in them by publishers' blurbs (a type of "plot"), and that habit among readers arriving at Wikipedia from a Google search isn't going to change. Deliberately spoilering these readers just makes Wikipedia into a "spoiler site" that has been condemned in the external world.

Currently the anti-taggers' position is that sections labeled "Plot summary" means that the section might contain spoilers – but that doesn't help readers because a section just labeled "Plot" or even "Synopis" also might or might not contain spoilers.

The readers who like narrative suspense want to know for sure (in the art jury consensus opinion of local editors using the non-slang meaning of "local"). The anti-taggers don't want to tell these readers for sure, because their principle agenda is to punish and drive away this entire class of readers from Wikipedia. If you haven't been following this five-month million-some byte debate, yes, the proof has been published here. Shocked? If so, you should be.

Please tell other editors what's going on here. If this driving-away-readers agenda can be firmly disconsensed, then the hidable spoiler tag compromise on the table can satisfy all of the legitimate issues. Milo 20:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It was a deletion debate

Milomedes states, inter alia:

In May 2007, a reasonable good-writing manifesto intended to prevent spoiler notices from influencing the structure of articles, got carried away into a bigoted vendetta...

Milomedes has his facts wrong. The change in the spoiler tag guideline came from a deletion debate about the old spoiler tag guideline, which for policy reasons was changed into a Request for comment on the guideline. [7] .

Milomedes's central allegation, that "a reasonable good-writing manifesto intended to prevent spoiler notices from influencing the structure of articles, got carried away" is thus difficult to interpret unless you think that deletion of the old spoiler warning guideline was simply "intended to prevent spoiler notices from influencing the structure of articles." But that is again contradicted by the facts. Phil Sandifer's proposal shows his declared intention in listing the guideline for deletion:

The worst instance I've found yet is The Crying Game, where the twist ending makes the film a major film for anyone interested in LGBT cinema. Spoiler warning says that can't go in the lead. Wikipedia: Lead section says the lead has to function as a short article unto itself. WP:NPOV says all major perspectives must be mentioned in an article. You can pick any two of the policies and successfully apply them to The Crying Game. Since we can't get rid of NPOV, either spoilers or lead sections need to go. [8].

Since that proposal in mid-May, David Gerard's suggestion of "severely restrict to very recent or unreleased fiction[9]. has been more-or-less fulfilled, and this has taken place in the context of a rewrite of the guideline that sets far more reasonable criteria for their use. --Tony Sidaway 18:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What about the aggressive trashing of NPOV with 'fans-only', 'out in the US' or 'everyone knows'?--Nydas^(Talk) 19:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That's more of a systemic bias, really. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. But actually I've no idea what Nydas is referring to. What does the phrase "'fans-only', 'out in the US' or 'everyone knows'" mean? --Tony Sidaway 20:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nydas thinks that the current spoiler-tag policy makes Wikipedia a "fans-only" environment, presumably because fans are the only people who already know the plot, and therefore are in no danger of being "spoiled." As usual, he is selective about his facts, but we've come to expect that. Marc Shepherd 20:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. If that's really what he means, that doesn't seem to be a serious argument, it's all of a piece with Milomedes' talk of "a bigoted vendetta against mostly young consumers of narrative suspense", which seems to me more an attempt to talk up a minor issue into something that sounds more terrible. --Tony Sidaway 05:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a vendetta against the young, it's against non-fans. The aim of the anti-spoiler campaign is to punish or 'burn' them, and you have stated that they are perverse halfwits or have 'demons'. Spoiler warnings aren't a big issue in themselves, but the mentality of the anti-spoiler campaign is symptomatic of larger problems.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The real situation is actually the opposite.

Some of the editors most passionate about adding spoiler tags are editing articles on serial fiction (TV series, comics, etc.). Do you know what they do? They spoiler-protect just the most recently-disclosed plot events. The only readers who benefit from this strategy are the fans who've seen every episode but the most recent one(s). Readers who are farther behind, or who are non-fans, get no benefit whatsoever, because the articles are full of un-tagged spoilers.

Indeed, the presence of spoiler tags in these articles may lend false comfort. Readers may think that the untagged portions of the articles do not disclose "significant plot details," but this isn't the case. If the template were called {{spoiler of the most recent episode}}, it would be more accurate. Marc Shepherd 12:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

How is that the opposite situation? The editors most passionate about removing spoiler tags are most likely to pause over franchises they like or consider important. The people you describe are just trying to live up to guideline as written.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about the people who add the tags, not the people who remove them. And what I observe is that the people adding them are often doing so from a fan-centric, in-universe perspective. In other words, they are making the articles more fan-focused, not less. This is precisely the opposite of what you have always suggested that spoiler tags would do. Marc Shepherd 18:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It is impossible to add spoiler tags from an 'in-universe' perspective, unless someone is worried about the fictional characters reading the article. It's not fan-focused, it's just an effort to add a spoiler tag according to the guideline as written. They're probably under the impression that the spoiler police adhere to the wording of the guideline.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

When I refer to an 'in-universe' perspective, I am referring to editors whose definition of "spoiler" is what they believe hard-core fans would know.

You repeatedly assert that editors who add tags are being influenced by the current guideline (however much they may disagree with it). You have no proof of this; it's simply what you'd like to be true.

In fact, when a new {{spoiler}} tag is added, overwhelmingly the most common placement is right at the top of the "Plot" section, with {{endspoiler}} (if present) right at the bottom of it. Since the current guideline explicitly discourages this, it seems doubtful that these editors have read the guideline. Marc Shepherd 21:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The guideline does not explicitly discourage this.--Nydas^(Talk) 06:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that many of the editors involved in the spoiler tag removals (User:JzG, User:Misza13, User:David Gerard and myself, for example) do not happen to be from the US and do not have a strong editing background in "fan" articles. I wonder what it is that makes Nydas think we edit US-centric and fan-only. I get the impression that we have moved away from a heavily US-influenced Usenet idea of warnings for things the US population considers "spoilers" to a more neutral way of editing. Kusma (talk) 08:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to have to edit fan articles to have a fan-centric worldview. It's a fair bet the editors involved will favour anime and video games over spy novels and historical romances. Hence the solitary 'permitted' spoiler tag being on an anime character awaiting translation. The situation is the same for Russian mystery novel Coronation, or the Last of the Romanovs (no spoilers yet, but it may gain some), though the chances of it getting spoiler tags are non-existant.

It's ironic that you mention USENET given that this campaign was basically decided on that anachronism, the Wikipedia mailing list. Spoiler warnings are used occasionally in the online mainstream media, it's not the preserve of USENET any more.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Tony (18:14) wrote: "It was a deletion debate" – "Milomedes has his facts wrong" Hm, if you are suggesting that a manifesto somehow can't keynote a deletion debate, that would be your rhetorical misunderstanding, not my wrong facts. COED "manifesto":

noun (pl. manifestos) a public declaration of policy and aims.

"Phil Sandifer's proposal shows his declared intention in listing the guideline for deletion: 'The worst instance I've found yet is The Crying Game...' " Tsk, tsk, you selectively quoted Phil's second paragraph with an expanded example, instead of the first paragraph where lies the original manifesto. You also didn't do enough research to discover that Phil re-edited his original one-paragraph manifesto. That second paragraph didn't exist until after ThuranX (21:36) & David Gerard (21:38) had posted in reply. Here is Phil's original, single manifesto paragraph:

Wikipedia:Spoiler warning 21:31, 15 May 2007 Phil Sandifer wrote: "This policy is a flat contradiction of the much more important Wikipedia:Lead section, and, worse, is used to justify actively bad article writing where key aspects of a topic are buried outside of the lead. In its worst manifestations, such as The Crying Game, this is used to bury entire perspectives on the movie (i.e. LGBT perspectives) outside of the lead where they belong. The entire policy encourages writing articles in a way that is organized around spoiler warnings instead of sensible portrayal of information, and has gone egregiously wrong (highlights including spoiler warnings on Night (book), The Book of Ruth, and Romeo and Juliet). The policy is overwhelmingly being used to make articles worse, not better, and for that needs to go." "Phil Sandifer 21:31, 15 May 2007"

Ok, now that we're working with Phil's original source text, let's align your skewed reasoning to it.

Tony (18:14) wrote: 'Milomedes's central allegation, that "a reasonable good-writing manifesto intended to prevent spoiler notices from influencing the structure of articles, got carried away" is thus difficult to interpret unless you think that deletion of the old spoiler warning guideline was simply "intended to prevent spoiler notices from influencing the structure of articles". But that is again contradicted by the facts.' Oh? Let's examine the facts of what Phil wrote in the first sentence.

Phil (15 May 2007, 21:31) wrote: "This [Wikipedia:Spoiler warning] policy is a flat contradiction of the much more important Wikipedia:Lead section, and, worse, is used to justify actively bad article writing where key aspects of a topic are buried outside of the lead."

Milo (15:31) wrote: "intended to prevent spoiler notices from influencing the structure of articles." While Phil and others "got carried away" with intentions beyond "simply", Phil substantially did intend to prevent spoiler notices from influencing the structure of articles – the lead component in this case – so my central allegation is fact-based in that regard. "Got carried away" being a metaphor does requires interpretation, but by your own analysis will not be difficult to interpret.
Q.E.D., Phil's manifesto reads as I summarized it. Milo 13:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Phil's second paragraph was visible for almost the entire deletion debate, which was started with the intention to delete Wikipedia:Spoiler (that is why the debate was at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning). Your decision to concentrate on the first paragraph seems quite arbitrary. Kusma (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"Your decision to concentrate on the first paragraph seems quite arbitrary" Not at all arbitrary, since the first paragraph contains a statement of principle for the manifesto, where one might expect to find it in any persuasive writing.†

A manifesto is an activist statement of philosophical principle. In writing, principles are top-level statements that hierarchically determine the suitable choice of subsequent analyses, examples, rules, proposed actions, and other supporting details. For example, consider the following simple manifesto:

(hypothetical quotation:) In principle, all humans are created equal. Slavery makes humans grotesquely unequal. Therefore slavery is unprincipled. Therefore slavery is bad. Therefore we shall break bad slavery laws to free the slaves.

One writes the principle(s) first, because people are more likely to understand and be persuaded by the details if they already understand the big picture. If the details of breaking slave laws were placed first, and the principle last, fewer people would be persuaded that breaking of slave laws is principled, and therefore is a morally-justified civil disobedience.

†Sometimes preceding the statement of principle, there is a preamble describing a compelling belief or experience which motivates the manifesto, but a preamble is technically unnecessary (and Phil did not use one). This top-down writing structure is also the basis for most persuasive writing including encyclopedia articles. Milo 23:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It was a deletion debate. --Tony Sidaway 23:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

SF Chronicle and spoilers

Marc (11:06, 5 October 2007) wrote: "person who continues to propose the identical compromise, over and over again, but never gets anywhere" Hehe, I persist, you're stubborn. Actually, the correct word is "campaigner". Presenting one's party/candidate or public question position persistently is how a public campaign works.
"identical" You aren't paying attention. One can't sell a concept using the wrong language. Just this last week I figured out from the debate that "hidable" was the wrong terminology (refers to default visible tags), and that "showable" is the correct marketing term for default hidden tags.
"never gets anywhere" If you were so sure of that, you'd be long gone from here. I guess that the pro-tag campaign movements toward goal seem like too small increments of progress to you, but you are just too young to know that chipping away millimeter by millimeter is the normal pace of a minority rights campaign. (The best wry humor of the 1960's USA Civil Rights campaign was the slogan "A 100 years is a long time to wait to get into the bathroom".)
"proposal would have been adopted by now" With the wrong terminology previously in use? Maybe other things need to be tweaked too. Also, you're getting impatient because you don't have a good sense of how big Wikipedia is in terms of opinion change inertia, especially given the usual oppression of minorities in access to tools like AWB. I've stated many times my estimate that this debate is five months into a 12 to 24 month public issue campaign. Only seven more months to go before the minimum campaign ends; maybe another 12 after that. Tighten your seat belt.
Speaking of worrisome news to the anti-taggers, Wikimedia announced that they are moving to SanFranciso.[10] Let's see now, wasn't it the SanFrancisco Chronicle that announced that spoilers are immoral? [11] Kinda looks like Wikimedia is moving closer to the possibility of a "spoiler site" confrontation with big publishing/Hollywood - in the pages of their soon to be local paper that's already taken a position. That's unexpected bad luck, eh? But don't worry, just stick your head back in the sand. Milo 09:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Could we just straighten this out, Milomedes?

When you state that the San Francisco Chronicle has "announced that spoilers are immoral" and "taken a position", are you referring to the commentary by Bruce Weinstein, in an op ed column known as "Open Forum" on page B11 of the Chronicle, dated Friday, July 20, 2007, alongside a note that a longer version of the same column had already appeared on BusinessWeek's website, businessweek.com? [12] [13] --Tony Sidaway 09:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you are surely correct rather than the SanFranciso Chronicle. I did try to fact-check this point, but I hadn't previously noticed that sentence near the bottom (not alongside), where it also refers to Weinstein's piece as a "commentary" and "column". SFC, perhaps inadvertently, called it an "editorial" in the alongside box ("Editorial: Spoiling is immoral"). M-w.com's definition of "editorial" (2,noun) is: "a newspaper or magazine article that gives the opinions of the editors or publishers; also : an expression of opinion that resembles such an article <a television editorial>". The newspapers I read reserve that term for themselves.

So, who is Bruce Weinstein? Here are the author credits from the longer version of his immoral-people-who-deliberately-spoiler column [14] at BusinessWeek.com:

"Bruce Weinstein, Ph.D. is the corporate consultant and public speaker known as The Ethics Guy. He has appeared as an ethics analyst on The Today Show, Good Morning America, Anderson Cooper 360, Lou Dobbs Tonight, The O'Reilly Factor, MSNBC Live, Bloomberg Television's Personal Finance, and many other national television programs. For more information, visit The Ethics Guy.com"

I wonder what he's going to say about Wikipedia? He's not going to praise. If he gives WP a pass, no credit accrues to anyone. I'm not impressed with your position that has only a potential downside — because if it's blame, fair or not, you Tony, are going to take the biggest share of looking bad.

Ok, it's better locally for Wikimedia than I thought, but worse nationally than I thought. Never mind that the SanFrancisco Chronicle was the first paper publisher. Who of any importance outside SanFrancisco reads BusinessWeek.com? No problem, just stick your head back in the sand. Milo 11:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You're running ahead of me here. I just wanted to establish that the Chronicle comment was the one I had read. I'm sure Mr Weinstein wouldn't be the first person to make comments critical of Wikipedia. I suspect we'll survive. --Tony Sidaway 11:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What some guy for a newspaper says is really irrelevant to anything we have to worry about when making WP guidelines. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Everything Wikipedia does has been criticized by somebody. Marc Shepherd 14:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Current fiction tag

What on earth is the point of adding this tag to the top of a film when in 99% of cases, the first sentence states "released in 2007" - do we expect that most of our readers are unable to work out that a film released in 2007 is recent and that by reading the article they may spoil their enjoyment of the film? I have seen it added to a couple of articles and it adds nothing - so I have removed it as redundant. --Fredrick day 08:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I would think such would be better discussed at its talk page. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the Current fiction tag vigilanties have arrived wanting their police badges from the clique. Y'know, in the real world, when police get out of control a police commission can be formed. Milo 06:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in arguments against spoiler warnings

I personally wish for a compromise that would allow people that hate SWs (as editors) and want SWs (as users) to coexist peacefully. But any such compromise would inevitably entail that SWs would be there, in some form. However, it seems to me that people who oppose SWs collectively argue in such a way that disallows any SWs to exists, and hence disallows any compromise. For example, there are two different arguments from SW opponents that, when put together, make it impossible for SWs to exist:

If the SWs are shown (by default), they are condescending and could make readers hate Wikipedia when they see them (this argument was very common in the original RfC).
If the SWs are hidden (by default), then there is a problem <insert your flavor> because they are invisible (I actually don't understand this problem much, there are many other comments for editors in articles which are invisible, but it doesn't matter to my point).

I proposed the SWs to be hidden to address the first problem (which is what bugged most people on RfC), but then the opponents started to argue the second way. Here is another similiar set of arguments:

If the SWs are inside the paragraph titled 'plot' or similar, it's obvious from the title it will contain spoilers, therefore they are redundant.
If the SWs are in the lead, it's not nice (I personally agree, but can imagine circumstances when it's useful).
If the SWs are in some other section, they probably won't belong there anyway (note that this is an implicit argument - usually, why would spoilers be in 'production', 'cultural impact' or 'references' section?).

So, if SWs can be there, where they should go? These counter-arguments cover every possibility where the SW can be placed in the article. And finally, third set of arguments:

If the SWs are at the beginning of the section, they serve no purpose, because there is the section heading.
If the SWs are inside the section, they make it harder/impossible to read/write about the plot.

Since I disagree with both of the arguments, I have no idea what kind of compromise can be made there, but still, since they cover all possible cases, they are incompatible with any SWs.

I would like that people who oppose SWs and are actually willing to compromise would choose from the three above lists of options what is more dear to them (for example, whether they would opt to see the SWs for their editing or not to see them for their reading, if they find them condescending). Then it would be possible to negotiate a compromise on that basis.

But, looking on the above list, it seems to me that it's like looking for reasons to oppose SWs, while the real reasons for opposing SWs are either traditionalism (Wikipedia is encyclopedia, whatever that means) or consistency (there are no warnings on nudes). These are bad reasons to oppose them, because they are subjective (ie. there is no rational basis for such feelings) and go against what a large minority of users wants (and I believe that readers matter much more here than tradition or rule consistency). Samohyl Jan 19:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is actively advocating deleting the spoiler template. Several people including me think the {{current fiction}} template is a reasonable way to alert readers to possible spoilers in new fiction. But the long discussion in the archives has shown many people agree spoiler warnings are generally redundant when placed in plot sections, whether they are hidden by default or visible by default. The proposal to allow them in hidden form seems to put us back where we were before the mass removal, except that far fewer readers would be able to see the tags, removing any possible benefit to the "large majority of users". — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I said nothing about deleting spoiler template; it's existence is not relevant if it's not used. If the SWs are not allowed in plot sections, they are not allowed in 99% of use cases. And in many cases, there is no other place to put them in the article than there. That's what I consider a problem with this. I don't understand why going back before mass removals would be so bad. Main arguments against SWs at that time were that they are condescending and too proliferate (in many sections in article and in fairy tales), which is not related to the plot sections argument. I personally would prefer if they would be usually only in one section - plot, and perhaps in trivia section, if the article is really long. This should be more than enough to alert the reader. Samohyl Jan 20:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, do you agree with the main argument of this section? If you do, then I take it you don't consider SWs to be condescending (if you argue that hidden are bad). Samohyl Jan 20:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if 99% of the places spoiler tags might be used are in plot sections then they can't be used in 99% of the places they might be used. That leaves 1% of cases where the use can be discussed. I generally agree with JzG's assessment: "spoiler tags are redundant in plot / synopsis sections, absurd in articles on older and especially classic works, a substitute for {{original research}} in articles on future or forthcoming films, and possibly defensible in a small number of cases for new releases where knowing the plot twist is identified by external sources as a spoiler for the subject." However, I think that {{current fiction}} is appropriate for many of the new releases in which there is a concern about spoilers. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

First, I think that suggesting "current fiction" as a replacement for SWs is wrong understanding of what SW proponents want and need. You probably think that SW supporters are mostly fans who will come to recent object of their admiration and start shouting about spoilers. While in reality, most supporters probably use the Wikipedia to decide whether some piece of fiction is worth looking into, no matter what age it has (it may be the film from 70s that's just on TV, it may be an older book from Isaac Asimov, whatever). So such solution is looking at the wrong problem, therefore it's wrong. The SWs are primarily about usability. That's why I find the redundancy argument so odd. As an analogy, say you have a computer application with GUI. You could argue that the menu is redundant, because all commands in the menu have keyboard shortcuts, which are faster anyway, and furthermore, getting rid of the menu will make your application faster and smaller, and power-users don't use the menu at all. But if you remove the menu, you will lose almost all the users. In theory, you may be right and your application is now more logical. But in practice, and from the human perspective, this is just wrong thing to do. Samohyl Jan 03:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen much compromise from the pro-SW camp either. Their main idea is to make the warnings either hidden by default (but optionally viewable), or visible by default (but optionally hidable). Either version of that idea is utterly looney. Both fail because they start with the premise that as long as the anti-SW editors don't have to see the warnings, they'll stop caring about the issue. The reality is that most serious editors (regardless of their viewpoint on spoilers) aren't so easily duped. Editors who don't think SW's belong in WP aren't going to suddenly forget about them because they're hidden. And editors who do think they belong shouldn't be happy to see them cloaked behind a css script. Marc Shepherd 21:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"And editors who do think they belong shouldn't be happy to see them cloaked behind a css script." They aren't happy about it, but they are willing to compromise.

"Editors who don't think SW's belong in WP aren't going to suddenly forget about them because they're hidden." By implication they are bothered by what they can't see, an example of control-freakery. It's generally considered to be a character flaw. IIRC, you are the only one who has ever previously made this claim. Are you a control freak, or are you just defending the indefensible? Milo 03:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, Milo, the idea of optionally viewable spoiler tags has been opposed by many people, not just me. If I were the only one saying this, the proposal would have been adopted by now.

As you are apparently the expert at character flaws, perhaps you can put a label on the person who continues to propose the identical compromise, over and over again, but never gets anywhere. Would "stubborn" be the word? Marc Shepherd 11:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The entire policy is a compromise by the pro-spoiler side, and a very poor one, one that's been heavily weighted against spoilers. Many of the pro-warning people are trying to shift it back the other way, but there's the lack of compromise from the other direction.

The compromise policy said that spoilers are _generally_, _usually_ not appropriate for within plot sections. Note those two words. It's not a universal. It allows for judgement. And that might well be a fair compromise. Except of course, the spoiler patrol goes on and almost constantly judges 'no', sometimes even arguing right from the start that "no, plot obviously means spoilers so we don't need it at all". These in articles that they're unfamiliar with and thus have no real way of telling whether the work actually is uncommonly reliant on a plot twist. Even that might have been okay and given a good idea of what consensus actually is, if we were in a situation where people who are pro-spoilers had just as much power due to the technical landscape. But they don't. People who are against spoilers can search for any new addition of a spoiler tag and remove it, citing whatever their reasons (and if they desired they can even remove spoilers from sections where the guideline explicitly allows them, and only if someone on that page is up on what's going on and decides to fight it will it go on uncorrected because it can't be easily seen). People who are _for_ spoilers, if the spoiler is gone, have no idea anyone even attempted to put it in and no way of knowing that. The activity of the spoiler patrols thus obfuscate consensus, even attempt to override it. All compromises of the pro-spoiler camp have served to make this sort of imbalance greater, and a de facto no spoilers policy easier to enforce. They landscape is skewed so anti-spoiler people can win almost every single battle on an individual page, even if they are up against much greater numbers of pro-spoiler people _overall_. So it's not a good compromise for the pro-spoiler side. It's a great compromise for the anti-spoiler group, but it's not really a compromise if one side gets all they want and the other gets almost none of what they want.

As you've pointed out, the pro-warning side is more varied than the anti-spoiler side. As such, different people have their thresholds at different levels. I myself would prefer to see spoiler warnings much more freely, even within plot sections. I compromised. More than some, and less than others, probably, but I did, as did a lot of the pro-warning side. As to the anti-warning side, well, we've can easily see how much they compromised, since their ideal is to have no spoiler warnings at all... and they compromised enough to allow 3 spoiler tags in all of wikipedia (as of yesterday, I didn't check today). That must have been really hard on you, to give up that much. Poor anti-spoiler side.

So, since I'm not getting a corresponding level of compromise from the other side, I can't in good conscience support my previous compromise state anymore. Until something is done about the spoiler patrol, this current policy is a failure. Either the policy needs to have clear "You should not have spoiler warnings here, and you SHOULD have spoiler warnings here (not optionally you might choose to)" for well defined categories, or it needs to be much looser overall in terms of restrictions - that editors should be allowed to place spoiler tags at their own discretion (which would at least prevent the spoiler patrol from appealing to authority). I strongly recommend pro-spoiler groups attempt to edit the policy in one of these directions, and ignore the false compromises that are making our goals moot in fact even when it looks fair on the surface. Wandering Ghost 16:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Mark, if some people want SWs and some do not, then there is no other way for compromise to have them either hidden or shown (by default). This is just logic. If you say that both is "utterly looney", you are basically saying "having SWs at all is utterly looney", which is "no compromises" position. Also, the premise you assign my compromise is wrong. The actual premise is that most people (in the original RfC discussion) opposed SWs on the basis that they are condescending to readers, and that they hurt Wikipedia. That's what I try to remedy, while retaining SWs for those people who find them useful. The compromise on the part of those against is that SWs would still exist, and the compromise on part of those for SWs is that they have to enable them. Both of these things can be a royal pain in the ass, but that's because it's compromise, and it avoids the main point of contention (which, at least in the RfC, seems to be "what will general public think of SWs"). So I have never argued along the line that the opponents wouldn't see them and they shouldn't care - they could have them switched on, of course, just like anyone else. Oh, and btw, the support for this compromise is about fifty-fifty - opponents of SWs are mostly against, defendants of SWs are mostly for. Samohyl Jan 17:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Samohyl & Wandering, for the record I am in favor of considerably more use of SW's on Wikipedia than we have today. Unfortunately, the template {{spoiler}} is awful. It takes up too much space in the article, and it doesn't use the very word ("spoiler") that the average person would expect.

In addition, the guideline we have is too vague, so most editors who place spoiler warnings are extremely sloppy about it, and the warnings they add are often useless. I therefore consider the guideline a complete failure. However, we're stuck with it until we come up with a better one.

In the past, I suggested that Nydas and Milo (two of the most militant pro-SW contributors) choose five articles apiece that they believe warrant SW's, and indicate how they think the SW should be placed. Both of them refused. If they can't be bothered to choose five examples, then it must not be very important to them.

But I'd like to make the same suggestion to Samohyl Jan and Wandering Ghost. Choose five articles that you believe ought to have spoiler tags. Indicate you believe how the tags would be placed, and what they would look like. Then we'd have something concrete to look at. Perhaps it would be wise to do it in your user space, so we can play around with alternatives without disrupting the articles. Marc Shepherd 17:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a novel argument. So you are basically saying that you oppose the SWs existence on the basis that SW template doesn't contain word "spoiler" and that it doesn't look good? It's a bit strange, but as you wish - here is my view: I don't care how do they do look like, as long as it isn't really really bad (flashing, yellow 36pt font and stuff like that). I am primarily interested in the usability they bring. As for the wording, I actually find it nice that SW template avoids the word "spoiler"; it sounds much more professional to me. I pretty much agree with the current wording, and as a non-native English speaker I cannot think of any better one. Samohyl Jan 20:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that I oppose SWs because the template is poorly designed. I am saying that, while we are in the process of improving the guideline, the template needs to be improved too. It sucks. Marc Shepherd 21:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at this from the perspective of making the warnings there, but by default hidden, ok?

Firstly, you make them visible, you must create an account.
Secondly, you need to know about the ability to make the visible.
Thirdly, there need to actually BE spoiler warnings, or it doesn't matter in the first place.
Adding all of that together, you get less and less people who that would be a positive solution for. Remember, if there's no warning, you can't unhide them, so you can't be 'safe' if there's still no warning, can you? So we end up back at square one, if not even to there, as at THIS point we have a large number of articles that would need tagging in order for this methos to be effective.
I just don't see enough people caring about adding them if they won't be visible to the majority of users. I think that's why it's a bad idea. NOT that it won't work in theory, but that in practice it simply will be pretty much the same situation we have now, but worse as you add the assumed 'safety net' that isn't there all. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 18:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ad 1. It's technically possible to do even for anonymous users, actually (Firefox, which can do this, is for free download and works on all platforms, no big problem here). Ad 2. True, but you still have that option. If you would expect SWs and have something spoiled, then you can decide to enable them if you want. Currently, you are screwed. Ad 3. It's funny that so many articles having SWs before May were no practical obstacle in removing them. Ad 4. And I don't see how "encyclopedia editable by anyone is ever going to work" - the point being, you cannot tell how it would come out unless you try. To sum up, why you argue that the optionally showable SWs are not good, when to everybody from pro-spoiler camp is obvious it's better than no SWs at all? Are you trying to convince us that water is dry? Samohyl Jan 20:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Samohyl, most people believe that if a particular type of material belongs in Wikipedia, then everyone should see it. If a particular type of material doesn't belong, then no one should see it. Heretofore, there has been no middle category — "belongs, yet seen by almost no one." The problem is that, in an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, sunlight is the only quality control. The quality of material that is generally invisible will tend inevitably to degrade.

My everyday observation is that {{spoiler}} is usually misused. Editors tend overwhelmingly to put it on the entire plot, making no distinction between actual spoilers and high-level non-spoiler storyline information. We need to focus on a workable definition for where {{spoiler}} is appropriate. And having done so, it needs to be always visible, so that conscientious editors can repair the inevitable mistakes. Marc Shepherd 14:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, even if they were hidden, everybody could see them if they used edit button, or configured it to see them. You are actually perfect example of the point I made above - you say "I don't mind SWs, but they must be visible by default", while other opponents (like Tony or David Gerard) say "they cannot be seen by general public, because what they will think of us". You see, it's impossible to compromise with *both* groups of SW opponents (for example, you and Tony). So for compromise to work, which view among the opponents of SW is in the majority? If the public perception is the main problem, then we make consensus with hidden SWs. If lack of oversight for SWs hidden by default is bigger problem, then let's make consensus with shown tags. I am open to anything, but it must be logically possible. But what I gather from original RfC, you're in the minority with your views (because before, it was possible to hide SWs, so your proposal was already tried in a sense). Samohyl Jan 07:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, "hidden by default, optionally viewable" has never been tried.

I agree that my position on SW's may very well be in the minority. But as I noted here, the pro-SW camp isn't unified either. In many cases, you can't even tell what a pro-SW editor is in favor of. Marc Shepherd 11:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Three Spoiler Warnings

According to [15], there are currently three articles that use {{spoiler}} in all of Wikipedia. I've been checking for a couple days, and the number's bounced around for a bit, but I don't think it's been more than twenty or so articles.

What this means is that, despite the existence of a policy allowing spoiler warnings, Wikipedia is a de-facto spoiler warning-free zone. Articles containing major spoilers (The Sixth Sense, for example) have those spoilers unflagged.

Is it time for some sort of poll or other discussion (another RfC, maybe), the subject of which should be to decide if Wikipedia should include any spoiler tags at all? — PyTom (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

There is already consensus that spoiler warnings may sometimes be appropriate. --Tony Sidaway 05:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would mention that many spoiler warnings were removed awhile back, and the pro-spoiler warning camp has been waiting for the dust to settle on this conversation before adding any of them back in. This will artificially decrease the number of spoilers for some time. Postmodern Beatnik 19:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Compromise package including showable spoiler tags

"Hideable tags" is not a compromise, it is the point we started out from five months ago. Kusma (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I deleted that fact in the interest of shortening my post, but thanks for making my point. Hidable tags remain a valid compromise since they were never rejected for technical cause. Quite the opposite, hidable tags were dismissed because they would work, citing ad hominems based on unprovably vague fears against attracting supposed "internet culture". Had it not been for the previously hidden agenda of driving an entire class of readers away, which was eventually smoked out in debate, the elegantly workable hidable tag compromise could have and would have been consensed within a few weeks. Milo 21:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hidable tags are a valid compromise only if a consensus can be built for them, and so far that has never happened. Whether you agree with the reasoning, the fact is that the idea has been consistently rejected. Marc Shepherd 21:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, tags are still hideable and have been for years (this has not changed, so I don't quite see what it has to do with "compromise"). See for example here for the instructions. What we were discussing was not that people didn't want to see spoiler warnings (it was already possible to turn them off); people didn't want others to see spoiler warnings on articles that do not need them (yes, the tired Bible and Shakespeare examples). Kusma (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I proposed tags hidden by default as a compromise, which is significantly different than what was previously, ie. shown by default but hidable. But I have to wonder - why are some opponents of such compromise so interested in controlling what *other* people can see? What happened to good old (internet) libertarianism? Samohyl Jan 17:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't vouch for other people's reasoning, but here's mine. My feeling is that if something belongs in the article, then everyone should see it. That's how the rest of Wikipedia's content is presented, and I see no reason to make an exception. On the other hand, if something doesn't belong, it doesn't acquire legitimacy by making it invisible to the objectors.

Since no one needs permission to edit Wikipedia, constant oversight is the one and only way that our content maintains whatever good qualities it may have. A hidden spoiler tag isn't necessarily a good spoiler tag. These tags, just like everything else in Wikipedia, can be misused — either due to misunderstanding, lack of perspective, stupidity, or just plain vandalism. Hiding them simply means that the mistakes will not as readily be seen and corrected.

So that's why I am not a proponent of hidden tags. Marc Shepherd 20:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

why are some opponents of such compromise so interested in controlling what *other* people can see? -- wouldn't hiding the tags be doing /exactly that/? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It may be that this terminology isn't clear; "hidden tags" does not quite express the idea. These would be optionally visible or hidden, according to a preference setting for each user, similar to the way each user can choose the way dates are displayed or how many items appear on their watchlist.

So in reply to your question, no, preference-based optionally hidden/visible tags would not control what others would see, they would increase the control of each reader to determine what they see, without affecting what others see.

To me this seems like an excellent solution. It's very easy to implement technically, so that's not an issue. It would increase the attractiveness of Wikipedia, and its readership, by making it more friendly for people who want to avoid spoilers, while at the same time, allowing people who don't like the notices to turn them off so they don't have to look at them.

Eventually, whatever is decided in this discussion for the short term, it seems to me that something like the optional hide/show tags will probably happen. It may take a few years, but as web content becomes more and more personalized, Wikipedia will need to participate in that evolution. There are many other applications for optional hide/show content notices as well, so some may consider this idea a slippery slope. And maybe it is. But it might not be possible to avoid it forever. --Parsifal _Hello 21:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no data, but I'll hazard a guess anyway. My guess is that the overwhelming majority of visitors to this website do not customize the display. If spoiler tags were hidden by default, 95% of readers would never see them. If they were visible by default, then it would be the opposite. Marc Shepherd 02:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Red herring — If 95% don't customize the display, then 95% wouldn't need to. 40+% of spoiler averse readers do need to. Milo 05:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If that were true, then the warnings should be always visible, as otherwise 95% of your 40% won't get what you say they need. Marc Shepherd 12:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly remove tags that were intended to remove information from the article on the basis of certain stylistic choices by individual users, simply because the user already has an option to read the article or not to read it. I seem to recall that we went into the metadata discussion in my early days on Wikipedia, and we decided against. The basic principle is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it shouldn't be permissible for editors to turn it into something else by tweaking variables. --Tony Sidaway 01:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you what young turk editors frequently tell me: "Consensus can change". You'll probably have to compromise for non-tweakable content per language — not format, boilerplate, or notices.

Anyway, by the time the customizable next encyclopedia is fully implemented here, I hope you'll be too busy tweaking Wikipedia articles into pretzels, while making a half vast fortune in the advertising department at Wikia. :) Milo 05:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, appeal to tradition. We are encyclopedia, behold! Tell me this: Is Wikipedia a general encyclopedia or a set of interlinked specialized encyclopedias? Because, at the beginning, it was certainly intended to be the first. So we should delete all of those very specialized articles, then? If not, it can certainly evolve further from "encyclopedia that looks the same for everybody" to "encyclopedia which allows customization". Samohyl Jan 05:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to make your point for the deletion of articles that should be deleted (if you think this is not allowed, you may yet need to re-read the guideline known as WP:POINT, Which is more properly known as "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point", and most emphatically does not outlaw making a point). Please don't fall into the trap of arguing that rubbish cannot be removed because Other shit exists. --Tony Sidaway 06:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, Wikipedia is a web-based encyclopedia. It's obviously different than a paper encyclopedia, and as such it's acceptable to do things differently. Hyperlinks, resizable images, and cleanup templates are all things an paper encyclopedia doesn't have... why shouldn't spoiler warnings be another? After all, because [[WP:NOTPAPER], "we can give more thorough treatments, include many more relevant links, be more timely, et cetera." The first and third of these means that spoilers will occur more frequently. Since there are at least two reasons people may read articles about works of fiction (to find out about the production and to find out about the story), it makes sense to (at least optionally) indicate spoilers.

To put things in perspective, most of the articles with spoilers in them are things that aren't even covered by Brittanica. We have encyclopedic content on works of fiction that finished airing Sunday. That's not a bug... it's a feature. — PyTom (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"It's not in Britannica; therefore, Wikipedia shouldn't do it" is a naive argument, and I don't see anyone here putting it that way—at least, not lately. But that doesn't mean that external evidence is completely irrelevant. I think we should look at a broader range of source materials (not just encyclopedias) and a broader range of media (not just print) for guidance on key questions, like: What is a spoiler? What types of works, and what types of plot events, call for a warning? What form should the warning take?

Now, I know there are some people who say, "Who cares what anybody else does? Wikipedia is a new medium, and it doesn't matter what anyone else has done?" That argument has some appeal, since if Jimbo Wales had guided himself by what otehrs have done, we wouldn't have Wikipedia in the first place. But arguments that aren't somehow tethered to evidence are the weakest kinds. After all, many things on the web have been tried that no one had ever done before, and most quickly failed. Marc Shepherd 22:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Parsifal (21:39) wrote: " "hidden tags" does not quite express the idea .... preference-based optionally hidden/visible tags ... would increase the control of each reader to determine what they see"

Good observation; there does seem to be a public relations (PR) problem with the name of the "hidable/hidden spoiler tag compromise". Kusma didn't distinguish this default ambiguous name for the tag-hiding technique [16] from the systemic-solution compromise package named after the hidable/hidden tag feature. Kusma was also unaware that there are other features in the compromise such as the local consensus art jury, where "local" means "at the article's talk page" (and "local" is not slang for "active", "maintaining", or "regular" editors).

"Hidable" is Phil's term — as he correctly spelled it with no middle "e" — but he was talking about the old tags that are visible by default.

Ok, since they are now to be hidden by default, it's become the

" Showable spoiler tags compromise"

However, this name still doesn't communicate the other features of the systemic-solution compromise package. This bundled compromises package name is an unsolved problem.

This name does pass Melodia's question which is also about the PR of suggestion, not just logic. Logically, the name is ok either way, but in PR language unrelated to logic, if one is hiding something, that sounds bad; if one is showing something, that sounds good. Substitute "showable" into her question thus:

Samohyl (17:30) wrote: "why are some opponents of such compromise so interested in controlling what *other* people can see?" (I substitute:) "-- wouldn't showing the tags be doing /exactly that/?

I answer "no" to the logic, and "sounds good" to the PR suggestion.

I suggest thinking way ahead to a short phrase that might someday be allowed at the top of tagged articles or in a tag menu, and be nicely instructive for Google arrivees. Also consider the generic solution to turn on a tag menu for all kinds of tags using a top menu tab, like the | + | tab that only appears on talk pages menus. The latter may be obvious, | tags | , but what phrase might be used in a menu of tags which the clicked tab turns on (or appears on a button without the menu)?

• For menu pairs, "watch/unwatch" suggests "tag spoilers/untag spoilers", which renders:

| Tag spoilers | alternating with | Untag spoilers |

but that doesn't suggest a catchy public interest marketing name, say, like the USA grade school concept "Show and Tell". Parsifal mentions "hide/show", that suggests

Wikipedia's Hide'nShow spoiler tags

• Which then renders a menu pair of:

| Show spoiler tags | alternating with | Hide spoiler tags |

Feel free to join in brainstorming. Milo 07:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why this proposal is called a "compromise", but whatever. I have nothing against hiding spoiler tags by default (if I understand this correctly, I only have to edit MediaWiki:Common.css to make them invisible). However, we should not further clutter our already-too-complicated interface with even more buttons. If spoiler tags are hidden by default, users should enable them through Special:Mypage/Monobook.css. That is how all other user customizations work: through user-defined stylesheets and javascript. It even allows users to choose their own design for spoiler tags. Show tag/hide tag tabs can be implemented in user javascript if there is demand for them. Kusma (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If tags are hidden by default, that will just encourage editors to write spoiler warnings by hand, since they will think the template is broken. So that won't work. This has been discussed in depth already... — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but it seems to me that there's no lack of people who are willing to dedicate themselves to spoiler patrolling. Of course, I don't see any reason why spoiler tags shouldn't be shown by default... it's less intrusive then, say, Template:cleanup. — PyTom (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

True, except that the cleanup template is temporary. Most people arguing for spoiler tags want them on articles/places they'd be permanent. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Even temporary spoiler tags are more or less forbidden.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Carl, do you have some indicias for this, or is it just a theory? And if so, is there any indicias that it would be any worse than situation without any SWs? I doubt it, since it has not been tried. So this is a very weak argument. (As a side note, we can comment on the fact that SWs need to be switched on in the listing of the templates, so every newcomer who will try to use the template will be immediately informed. The other people won't see it's there, so there is no problem.) Oh, and btw, we could also say that users just need to be educated; the same argument was repeatedly raised by Tony in response that people will not expect spoilers without warnings in Wikipedia. Samohyl Jan 20:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I did a search for handmade spoiler tags a while back, and Tony Sidaway did a separate, independent search. We found quite a few. But I have also seen several instances where editors changed a handmade warning to use the tag. We don't want to make changes that encourage editors to use handmade tags (which are typically much less professional than the template). In any case, the question of hidable spoiler tags has been discussed enough already, and I don't feel like rehashing that, so I'm not planning to respond much further in this thread. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Although not proven, Carl's inferences are pretty reasonable. I'm sure it could be verified that the vast majority of Wikipedia users do not customize the interface. They accept it as-is. I suggested (above) that the percentage was 95%. It might be 90% or 99.99%, but I'm sure it is a high figure. If this is so, and if the tags are hidden by default, then most visitors to the site will never see the tags, and will therefore assume that they don't exist. Marc Shepherd 21:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Carl, you missed my point. Those you have seen were with the current version of the guideline, which discourages SWs, right? But if this happens now, then hidable SWs are *no worse*. I would like to hear an argument why hidable SWs make this problem worse than no SWs at all. If you already presented such argument before, I am sorry, I may have missed that, but from our previous debate I don't remember you did (and I presented this argument only once before, iirc). Samohyl Jan 22:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't going to happen because it would just needlessly clutter the articles with furniture that, while invisible to most readers, would be visible to editors. As such it would carry all the disadvantages of the old laissez-faire spoiler guideline without offering much in return. --Tony Sidaway 03:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you consider SWs not to be useful, you can say that it is "without offering much in return". This is your subjective opinion, other people may feel it is different. That's why it's called a compromise, but you're probably unwilling to have, even the slightest, compromise. And it's actually as little clutter as possible - one template is significantly less than comments that have to be maintaned on many pages to prevent some common wrong edits. Samohyl Jan 05:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Instead of making ridiculously false claims about my reasons for objecting, why not just listen to, and perhaps respond to, what I am saying?

This would bring back all the disadvantages we had before. At least when we had visible spoiler tags before it was arguable that most of those users who could derive some utility, however small, from the tags, could do so. This would provide no such thing. It would simply bring us back to the status quo ante but without visual effect on the articles for the vast majority of users. --Tony Sidaway 07:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Tony backed the recently revised guideline, which is considerably more accommodating of spoiler tags than the previous version. No one could say that he is unwilling to compromise.

But hidden spoiler tags are a dumb compromise, which even the most ardent supporters of the tags would be wise to oppose. What's the value of the tags if they are hidden by default, and therefore, most people don't see them? As I noted above the vast majority of users don't customize their interface. "Hidden by default" means "hidden to almost everybody." Marc Shepherd 13:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There is compromise and there is faux compromise. Tony, and others, have been relatively flexible on his willingness to engage in "Compromises that aren't". Because look, we're down to 3 spoiler tag usages on all of WP. The recently revised guideline is considerably more accommodating of spoiler tags, and yet, somehow, we've got even less spoiler tags.

I've used the example before, but I'll use it again. It's like if a country, accused of going to war too often, got together and said, "Okay, okay, we'll compromise. We won't invade another country when everybody agrees we shouldn't." And people think that's a fair compromise because they'll have some check on things. But then, the next time they want to invade, they simply have to say, "Ah, yes, but _We_ are _part_ of everybody, and we do not agree we shouldn't, so the invasion proceeds." That's not really a compromise at all.

Similarly, some of the anti-spoiler group _know_ they can keep spoilers down by means of the spoiler patrol, even if the wording of the guideline is, on the face, slightly more generous to spoilers. They win even if they _look_ like they're compromising, if it doesn't alter things in fact. So why _not_ compromise there? They are, after all, compromises that aren't. Whenever there are compromises proposed that would lead to a non-trivial number of spoiler warnings out there, heels are dug in.

I took a peek at some editing history. Not a long look, a peek. No more than the first page, and I stumbled across Talk:Bionicle, where they're discussing spoilers, because somebody had went through the bionicle pages and removed spoiler warnings using the discussion there as a justification. The discussion there, from the last few days, has 2 people who seem to be regulars on that page arguing that spoiler warnings should be used (and arguing that their use falls _within_ the guideline), and against? Why, who should it be by Tony, CBM, and, I'm sad to see, Marc Shepherd. That's it. Maybe, coincidentally, one or more of you are all particularly interested in Bionicle, but I doubt it. It looks like the ol' Spoiler Patrol again, hopping on when somebody dared use the spoiler tag without permission (or at all, since permission doesn't come). So it seems it's fine to allow a few boundary cases in theory so long as you control when they "count". A compromise includes not only the theory, but when the boundary cases count. Wandering Ghost 12:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

and, I'm sad to see, Marc Shepherd....

Ghost, did you read the substance of what I wrote on Talk:Bionicle? It's not that I objected to spoiler tags per se. It's that I felt they had been placed from a "fans-only" perspective. It's possible to be accommodating of spoiler tags, and yet, to point out when they've been misused.

I think the "Spoiler Patrol" argument is misplaced. There are people who patrol Wikipedia for tons of things, and there is nothing wrong with that. Those folks play a valuable role, because they have a broad perspective. Someone who comes here only to edit Bionicle articles may be an Bionicle expert, but won't necessarily be a great Wikipedia editor.

Those in favor of spoiler tags ought to spend some time looking at the quality of the tags that are placed, rather than merely lamenting the very small number of them. Marc Shepherd 12:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I am responding to your arguments, Tony. The problem is, arguments of you and other anti-spoilerists are sometimes contradictory. If the SWs are visible, you argue that they are condescending. If they are hidden, you argue the other way. These arguments are not themselves contradictory, but if you are willing to compromise, that means accepting having SWs where you do not want them, and then they will be either hidden or shown. If you maintain both positions, it really looks like you don't want to compromise. I will explain this later and more in the next section. Samohyl Jan 05:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Marc has correctly pointed out that I happily engaged in compromise over the recent rewrite of the guideline, as indeed I compromised over the earlier rewrite in late May--I would have been happy to see all spoiler tags removed.

Secondly there is nothing contradictory about arguing that tags that are only visible to editors will have all the bad effects on the editing of Wikipedia that led to the May rewrite, but will have none of the good effects that pro-spoiler editors argue for, except for that tiny minority of readers who are both willing and able to edit their CSS settings.

So we've been through two de facto compromises so far, both of which I supported. Must I support any and every compromise that comes along, no matter what my misgivings, simply to avoid being accused of refusing to compromise? --Tony Sidaway 05:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

At the topic of Bionicle: Dude, the frickin' god-like character in that universe died. How is it not a spoiler?

I'm going to say now that I haven't read any of this discussion for the past 2 months, since the last time this happened with the Bionicle articles. And now, I'd like to my idea as to when spoiler tags should be placed, even in "synopsis" sections.:

When something has just recently been revealed. Seriously here, when some piece of information has just been released, such as a comic or novel, you cannot expect everyone to know the plot that day. And they most definitely won't. Just because there are three main contributors for Bionicle here, doesn't mean more people read it - heck, I know plenty more do, based on the number of topics about Wikipedia pop up on the main Bionicle fansite, BZPower. So, for information from a recently released story source, I think spoiler tags should be permitted for at least two weeks. --~|ET|~(^{Talk|Contribs}) 10:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting footnote....

Since The Crying Game has come up a lot about 'ingrained into pop culture' and all that, what I find VERY interesting, is how The Simpsons thought it was OK to spoil that plot point a mere half a year after the movie came out -- in the episode Marge in Chains (here has the quote). Just a bit of a curveball...♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons is a show that built a reputation on pushing the envelope and being edgy (even if it has been overtaken in that regard by other programs). So what's analogous here? Postmodern Beatnik 02:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's been done it's been done. You can hardly accuse a wiki of not "pushing the envelope and being edgy". --Tony Sidaway 09:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the luddite 'this is an encyclopedia' argument seems to have such a sway over many powerful admins, it would seem that wikis can avoid pushing the envelope. See also WP:FLR for a similar retreat from innovation.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Flagged revisions are still under development and will almost certainly be rolled out in the German wikipedia, by all accounts, once they are ready. It will be only a matter of time after that before they are implemented here in some form. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and this is a problem. Perhaps Wikipedia can overcome its tendancy towards bureaucratic irrationality, perhaps not.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought that flagged revisions were an innovation, not the avoidance of such. Whether they're a good innovation may be debated (just like spoiler tagging), but that's a whole other matter. Not all innovations are good, and even good innovations must continue to evolve. Marc Shepherd 16:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The innovation in Wikipedia is being the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Flagged revisions are a retreat from this. The 'case' against spoiler warnings rests on appeals to tradition, outgroup stereotypes or unrepresentative examples. The case remains to be made. However, the innovation of the spoiler police has to rank amongst the very worst.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Your opposition to WP:FLR is certainly consistent with your "wild-west" approach to spoiler tagging. It's not a surprise that you're in the minority on both. "Anyone can edit" has proved to have significant drawbacks—just like "anyone can add a spoiler tag." Marc Shepherd 14:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm in a majority on the spoiler tags, as you well know. You have not explained why the wild west approach is a problem, except with appeals to tradition, outgroup stereotyping and unrepresentative examples. The problems with the spoiler police include people wasting their time making unproductive nuisance edits, petty exercise of power over normal editors and ignoring the guideline as written.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought the outcome of the RfC was that 40% wanted the tags. That sounds like a minority to me. That assumes the RfC was representative, which people on both sides dispute.

The problem with the Wild West approach has nothing to do with the points you named. It's simply that you have editing without rules. So Psycho gets a spoiler tag (because some editor happens to really want it there), but Citizen Kane doesn't get one (because another editor says the opposite). Maybe the first one is a Hitchcock fan (so he never looks at Welles articles), and the latter is a Welles fan (so he never looks at Hitchcock articles). The point of a guideline is to establish rules that help to decide which one is right. The Wild West means that everyone is equally right, and editors just do whatever they please. No one—regardless of whether they are pro-SW or anti-SW—should want that. Marc Shepherd 20:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no WP:CONSISTENCY, and it is quite common for featured articles on similar subjects to use slightly different styles. The effect of your argument is to legitimise mindless spoiler tag removal as it's always 'inconsistent'.--Nydas^(Talk) 06:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Every guideline, including the entire manual of style, is part of WP:CONSISTENCY. What we have now is highly consistent, but not what's desired. Those in favor of SW's need to define what the future state would look like, instead of just complaining that the current state is not what they want. To make progress, you need to be arguing for something, instead of just arguing against the status quo. Marc Shepherd 13:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The manual of style allows considerable flexibility, for example, featured articles use a wide variety of reference styles. I've said several times I would like to see a section stating that it is OK to use spoiler warnings on articles about recently released films.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The MOS does indeed allow considerable flexibility. But it limits choices too, as a good guideline should. I favor spoiler warnings on recently released films, but if they exist, they should be there consistently and reliably. Marc Shepherd 20:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That's just another way of saying it won't be allowed to happen. Even if the guideline is rewritten to explicitly allow spoiler warnings on recent films, the spoiler police will make sure none of them stick around.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is, we have a guideline that allows things, but doesn't require anything. The guideline should indicate where spoiler warnings are required, rather than merely saying that they are hypothetically permitted (if you can get consensus for them, which rarely happens). Marc Shepherd 18:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is just a guideline, it can't require things. A phrase which says that spoiler warnings are acceptable on recently released films would be fine. Though if it were added, the problem of the spoiler police ignoring the guideline would remain.--Nydas^(Talk) 13:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My point was not about innovation, but rather that The Simpsons and Wikipedia are hardly analogous mediums. We're not trying to annoy anyone, cause controversy, or be edgy here. All of these things may be consequences of some of our choices, but it does not drive us. The reputation we are trying to maintain (and among many populations, still trying to create) is that of an encyclopedia: accurate, informative, reliable. That's why we must inlcude spoilers in our articles: it's the only way to create accurate and informative entries. But including spoiler warnings do not necessarily contravene those principles. Indeed, we have already gone many rounds demonstrating that they are, in their own way, both informative and (when well-placed) accurate. And as an internet encyclopedia, they may increase how certain populations view our reliability (that is, they can rely on us to conform to what has become a common internet ethic). Most encyclopedias don't even contain plot summaries, so this is new territory for our editors. Both the warnings and the summaries themselves areinnovations. Still, it seems that the extreme options have been ruled out; we're not going to get rid of the warnings altogether, and we're not going to place them everywhere any plot point—major or minor—is discussed. That seems reasonable to me, and reason is all I am here to defend. Postmodern Beatnik 15:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

At least you're arguing for consistency, which Nydas (post above yours) doesn't care about. But he is a troll; you're not. The next logical step is to propose a guideline that defines what an "informative...and accurate" spoiler warning would be. Most of the ones we're getting now are neither. Marc Shepherd 18:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

First, Marc, remember to assume good faith regarding Nydas. Second, I would like to clarify that I am not pro-spoiler warning. Nor am I anti-spoiler warning. I mention this because I want to make sure you don't take my comments into account when judging whether or not the pro-SW side has been clear about what they want. What I want is for decisions about Wikipedia to be made on the basis of sound arguments and not the kind of fallacious reasoning that has characterized this conversation. Third, spoiler warnings do not necessarily need to be themselves informative, accurate, and reliable. They need only not to contravene those values. But I would say any spoiler warning is informative (it informs that there is a spoiler ahead), that so long as it well-placed (e.g. not at the top of an article that doesn't contain spoilers until section 11, etc.) it is accurate, and that so long as the policy is adhered to closely, it is reliable. Of course, we are discussing ideals. Wikipedia will never be perfect. No encyclopedia will be. But still, ideals are useful as models to work towards. Postmodern Beatnik 19:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tag placement quality

I think it's worth looking at the "placement quality" of the spoiler tags that editors have been adding to articles lately.

By "placement quality," I mean:

Are both {{spoiler}} and {{endspoiler}} used to bracket the sensitive material?
Is the material bracketed by {{spoiler}} and {{endspoiler}} actually a spoiler?
Do the tags successfully segregate spoiler-sensitive material from general information?

I continue to find that, overwhelmingly, the most common placement is on the entire plot section or the entire article. A majority of the time, {{endspoiler}} is not present.

When spoiler tags are used in this way, they aren't very helpful. It is often suggested that people who read Wikipedia articles may be looking for general information, but don't want major plot surprises to be "spoiled". If the whole article or the whole plot section is tagged, what good is it? The reader is given no clues to distinguish true "spoilers".

It therefore seems to me that if spoiler tags are going to make a big resurgence, we have to figure out how to better guide people on how to use them, because current usage isn't very helpful. Marc Shepherd 13:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

We do have guidance not to put them into plot sections. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's clear that many people who place {{spoiler}} tags have not read the guideline. Marc Shepherd 15:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be worth posting a note at the Village Pump; I don't know that the last major update was ever really announced. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think one problem is that people may not realize that plot sections contain spoilers... or at least, not until too late. (After all, it's at least possible to discuss the plot of a movie without giving away spoilers... movie reviewers do it all the time.) One possible compromise would be a fairly subtle way of indicating that a particular section may contain arbitrary spoilers. I made an example at: User:Pytom/Plot... I haven't tried to make it compatible with browsers other than firefox, but I'm wondering what people think. — PyTom (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are several parallel examples (the first one originally due to David Gerard, I think) that illustrate why that's not a good solution. Our goal is not to give movie reviews or to give spoiler-free accounts - our goal is to include all significant plot details regardless of whether they are spoilers. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Technical specification

Note: this section contains technical details.

Chemical synthesis

Note: this section contains details about chemical reactions.

Proof

Note: this section contains logical reasoning.

Plot

Note: this section contains significant plot details.

In all fairness, the above counter-examples aren't really relevant. No one is ever dismayed about being told how a chemical reaction works, but some readers might be dismayed about learning (before they see the film) that Darth Vader is Luke's father. Whether Wikipedia has any obligation to "protect" those readers—and if so, how—can be reasonably debated. But the analogy to a chemical reaction or a math proof isn't really helpful.

Part of the problem is that the pro-warning faction doesn't have unity about what problem they're trying to solve. There seem to be a few factions out there:

Some people think that a section called "Plot" isn't sufficiently obvious as to its content, and that it requires further disclaimers — i.e. "When we say 'Plot', we really do mean the whole plot."
Some people think that only very significant plot twists (Luke's father) need to be warned
Some people think that the warnings are needed only where the work is fairly recent; others think that a spoiler is a spoiler, whether it's in Hamlet or Bionicle.
Some people think that warnings are needed no matter where they occur; others think they are needed when they are in a truly unexpected place (i.e., not in a plot section).

Most of the pro-spoiler tag faction haven't articulated what they're in favor of. They just know they're against the status quo. Marc Shepherd 16:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The point of the examples is to demonstrate out the redundancy of putting a warning just below a section header that the section contains information that it must contain to warrant that section header. Whether that information is logical reasoning or plot details, we have to assume readers will trust that our section headers mean what they say. That's what people expect from a quality encyclopedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Your example analogy is wrong understanding of the problem. First, people don't care if they accidentally read a proof, but they may care if they accidentally read the ending. Second, people still want them as a reminder of this fact, even if they cover whole section, because they may forget, not realize what they are doing, etc. I understand that you try to look at the problem from logical perspective (consistency), but human perspective is more important there and humans excel in ability to deal with inconsistencies in reasoning (often by being inconsistent in what they want). Samohyl Jan 18:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to cater to people who read without paying attention. The purpose of section titles is to describe the content of the section; readers who fail to pay attention to large, bold text interspersed throughout the article don't need to be provided with additional bold text. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not just an attention problem. They need to actually realize that plot section contains SWs. To detect that header says 'Plot' is a pattern-detection problem, it works just automatically. To realize that maybe I don't want to know the plot for this particular piece requires much higher cognitive function. I personally skim over many articles when reading Wikipedia, and I believe it's *very* common usage pattern. And don't forget that amount of people who actually used SWs was quite large; you really want to be so hostile to all of them? Samohyl Jan 19:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I also believe that the number of people who actually realize that the Plot section contains spoilers is small... at least until a person reads a spoiler, and by then it's too late. That's why I like the idea of an unobtrusive tag in the Plot (and similar) sections reminding people about this policy. The page I linked above was one such take. We could obviously change the wording. "This section contains information that may spoil dramatic suspense." — PyTom (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What do these people expect to find in a plot section - coffee cake recipes? Just like a "proof" section will contain logical reasoning, a "plot" section will contain plot details. The situation before May included a proliferation of spoiler notices; these were removed after much discussion, and it is unlikely they will be reinserted. There is agreement that plot spoilers that appear in unexpected places may warrant tags, but not spoilers that appear in sections that are explicitly intended to contain spoilers. Readers will learn very quickly to take our section titles seriously. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"a "plot" section will contain plot details" Everyone knows that – it's a red herring to distract from the plot=spoilers fallacy. Plot details are not the same as spoilers. Some plot details are spoilers, others aren't. Some Plots with plot details contain spoilers; others don't.

"spoilers that appear in sections that are explicitly intended to contain spoilers." "Intended to contain spoilers" is not the same as 'does contain spoilers'.

"Readers will learn very quickly to take our section titles seriously." Logically they can't learn because spoiler content is inconsistently present under the same section titles. Sometimes they will get away with reading the "Plot" section and sometimes they won't.

"Readers will learn very quickly" As to why you even think like this, my guess is that since you are notably opposed to spoiler notices, you don't experience spoilering emotions the way that spoiler-averse readers do. I'm guessing that you think it's closer to the effect on a child of sticking pins in a electric outlet, to which one will go to great lengths to avoid in future. No – it's closer to being like Homer Simpson's feeling, that we empathize from cartoon context, when he gets disappointed by his goofups and says "Doh!".

In my case, having been spoilered a few times by reading this talk page, and once by a spoilering vandal elsewhere (Harry Potter twist, probably), my disappointment is flagged by a slight so-called sinking feeling.

Another editor here described reading Wikipedia Plot sections, hoping to stop before encountering a spoiler, in a way that I would liken to a game with chance elements of loss and gain. Obviously, gamers lose a lot of games, but they don't stop playing. Likewise readers aren't going to stop trying to read sections titled "Plot", "Plot summary", or "Synopis" (which contrary to the implied claim of the Spoiler guide, has the same definition as a "Plot summary"). Milo 06:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Replying to CBM, What do these people expect to find in a plot section? Perhaps a description of the plot but not the entire plot? Critics have been describing the plots of fictional works for years without reiterating the entire plot. Sure, one can assume that one will find plot details under a Plot heading, but the word Plot does not specify the level of detail that a section contains. Section headings do not require sources so what they say is more dubious than the contents of sections (which require sources). If someone sees a Plot heading they may assume it's the entire plot, they may assume it's a general overview of a plot like that given by film critics/book critics/videogame critics, they may assume something else. A heading titled Plot does not explicitly (very specific, clear, or detailed) say it contains spoilers; rather, it is implicit (implied indirectly, not openly shown, unspoken). The {{spoiler}} template is an explicit way of informing readers that a section is particularly full of details about a plot, moreso than many readers would expect to find. And why should readers take section titles seriously? Section headings don't have to be sourced so section headings should be taken less seriously than anything else in the article. Roger Ebert wrote "The characters in movies do not always do what we would do. Sometimes they make choices that offend us. That is their right. It is our right to disagree with them. It is not our right, however, to destroy for others the experience of being as surprised by those choices as we were."[17] Roger Ebert wrote that critics have no right to spoil films and I think Wikipedia editors also have no right to spoil films or any other fictional works for readers. If an editor describes the entire plot of a film, that's fine with me, but the {{spoiler}} template is a simple courtesy to readers to let them know what they're about to read and has been used for many, many years on the Internet. It's easy to suggest that people should avoid reading film articles if they don't want the ending of a movie spoiled, but should only people who have seen a film be able to read an article? A film article should not be a substitute for viewing a film; it could even be argued that an extensive plot description may infringe on a studio's right to profit from a film because people may no longer wish to see it. --Pixelface 11:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(EC)I think a lot of people placing the tag have never heard of this guideline. Have a look at this: [18]. Before I got to it it merely said "sections, near top" - I changed it to "sections, just before spoiler details" due to a lack of space, but perhaps that should be changed to "see WP:SPOIL"? Kuronue | Talk 18:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a note at the top of the section pointing here, as a sort of compromise. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

De facto spoiler notice

I've removed this bullet point from the guideline because it is incorrect:

A section header such as "Plot Summary," "Detailed Summary," or "Synopsis" can be considered a de facto spoiler notice — a synopsis will necessarily describe the entire plot, so there is usually no need to repeat the warning.

The words "summary" and "synopsis" (which means 'a brief summary') do not indicate that the entire plot of a piece of fiction will be present in a section. Rather, a heading such as Entire plot *does* indicate the entire plot is present. The bullet point "consider changing the header to something clearer" covers this. To the 9 editors on all of Wikipedia that object to the {{spoiler}} template (or I should say, to the 9 editors on all of Wikipedia that object so much to the {{spoiler}} template that they put a userbox on their user page), perhaps you should start renaming headings named Plot or Plot summary to titles such as Entire plot or Every plot detail in order to present a more accurate description of the content of certain sections.

A heading titled Plot carries no guarantee of the content that comes below it. Every detail of a plot may be included, it may not. It depends on who has been editing the article and what edits they have made. Film critics and videogame critics and book critics routinely describe the plots of films/games/books without telling readers every detail of the respective plots. Wikipedia is not CliffsNotes. And Wikipedia articles should not be substitutes for viewing/playing/reading a piece of fiction. If the entire plot of a piece of fiction is present in a article and you object to the presence of a {{spoiler}} template, I suggest you rename the section heading accordingly.

Also, it may be useful to review the discussion on the talk page of the {{plot}} template (and other pages) that discusses whether long plot descriptions may constitute copyright violations and may not qualify as fair use. Thanks. --Pixelface 05:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If a plot summary in an encyclopedia does not include the ending, it means it is incomplete. A plot summary not including spoilers probably needs to be edited for completeness. That non-encyclopedias have incomplete plot summaries does not mean we have to add redundancy to all our articles about fictional things again. I have reverted your edit, as it made the guideline even less descriptive of the current practice regarding spoiler templates. Kusma (talk) 05:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The word "summary" means "concise, brief or presented in a condensed form" so a summary can never be "complete." And Wikipedia does not claim anywhere to be complete. The {{spoiler}} tag is not redundant. It clarifies for the reader the level of detail that follows. The word "synopsis" means "a brief summary of the major points of a written work" and is more clear that major plot points follow, although many readers think "summary" is synonymous with "synopsis." The statement in the guideline -- "a synopsis will necessarily describe the entire plot" -- is false because a synopsis is a brief summary and a summary is a "condensed presentation of the substance of a body of material" (condensed meaning to decrease in size or volume) and "entire" means "whole" or "complete." And section headings do not require sources so it is wrong to assume that they always accurately describe the content that follows. --Pixelface 09:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Wikipedia is not a fan site, it's an encyclopedia. Our articles must tell you everything significant about a subject, or else they're incomplete. --Tony Sidaway 05:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of if encyclopedic plot summaries must necessarily have spoilers (which I agree they must), an average person who sees a section titled "synopsis" will not expect spoilers. Remember, encyclopedias exist for people to use them, not just for their own sake. Why should we not provide information to readers because it's technically redundant? -Amarkov moo! 06:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Having said that, it should be pretty clear that a section titled "plot" will have the plot in it, and putting in "WARNING! This plot section has the plot in it!" is pointless. -Amarkov moo! 06:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  - The {{spoiler}} template is not a warning that the plot follows, it says "Significant plot details follow." This may seem redundant but it actually clarifies the level of detail that follows. One can describe a plot generally and one can describe a plot specifically, and the template indicates that a section contains specific details, not a general overview. --Pixelface 09:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

←Section headings need to be more clear to avoid misunderstanding. Not all readers of Wikipeida know that some editors may consider spoiler warnings to be unencyclopedic, or that "plot" means "includes spoilers". There is nothing in the dictionary definition of enclyclopedia to indicate that either. The WP page for encyclopedia uses this definition: "An encyclopedia, or (traditionally) encyclopædia, is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge". That says nothing about whether or not plot sections contain or segregate spoilers. The entire WP article on encyclopedia includes nothing at all that would indicate how we should handle this. This is new territory (other than the zillions of talk page kilobytes), so standard definitions of that word can't guide this decision.

Aside from those details, since spoiler notices have already been deprecated (no matter what the guideline seems to say, because in practice, all spoiler notices are immediately reverted now), we should at least make sure we use completely clear section titles that don't leave room for wobbly interpretations by readers unfamiliar with Wikipedia jargon. --Parsifal _Hello 06:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how relevant this is to the discussion, but I'm gonna have to disagree with Tony on this. Not every article needs a blow-by-blow plot summary or be extensive. Since not every article has the entire plot, using accurate section headings is ideal, especially when the all the major details are given away.

For example, House IV only needs to be a stub, while Bicycle Thieves should be as detailed as possible. So while SuperBabies: Baby Geniuses 2 should only have the gist of the plot, The Wild Bunch should have it spelled out in detail because of its higher importance. Does that make sense? --YellowTapedR 06:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If a reader finds a section labelled "Plot" in an encyclopedia article about a fictional subject and does not expect to read about all significant aspects of the plot, he is beyond hope. That doesn't include a "blow-by-blow" account (which should always be avoided) but it necessarily includes all material that is likely to be regarded by reasonable people as "spoilers". --Tony Sidaway 06:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What is your definition of a "reasonable person"? Does it include readers who are not native speakers of English?

And what of readers new to Wikipedia who are used to other sites, like IMDB, where they use different section headings for complete plots and summaries of plots that do not contain spoilers. Why would someone be beyond hope because they are not familiar with the way you personally understand the term "plot"?

I don't understand why it would be a problem to encourage editors to use more clarity in section headings. More precision seems more "encyclopedic", does it not? --Parsifal _Hello 06:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There are two problems with your suggestion:

1) a plot summary that gives all significant details of the plot isn't necessarily that detailed. But it will still include, for instance, all major plot twists.

2) we already encourage precision. Plot means plot. Synopsis means plot. They are precise words.

--Tony Sidaway 06:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There's also the person who wants to know the premise of a work of fiction, without being spoiled as to surprising details. Often, the premise is only described in the Plot section. For example, if you read our article on The Other, and ignore the Plot section, you'll have no idea what the film is about. OTOH, if you read the Plot section, it gives the ending away.

I prefer spoiler tags that cover only part of the Plot section, but having spoiler tags cover the whole Plot section are better than none at all. I think people who have seen the work and understand the importance of each revelation are often in the best place to decide., — PyTom (talk) 06:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tag placement is extremely inconsistent and there is no consensus as to what exactly constitutes a spoiler. There is pretty strong consensus, though, that a warning just below the "Plot" header is as necessary as a warning "This article contains information about genitalia and may contain a picture of a penis" on penis, i.e. not at all. Kusma (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Roger Ebert wrote an article about spoiler warnings.[19] A Plot section might contain pivotal plot details, it might not. You seem to assume that every Plot section does. It's foolish to assume that a section heading accurately describes the contents of a section because section headings do not have to be sourced. It may be wise to assume that every Plot section contains major plot points, but that is not always the case. Film critics and book critics and videogame critics regularly describe the plots of fictional works without telling readers everything about it. Roger Ebert wrote that critics have no right to spoil films for readers and I think Wikipedia editors also have no right to spoil films for readers. A {{spoiler}} template is a simple courtesy, a polite way of informing readers what they are about to read and spoiler warnings have been commonplace on the Internet for years. It is wrong to assume that every reader who looks at a Plot heading expects to read every detail about a film's plot. The fact is that a plot of a film can be described without revealing every plot point and that is what many readers expect to find on Wikipedia -- a general description of what a film is about, not extensive details and knowledge that may affect their experience of a film. --Pixelface 09:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

People who find themselves in the odd and paraodoxical position of wanting to know a little about something and specifically wanting not to know everything significant about that subject are, in general, poorly served by encyclopedias. They should be gently nudged in the direction of fan websites and the like. Conniving with the reader to maintain his state of ignorance is not a function fit for any encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 11:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

According to who? You still haven't cited a single authority which says that spoiler warnings are not allowed on encyclopedias. Your self-invented definitions have no weight otherwise.--Nydas^(Talk) 13:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Nydas, I don't believe you have cited an authority for your position, either. Marc Shepherd 18:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to. My argument revolves around functionality, neutrality and a worldwide view, not appeals to made-up definitions.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

But all of those points are your personal opinions, not backed by any authority. You may be right or wrong, but you've provided no more backing for your views than Tony has. Marc Shepherd 18:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality and a worldwide view are well-established Wikipedia principles, and as far as I know, functionality is as well. There is no Wikipedia:Avoid conniving with ignorance.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality, a worldwide view, and functionality are well-established Wikipedia principles. But you haven't provided any authority for the view that spoiler tags would enhance any of these. It happens to be your personal opinion, and you may well be right—or not. But you haven't backed it up, any more than Tony has backed up his view to the contrary. Marc Shepherd 19:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My view is based on logical reasons, not definitions, tradition or 'authority'. Instead of dodging these with endless appeals to tradition, address the reasons themselves. To his credit, Phil Sandifer did this, though his rebuttal of 'fans-only' articles and non-Americans lumping it is neither neutral nor worldwide.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If they are poorly served by encyclopedias in this respect, the right question should be, can it be done better? The answer is: yes, by using SWs. I don't understand why would you want to do something wrong just because every other encyclopedia does it wrong. Wikipedia should care what its users want, not dictate them. Because that's what will only drive them away. Samohyl Jan 18:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia should not be everything its users want. Many of Wikipedia's contributors submit dictionary definitions. That is useful information, but we delete it since Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Choosing what we are and what we are not is very important, and is what keeps Wikipedia useful in the long run. Other sites can come and fill the niche that we do not, and can provide episode guides, lists of random quotations, dictionaries, "fancruft" information and, if they want to, also plot summaries of movies with several levels of spoiler templates. We are not trying to sell anything here, we are creating an encyclopedia. Kusma (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

But in your example, community responded to wish by such users by creating Wiktionary, a dictionary that anyone can edit. It is actually more practical that way. If it would be practical to fork Wikipedia in order to create version with and without spoilers, then this argument would have merit. But it is not practical. Also, in the mission statement (which I agree shouldn't be changed no matter what users want) there is nothing about SWs. Samohyl Jan 19:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to Nydas: I do not contend that spoiler warnings are not allowed in encyclopedias. I say instead the words that are above your comment, which seems to have little connection to those words.

In response to Samohyl Jan: I don't think it's Wikipedia's job to serve purposes orthogonal to the organisation of knowledge. We tried widespread spoiler warnings and found that they got in the way, so we now use them much less than we did. --Tony Sidaway 18:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You said that it's not a function fit for any encyclopedia, based on your own notions of what counts as 'paradoxical' and 'odd'. You think that people who only want partial knowledge are 'poorly served' by encyclopedias, again, your own personal view, dictating how people ought to read articles, unsupported by any known authority. So basically, you don't like them. With a bit of outgroup stereotyping on the side.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I said that "Conniving with the reader to maintain his state of ignorance is not a function fit for any encyclopedia" and I think that's self-evident. --Tony Sidaway 18:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

So maybe we should get rid of search box and categories, so the user would have to read Wikipedia from cover to cover, so he wouldn't be ignorant anymore. Sarcasm aside, it's not self evident. People come to encyclopedias because they want specific information. Maybe not all. It should be their choice. Samohyl Jan 19:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The idea that we should be dictating the 'right' way for people to read articles is deplorable.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. On original RfC, the main argument against SWs was concern that they are condescending to the reader. I don't know what you mean by "orthogonal to the organisation of knowledge", but I have feeling that many things on Wikipedia already are. Samohyl Jan 19:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"We tried widespread spoiler warnings and found that they got in the way, so we now use them much less than we did." Where was this decided? At least according to the 2007 RFC [20],

it seems like a majority of readers voting used spoiler warnings. I'm not for tagging every plot section with spoiler tags... but if the plot section contains major details about surprising revelations, I think spoiler tags should be included around the spoilers only. That makes it possible for a reader to learn about the work without ruining his enjoyment of it. If I was trapped on a desert island with a copy of Wikipedia, a stack of DVDs, and a solar-powered laptop, I'd hope to be able to use Wikipedia to choose which DVDs to watch first. — PyTom (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

We do not actually use spoiler warnings

Can we write a guideline that actually describes what we do instead of what some people think should be done? The "consensus" on this page has nothing to do with real spoiler tag use, so either we need to adapt the guideline to reality or adapt reality to the guideline. I think adapting the guideline is easier. Kusma (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

All guidelines attempt to recommend a course of action, a lists of "shoulds". But no recommendations should be made based on section headings because section headings do not have to be verifiable. In that way, all section headings constitute original research. Spoiler warnings have been used frequently in Wikipedia articles until a group of editors removed them all, and the fact that the {{spoiler}} template has not been deleted suggests that many users want to keep it. Many users have been bothered, upset, annoyed, even enraged by articles because every plot point of a story has been given away. The feeling is akin to the one a sports fan gets when they overhear the ending of a game they have recorded but haven't watched yet. Sure, you can "adapt the guideline to reality" and mention that a small group of editors removed all {{spoiler}} tags from articles because they make assumptions about the reliability of section headings, assumptions that have no basis in reality. Go ahead. It is not obvious that significant plot details follow a ==Plot== heading because headings do not require sources or references -- so they are inherently unreliable. --Pixelface 14:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Kusma's version is probably the most intellectually honest, because it accurately describes the current situation. It's not what I would choose, but I agree with the pro-SW faction that it's silly to have a guideline that theoretically permits SW's, when practice they almost never occur. Marc Shepherd 15:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this logic, but it doesn't look like that'll keep. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kusma's version in that I think things are heading that way. I've seen editors who tried to place spoiler warnings to test a theory about consensus, get a rude awakening from other editors (not fellows I'd seen before in this debate, and not usernames familiar to me in any other context) who agree with the general principle of keeping spoiler tags very rare, and I expect that groundswell to continue to grow. It could go the other way, of course, which is why I currently think we need to wait a year or two before any drastic changes. I could be wrong, though. --Tony Sidaway 16:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If nobody can follow the guideline, then I agree with the replacement. The guideline, as it stands, is misleading, which is something an encyclopedia should never do. --YellowTapedR 16:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If a critic has declared something a spoiler, I see no reason why the {{spoiler}} tag cannot be used in an article. For example, Roger Ebert speaking of the film Million Dollar Baby wrote "If you have not yet seen Million Dollar Baby and know nothing about the plot, read no further" and later said, "Now yet another spoiler warning, because I am going to become more explicit."[21]. The guideline currently says "In a work that is uncommonly reliant on the impact of a plot twist or surprise ending — a murder mystery, for instance — a spoiler tag may be appropriate even within a properly labeled "Synopsis" section. These should be sourced when possible (e.g., by citing a professional reviewer who describes the impact of the surprise)." That's fine I suppose, personally I would word that a little differently, but the rest of the content in the Are spoilers implied by the section title? section completely ignores Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, stating that readers can make assumptions based on section headings, when readers should not because section headings do not require sources. --Pixelface 22:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're the only one pushing for sourcing of spoilers. What counts as a spoiler is totally subjective. I like to know as few plot details as possible before seeing something, while others want to know exactly what they're going to see. If we can't get editors to source even potentially libelous material, what makes you think they'll source section headings and spoilers?--YellowTapedR 22:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying all {{spoiler}} tags should be sourced. I am saying that the removal of a {{spoiler}} template that has a verifiable source is POV pushing. A group of editors removed all {{spoiler}} templates from the namespace. The removal of {{spoiler}} templates that are sourced is unwarranted. I'm also not asking people to source section headings. I'm saying that the guideline is wrong when it suggests people can assume anything reliable on headings because headings do not have to be verifiable. I have changed the Are spoilers implied by the section title? section to reflect that. --Pixelface 23:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

A verifyable source for what? That something is a spoiler? How in the world is it POV pushing? I don't think there's ANYONE here who would disagree that, say, Darth Vader is Luke Skywaker's father is not a spoiler, BUT that is NOT what we're discussing. We're discussing if the /warning/ that there are spoilers ahead is needed. NOONE is saying "take off the everywhere because there's no such things as spoilers anyway". While it's true that everyone has their own level of what is an isn't, everyone at least agrees some content is indeed what people tend to call 'spoiler'. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 00:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

A verifiable source that calls something a spoiler. I'm saying the removal of the template for all articles is POV pushing. A group of editors keeps insisting that headings entitled ==Plot== "obviously" contain spoilers or "necessarily" contain spoilers, and that is false. The title of a heading makes no guarantee about its content. The title of headings are inherently unreliable because they do not require sources. Removing the {{spoiler}} template from all articles in the namespace is POV pushing by a small group of editors who are opposed to the template and mistakenly believe that the {{spoiler}} template is "censorship" -- but the template removes or withholds *nothing*. To claim the {{spoiler}} template is censorship is like claiming a section heading is "censorship" -- it's ridiculous. They have continued to push their POV that the template is "censorship", and removed the template from every article in the namespace, failing to realize that their removal of the template from every article can be seen as censorship itself. The {{spoiler}} template has not been deleted in a TFD and yet they've taken it upon themselves to patrol Wikipedia for any pages that contain it so they may remove it according to their personal whims. --Pixelface 00:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Pixelface, as far as I know, there has never been a "sourced" spoiler tag in Wikipedia — that is, a spoiler tag with a footnote documenting an external source for the tag's placement. At least, I've never seen one. It's an interesting concept, and I am not going to dismiss the idea out of hand. But current usage, and usage for as long as I've been following it, is that editors put the tags wherever they damn well please.

In that sense, as far as current usage goes, spoiler tags are "original research" far more than headings. No one has ever disputed that a plot section discussed the plot. But there has been quite a bit of dispute about the placement and relevance of spoiler tags. Your idea of requiring verifiable sources might solve this problem, but it's certainly not what is done today. Marc Shepherd 03:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "spoilers implied by section title"

I have just removed the Are spoilers implied by the section title? section from the article. Section headings do not require sources so any recommendations based on them are fundamentally flawed. A reader cannot always assume that a heading is an accurate description of the content that falls below it. Content on Wikipedia must be verifiable and yet ==Headings== strangely fall outside of Wikipedia policy. If headings do not require sources, they cannot be seen as reliable indicators of content and no guidelines should recommend that readers/editors can assume anything reliable from them. --Pixelface 14:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Headings should describe the content below them. I am pretty sure we have a guideline about that, but it is obvious enough. Do you seriously claim that we need a reliable source that tells us that "Early Life" is a reasonable section heading for a section describing William Shakespeare's early life? Kusma (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability is one of the core content policies of Wikipedia. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Section headings do not have to be verifiable and therefore are unreliable. I suppose ==Early life== would be an acceptable heading for a section about a person's early life, but no guideline should be based on the titles of sections because the titles of sections are inherently unreliable. The section heading may be ==Early life== one day and something else the next. Whatever a heading is named, a reader cannot assume that a heading accurately describes the content of a section. Any guideline based on a section heading may be circumvented by simply renaming the heading. --Pixelface 14:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

By that logic, we have to discount ANYTHING in WP as being unreliable. After all, I could go make a small, false change, but LOOKS like it could be correct easily enough (say, a date of birth) to a low traffic page -- complete with false claim of truth. It'd still be wrong though. But just as WP editors should assume good faith, so should in general readers. There's no reason to NORMALLY think that a heading a 'Early Life' won't indeed describe Mozart's early life any more than there's no reason to assume that if the article says he was born in 1756, that he wasn't. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 15:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)\

Unsourced statements on Wikipedia should be discounted as unreliable. Verifiable statements on Wikipedia are much more reliable than unsourced statements. Unsourced statements may be removed by any editor at any time. The fact is that section headings do not require sources and are therefore unreliable. If there was a reliable third-party source that looked at Wikipedia and put ==Plot== above a certain portion of text, that would be a source. But Wikipedia currently does not require headings to be sourced so any assumptions based on what they say are faulty assumptions. Recommending editors take a specific course of action based on the title of a particular heading is reckless, unless that heading has a third-party source. Readers should not assume that all information in an article is true because Wikipedia admits that many articles contain errors and bias. Rather, readers should read Wikipedia with a large amount of skepticism.

Wikipedia:General disclaimer - Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information. Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. All information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever. There is no agreement or understanding between you and Wikipedia regarding your use or modification of this information beyond the GNU Free Documentation License. Wikipedia does not give professional advice.

Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer - USE WIKIPEDIA AT YOUR OWN RISK. PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY INFORMATION YOU MAY FIND IN WIKIPEDIA MAY BE INACCURATE, MISLEADING, DANGEROUS OR ILLEGAL. Wikipedia is not uniformly peer reviewed; while readers may correct errors or remove erroneous suggestions, they have no legal duty to do so, and thus all information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever. DO NOT RELY UPON ANY INFORMATION FOUND IN WIKIPEDIA WITHOUT INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION.

Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer = WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT GIVE MEDICAL ADVICE. Wikipedia contains articles on many medical topics; however, no warranty whatsoever is made that any of the articles are accurate. Wikipedia is not a doctor. None of the individual contributors, system operators, developers, sponsors of Wikipedia nor anyone else connected to Wikipedia can take any responsibility for the results or consequences of any attempt to use or adopt any of the information presented on this web site.

Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer - WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT GIVE LEGAL OPINIONS. No warranty whatsoever is made that any of the articles are accurate. Neither the individual contributors, system operators, developers, or sponsors of Wikipedia nor anyone else connected to Wikipedia can take any responsibility for the results or consequences of any attempt to use or adopt any of the information or disinformation presented on this web site.

Wikipedia:Content disclaimer - Wikipedia is a work in progress, and many articles contain errors, bias, duplication, or simply need tender loving care. The great majority of articles are written primarily or solely by individuals who are not subject matter experts, and may lack academic or professional credentials in the area. Wikipedia's coverage of subjects is patchy, based on the whims of its volunteer contributors.

A guideline that recommends editors (and readers) take a certain course of action based on what some random editor named a section is based on the faulty assumption that section headings are reliable, when they are inherently unreliable because section headings do not have to comply with the policies on verifiability. --Pixelface 21:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This idea that headings are original research is utterly silly, and is leading nowhere. How is a descriptive label that announces what is to follow, considered "research"? Marc Shepherd 15:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not silly, verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia. The policy on verifiability says "the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources." The fact is that section headings fall outside Wikipedia policy because they do not require sources, and no guarantee can be made of their validity. To suggest readers should make assumptions of accuracy when looking at section headings is wrong, because headings do not require sources. --Pixelface 22:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a further irony to this. If a section labeled "Plot" is original research, then surely the placement of the {{spoiler}} tag is research too. After all, adding a {{spoiler}} tag requires original thought by the editor to decide how much readers who are ignorant of the whole plot would be willing to learn without being warned about it first. That's why we see such a wide range of usage of {{spoiler}}, ranging from the whole article to just one sentence.

And that's why, if we returned to the "Wild West," without a clear guideline, visitors to this site would have no reassurance. Some editors would spoiler-tag only the "big surprise" in the plot; others would tag the whole plot; others wouldn't tag at all, believing the story is too well known. Readers who care about such things would have no way of knowing which articles had been tagged according to their own personal tolerance of what they consider a spoiler. Marc Shepherd 16:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Placing a {{spoiler}} template in an article would not count as original research if a third-party source has declared something a spoiler. When reviewing the film Eastern Promises, Chicago Sun-Times' film critic Roger Ebert wrote "'Just don't give the plot away,' Cronenberg begged in that interview. He is correct that it would be fatal..."[22] In January 2005, Ebert wrote an article entitled "Critics have no right to play spoiler" which contained spoilers and spoilers warnings. Ebert wrote, "The characters in movies do not always do what we would do. Sometimes they make choices that offend us. That is their right. It is our right to disagree with them. It is not our right, however, to destroy for others the experience of being as surprised by those choices as we were. A few years ago, I began to notice "spoiler warnings" on Web-based movie reviews -- a shorthand way of informing the reader that a key plot point was about to be revealed. Having heard from more than a few readers accusing me of telling too much of the story, I began using such warnings in my reviews." Ebert used two spoiler warnings in the article, saying "If you have not yet seen Million Dollar Baby and know nothing about the plot, read no further" and later said, "Now yet another spoiler warning, because I am going to become more explicit."[23] The policy on verifiability says "the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources." If a well-known film critic/videogame critic/book critic has declared something a "spoiler", placing a {{spoiler}} template in an article with a reference does not constitute original research. --Pixelface 22:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As the section at the bottom of the talk page explains better than I could hope to, the sort of thing we write and the sort of thing Roger Ebert writes are worlds apart, and we should not look to Ebert for stylistic cues. Phil Sandifer 22:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Roger Ebert is a professional film critic with thousands of articles published in the Chicago Sun-Times since 1967. His reviews have been published for 40 years. In 1975 he became the first film critic to win a Pulitzer Prize for Criticism. He reviewed films on television for 30 years, from 1976 to 2006. He's probably seen more films than anyone here. He has an honorary degree from the American Film Institute. He did audio commentaries for the DVD releases of Citizen Kane and Casablanca. He has written over 15 books. On Wikipedia, Plot sections are mostly unsourced, written by people who just watched a film or read a book. So yeah, I guess I can see your point of how "the sort of thing we write and the sort of thing Roger Ebert writes are worlds apart." --Pixelface 08:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

WT:NOR#Section Titles are Original Research?

This this is becoming a new line of argument with some editors in order to undermine some sections of this guideline, I've initiated a discussion about whether section titles are a form of original research at WT:NOR#Section Titles are Original Research?). Comments are welcome. --Farix (Talk) 18:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's become an argument with one editor. Ignore it and it will go away. --YellowTapedR 05:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A film professor's perspective

I hesitate to wade into a discussion that "may escalate into heated debate" (er... has escalated into heated debate), but it may interest some to know what a film professor's perspective is on spoilers. My credentials: I have taught film studies for over 25 years and I have made hundreds of edits to Wikipedia over the past two and a half years.

In writing about film, there is a clear distinction between journalistic critics (such as Roger Ebert, who is frequently cited here) and film scholars (such as David Bordwell). The critic writing in a newspaper, magazine or blog is principally providing a guide to consumers -- offering his/her opinion about a film so the consumer can decide whether to spend money on a ticket or add it to a Netflix queue. In such a situation, only enough of the plot is revealed to aid the consumer in his/her decision. The scholar writing in a journal or book, in contrast, is principally offering an analysis of a film to interested readers -- who may or may not have seen the film. To perform a full analysis, "spoilers" are necessary.

So, where should Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, fall? Is it a consumer guide or an analytical resource? To my way of thinking, Wikipedia articles are short analyses that often must contain spoiler information in order to explicate a film. Should readers be warned about those spoilers? In my opinion, no. My reasoning is that spoiler warnings are redundant, because readers should expect them. And if a reader does not, if he/she unexpectedly stumbles across a few spoilers that he/she was not expecting, then he/she will quickly come to realize that Wikipedia contains analyses, not consumer-guide overviews.

One of the things I teach my students is to expect spoilers, unless they're reading Entertainment Weekly. And I think Wikipedia readers should learn to expect the same thing. --Jeremy Butler 11:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

An interesting view, and I personally agree; but as no doubt some will bring up, Wikipedia's readers are not trained cinema studies majors. It's a thorny issue with too much guesswork to say exactly what readers expect, although I personally think the "spoiler warning divided against itself" method isn't helping make it clear. David Fuchs^(talk) 13:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's quite simple, really. If there are more readers that would use SWs than readers that find them condescending/obtrusive, Wikipedia should have them. If not, then not. There may be some special cases, like classical works, where the ratio of those two groups can be different, so special policy should apply here. I don't think it's difficult to make such research among users. Editorial considerations (such as SW placement) should be always secondary to what the actual readers want (there are many precedents for this - readers want categorization for example, but categorization always is and will be a difficult problem for editors). SWs are part of user interface, and not related to any encyclopedic issues; if they do interfere, the best possible technical solution to that problem should be implemented. Samohyl Jan 13:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether a majority of Wikipedia readers want SW's is much disputed. Anecdotal evidence exists to support both sides. The only hard figure I recall was 40% preferring SW's, which sounds like a minority to me—albeit a significant minority. Whether we should make editorial decisions based on polling — even if the polls were known to be accurate — is another interesting question. We don't make any other type of editorial decision that way.

Editorial considerations (such as SW placement) should be always secondary to what the actual readers want.... I am not sure why you are saying this. When readers say they want SW's, I presume they want good SW's—bad ones being not very helpful. Marc Shepherd 15:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think majority want SWs, but I am quite sure there are more people that want them than people who despise them, which is my point. That poll you refer to was only about usage, not usage versus disliking (that you don't use them doesn't mean you would not tolerate them). Wikipedia always bases (implicitly) its policies on what the reader wants - I challenge you to find editorial policy which is stable in the last year and which is opposed by majority of users. Polling is just a way to know what people want - if someone uses a better way, I won't object. Of course people want good SWs, but better bad SWs than none (I don't understand your wish for perfection from day one - it is better to have bad Wikipedia than no Wikipedia, and in the beginning, it was certainly bad). Samohyl Jan 16:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced that reader demand should entirely drive what we do. Readers, I suspect, are overwhelmingly fond of fancruft from an in-universe perspective, at least on the articles they read. This is something of a paradox for Wikipedia - on the one hand, we are a project about educating our readers. On the other, we are a project that depends on reader contribution. Phil Sandifer 22:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

So you are the guy who wants to remove all trivia sections? In the recent debate about Wikipedia on Slashdot, someone complained that Wikipedia is removing them, that he finds them the reason why he uses Wikipedia. And I think he said he is a professor of literature. Samohyl Jan 08:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to employ straw men that avidly, just Godwin the whole thing already. Phil Sandifer 13:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Yes. A thousand times yes. Phil Sandifer 22:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. If I had to define an encyclopedia as a consumer guide versus an analytical text (though I don't think either are particular apt definitions), I'd say it was an analytical text. --Iamunknown 22:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Cannot it be both? There are much more consumers than analysts, so maybe the latter should step down from their ivory towers and compromise a little. Samohyl Jan 08:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No. It can't. Phil Sandifer 12:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In reply to the original post, the question is not whether to include spoilers, of course we should, but whether to include spoiler warnings.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is a red herring. With the showable spoiler tags compromise package, both film students and film consumers can have the article display that they want. Do the film consumers arriving from Google get spoilered if they don't see or understand the | tags | menu button/tab? Of course, but that's no reason to prevent the spoiler-averse consumers who do understand the button, from using it and educating others. Milo 09:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Film consumers are not our audience. We do not serve them except by accident. Phil Sandifer 12:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Your attitude also explains why number of edits to Wikipedia is decreasing. Samohyl Jan 12:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If the edits we are losing are ones that do not understand what we do, I have trouble worrying about this development. Phil Sandifer 13:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Jeremy Butler: Do you tell your students to expect spoilers, or do you just spring them on your students? Your comment about film scholars is interesting, but I have to admit I don't think I've ever seen a Plot section that cites a film scholar as a source. I'm guessing that most Plot sections have no sources. The style guideline for film articles does not discount what you call "journalistic critics" and does not mention "film scholars." It makes no distinction between the two. An editor is free to buy one of David Bordwell's books and cite it in an article and an editor is also free to cite a free review on the Internet by a professional film critic (whose reviews are published in a reliable source). I don't think film reviews in newspapers are always about a decision to spend money. With hundreds of fictional works released every day, it becomes a matter of how to spend time. And many libraries lend films to patrons for free. I don't think Wikipedia can be divided into either an analytical resource or a consumer guide. Wikipedia has articles on thousands of products and no doubt "consumers" often read them. Wikipedia does not forbid articles about products. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising, but a Wikipedia article should not be a substitute for watching a film. The style guideline for film articles says "As this is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement, you should include plot twists and a description of the ending." But I fail to see how the presence of a film's ending means an article is not an advertisement. If an article linked to commercial sites, or used copy written by a marketing agency, it may constitute an advertisement — I don't think plot details are related. The guideline on non-free content says non-free content may only be used when this criteria (along with 9 others) is met: "Respect for commercial opportunitiess. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." If a Wikipedia article retells the entire storyline of a book or film or videogame (complete with spoilers), that may be replacing the original market role of the copyrighted media. If I wrote an article about David Bordwell's book On the History of Film Style and told you everything it contained, it may infringe on his ability to profit from his work. The guideline on writing about fiction says "Information about copyrighted fictional worlds and plots of works of fiction can be provided only under a claim of fair use, and Wikipedia's fair-use policy holds that "the amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible". Many works of fiction covered by Wikipedia are protected by copyright. Some works are sufficiently old that their copyright has expired, or the rights may have been released into the public domain." It needs to be ascertained whether in-depth plot details about copyrighted fictional works qualifies as fair use. If in-depth plot details do qualify as fair use, I think a notice to readers of what they're about to read is polite. A template may not be the best way of doing this — it could be handled by rewriting, re-arranging, or omitting text. It would be great if every reader expected articles to contain in-depth plot details, but many readers do not. Many film articles have Critical reception sections that cite what you call "consumer-guide overviews." The style guideline for film articles encourages it. It could be argued that an article about a fictional work without critical commentary would not quality as fair use. Many editors say "but this is an encyclopedia." If someone could provide an encyclopedia that includes an entry for The Sixth Sense, it may provide some insight on the topic. --Pixelface 03:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that you mention fair use. I had not previously consider plot summaries as "fair use", and I haven't read legal material to state an informed opinion, but I did find a description of Twin Peaks v. Publications Int'l, Ltd. at Stanford's "Summary of Fair Use" article. I also found a mention of "plot" (at the basic level) as an "idea" which is not copyrightable subject matter at Stanford's "Welcome to the Public Domain" article. I think, however, that more information would need to be gathered to determine whether or not plot summaries on Wikipedia must be used under "fair use". --Iamunknown 04:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't answer for David, but in my film classes I have never once warned students about spoilers, nor would I think to. And I would consider a student complaining about spoilers to be being a disruptive idiot. To date, however, I have never had a student complain about spoilers, because they understand, pretty much instinctively, that critical commentary on film cannot be concerned about spoilers. Phil Sandifer 13:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a film class. It really doesn't matter what you or your students do or don't do. If you observe the edit summaries on film articles, you will often notice readers upset at spoilers. There is no need to be dickish about it. And ==Plot== sections are not for critical commentary. Please show me an encyclopedia that contains an entry for The Sixth Sense that describes the twist ending. Your film classes are not relevant to this encyclopedia. --Pixelface 13:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's articles on history are written from a scholarly perspective, as are Wikipedia's articles on mathematics. And so should Wikipedia's articles on films. Kusma (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

They are, inasmuch as they are demonstrations of the practical realities of teaching about film from critical perspectives rather than fannish ones or marketing ones. Phil Sandifer 13:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Editing the spoiler template

I would like to change the text and presentation of the spoiler template back to an earlier version. Is there some sort of formal process that must be gone through before doing this? Is there an informal process that it would be polite to go through before doing this? Or should I just go ahead and do it?

If there is a process, then can someone please post links to where it has been followed before, the previous times the text of the spoiler warning was changed? I looked around for a bit, but there is a *lot* of discussion about spoilers on this and other talk pages, and I didn't see anything that looked like a vote or a consensus. Thanks. Akiyama 17:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The process is to propose a change on Template talk:spoiler, but I wouldn't be optimistic about success. If you want to see all of the prior versions, go to {{spoiler}} and click the "history" tab at the top of the page.

For what it's worth, I think this was the best version, but it only lasted about 15 minutes. Marc Shepherd 17:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hard Candy

It looks like someone came up with a pretty good solution for films where the twists happen early. The tables are turned in the first act, so anyone reading just the first paragraph or two would be spoiled if they didn't know what happens already. (I don't necessarily agree that it's a spoiler in this case, but the special tag may be useful in other articles). --YellowTapedR 03:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There are some problems with that particular instance, irrespective of whether that technique would be useful elsewhere. You cited the trailer for that movie the other day, and I just looked at it. If there were any kind of "plot twist", it's given away by that trailer. The current main editor still thinks that a spoiler tag is required, and I'm indulging him, but I am sure that in due course consensus will rule that there is no good reason for it. --Tony Sidaway 11:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a good example of how viewers' sensitivities will vary. That editor is, of course, correct that if you really want to see the film with no preconceptions, practically the entire plot needs to be concealed, since the twists come very early. But Tony is, of course, correct that the spoilers can't be that important, since the studio was willing to give them away in the trailer. But I know someone who always complains during trailers, "They're giving too much away!" It is difficult in a general-purpose encyclopedia to decide how much you're permitted to disclose without "spoiling" it for someone. Marc Shepherd 12:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that, if the "spoilers" are that fundamental to the story, it's a poor lead section that excludes some of the most interesting and important material about the film, namely its inversion of the expected paradigm. Phil Sandifer 14:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I wouldn't support the tag in the case of Hard Candy, but think it could be useful for a select few other articles. In this case, however, the film was marketed as the story of a 14-year-old girl seeking vengeance on a pervert. It'd be tough to market it in any other way; the plot makes dealing with a disturbing issue easier to swallow. --YellowTapedR 15:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

In this instance I'd plump for putting the premise into the lead section. I've removed a "back of the box"-style summary from the lead on the grounds that it's misleading, and my bald statement "The film is about the confrontation of a sexual predator by a fourteen-year-old girl whom he attempts to ensnare" was removed from the lead on the grounds that it was a spoiler. --Tony Sidaway 15:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right. It's one thing to avoid putting the spoiler in the intro (though that should be avoided), but being at all --YellowTapedR 15:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)misleading is something an encyclopedia should never do.

Forking

Actually Kusma raises a very good point. Anybody, anywhere, may freely copy and freely edit Wikipedia material under the GFDL and put it on their own website or somebody else's. They can add spoiler tags, or whatever they want. The material on Wikipedia is not restricted to Wikipedia or to the form in which it is presented here. As long as any derived work is also licensed under the GFDL or a compatible license, do what you like to it.

This means that if there really is customer demand for plot summaries with spoiler warnings, there's a great niche there that isn't being filled by Wikipedia, and you may use our material with our blessing. Charge as much as you like for access, or find another way to raise revenue. If the demand is there, they will come. --Tony Sidaway 18:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestion that people who want spoiler warnings can create a fork of Wikipedia with spoiler warnings avoids the policy on neutral point of view. This talk page is for reaching a compromise, suggesting editors can leave is not helpful in my opinion. --Pixelface 12:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia works by discussion and compromise. However Kusma's suggestion, I think, is for those who, in my words of 12 October, "find themselves in the odd and paradoxical position of wanting to know a little about something and specifically wanting not to know everything significant about that subject."[24]

Pandering to wilful ignorance isn't the job of an encyclopedia and we won't be compromising on that. Neutral point of view does not mean that the readers' opinions determine our content. It means the reverse, I'd argue. --Tony Sidaway 12:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

When you say "pandering to willfull ignorance", are you referring to published spoiler warnings? Many reliable sources use spoiler warnings and it's easy to cite them. Our job is to fairly and without bias represent all significant views. Ignoring published sources that use spoiler warnings is bias. The policy on neutral point of view says "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors." That policy also says "The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." There has been no consensus to delete the {{spoiler}} template, many editors use the template, and many readers want to see it in articles. Those who are offended by the template can simply edit their monobook.css file. This current guideline only mentions citations in 2 places. The guideline says "pop-culture references can be cited as evidence for "significant penetration"." but I think this should be removed. The guideline also says "In a work that is uncommonly reliant on the impact of a plot twist or surprise ending — a murder mystery, for instance — a spoiler tag may be appropriate even within a properly labeled "Synopsis" section. These should be sourced when possible (e.g., by citing a professional reviewer who describes the impact of the surprise)." but this is being ignored by several editors. If a reliable published source uses a spoiler warning, the {{spoiler}} template is justified no matter what a heading says. So you're right, readers' opinions carry less weight than published sources. Editors who patrol the namespace and remove every instance of the {{spoiler}} template are violating the policy on neutral point of view. --Pixelface 15:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it there. I think it's obvious that you've seriously misinterpreted the Neutral point of view policy. Meanwhile if you have some specific instances in which editors are ignoring the guideline, cite those specific instances and justify your claim that they're ignoring the guideline. --Tony Sidaway 16:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a misinterpretation of NPOV to suggest that someone can use the material to create other resources; that's precisely what the GFDL is intended to facilitate. Forking is about alternate articles within Wikipedia; not non-wikipedia uses of wikipedia content. --18:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lquilter (talk • contribs)

Pixelface's recent edits to the guideline

I changed the Is it widely known? section title to Has the fictional work been recently released? and removed these two bullet points:

If a plot point has made significant penetration into popular culture, it is often no longer necessary to mark it off with spoiler tags. The existence of well-known parodies and other unconnected pop-culture references can be cited as evidence for "significant penetration".

Whatever "significant penetration" into popular culture means, it is unrelated to spoiler warnings. Critics who have referred to a plot point as a spoiler is something that is verifiable, the nebulous concept of "significant penetration" into popular culture is vague and subjective. Whether or not a plot point has made "significant penetration into popular culture" is totally unrelated to whether or not any given person has read/viewed/etc a fictional work. If someone has not read a book, the plot points in it that have been described by critics as spoilers do not cease being spoilers just because some TV show alludes to them. Wikipedia has no policies or guidelines regarding "popularity."

The older a work is, the more likely its plot details are to be widely known. After a certain point, the age of a work usually makes spoiler tags completely unnecessary — nobody needs to be warned about the ultimate fate of Hamlet — but age alone is not always sufficient for lesser-known works. (A newly discovered Shakespeare play could conceivably have a spoiler warning for a while.)

The release date of a fictional work is unrelated to spoiler warnings. I inserted this text into the guideline:

Spoiler warnings are unrelated to release dates. The release date of a fictional work is unrelated to whether someone has viewed it/read it/etc. To think that everyone should know how Hamlet ends because it's hundreds of years old is to assume that every person on Earth has already read it simply because it's hundreds of years old. Each person has not had hundreds of years to read it, they have had as many years as they have been alive and able to read. Saying older pieces of fiction should be exempt from the {{spoiler}} template also assumes that every person born today has already read it, as if being born right now means you've read everything that was printed before you were born. To focus on a release date also ignores people that may be born in the future and read a fictional work. If a critic has described something as a spoiler, or if a critic has deliberately avoided describing plot details of a fictional work, a {{spoiler}} template is appropriate and a reference to the critic is also appreciated. Release dates are irrelevant.

The only thing that can be assumed from release dates is that it's likely more people have read a book after the release date than before the release date. The Epic of Gilgamesh is old, but that does not make it likely its plot details are more widely known than, say, The Sixth Sense. The plot details of a text are known among people who have read it, and not known among people who have not read it -- the date is irrelevant.

I left in the bullet point that mentions the {{current fiction}} template:

A very new work may be better served by the {{current fiction}} tag, which duplicates and adds to the information in the {{spoiler}} tag. A {{current fiction}} tag should be added to the beginning of the article, whereas {{spoiler}} tags are used within an article to mark off particular passages.

Basically, the release date of a fictional work is no indication of the number of people that have read a book/viewed a film/played a videogame/etc. Even if the date was some kind of indication, the "popularity" of a fictional work is irrelevant. If the majority of people on Earth have read a book, there are still people that have not. Roger Ebert said critics have no right to play spoiler, and I think neither do Wikipedia editors. Assumptions made about section contents based on section headings are faulty because headings do not require sources. If a critic has referred to a plot detail as a spoiler or has avoided mentioning it in their review, that is a verifiable justification for the {{spoiler}} template. That is why I made the changes to the guideline I did and I still think this guideline should keep them. --Pixelface 00:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Pixelface, there are several problems with what you are saying. In the first place, you have suggested that spoiler warnings should be supported by sources, to avoid the "original research" problem. Well, where is the source that tells you where to place the spoiler tags in Epic of Gilgamesh. It'll be really interesting if you can find something.

In the second place, you are really misinterpreting the Roger Ebert quote. The vast majority of Ebert's writings come out when a movie is brand new, and almost no one has seen it. His advice isn't much help when you're writing encyclopedia articles about works that are years (or centuries) old. For instance, Ebert's review of Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith presumed that all readers would know that Luke and Leia are siblings. Of course, his review of Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi made no such presumption. Ebert's sense of "what is a spoiler" clearly depends on when he is writing about the work at hand.

If your view is that the tags are required only for recently-released works, then obviously the advice that nobody needs to be told Hamlet's fate, should stand: Hamlet is not a recently-released work. I don't understand your comment about Epic of Gilgamesh, which isn't recent either. Marc Shepherd 03:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I never suggested {{spoiler}} tags be put in the Epic of Gilgamesh article. I only mentioned that article to point out that this sentence in the guideline is not necessarily true: "The older a work is, the more likely its plot details are to be widely known." The Epic of Gilgamesh is quite old, but that doesn't make it's plot details more widely known. The details become known when people read them. The age of a fictional work is unrelated to how "widely known" its plot is. And does "widely known" means a certain percentage of the Earth's population? I admit that Ebert's advice is helpful for mostly just film articles, film being a medium that is a little over a century old. I don't think I'm misinterpreting Ebert's quote at all. In a narrative where an author withholds information from a viewer in order to build suspense, it's rude to take away that suspense by divulging information without fair notice. There already exist websites for people who wish to skip movies: http://www.themoviespoiler.com and http://www.moviespoilers.net. Wikipedia does not need to cater to these readers. It's clear in the edit summaries of many film articles that many readers are upset after the removal of spoiler warnings. I don't think the release date of a fictional work should be related to the use of {{spoiler}} tags in any way. Editors placing spoiler tags can simply cite a source that uses a spoiler warning or cite a source that deliberately avoids mentioning certain plot details. I don't think editors can trust section headings to be reliable, unless the heading is sourced. --Pixelface 10:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

But you don't seem to be seeing the massive contradiction here. You've cited Roger Ebert as your hero—over and over and over again. But when Ebert reviews Revenge of the Sith, he "spoils" Return of the Jedi. This can only mean that Ebert does believe exactly what the guideline suggests: the release date is pertinent. When Return of the Jedi is new, Ebert withholds the plot surprise. In a later review, he refers to that same surprise without any kind of warning. Marc Shepherd 12:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I never called Roger Ebert my hero, I said he is a reliable source. When he uses spoiler warnings, he can be cited as a source for the {{spoiler}} tag. I wouldn't cite Roger Ebert's review of Revenge of the Sith in the Return of the Jedi article — he doesn't mention Return of the Jedi by name.

I am not saying that the Revenge of the Sith article should have a spoiler tag based on Ebert's review. Perhaps other critics refer to parts of the story as spoilers. I think it's likely that Ebert mentioned details of a previous film because he was reviewing a sequel (or prequel). Ebert may have spoiled Return of the Jedi in his review of Revenge of the Sith, but you would only know he was referring to Return of the Jedi if you had already seen it. He referred to previous films in the series, and he probably assumed that viewers of the 6th film in a series have watched the previous films. He wrote, "That Anakin Skywalker abandoned the Jedi and went over to the dark side is known to all students of Star Wars" before mentioning Luke and Leia. He was saying that people who have seen the earlier films in the series will go into the film with certain knowledge.

I don't think Ebert was assuming that every person on Earth has seen Star Wars simply because it was released years ago. Maybe Ebert's reviews of sequels (or prequels) contain more spoilers than his reviews of standalone films. Maybe he thinks most people wouldn't watch the 6th film of a series without having seen any of the previous ones. I don't know. I'm not saying that Roger Ebert always includes spoiler warnings. But there are numerous other sources that can be cited. If multiple critics refer to certain plot details as spoilers or if they don't mention certain plot details and say things like "I'm not going to ruin the film for you" or "I'll let viewers discover that for themselves" or "you'll find out later", I think a spoiler tag is justified. The {{spoiler}} template should be dealt with on an article-by-article basis, and citations from critics would be helpful in settling any arguments over where to place the tag. --Pixelface 10:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting spoiler warnings should be placed on Shakespeare? Since he basically created the template for most fiction that's been released since, it seems pretty silly. In that Ebert essay you reference, he also notes that he planned on writing a more detailed analysis of Million Dollar Baby when the twist became more widely known. I'm a supporter of limited tag-use, but I think your edits are overdoing it. --YellowTapedR 04:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If a reliable source calls a plot detail in a play attributed to Shakespeare a "spoiler", I see no problem with citing them in an article. I also think that the source doesn't have to contain the word "spoiler", but merely avoid mention of certain plot details. The {{spoiler}} template should be dealt with on an article-by-article basis — sweeping generalizations about all fictional works should be avoided. Ebert purposely left out certain plot details in his original review of Million Dollar Baby, published January 7, 2005.[25] He wrote, "It is a movie about a boxer. What else it is, all it is, how deep it goes, what emotional power it contains, I cannot suggest in this review, because I will not spoil the experience of following this story into the deepest secrets of life and death." On January 29, 2005, he wrote about the film again[26], but still notified readers of what they were about to read. He opened the article writing: "If you have not yet seen Million Dollar Baby and know nothing about the plot, read no further." Even after waiting, Ebert prefaced his article with a spoiler warning. It's simply polite and a matter of netiquette. Individual Wikipedia editors do not count as reliable sources, but the publisher of Ebert's articles, the Chicago Sun-Times, does. I also think Roger Ebert counts as a reliable source. I think he can easily be considered authoritative in relation to film criticism — he won the Pulitzer Prize for Criticism in 1975, the first person to ever win a Pulitzer Prize for film criticism. --Pixelface 09:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Find us a place where Ebert specifically says an encylopedia or similar work shouldn't contain spoilers (as opposed to a review or a casual conversation), THEN you might have a point. As it stands, Ebert is a CRITIC, meaning it's his JOB to get you to see (or not see) a movie. So of COURSE he's going to avoid spoiling an inportant plot point that's made to be surprising. I don't think anyone here would disagree with him either. But our job, on Wikipedia, is provide comprehensive coverage, and -- here's the important part -- STAY NEUTRAL about it. Just as we have no business adding our opinions on how good something else, we also have no business in pandering to what people may or may not know. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be more enlightening if someone provided a link to an encyclopedia that contains an entry for a film, complete with spoilers. I bet that most spoilers on Wikipedia are unsourced, written by fans. If a plot description is unsourced, it doesn't really belong here, but we often let them stay. When a plot description is controversial — if readers complain they read something they were not expecting — it becomes necessary to deal with it. I think it's okay when fans write plot descriptions, I assume that most plot descriptions rely on the primary source, the fictional work itself, and fans will often correct any inaccuracies they find — but plot descriptions should preferably be written based on published secondary sources. If readers complain that they read something they were not expecting, I think it's acceptable for them (or another editor) to insert the {{spoiler}} template. The {{spoiler}} template is a polite way of letting subsequent readers know that a certain plot description goes into high detail. An editor could stricly follow the policy on verifiablity and remove an entire unsourced plot description if they really wanted to. But this may scare away potentially valuable contributors. Citing secondary sources who use spoiler warnings and citing secondary sources that reveal plot details would be a way to make articles neutral. In-depth plot details that have been mentioned by a reliable source would still be in an article, and the sourced spoiler warnings would be in the article as well. Readers who want highly detailed plot descriptions would get what they want, and readers who don't want to accidentally read something would get what they want. If someone is truly offended by the sight of the {{spoiler}} template, they can make it invisible by copying the following line and pasting it in their monobook.css or common.css file:

.spoiler { display: none; }

Argument over where to place the {{spoiler}} tag should be settled by discussing the issue on an article's talk page and consulting sources that use spoiler warnings. --Pixelface 12:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what Pixelface thinks we're here to do on Wikipedia, but I am pretty sure most of us don't think it's film criticism. Roger Ebert's expertise on film criticism won't help us to write an encyclopedia; we know from bitter experience that using spoiler warnings breeds a culture of concealment and bias in the presentation of information about fictional subjects, and can even adversely affect articles on non-fictional subjects. That is why the guideline was changed. --Tony Sidaway 13:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The bitter experience of which you speak does not exist outside of unrepresentative examples.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

What would the representative examples be? Tony's use of the word "bitter" probably stretches the point. But what we had before was standardless. It made Wikipedia look bad, not because SW's are bad, but because there was no rhyme or reason to them. Marc Shepherd 15:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It made Wikipedia look bad? According to whom? The 'no rhyme or reason' thing is just your personal preference, it's not enshrined in any policy or precedent. In any case, the vast majority of spoiler tags were not placed badly, despite the handful of unrepresentative examples being endlessly bandied about.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it is just my personal opinion. As are all your comments here. Marc Shepherd 10:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that I am making a logical connection between established Wikipedia policies and spoiler warnings, rather than inventing new policies.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Although you allege a logical connection, many find that logic points in precisely the opposite direction. It doesn't really work to say "Everyone else is offering opinions, but I'm offering logic." Marc Shepherd 12:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm stretching it. We had a situation in which quite significant details about a work of fiction, which had ramifications beyond the plot, were being corraled in carefully marked areas. We had a situation in which the article about Romeo and Juliet, a classic play over four centuries old, so treated significant details that are casually revealed in the prologue of the play, even before the characters are introduced. --Tony Sidaway 09:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles about fiction, perhaps? I think nobody here argues that articles about non-fictional subjects should have SWs, except maybe for some very specialized topics such as magic methods. Samohyl Jan 18:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe there is extremely broad consensus that SWs should not appear in articles about non-fictional subjects, except perhaps for magic tricks (though I believe the magic-spoiler template is now gone).

Beyond that, there is considerable disagreement on basic questions, like:

Are SWs more important for recent works, or should they be equally favored regardless of the work's age?
Are SWs more important for works that are less well known, or should they be equally favored regardless of the work's fame?
Are SWs more important when spoilers appear in an "unexpected place," or should there be a warning no matter where they appear?
Should all plot events be considered potential spoilers, or only those involving a very substantial surprise?
In articles about episodic fiction, should the editor assume that the reader knows the events of all previous episodes? Or should major plot events from previous episodes be treated the same as the episode you are writing about?
Does the genre of the work matter?

That's just a partial list. Marc Shepherd 18:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Look Marc, I think you're missing the point. These questions are largely irrelevant. There are two groups of people (both minorities, IMHO, there is also large group of neutrals): Those who find SWs useful, and those who hate them (either because they feel they are obtrusive or condescending). I think most people from the first group would answer 'no' to most of these questions, and most of the people from second group would answer 'yes' to most of these questions. Just try it - if you find SWs useful, is age of work relevant for you? Of course not. If you dislike SWs, do you dislike them more on new works or on old works? Both about the same. And that way we could go on with the other questions too.

In fact, the only part where such questions matter is negotiation with the other side. For example, if you hate SWs, and you know you never visit/edit articles about new fiction, only about old fiction, then SWs on the articles with new fiction may be acceptable compromise for you. If you find SWs useful, and you never read Shakespeare or don't care about being spoiled here, then not having SWs on Shakespeare can be acceptable compromise for you.

So, polling users about this is pointless (as I noted above, I think the results will be obvious), unless both sides want to negotiate a compromise in which each side will give up on certain classes of articles to have or not have SWs. But I think such compromise is impossible, because:

If you read comments from Farix, Phil Sandifer or David Gerard, they say strict "no" to any compromise (since they are quite happy with the status quo).
There are so many different users with different needs (favoring different classes of articles), so neither side will ever come to internal agreement which articles to give up.

So, to conclude, to subdivide articles to classes and have SWs on some classes and not on other classes is impossible compromise. That's why I proposed local consensus compromise and hidden SWs by default compromise, which try to address main contention point of both sides and don't arbitrarily clasify articles. Samohyl Jan 20:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear about it. What I'm saying is that, even among people who favor spoiler warnings, there are highly inconsistent answers to the above questions. For instance, those in favor of SWs will sometimes say that they want to know the basic idea of what a story is about, without having the surprise ending spoiled. Yet, you frequently see {{spoiler}} placed around the entire plot, which obviously reflects no distinction between plot elements that have the potential to "spoil" the story, and those which do not.

Some pro-SW folks will say that the age/fame of the story doesn't matter. But the empirical fact is that, overwhelmingly, {{spoiler}} tends to show up on articles about fairly recent works. There are exceptions, but this is the overwhelming trend. There's a much greater tendency to find them on video games and comics than on plays and old movies.

In articles on episodic fiction, the {{spoiler}} tag tends overwhelmingly to show up only around the most recent episode. For instance, recently an editor added a spoiler warning to the Draco Malfoy article, but only around Malfoy's role in the seventh Harry Potter book. The beneficiaries of this strategy (assuming anyone benefits) would be those who've read the first six books, but not the seventh.

I agree that those who categorically oppose SWs aren't going to compromise on the above questions. But the current guideline is an utter failure because it does not list even one real-life example of an article where a spoiler tag would be required. Until the guideline has at least one concrete (as opposed to hypothetical) example, anti-SW editors will continue to remove the tags whenever and wherever they appear. That is why local consensus, without a clear guideline, will perpetually fail to deliver the result that pro-SW editors want. Marc Shepherd 20:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure this isn't just a sign of laziness (the "mark whole plot" part) and bias (newer articles are more visited)? Anyway, it's pretty interesting observation. It's hard to remember of any concrete example of SW I used, actually, because the SWs are not there anymore. However, as you know, many people reported they used SWs too, so I am quite sure that concrete examples did exist.

I just looked into archives and I think your premise may be wrong. There was a user complaining about Die Hard not having SW, and it had SW over whole plot before. I think that SW users simply prefer SW over whole plot than no SW at all (there are other sentiments like that in the archives). Samohyl Jan 04:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with a spoiler warning on a plot summary?!

I don't get it. What's wrong with having a spoiler warning under a Plot Summary header? I am a regular wikipedia user, yet I was quite surprised to have the plot of a computer game completely given away under a plot summary. In my mind, a plot summary gives you an entre into what a novel, movie, or video game is about, it doesn't necessarily tell you how it ends. If it is going to, there should be a spoiler warning. If need be, there should be a spoiler warning on every damned plot summary that contains spoilers.

I think there's a normative amount of information given away in reviews and stuff, which describes in a general way what a story is "about". And then there's more complete information (including significant turns of events, and endings) which should be allowable on wikipedia but which should also be under spoiler warnings.

People who are against spoiler warnings are basically saying that you should never look at wikipedia on a work of fiction unless you've already read it.

What a spoiler warning allows is for me to read part of the plot summary to learn about a work without worrying that it will be, yes, spoiled. 129.215.149.96 16:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In short, there's nothing wrong with it. But you should know that if a {{spoiler}} tag is placed under a ==Plot summary== heading, it will probably get removed rather quickly because a group of editors is patrolling the namespace for any use of it so they can remove it. It's really cowardly in my opinion. They should nominate the template for deletion, but they would rather just remove it from every article. It's unfortunate that they suggest readers ignore articles on fictional works or hope every reader gets burned once and learns their lesson, instead of simply ignoring 5 measly words themselves or making the template invisible in their preferences. --Pixelface 11:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia contains spoilers. If you don't want to learn about the plot of something, you shouldn't read its Wikipedia article, and especially not a section entitled plot summary. Now you know. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Telling people they shouldn't read a Wikipedia article is not helpful in my opinion. 129.215.149.96 may now know that Wikipedia contains spoilers, but that says nothing about every reader who comes to Wikipedia tomorrow, or the next day, etc. If fans wants to reveal spoilers on their blogs, they're free to do so, but on Wikipedia, statements require sources. --Pixelface 12:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason the warning would be superfluous in a plot section is because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We really aren't just some fan site giving our opinions about stuff, we're trying to present a complete, balanced, unbiased article about all the significant facts pertaining to a subject. If we write about the plot, we don't miss out the most significant parts, and our readers (once they get used to the fact that we're writing an encyclopedia) wouldn't need to be warned that we're presenting everything of importance. --Tony Sidaway 17:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. And many fans edits it. So we should remove all unsourced plot descriptions written by fans, right? If we want to be strict about it, that's what we should do, instead of arguing over spoiler warnings. An section with no sources needs no spoiler warning, because the section should be removed. I personally don't think we need to be that strict, but if the {{spoiler}} template keeps getting removed from articles it may be necessary to remove all plot descriptions that don't cite secondary sources. The policy on verifiability matters more than what this guideline says. All it takes is one person to read an article and see that it contains spoilers and tag it. How many articles are on the English Wikipedia? A little over 2 million? How many people live on the planet Earth? Over 6 1/2 billion? How many people were born in the past 24 hours? I think it would be better if editors inserted spoiler tags instead of letting every reader get burned at least once, oftentimes by unsourced material that may infringe on an author's right to profit from their work. --Pixelface 13:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on sourcing, with the proviso that many works of fiction are self-sourcing, and those that aren't (for instance, films only shown in public cinemas and not yet available on DVD) are usually so widely circulated as to render questions of sourcing academic. The verifiability policy may bite, however, with obscure works.

Your wording, "if the {{spoiler}} template keeps getting removed from articles it may be necessary to remove all plot descriptions that don't cite secondary sources," doesn't sound very convincing to me. I don't think you would wish to do that, and if you did you would find very little support for it (if carried out to any great extent, it might be a classic case of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point).

Your point about "an author's right to profit from his work" is applicable to copyright only, and in general so-called "spoilers" are not the reason people spend money on entertainment. Nobody is going to buy the last Harry Potter just to find out whether Harry prevails against evil. Of course he does! --Tony Sidaway 13:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Books, films, videogames, etc are considered primary sources. But articles should preferably be written from secondary sources. If secondary sources cannot be found, the topic might not be notable enough for Wikipedia. There is a discussion going on at WP:NOT about plot summaries and reliable sources.

The article for The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford probably doesn't need a {{spoiler}} tag around the assassination in the plot description, because the title of the film gives that plot detail away. But if a writer of a fictional work withholds certain information from the reader/viewer/etc, it is not our job as editors to force that information on every person who reads the Wikipedia article. I don't want to remove every unsourced plot description from Wikipedia, but doing so may lead to less readers becoming upset after reading an article, since a group of editors keeps removing all {{spoiler}} tags. Removing unsourced material is not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, it's following policy. I think the constant removal of a template that there was a consensus to keep is the disruption. And if someone can read the entire storyline of a fictional book on Wikipedia, why should they buy the book? --Pixelface 16:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Plot sections are implicitly sourced to the text they summarize. This is relatively obvious. Note also that WP:V is not an end in itself - the point of WP:V is that it means that everybody can confirm that the content of an article is accurate. Knowingly removing accurate information from articles is disruptive and blockable. Phil Sandifer 17:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You sure are implying alot. Unless a plot description cites secondary sources, how is a reader able to verify the text is accurate? Purchase the book? Download a pirated copy? There is a discussion going on at WP:NOT about plot summaries and reliable sources. When editors summarize a primary source, they become a secondary source. You're forgetting that editors cannot cite themselves because editors are not considered reliable sources. Unsourced material in a plot description may be accurate, it may be nonsense. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Removing unsourced material is supported by policy. I don't see why fictional works should be exempt from policy. Knowingly removing a template (that there has not been a consensus to delete) from every article is disruptive and blockable. --Pixelface 10:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This is getting a little surreal. Editors are regularly warned and in egregious cases even blocked, for repeatedly removing well sourced information. In the context of fictional works, summarising the plot of a widely available primary source is uncontroversial. Although it's always possible that consensus on this could change or develop in new directions, I'll delineate the current status quo.

Currently our Manual of Style (also known as WP:WAF) says on this:

Even with strict adherence to the real world perspective, writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source. (WP:WAF#Primary_information).

The passage on sourcing also refers the editor to the policy on use of primary sources, which outlines the conditions for use of primary sources:

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source.

This means that whilst it would be quite in order to remove an interpretive statement such as The mysterious Rosalind, with whom Romeo is infatuated at the start of the play, has some affinities with The Dark Lady of Shakespeare's sonnets 127-152 if unsupported by a reliable source, it would not be in order to remove Romeo and Juliet is an early tragedy by William Shakespeare about two teenage "star-cross'd lovers" whose "untimely deaths" ultimately unite their feuding households because this is a factual statement that can be directly sourced from Shakespeare's prologue to the play.

Removing tags of any kind, on the other hand, depends on the nature of the tag. For instance it's generally regarded as disruptive to remove a {{afd}} or {{merge}} tag from an article if it disrupts an ongoing deletion discussion. Removing a cleanup tag, on the other hand, is a matter of judgement. The status of such tags is to be debated on the talk page of the article, and bold removals of such tags, within reason, are permitted. {{spoiler}} is a style tag, and our guideline provides good, sensible techniques for rewriting an article so as to avoid the need for such tags (by writing the article for clarity), and good, sensible criteria for where all significant plot detail is to be expected (for instance, in the plot section). It is neither disruptive nor blockable to remove a cleanup tag or a style tag in good faith where there is no consensus that the tag applies. --Tony Sidaway 13:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

<outdent a bit>how is a reader able to verify the text is accurate? Purchase the book? --- sure, why not? There's ZERO policy that says any source has to be freely available. People use offline sources all the time, how is this any different? I can't quite figure out what you're objecting to, if you're not saying there must be a direct link to the info (you must never read non-fiction books if you think that must be the case...) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The policy on verifiability says "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Does that mean the fictional work has already been published or the plot description has already been published? Speaking of books, they usually have an ISBN, so I suppose a plot description could use {{cite book}} and cite the ISBN. I realize readers can check out books from a library — so they don't have to spend money to verify an article, I just think freely available secondary sources online are preferable. Speaking of films, what would the citation look like? <ref>I'm watching the DVD right now</ref>? Do you cite the barcode on the DVD? If a film is not out on DVD, what do you cite? <ref>I saw it in the theater</ref>? Citing free online secondary sources lets Wikipedia readers verify information right away — they're not forced to buy anything. I see there is a {{cite video}} template and a {{cite episode}} template listed at WP:CIT, although I can't remember ever seeing them used in an article. An editor could write whatever nonsense they want and use the {{cite video}} template, and the only people that would know it was false are people that have also seen the video. I notice there is no {{cite videogame}} template. The policy on copyrights says "it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia. However, it would still be unethical (but not illegal) to do so without citing the original as a reference." Plot descriptions that imply they are sourced to the primary source (the fictional work) but contain no citations are unethical. --Pixelface 12:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be with the policies and guidelines I've cited here in my preceding edit [27]. Your arguments really belong on Wikipedia:No original research to which they pertain, if you want to change the way we handle primary sources, or on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), if you want to change the way we handle plot summaries from primary sources. Propose, and obtain consensus for, a change in the policies and guidelines. In the meantime, it's perfectly in order to write a factual plot summary directly sourced to the work itself. --Tony Sidaway 13:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Pixel, your argument is misplaced for a number of reasons. First, current policy does not preclude editors from writing a synopsis of a film—with the film being the source. I realize there's a discussion where some people have disputed the wisdom of that, but for now the policy remains intact.

Second, current policy does not require all statements to be sourced, but only those that are likely to be challenged. One does not need a secondary source to confirm that Darth Vader is Luke's father. Ambiguous plot points might very well require such a source, but not obvious ones.

Lastly, to the extent that plots (or any other information) do require sources, we already have a guideline that describes how to cite them: WP:CITE. You'll notice that the template {{spoiler}} is not one of the methods described for citing sources. Marc Shepherd 13:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Care to show any place that says Wikipedia is a review site, and not an encyclopedia? And this comment: 'What a spoiler warning allows is for me to read part of the plot summary to learn about a work without worrying that it will be, yes, spoiled'...is interesting. Because when there WERE a large number of spoiler warnings, most of THEM had the warnings around the whole plot in the first place. So how would you have read 'part' of it without being spoiled? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"People who are against spoiler warnings are basically saying that you should never look at wikipedia on a work of fiction unless you've already read it."

It's their stated aim to punish those who do. Fansites for fans, basically.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit. People who are against spoiler warnings are saying that writing an article that summarizes critical views on a work of fiction necessarily entails revealing plot details. If you want a spoiler-free experience, critical views are not for you. That's worlds away from fan sites. Phil Sandifer 04:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what Nydas said, Phil. :) If you are a fan, go away. That's *your* policy, no matter that 99% readers of fiction articles are fans. So much for 'free for everyone'. Samohyl Jan 05:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, my view is the opposite. The removal of spoiler warnings excludes non-fans from articles. Someone who wants to research fiction they have not yet viewed (a reasonable use case), for example. The main arguments consist of calling their behaviour unencyclopedic (based on a made-up definition of encyclopedia) and stereotyping them as morons.--Nydas^(Talk) 13:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You cann't research fiction (except as a marketing exercise - "Do I want to watch X") while avoiding spoilers. The two goals are antithetical. It is a question of which goal do we want to cater towards. The answer is very clearly research. Phil Sandifer 14:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That is what spoiler warnings allow readers to do: research fiction while avoiding spoilers. Readers who do not want to accidentally read significant plot details know to stop reading when they see a spoiler warning, and readers who want more detail can keep reading. The {{spoiler}} template presents readers with a choice, instead of forcing something on every reader. Every registered user on Wikipedia can change their preferences to their liking, so I don't see why articles on fictional works should only suit one particular set of people. The {{spoiler}} template seeks to accommodate the most number of readers. Readers who are offended by the sight of the {{spoiler}} template can make it invisible by copying the following line and pasting it in their monobook.css or common.css file:

.spoiler { display: none; }

It seems silly to me that some editors are suggesting people ignore entire articles, yet those editors can't ignore 5 measly words themselves. --Pixelface 13:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a false dilemma, anyway. We can easily cater to both.--Nydas^(Talk) 13:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. Or, at least, the sort of research that is done while avoiding plot details is not the sort of research or knowledge that Wikipedia should be advancing or catering to. Phil Sandifer 14:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This is your creed. It has not been backed up with much more than novel definitions of 'encyclopedia', unrepresentative examples and outgroup stereotypes.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yours hasn't been backed up either. If Phil's examples are unrepresentative (and you haven't proved that), what are the representative ones? If Phil's definition of 'encyclopedia' is novel (and you haven't proved that), what's the correct one, and where does it come from? Marc Shepherd 21:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to provide a 'correct' definition, any more than one would have to provide a correct definition of 'personal computer' to someone who insists that 'real PCs don't use Linux'. As representative examples, I would nominate all the featured articles which had spoiler tags prior to the purge; they outnumber the examples and are generally higher-profile works anyway.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the content is free (as in speech, not beer) means that anybody who wants to can copy and modify the content under the GFDL. That includes putting it on a fan site and placing spoiler tags whereever they like.

But the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia means that readers of this site expect to find all significant aspects of the plot discussed, and they don't need to have a spoiler tag to remind them that it is an encyclopedia. Nobody needs to go away, but those who want a site that enables them to maintain selective ignorance are ill-served by an encyclopedia, which does exactly the opposite, and may find other sites more amenable to their wishes. Wikipedia cannot be all things to all people. --Tony Sidaway 12:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with the pro-SW faction, in at least this respect: Many people land here from a google search. Some readers could be "spoiled" before they realize what kind of site this is. I have no idea how often this happens, But at least, as matters now stand, this can only happen once per individual, unless that individual is particularly dense, in which case it might happen two or three times before they finally get the idea. In the old "Wild West" days, when spoiler tags were used quite indiscriminately, it could happen over & over again, because the tags were employed without much rhyme or reason. If an article lacked a {{spoiler}} tag, you had no idea if it was because that article contained no spoilers, if no one had gotten around to tagging it, or if it was part of a walled garden (e.g., the Opera Project) where local editors had prohibited the tags. The current situation at least provides certainty. Marc Shepherd 12:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tags weren't used indiscrimately, they were used on spoilers. You can complain about there being no 'exact' definition of spoiler, but we don't have exact definitions for a lot of things on Wikipedia. Your grudge seems to be with the Wiki process, rather than anything inherent to spoiler warnings.--Nydas^(Talk) 13:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

But they WERE, at least in my experiance. Probably half the time or so I saw them just covering whole plot/summary sections, in which case there was no real point (and DEFINETLY goes against the theory that warnings would help people who want to know the 'non-spoiler' parts). Of the other half, probably half of those were so overloaded with warnings starting and stopping the articles looked almost like jokes. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 14:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with Nydas that Wikipedia is never going to be perfect. But some reasonable percentage of accuracy must be reached, before spoiler tags achieve the purported benefit. Nydas says that "we don't have exact definitions for a lot of things on Wikipedia." True enough. But when something is known to be problematic, we develop guidelines that narrow the range of error, and we refine those guidelines based on experience. Even today, the most common placement continues to be the entire plot, which is certainly no help to readers who want to get a general idea what the story is about without ruining the surprise. Marc Shepherd 15:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I tend to think that, as the 9th biggest site on the Internet, we've made it to the point where we can expect people to know or quickly learn what we're like. Phil Sandifer 13:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Who's 'we', and who are the 'people' you refer to? AFAIK, people built this site. They should have the right to decide. It's this elitist attitude that you and Tony are showing that annoys me. Samohyl Jan 17:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen that accusation a few times. Rest assured that "we" in this case means "the Wikipedia community" and its decisions are made by discussion and consensus. There is no elite here. --Tony Sidaway 18:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, "We" in this case refers to the community of Wikipedia editors. "People," in this case, refers to readers who do not edit. Phil Sandifer 18:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts

Granted, I realize a lot of these opinions are probably redundant to things others have said, but whatever. They're my opinions to put out.

People should expect spoilers in plot sections − When I read a plot section, I want to know what the work is about, not what happens. Basically, I just want to know what the back of the box would tell me. Plot sections are largely useless if they are spoiler prone. Those who have not seen the work won't want to read the section, and those who have don't need to.
Often, one doesn't know if the work they're reading about has a twist until it's too late. I could read the plot section for a dozen comedy films and not have anything ruined and then suddenly read one where the main character dies and things end tragicly.
Spoiler tags worked well when they were added within the plot section. Perhaps the reader wants to know everything about the plot except the ending. Perhaps they want to know the set up but not the twist. One doesn't know where to stop reading without the tag.
The irritation of having something spoiled greatly outweighs the slight irritation of a little tag one doesn't like. Shouldn't we cater to the viewers that recieve the most benefit from the tag?
Perhaps spoiler tags just need to be cited. If reviews on the work feel the need to warn people on spoilers then we should as well.

--SeizureDog 14:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This point would be better served with a brief overview in the lead. There is no reason why the lead section shouldn't contain a plot overview other then the irrational fear of spoilers.
Placing spoiler warnings around the entire plot section, as was customary pier to May 2007, wouldn't have alleviated that problem either. It was too much of a CYA or "feel good" measure that did absolutely nothing for the reader. It was very unusual to see a spoiler tag around specific plot details.
The problem here is, how do you define when a plot detail is and isn't a spoiler without crossing into original research or adopting a point of view that it is? Almost all spoiler tags were placed because an editor though the plot section contained plot details that were spoilers or because it was customary to placing spoiler tags around a plot section reguardless. However, when pressed, the editor could not present verifiable evidence that the plot detail was a spoiler. "It's a spoiler because I say it is," was about the best logic they could ever rely on.
Following the policies on no original research, neutral point of view, and verifiability trumps the irritation of having something spoiled.
The problem with citing that something is a spoiler is that rarely do reviewers actually explain which plot details are the spoilers. But then, which reviewers have a say is also a problem. Film Reviewer A from a local newspaper considers Plot Detail B a spoiler. However, Film Reviewer C at the local university publishes an analytical critic of the same film and doesn't consider or even treat Plot Detail B to be a spoiler, but as "common knowledge". So who has more authority on the subject?

Then there is also the problem with the age of spoilers. At some point, usually with the first few of months, plot details that were once considered spoilers no longer are spoilers. So when do you determine when to stop labeling a plot detail a spoiler? Never? That is clearly an unworkable. --Farix (Talk) 18:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Bah my response earlier got eaten, ah well, TheFarix covered it better that I could have, but just one thing -- you talk about wanting the plot to be like 'the back of the box', but simple, WP isn't FOR that. It's not a buyer's guide (which is what those summaries are for, to entice you to buy), just as it's not a game guide, price guide, etc. You can't say WP plot sections should be that way, any more than you can say public television should be for sports, or something. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we stop perpetuating the fallacy that "people do it wrong, therefore, it should be eliminated"? I mean, plenty of people stick POV tags on articles they disagree with, nevermind if the article is NPOV - we fix it rather than eliminating POV tags. It's not a valid reason to not have spoiler tags. There ARE many reasons not to have them that rely on personal opinion rather than fallacy; please stick to those. Thanks Kuronue | Talk 23:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is making that exact argument. But some people are pointing out that, in the Bad Old Days, spoiler tags were frequently misused, a situation that undermined their credibility and their utility. I can't speak for anyone else, but all I'm saying to the pro-SW crowd is: Draft a guideline that would explain correct usage. Or, pick a few articles and show us how it ought to be done, instead of arguing in the abstract. If you can't describe it, or can't be bothered, then perhaps it isn't that important.

For myself, I could foresee a scenario where SW's would come back in a big way, helping those who benefit by them, without undermining Wikipedia's role as an encyclopedia. But I don't see it as any great necessity either, so I am content to wait—forever, if need be—for the people who care about it the most to explain what the rules should be. And no, "local consensus" or "local art jury" (both fancy ways of saying "no guidance") doesn't cut it with me, and, I suspect, with many others. Marc Shepherd 00:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it really such a fallacy when the spoiler tag was used improperly (ie. violated WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and/or WP:V) in nearly 100% of all cases the tag was used? Is a tag with such a high error rate really useful to anyone? Also, improper placement of the cleanup and POV tags can be challenge by other editors. And both sets of tags are also intended to be temporary until the problem is addressed. However, if the pro-spoiler proponents have their way, the spoiler tag would be nearly exempt for such challenges. In fact, they would want the person challenging the tags placement to prove that the plot details contain no spoilers or are no longer spoilers (negative proof) instead of the other way around. --Farix (Talk) 02:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This is wikilaywering to the extreme. Can you give any one example where someone could even remotely care if SW violates NPOV or NOR? For facts in articles, it is reasonable to want this, sure. But SW is not a fact that needs to be checked, it's a part of user interface. It is either useful or not, and obtrusive or not; nothing else. Samohyl Jan 06:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Original research for editorial elements such as notices is ok, and always has been. Since a spoiler tag is a notice (not a warning), they can be placed however local consensus would place any other kind of notice, usually because one editor thinks it's a good idea, and no other editor opposes. NPOV is also not a real problem. If there occurs some extreme case of some spoiler notice somehow violating NPOV (which I doubt), editors are going to notice and resolve it on a rare case-by-case basis — much as that basically never happens with disambiguation notices, but would get fixed if it did.

About the issue of most of the old time spoiler tags being placed around the entire plot — and that not being what the spoiler-averse readers want for the equivalent of a back-of-book summary — is a good point. I agree that editors may not necessarily know how to identify a spoiler. So I agree that some guidance is useful, if it's not mandatory. For that purpose, I've previously suggested listing five real examples ranging from #1 (some not-a-spoiler detail) to #5 (a most extreme plot twist spoiler detail - Crying Game apparently). Milo 08:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't usually post a plain "me too," but as this is the first time Milo and I have agreed on anything, I thought I'd say so. Marc Shepherd 18:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Farix isn't wikilawyering. The classic case of the neutral point of view being messed up due to spoiler tagging is The Crying Game, where the whole article was designed to keep the most significant, most talked-about, characteristic of the film out of the lead section, hidden behind a spoiler warning around the plot section [28]. As for whether somebody would care about this, I should hope that we all care about the fundamental policies, without exception. --Tony Sidaway 11:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of The Crying Game article, the entire intro is unsourced, if you want to talk about policy. The style guideline for films says "The lead section of an article serves as a quick introduction to the film. The very first paragraph should cover the basics, such as the film's release year, alternate titles, genre(s), setting, country (if not the US), stars, and director (and possibly writer in some cases), as well as one or two of the most notable, verifiable facts about the film..." It doesn't say that a twist ending should be revealed in the intro. If a film is notable for its twist ending, I suppose you could say that in the intro, but I don't think it's necessary to reveal what the twist is in the intro. If a spoiler is present in the intro of an article and has no source, it should be removed. If the spoiler has a source, editors should consider moving it out of the intro if reliable sources have given spoiler warnings. I can understand why someone would put a {{spoiler}} tag in that article. Film critic Emanuel Levy wrote "I can't describe more than that as Miramax, the film's distributor, has justifiably asked reviewers not to disclose the shocking plot development." Roger Ebert wrote "Warning: This is the kind of movie that inspires enthusiastic discussions afterward. People want to talk about it. Don't let them talk to you. The Crying Game needs to be seen with as close to an open mind as possible, and anyone who tells you too much about the film is not doing you a favor. I would prefer, in fact, that you put this review aside until you see the film. If you read on, I will do my best not to spoil your own discoveries." Ebert concluded his review by saying "See this film. Then shut up about it." Levy's review and Ebert's review are both citations that justify the use of a {{spoiler}} tag. The article for The Crying Game also contains this sentence "Gene Siskel, during Siskel and Ebert's annual "Memo to the Academy" program, gave away the ending of the film while giving his review." but there is no source provided. Even if that sentence was sourced, it does not cancel out warnings that other sources have given. In Siskel & Ebert's televised review of The Crying Game, neither of them reveal the twist. Siskel said the film "has stunning plot twists" and mentioned the way the script "unfolds." Ebert mentioned surprises and said "anything I tell you would diminish your enjoyment of the film." Wikipedia editors simply have no right to spoil a surprise for someone or ruin a reader's enjoyment when it comes to fictional works. The {{spoiler}} template is a polite way of notifying readers and letting them choose if they want to read further. People keep saying "this is an encyclopedia" but that argument means nothing unless someone can provide an encyclopedia that has an entry for The Crying Game that reveals the twist ending. --Pixelface 15:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I also don't think that not mentioning the ending in the intro messes the NPOV. I even don't think there are two opposite views of the plot, as the plot is a fact, not an opinion, so there is no NPOV issue in the first place. As long as the article mentions the plot and has it correctly as it was in the work, it IMHO passes both NPOV and NOR in this respect. Samohyl Jan 18:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If a published source issues a warning[29] and doesn't discuss the plot, and other published sources do discuss the plot, it becomes an issue of neutral point of view. The {{spoiler}} template is a way of presenting the plot information from one source, while also presenting the warning from another source. I do not agree that "the plot is a fact" is always true. When rewriting a plot, there are going to be disagreements about the description of the storyline because many people interpret fictional works differently. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. Speaking of The Crying Game, how many sources used the term "transwoman" in 1992 when speaking of the film? Is the term used in the film? As far as I know, it's a newer term being applied retroactively, so it's a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." --Pixelface 11:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not wikilawyering. It is applying current wikipolicies to an area where the policies generally have not been enforced do to inertia. Spoiler tags are also not part of the "user interface" either. At most, it is a content disclaimer that labels certain content as spoilers. Generally, we should avoid content disclaimers, and I don't see why spoilers should be an exception. However, if we are going to allow this kind of disclaimer, it needs to be applied accurately. Hence why it needs to follow WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. --Farix (Talk) 12:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe NOR and NPOV were not applied to SWs before because it's just silly thing to do? No, really, who cares except wikilaywers? We talked about content disclaimers before, and I believe that humans have often rules and laws that are not logically consistent. If they are useful, why not? You still haven't answered my question, why do you think NOR or NPOV should apply on SWs? I want to hear a practical argument, not logical. If someone finds the SW useful, it will be no matter if they are NOR or NPOV. If someone finds them obtrusive, it will be again for completely different reasons than these two. So why should these people care about NPOV and NOR policies at all? Samohyl Jan 19:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's accurate to say that spoiler tags were misuses in a vast majority of cases. It's not a valid argument to say that therefore, they should not exist. Most people on certain roads speed; that doesn't mean we should abolish the speed limit. It IS, however, an argument in favor of revising the guideline that existed then, and an argument against returning to that particular version - if we do return to spoiler tags their correct usage needs to be carefully documented and monitored. Kuronue | Talk 19:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Dil is biologically male is the most significant, most talked-about fact about The Crying Game. This is why leaving it out of the lead violates the Neutral point of view policy. Critiques of the treatment of Dil's sexual identity are quite common in gender studies, [30] and the term "Crying Game" has often been used as shorthand for gender-confusion in sexual relationships. To act as if this most significant fact were some dreadful secret that must not be mentioned in the lead is not compatible with Wikipedia's policies. --Tony Sidaway 19:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so if there's consensus that this twist should be in the lead, and this film is of long-lasting if not permanent importance, precede the lead with a permanent spoiler tag. If you don't like the way it looks, or if editors think 'readers will see it anyway', then make the tag showable with a bunch of showable dot lines under it to eclipse viewing of the lead section.

There's no real problem here. Phil's unsupported opinion that the tiny number of film students, and the large number of film consumers can't both be served with the compromise Hide'nShow spoiler notices, doesn't make logical sense. Phil just has a bad case of WP:IDon'tLikeIt, or more to his agenda, WP:IDon'tLikeThem.

And yes, I think Citizen Kane should have permanent spoiler tags inside the plot section around the ending. I want future students to be as stunned by the brilliance of Orson Welles' masterpiece as I was. Victorian-edited long-form fairy tales are serious gothic literature that deserve more respect than the implied snorts issued here; why not allow spoiler tagging? Shakespeare I'll leave to the judgments of others. Three little pigs? I had a new thought about that — it teaches children what a spoiler is (Tony, try not to have a heart attack :)) Milo 03:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That your major sense of Citizen Kane is that you were surprised by the ending speaks poorly either of your film instructor or of your understanding of what film scholarship is. Most probably of both.

I think it telling that both of the people in this discussion who have taught college level film courses seem to be of the opinion that spoiler tags are idiocy on legs. And equally telling that, over and over again, those who want spoiler tags are invested in "preserving surprise" and "preserving suspense." It speaks volumes to the shitty quality of most of our articles on fiction. With precious few exceptions, they are written by people who are more interested in their fannish and masturbatory love of the text than by people who are interested in critical distance and scholarship.

Is this a case of I don't like it? Perhaps. I do, indeed, not like spoiler tags or most of our fiction articles. That said, my dislike is not random. I dislike them because they are bad. They are badly written, badly edited, and badly designed. They are the single biggest example of where Wikipedia, as a project, goes wrong. They are as bad, quality-wise, as POV fork articles. Except that, unlike POV forks, they are innocuous enough not to attract attention, and so they are dominated by the naievete of the text's fans.

Thankfully, our policies on fictional articles is mostly that they should be better than they are. Demand for shorter summaries, a focus on an out-of-universe perspective, and the turning against trivia and "in popular culture" sections are all policies that improve fiction articles. What was so jarring and so odious about the spoiler policy was that it was, increasingly, the last policy left that actively defended the mindset that leads to bad fiction articles.

If only their writers could be so easily deleted. Phil Sandifer 04:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You should understand that the improvements you are talking about are subjective. When I read about fiction, I consider it to be primarily entertainment. So I use fiction articles differently than you, and there is nothing wrong with that. So I like SWs, in-universe perspective (because it gives me quick information what happened in the universe without needing to also read in what book or movie it happened) and trivia (of course, they should be sourced and they shouldn't be in nonfiction articles, but in fiction articles, I have no complaints).

You are telling such people to go away. I find that attitude very arrogant. I am a programmer, with a degree in math, so I am not stupid (in case you would have thoughts like that :)). Imagine if articles about computer science or mathematics there were written in incomprehensible, inaccessible manner and you would have a hobby reading them. You would also complain, and find it very arrogant if I would just tell you to go away. Wikipedia is not working like that fortunately, it is trying to be accessible for laymen as possible, and it's a good thing. Samohyl Jan 06:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

random break

Most of our mathematics and computer science articles are written in an inaccessible manner. That's why so few of them are featured.

Phil's claim that spoiler warnings are the last bastion of bad fiction writing is unfounded. Not only were there many featured articles with them, but bad fiction writing is certain to continue. Not least because he (and probably lots of other admins) think 'fans-only' articles are acceptable.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a subtle but clear difference between science articles and fiction articles. And should they be written in easier to understand language? Yes, but I think this is partly an issue with the writers- the most knowledgeable are going to describe things in terms that newbies to the topic might not get. I mean, if I hit someone on the street with "Secondary messengers activate protein kinase..." and went from there, they'd never get it. But science articles, if they are comprehensive, are going to by necessity contain a fair amount of this language (that doesn't mean that spin-off articles like the Intro to Evolution might not be warranted). The same does not always go with fiction articles. People wanting to learn about Halo 3 are not going to need to know about plasma rifles to get a full understanding of the topic. David Fuchs^(talk) 21:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

They will need to know what a first person shooter is, what levels are, what hit-points are, what constitutes an enemy, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if many of our featured games articles are incomprehensible to non-gamers, though Halo is okay in this regard.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Nydas, my point is different - it is that Wikipedia people want mathematics and computer science articles to be accessible. The reality is different thing (I think most topics which are hard to understand are hard to understand for a reason, so nobody yet came up with way how to make it really accessible). But Phil is arguing that laymen (who use Wikipedia as a consumer guide, for example) should be ignored on fiction articles. This is akin to saying that laymen should be ignored on science articles. Phil simply doesn't believe it's doable that Wikipedia be both analytical resource and consumer guide, like someone who doesn't believe it's doable to write article about science accessible to laymen, but still be comprehensive enough to serve as a reference for the experts. Note: By saying 'consumer guide', I don't mean that Wikipedia should have all the attributes, it must follow the NOR and NPOV policies, which means no ratings, reviews and opinions from users. It means to accept the reality that people try to use it as such, because it's so comprehensive. Samohyl Jan 06:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Another problem is the lack of critical and analytical material for most fiction. In contrast, an article about a scientific topic is always likely to have scientific sources available. How many featured fiction articles have 'critical distance and scholarship'? Half? --Nydas^(Talk) 21:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"major sense of Citizen Kane is that you were surprised by the ending" Um, reread please; no, I didn't say that. I'd say my major sense of Citizen Kane is seeing interesting, jarring, or unexpected things that at first seem to happen by accident or from sloppy jump editing, and slowly realizing, 'wow, Orson planned it that way and it works'. The semifinal spoiler scene, while tame by today's standards of shock value, remains disturbing to students who are still only a few years departed from their toys. And I'm prepared to believe that Orson planned it that way.

"speaks poorly either of your film instructor" The dean must have thought well of him. The faculty of my world-class Nobel-Laureate liberal arts and science university takes no back seats in academe. Several of its departments have from time to time been rated no. 1.

"I think it telling that both of the people in this discussion who have taught college level film courses seem to be of the opinion that spoiler tags are idiocy on legs." They strike me as defenders of the old paradigm in a Kuhnian shift. Thomas Khun says that such get money and prestige from not changing their minds even as the shift engulfs their fading POVs.

"And equally telling that, over and over again, those who want spoiler tags are invested in "preserving surprise" and "preserving suspense." So who was the first authority to declare that there was something wrong with narrative suspense? And what did they claim to be wrong with it?

"I do, indeed, not like ... most of our fiction articles. .... I dislike them because they are bad." In May/June of 2007 I originally thought that what you believe to be bad writing, is a matter of general agreement. Now I'm not sure. Since you have such extreme views about narrative suspense and film student education, I wonder if what you call bad writing is simply not adhering to a rigidly-prescribed stylistic form? But I'm not going to judge that without adequate samples.

"spoiler policy was that it was, increasingly, the last policy left that actively defended the mindset that leads to bad fiction articles." Mindset as opposed to method? Are you sure? Are you saying that identifying spoilers causes bad writing? I seem to recall that you objected to rearranging the writing to minimize spoiling, which is a method, not a mindset. Identifying spoilers is also required for pre-writing analysis. If one doesn't do pre-writing analysis, one can't properly synthesize during writing. So it's not the actual identification of spoilers that is the problem, but the method applied to use the identifications during writing.

"masturbatory love of the text" I'd like to subject that line to a full Freudian analysis. But a shortcut is a line I heard somewhere about "bluenoses" as paraphrased here, "Bluenoses worry incessantly that someone, somewhere, is having fun in a way of which they do not approve."

"your understanding of what film scholarship is" I certainly had no idea that such a student-abusive school of film scholarship existed, of which you apparently claim to be a product or exponent. To deliberately spoil the work of a genius on first showing is unthinkable in the school I'm from. To do so stamps out the fire of creativity which burns in media art students, by leveling peak experiences — which otherwise stimulate a flood of ideation and emotion that flower artistic inspiration in the next generation.

Apologies if I have this wrong in part or whole, but deduction suggests, that when you were a young student, that you were educationally abused in just this way, and that now you want to pass on this abusive pedagogy legitimized as film scholarship to the readers and editors of Wikipedia. Milo 09:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You're only making Phil Sandifer's point for him. You do indeed seem to be wedded to the text, and in particular so wedded to the concept of suspense as the mark of great story-telling that you would propose that we write our articles so as to maintain that particular, ephemeral, quality of the text. In the case of Citizen Kane, in fact, it appears to me that you may be advocating that we avoid talking about the technicalities of Welles' direction for fear of giving away his (by now well understood and endlessly written about and copied) secrets.

The famous "Rosebud", in particular, is a plot device probably devised by the film's screenwriter, Herman J. Mankiewicz. Welles often credited Mankiewicz with the invention of Rosebud, for which he is reported to have expressed dislike. It's a commonplace plot device for which Alfred Hitchcock in a lecture in 1939) devised the term MacGuffin. In Citizen Welles, Frank Brady said that the term "rosebud" was an in-joke, based on a rumor that William Randolph Hearst used that name for Marion Davies "pudenda" (Brady's vague word; Gore Vidal interpreted this as "clitoris" on the basis of anatomical similarities. --Tony Sidaway 16:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"making Phil Sandifer's point for him" Only if you strawman my actual positions.

"so wedded to the concept of suspense as the mark of great story-telling" "the mark"? You didn't get that from me. I'm asking why narrative suspense is under attack as an element of story-telling (great or not), and who was the first authority to declare that there was something wrong with it? And what did they claim to be wrong with it? Not sure, but it sounds like you are buying into some anti-narrative-suspense theory without understanding its origins or philosophy.

"you would propose that we write our articles so as to maintain that particular, ephemeral, quality of the text" Certainly not — you have me confused with someone else. As I first wrote on 16:18, 31 May 2007, and have repeatedly stated since, I promptly sided with Phil on the good fiction article writing standards, with tweaks. You write a consensed good article, and I'll happily place Hide'nShow spoiler notices in the correct places. No problem.

"in fact, it appears to me that you may be advocating that we avoid talking about the technicalities of Welles' direction for fear of giving away his ... secrets" There's nothing I wrote to suggest that. You seem to be suffering from stereotyped reading comprehension. Again, I can tag what you can reveal as a spoiler.

"Rosebud" You'll be disappointed that like Orson, I was never much interested in Rosebud, the MacGuffin. Orson's genius utilized that lame device by creating a disturbing symbolic scene of hellfire, to suggest to older viewers what awaited Kane in the beyond. For the younger viewers, the disturbing image was that of a workman almost angrily throwing a perfectly preserved sports toy into the furnace. Milo 02:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with narrative suspense, in a story. It has no place in an encyclopedia, however. --Tony Sidaway 17:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

However, this has nothing to do with spoiler tags.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure it does. Phil Sandifer 05:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Subjective Texts

So, I got a blog, right, where I've been writing about the idea of subjective texts. Re-Evaluation Counseling guru Tim Jackins has written an article in two versions: one is for RC affiliates, and one is for lay-people. It's a strange contrast: it isn't at all clear why Jackins makes certain textual choices for one audience and not for another.

Now, wikipedia is currently an objective text (I think(?)) insofar as any two people looking at it at the same time will see the same information. The proposal to add hideable spoiler tags would make it a subjective text. And surely the next proposal, if hideable spoiler tags are implemented, would be to make the spoiling sections themselves hideable. Given that precedent, where is the subjectivity supposed to stop? Shouldn't I, as a Quaker, be able to hide text sections that offend my religious sensibilities? If not, wouldn't be saying that wikipedia's policies value movie customers' satisfaction more than religious faith? Wouldn't that be an odd claim? Or, on the other hand, if I am allowed, as a Quaker, to hide anti-Quaker texts, where will the end to this subjectivity be? Should wikipedia present itself differently for every reader's tastes? This is an appealing idea to me, in some ways, but it seems quite contrary to the notion of an encyclopedia as a common resource. Ethan Mitchell 19:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as Muslims and Bahais are allowed to move pictures they find objectionable on the Muhammed and Bahá'u'lláh articles, it is quite possible you may be able to move things to suit your religious beliefs.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ethan, what you are talking about I have been referring to previously here as the 'next' encyclopedia. Way beyond spoiler showable tags, I have a system of menus conceived that one can open with (current proposal) a | tags | tab. All kinds of customizations can be done here. Showable extra editorial tools like spoiler notices are not genuinely controversial. Hiding article content things, however, might be a slippery slope to formal censorship (aside from the informal political censorship that Nydas mentions).

The solution to this problem is to make the tags menu tab work with a local browser file containing parental control data. Parental control is an in-home euphemism for censorship, but that's where censorship belongs. If I don't want my children to read (or I don't want to read) indecent or violent, words or images, I could click the menu that loads a filter of my choice into my local browser, and the stuff I don't want, doesn't show on my screen. But on your screen it does show as usual. The result is that everyone is happy except for Fundamentalists, control-freaks, and illusioned paper-encyclopedia traditionalists, who want to control other people's choices. Milo 03:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Milo, you confirm the general idea that I'm discussing. I like the idea of subjective texts (my blog entry, if you're interested, is at www.thequodlibetarian.blogspot.com) Here's my concern. One of the major benefits of wikipedia has been forcing people with conflicting POVs to collaborate on pages. True, this isn't always an immediate way to get a perfect front page. But it is a great way to call out conflicting POVs, even where no one was expecting them. I always look at the talk pages of articles, and I am often surprised to learn that particular facts, theories, or even phrasings are more controversial than I realized. Wikipedia shows everyone what is being disputed, and by who, and why. By contrast, it shows everyone what isn't being disputed, at least in high-volume articles. I think this is an extraordinarily salutary thing, and one that makes wikipedia quite unique.

I think turning wikipedia into a fully subjective text would destroy that. You know Moynihan's line: "You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts." I've always disliked that, because the distinction between a fact and an opinion is, well, an opinion. But it's easy to imagine the horrors we could have under a tag system like the one you're proposing. How long will it take before young-earth-creationists want to create a tag to make all the articles on biology, geology, astrophysics, and history "creationist-safe?" I would guess about two weeks. Do we really want an encyclopedia that offers readers one of fifteen different numbers for the age of the planet, depending on what ideological tags they've chosen? Isn't that need met by the wider internet, and by reader-side filtering mechanisms? Or...and this is the part that I simply cannot envision...do you have some bright line imagined that lets us tag spoilers and religious depictions, but not statements of "fact"?

I'm glad you are presenting us with this larger program, because it makes me feel a little less shrill about my own concerns. Clearly we are discussing a radical change in the way that wikipedia presents itself to the reader, especially the non-wiki-savvy reader, and we should be frank about that. I don't think it's helpful to say that spoiler warnings are "not genuinely controversial," here on the twelfth talk page or whatever it is about the controversy. Ethan Mitchell 13:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Milo (03:43) wrote: "Showable extra editorial tools like spoiler notices are not genuinely controversial."... Ethan (13:44) wrote: "don't think it's helpful to say that spoiler warnings are "not genuinely controversial" I intended reference to a common early claim in this debate, still embedded in the pro-spoiler-tag userboxes. Contrary to that claim, notices that are showable/hidable are not censorship, because they are editorial tools, not article content; plus they only add something, not remove anything.

• "Do we really want an encyclopedia that offers readers one of fifteen different numbers for the age of the planet, depending on what ideological tags they've chosen?" Why not? Wikipedia is suppose to describe controversies, and if creationists can turn on a bunch of numbered reference tags that link to a page of their verified notable contrary opinions, I don't see how that's going to do anything except make Wikipedia less controversial and less tendentiously edited.

• "do you have some bright line imagined that lets us tag spoilers and religious depictions, but not statements of "fact"?" With latter negation inverted, yes. While spoilers are a more simple concept that can be editorially judged using a rubric, I think the problem of alternatives to scientific facts is already solved by notability. Fact or belief, if it's not a notable differing claim (typically pre-vetted by the wider internet), it doesn't get a showable reference tag. I suspect that an ability to hang these notable reference tags, will in some cases lead to better descriptions of the controversy in the NPOV text. However, if ether consensus or tendentious editing prevents a minimally satisfactory NPOV text, then the tags may relieve some of the pressure of external charges that Wikipedia is unfair or biased. They are a mid stage between the article and the talk page, and I agree about the importance of the talk page in uncovering controversies.

• Ethan (2007-10-20 blogspot.com) wrote: "if we enact such a policy, some users will then want the option to hide the "spoiling" texts themselves, and then some users will want the option to hide texts" I don't see any problem if the tags are used to trigger text blanking or substitution using the local browser's parental control data file. Milo 06:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It may be worth mentioning that the last major poll, Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images, regarding content-filtering through the use of ICRA- and PICS-enabled software, was rather vigorously opposed. I would also suggest that this discussion, now delving into content-filtering rather than spoiler warnings, seems to be getting beyond the scope of this page. --Iamunknown 06:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"content-filtering rather than spoiler warnings" I count that spoiler words were mentioned six times in my last post, so I respectfully conclude that you are incorrect. Milo 09:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I should have wrote, "now delving into content-filtering in addition to spoiler warnings". I also count that of approximately 55 words in my post, you quoted only 5 or 6. You would do well, then, to say, "I respectfully conclude that your statement is incorrect", unless you actually believe that the substance of my comment is incorrect, in which case I urge you to read over Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images. If you have read over that page, and I am merely offering moot advice, then I apologize; your comment did not indicate as much, so I have no way of knowing. --Iamunknown 15:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

My post converged toward topic. Yours diverged further afield. Milo 03:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Milo, could you please acknowledge whether or not you have read Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images? It is relevant to this thread, however irrelevant it is to this discussion page, as you originally mentioned content-filtering and the desire for this or the "next" encyclopedia to incorporate it. --Iamunknown 03:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What's going on here? Are you an undercover spnarc? (spoiler police narc :)

If you claim it's irrelevant to this discussion page, what's your WP:IAR reason to ignore OT wikiguide and continue discussing it? Milo 07:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. :) I'll be quiet now. Cheers, --Iamunknown 23:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Iamunknown, I think the issue of content subjectivity is quite germane to this discussion. Both Milo and I, in our different ways, view spoiler tags as the thin end the wedge for a larger-scale version of subjective content. So I think we should be discussing that possibility, and this is as good a place to do it as any.

In essence, we are talking about a tag system that would allow users to navigate smoothly through a large series of POV-forks. WP:CFORK doesn't actually explain why we've deprecated content forking, but I think two major reasons present themselves.

First, every content fork reduces the editing attention available to any particular version of an article. If we allow, let's say, mere boolean tags for child-safe, Christian, technical jargon, and white supremacy, there will be sixteen different Evolution articles, each recieving a small fraction of the editorial care that they do today. I think we can expect to see a massive drop-off in overall article quality. (Although, in fact, that might be salubrious...if we discover that setting your tags to "child-safe white supremacist" results in a wikipedia full of inane platitudes and vandalism, that would surely tell us something.

But, second, and the only non-tautological reason offered on WP:CFORK, content forking avoids the work of consensus building. I think many users of wikipedia admire and use the site precisely because the articles represent a synthesis of many different persepctives. But that synthesis is reached though hard work, and we only do that work because we have to. The internet is a huge generator of POV content in every form, but there are very few places making even a token effort to create NPOV content. Ethan Mitchell 14:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"spoiler tags ... subjective content .... POV-forks" I don't make or endorse those two industrial-strength leaps of logic. Tags generally, and spoiler notices in particular, are desirable specifically because they avoid the need for content forks, POV or otherwise.

Tags in the form of meta-tags are an extra set of references, which at the Wikipedia server level add showable/hidable editorial information to the NPOV content text. Any changes to the content text would take place at the browser level, or offsite, which is explicitly permitted by GFDL. Subjective content therefore remains virtual and ephemeral — an appropriate technical parallel to the unscientific ideas of belief that demand to be heard in some reasonable proportion to their notability.

I have specifically agreed with Phil that spoiler tags/notices should have no necessary effect on the NPOV content text. Spoiler tags only add editorial information, proposed to be off by default, and that's starting to sound like an acceptable policy for all meta-tags.

Your slippery-slope concerns as expressed, are unfounded if you accept the Hide'nShow spoiler notice compromise package. Milo 17:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think spoiler tags that are hidden by default are the first reasonable proposal I've seen for a change from the status quo at this point. There are, however, some large philosophical issues that need to be sorted out, and they are larger than this page is appropriate for.

To what extent should meta tags be used to alter Wikipedia away from its primary version. Spoiler tags, OK. What else? Offensive content tags? Unsourced statement tags? (These tags could, after all, be used as a variation on stable versions) Tags that filter out particular POVs? If the point of a tag is to change Wikipedia in some fashion, however small, from its primary version, we have to start evaluating what aspects of the primary version are things that we are willing to, ourselves, provide an alternative to.
The nature of a new tool like this is overproliferation. (See templates, categories, userboxes, and everything else that has ever been introduced on this project). These tags could quickly provide a serious barrier to initial usability whereby the act of editing an article for the first time becomes harder because there is more text and formatting that is not human-readable.
Is this something we hack the existing template system for, or something we try to add at a developer level? The former is easier, the latter is more powerful and probably better.

As I said, these are larger issues than this talk page is suitable for. I would suggest writing up a proposal on meta tags that addresses these issues and going from there. Phil Sandifer 18:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a better suggestion. Instead of trying to predict what will happen, and invent a general framework, let's try that on SWs and see. Such an experiment avoids points 2 (the tag in article would look like before) and 3, and for point 1, I am against any (hidden) tags that would actually alter the content of Wikipedia (spoiler warnings are not content). Samohyl Jan 18:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspect spoiler warnings are an overly large first test, and I do think this is something that a general policy discussion on is important. Phil Sandifer 19:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that your points #1, 2, and 3 are valid.

Those in #1 are properly part of your requested general policy discussion.

Point #2 is an already existing problem due to in-line references. I suggest multiple colorizations and/or font displays of non-content wikitext as a quick fix.

For point #3, a spoiler notice tag demonstration of meta-tags, using existing tools declared as prototypes for development code, feels project well-sized, 40+% popularly supported, and adequately-to-massively discussed here.

I don't want such a demonstration to fail, so I would not propose this without a good level of comfort that it could be technically successful. Such a demonstration would promote interest in the general meta-tag policy discussion of your issue points in #1. Milo 20:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Come on, Phil, what are you afraid of so much? There are precedents to that already: Earth, Predictive text, Absorption, Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything, The Mysterious Island (just check the source - the comments there are much more longer than SW tags). And that's just from a very few articles I know source of. Samohyl Jan 11:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Milo, I do not think the hide-n-show proposal is a good idea for exactly the reasons I am outlining above. I am not interested in having a semantic argument about content forking, though I imagine you would enjoy that (...tired grin...) My general sense is that a wikipedia in which two users (or 128 users) would view two different versions of a page (or 128 different versions of the page) raises issues identical to the ones we have dealt with around content forking. Yes, the changes would "occur at the browser level," but that is where the readers actually are.

I suppose I want to emphasize that while I find any spoiler warnings to be distasteful and inherently POV, what I'm really concerned about is the implication of having hide-n-show text content. But as Milo himself has frequently pointed out, the tags themselves are merely content, so a precedent for widespread hide-n-show content would be established by setting up such tags. And it would be a serious precedent in proportion to how trivial spoiler tags themselves are: if we can create (insert phrase like "forkable content" here) over movie plots, then obviously we can do the same for religious or political concerns. Perhaps we should move this debate over to WP:CFORK? But it seems to me like a very important one, and one which underpins this discussion. 68.142.57.9 03:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You might want to touchup edit your post after you get some sleep.

I think you meant to write: 'as Milo himself has frequently pointed out, the tags themselves are merely editorial information, but a precedent for widespread hide-n-show content would be established by setting up such tags.'

My intent for the Hide'nShow concept is to refer to the things that Wikipedia does on its servers. Since hiding article content at the server level would seem too much like censorship or content forking, Hide'nShow would be a promotional label applying only to hidable/showable notices and other non-content items on the server. I'm confident that article content hiding won't happen at the server level.

I think I understand your concern about article content hiding at the browser, but I believe most observers make a strong distinction between server-side and client-side actions as a matter of property law, which then diverges issues of actual usage between the two. As a result, one can't forecast the collective effects of client-user actions by simply measuring the actions of server-programmers.

Your concern seems to be that content-hiding in the browser has political parity with content-hiding in the server, but it's just a natural law that defaults tend to prevail by numbers over customizations. Customized article content-hiding by user action at the browser is unlikely to have any noticeable political effect, even if Wikipedia supplies showable tags that could be interpreted this way by a browser plugin. That's one reason editors in the middle can be persuaded to buy into Hide'nShow spoiler notice tags on the server-side. Milo 08:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Phil that the issues arising from the proposal to use invisible spoiler tags are broader than can be covered on this talk page. --Tony Sidaway 11:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Notice placed in key places

I have added a notice about the....conflict....in the usage of the spoiler tag on the project page and on the template doc page. I stand by this action as it let's potential users of the template know that as of right now the template's future is uncertain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carterhawk (talk • contribs) 05:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Where it should go....

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dramatic_structure it seems obvious that there should be a distinct warning in place between the Rising Action and Climax of a plot summary. Many book summaries, for example, will detail key points of the Exposition and Rising Action parts of the novel, without revealing the Climax, Falling Action, or Resolution. Thus, to "spoil" someone, is to reveal the latter three parts of the fictional work in question.

Looking at the "debate" on this page, I'm lead to believe that many of the individuals biased against spoiler tags failed to learn anything about narrative in their primary school English classes. Plot summaries on wikipedia are not just one large block of information unto itself, but follow the same Dramatic Structure as the story they summarize. As such, it seems prudent to indicate to the reader when they have a reached a point in the summary that the risk revealing to themselves the climax and so forth of the story. While I understand the desire to preserve a strong "encyclopedic" format on wikipedia, I highly doubt we will ever see a detailed thousand word summary of Harry Potter and Deathly Hollows in the Britannica. Accomodations must be made for the sheer level of detail possible with a source of information that is both Gratis and Libre, and open to additions by anyone.

--Carterhawk 05:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, many of us did learn that in primary school. If you read the article, you'll note that it is "analysis of the structure of ancient Greek and Shakespearean drama." Many types of fiction do not follow that structure. Marc Shepherd 12:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"many of us did learn that in primary school" Probably only a wealthy, relative few did so. Preliminary research suggests that the vast majority of USA students did not learn dramatic structure in primary/elementary school. Such teaching units are found in grades 9-10 in the 2002 Illinois public schools curriculum (including Chicago). Conversely, I found a Hollywood-region private academy, Crossroads (chaired by the legendary Peter Norton) that teaches dramatic structure in the first grade due to "a comprehensive fine and performing arts program". Many cities have specialty public high schools for performing and fine arts, but I'm unaware that they have any such elementary schools. Milo 23:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If the reader looks at a section in our encyclopedia that describes the plot, it can be safely assumed that the reader wants to know the plot. The reader is aware that he's reading about the plot. If he does not want to know the plot he should not read it. --Tony Sidaway 07:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Any luck finding a definition of encyclopedia which prohibits spoiler warnings, or is still just something you've made up?--Nydas^(Talk) 08:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Any luck finding encyclopedias that include them? Normally, the burden of persuasion is with the person who wants to add material. As SW's are virtually absent from Wikipedia, that would be you. Marc Shepherd 12:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia, in the year 2006, had them. IIRC, it was the most comprehensive encyclopedia at that time. Oh, you mean paper encyclopedia? They can be hardly compared, because they lack many other things (for practical reasons) that Wikipedia has, such as hyperlinks or subheadings in articles. By such logic, these things are also unencyclopedic. As for the web encyclopedias, it has already been shown that most film encyclopedias on the web (including the largest one, imdb.com) have spoiler warnings (or avoid spoilers by other means). I am not aware of any special encyclopedias for literature on the web, for instance. My point is, Wikipedia is the best encyclopedia in the world, so holding other encyclopedias as a standard to it is just backward. Samohyl Jan 19:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"As SW's are virtually absent from Wikipedia" Kinda stepped into that one, eh? I was just about to write the same point as Samohyl.

Wikipedia not only had 45,000 spoiler notices up until May of 2007, they were removed by process abuses and majoritarian force, which Nydas, Samohyl, I, probably most pro-tag posters here, and up to 40+% of readers/editors, do not recognize as valid, rules-based consensus.

Your position is like saying, 'I stole your fleet of exotic hovercraft vehicles, but I've got the cops in my pocket, and the majority either doesn't care or approves of my lawbreaking because they don't like hovercraft. So, to challenge my theft, you now have the burden of finding other jurisdictions where drivers are allowed to use hovercraft.'

While you don't approve of vehicle theft, you are supporting the equivalent gangster ethic in the abusive removal and suppressed return of spoiler notices. Milo 21:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that this is the most dangerous part of it. If this was _just_ about spoiler warnings, I might not care so much. If I was convinced that consensus was to remove them, I'd feel a pang of regret internally, because I do use them, but I'd be okay with it. The problem is that there's a method being used to artificially suppress them, in the lack of such consensus, and this it is dangerous to Wikipedia itself to allow this. If it becomes feasible for one side to assert their will on all of Wikipedia, not because of consensus but because of a gap in _ability_ to enforce, then that's a problem that people on both sides should address. When one side has metaphorical tanks, and the other just has soldiers, even if the numbers are relatively equal, in a battlefield the tanks will usually win. But Wikipedia is not a battlefield, it's an attempt at consensus building. Whoever has the biggest weapons shouldn't win because of that, and people who are employing them to do so are against the spirit of Wikipedia. Even if the tanks are on your side, you should be against the methods, because the tanks could easily be on the side against you in another issue. Wandering Ghost 12:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that strongly, bring the issue up (AGAIN) on some of the more visible places. The Village Pump, the ML, etc...I dunno, I often find myself wondering where the true consensus lies for various things, and wondering if "consensus = more people who care to revert" (not talking about SWs, but in general). I know some would hate it, but I'd love to see a dedicated discussion, again, toward using them INCLUDING how they compare with other notifications that we DON'T use, which to ME seems to be the same sort of thing. It DOES seem to me that more 'normal' editors want the warnings, percentage wise, compared to admins who want them. I don't know if it's observational bias, but it's what I've seen anyway. But such tilts inevitably are why a lot of people say consensus is where it is. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel exactly the same as Wandering Ghost. And people tried to bring this issue up on more visible places, but it was repeatedly denounced as "venue-shopping" by the opposers. Samohyl Jan 13:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think trying to bring this to a wider audience to get a better idea of consensus on this is a good idea. Tomgreeny 03:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Gee, I thought I was making the fairly obvious point that SW's are currently absent on this site, and if they are to be added, the burden of persuasion is with those who wish to do so. A few folks stepped into the pointless diversion of arguing that the previous removal process was illegitimate. Indeed, it may have been. But complaints were lodged in multiple forums, without success. At this point, you have to get over it. Well, you don't have to, but crying over spilt milk has gotten you nowhere so far, and I don't imagine that will change. Marc Shepherd 04:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is in essence, that this contrived and false claim of consensus is a done-deal, thus placing a burden of adding-anew to those who would merely restore previous features removed abusively. Further understood, your argument is an attempt to defeat bone fide consensus-seeking principle by citing done-deal technicalities, which is impermissable wikilawyering.

You're too young to perceive the normal small increments of change in a minority-rights campaign. Tony is dimly seeing the handwriting on the wall. Phil is playing close to the vest, but I think he's starting to hedge his bets. Personally, I'm satisfied with the millimeter-by-millimeter progress made so far. Only an estimated 6 to 18 more months to go. Milo 08:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No, my argument is, in essence, that however it happened (legitimately or otherwise), the status quo is what it is. All forums for protest have been exhausted, without a favorable result for those complaining. The Democrats can replay the 2000 Presidential election till they're blue in the face, and it may well have been the wrong outcome, but it's over. Time to move on. By the way, Milo, on what basis do you believe you know my age? I bet I'm older than you, and probably by a wide margin. Marc Shepherd 15:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You act like the complaint are about how the spoiler warnings were removed long ago, and yes, that is still considered wrong by a number of people. But the problem being discussed is that they're CONTINUING to be removed, by people who behave like bots, monitoring every usage and deleting them when they come up, rather than striving for consensus. THIS is the problem, and it still needs to be addressed and solved, because any compromise agreement that reflects consensus and has any room for personal judgement will not be a compromise - they will continue behaving as though they've won and delete spoiler tags. This means that people on the pro-warning side will be forced to fight until the wording is even _more_ pro-spoiler than they otherwise might be. Wandering Ghost 12:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many Wikipedians behave as if 1 month is a lifetime. On this site, 6 months is an eternity (a trait of this site that I don't approve of...but it is what it is). The spoiler tags have been gone for about 10 Wikipedia years (though only 5-6 months in human years). I keep telling the pro-SW crowd that they need to come up with a few bright-line rules. The poorly written guideline we have now does not specifically call for spoilers in any particular situation, nor does it give even one real-life example. No wonder the tags keep getting removed. Marc Shepherd 15:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to see any bright line rules that have been at all acceptable to the largely unwilling-to-compromise anti-warning group. A number of options have been suggested: time based, limiting (and requiring them) to what would be considered the 'climax' of a plot summary (and yes, granted, not all fictional work follows an easily discernable rising action-climax format, or whatever you call it, but enough does that it would make a decent starting point, and you could make the rest fall into the judgement-call area). Even 'independent judgement calls' with a guideline against spoiler-patrolling, would be better than the current situations, even if it leads to a wildly inconsistent wikipedia. The alternative is worse.

It seems to me that whenever compromises come up, the anti-warning side digs in its heels, and starts arguing from first principles that spoiler warnings, as a whole, should not be on Wikipedia, until the compromise proposals are forgotten or archived. Again, I suggest that if these people truly feel so strongly and are so against them, they take it up at an admin level to get a firm ruling that they are not allowed. Absent of that, their attitude should be one of compromise to reflect a divided consensus of the issue.

So, again, where's the willingness to compromise? Why is it the pro-warning side who must always come up with compromises that are then batted away by the anti-warning side? Why can't the anti-warning side (as a whole, I do acknowledge that some of you have) come up with compromises where they say, "I don't personally agree with it, but I think it's a good compromise". Wandering Ghost 15:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right that the editors who categorically oppose all SW's will obviously oppose every bright-line rule except for complete elimination. I am addressing myself to those who are willing to accept SW's under some circumstances (including, of course, those who favor them broadly).

Unfortunately, most of the pro-SW editors have been unwilling to suggest any bright-line rule they could live with. I proposed a time-based rule quite a while ago, and it was mostly pro-SW editors who rejected it. I still believe that a time-based rule would put SW's on the vast majority of the articles where they are most desired, while having the virtue of being trivially easy to enforce. Of course, no bright-line rule will handle all situations. But if SW's are ever going to make a comeback, it needs to begin with a guideline that states some clear actual (as opposed to hypothetical) cases in which they are unequivocally required.

Lastly, there is no such thing as an "admin ruling that they are not allowed." Admins don't have the authority to make that type of ruling. The issue of SW's is simply one of many content disputes that need to be resolved by the (highly flawed) consensus process. Marc Shepherd 15:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The guideline already contains a statement that spoilers warnings may be acceptable on murder mysteries. That's a rule. But I don't believe that this will ever be tolerable for the spoiler police. To get a spoiler warning to stick on a murder mystery would take weeks of edit-warring and discussion.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Something that says may be (as the current guideline does) is not a rule. What we need is an actual real-life example, not a hypothetical. Marc Shepherd 14:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Very well, let's simply change may be to should be. Wandering Ghost 12:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The tone should be that warnings are permitted it such situation with deference given to local consensus. It should not be a requirement, then the guideline becomes prescriptive instead of descriptive. --Farix (Talk) 12:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but I thought the general tone of the policy discussion was to be _against_ local consensus and _for_ bright line guidelines where spoilers should be and should not be. If we're going to embrace local consensus, by all means, let's do something and draft something which suggests that anybody editing solely to remove or add spoiler warnings is doing something wrong, and decisions should be left to local consensus. If we want the dialog to be descriptive instead of prescriptive, let us also suggest that the place to put spoiler warnings is indeed over the whole plot section, because that seems to be what the majority of editors do. Only a small minority of editors remove spoilers globally. In fact, if we want the spoiler policy to be descriptive, then there really should be no guidelines _against_ adding spoilers at all either, because really, it's every man for himself in there. Sure, a group of people have decided to go and cleanse spoilers, but again, many more are adding them on individual pages they read, or there wouldn't be so much work to do. TheFarix, would you care to support an edit to remove the prescriptive guidelines that suggest where spoilers should not go?

Silly me, I thought we were trying to build a compromise. That was certainly what Marc seemed to be proposing, and I hope he backs up my original edits to the guideline in that spirit. But when a compromise is attempted, a few people on the spoiler patrol seem to insist we should not be talking about what it should be, but what the situation is now, and thus, editing might makes right. And odd, when the spoiler policy was descriptive in that it allowed spoiler warnings anywhere for any reason, which reflected the actual use, suddenly the anti-warning people wanted it to be _prescriptive_ again. Could you please make up your minds? Wandering Ghost 14:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Asking the larger community?

When an issue as apparently contentious as the spoiler one arises, how does someone go about getting input from the many many editors across the entirety of the English wikipedia?

It really doesn't seem like this decision should be left in the hands a tiny tiny fraction of the wikipedia editorship. --204.100.182.175 22:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment and Template:Announcements/Community bulletin board. Either one of those forums (clearly one likely to draw an audience much wider than the other) will open the issue to wider scrutiny. There are also particular places to discuss particular issues, of course, but they occasionally suffer the same disadvantage you've just pointed out. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 22:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue has been elevated to the broader community on more than one occasion. It would make sense to do so again once there is a new guideline draft; otherwise, we would probably just get the same input we've had in the past. Marc Shepherd 22:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It definitely isn't a bad idea to engage the whole community at all times in policy matters. --Tony Sidaway 23:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not have the pro-spoiler and anti-spoiler groups each develop their own replacement for WP:SPOIL, as well as a well written argument for why they are right? Then we can present both sides to the community-at-large and see what they think :) --71.165.132.200 07:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That would mean to vote between two positions, which does not reflect the general consensus-building principles of Wikipedia. Kusma (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The above proposal does not violate any principle of Wikipedia. In fact, it's a damned good idea. It would be nice, for a change, to see a new proposed guideline, rather than just taking pot-shots at the old one. Most Wikipedia decisions are, in fact, made through a process resembling voting — in essence, "votes with reasons" — which is what the anon. editor was suggesting. Marc Shepherd 13:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

We've already been through the process of a redrafting of the guideline. The current version is not the one introduced in early June. I agree with Kusma that creating two more versions of the guideline would be very destructive to the consensus-building process. The current guideline has consensus at present. --Tony Sidaway 04:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Tony and Kusma, but this is totalitarian language ("destructive to consensus-building"). If the current guideline really has consensus (which I understand as a support by super-majority), there should be no problem to put this to a test. Samohyl Jan 10:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure why it's a bad thing, outside of the fact that very likely everything will just be restated, AGAIN. I said before, this NEEDS to be discussed by the majority of people who read and edit...and care, or else we WILL just keep going in circles. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is a continuous process. If someone wants to propose a new guideline that they believe would be better than the one we now have, I welcome it. Kusma, in fact, has already made such a proposal (here), which represents the anti-SW position. Marc Shepherd 14:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The current guideline was formed by consensual discussion rather than partisan efforts. An avowedly "pro-" or "con-" guideline is unlikely to achieve more consensus. --Tony Sidaway 17:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensual? I remember someone running through a hundred thousand articles removing spoilers with the criteria "nobody is opposing me, so it is right". -- ReyBrujo 17:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You're changing the subject. The topic I am discussing here is the current version of the guideline[31], which was drafted, with wide consensus Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler/archive10#Pending_new_draft, by someone who has (so far) escaped being accused of being a wild-eyed spoiler tag deletionist. --Tony Sidaway 18:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist notice

How about a watchlist notice about spoiler tags for a couple of days, just to settle this question once and for all?--Nydas^(Talk) 23:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Now there's good idea. Sunshine is a good disinfectant. Milo 23:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've suggested it before and think it's a good idea. I dunno if TPTB will go for it though. If you know where to ask, go for it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 00:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It has been on Template:Cent before, usually our central point for community discussion (stuff like the Main page redesign or the speedy criteria were announced there and not on the watchlist). It has also been covered by the Wikipedia Signpost. The last poll announced on the Watchlist ended as a strong no consensus, and did nothing to "settle the issue once and for all". People are still edit warring over the interpretation of the results. Unless such a poll is conducted in a very professional manner and with universal consensus on how to treat the results (something that is not very likely in a non-democracy with no binding decisions) it is most likely going to be a massive waste of time. Kusma (talk) 10:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how Nydas's proposal would work, mechanically. I'm also not sure what it would accomplish. Most SW's added are one-offs, but the removals are systematic. After a two-day waiting period, the outcome would most likely be the same. Marc Shepherd 13:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've not suggested a poll, just a notice. I believe that spoiler warnings have overwhelming support amongst ordinary Wikipedians, whilst the anti-spoiler warning faction claims otherwise. Surely it would not hurt it to put it to the test? There was a note on the tag itself, but this was only in place for a short while and was only added after the removal campaign started in earnest.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose that, but it seems this has been asked on numerous occasions, without ever producing the "overwhelming support" that you claim. The current TfD discussion is attracting about equal "support" for keep and delete—nothing overwhelming, by any means.

Now, the interesting thing about the TfD discussion is that the "Keep" side has an enormous advantage. Here's why: Most Wikipedians don't routinely follow a deletion discussion unless they hear about it somehow. The most likely way they'll hear about it is if they see {{spoiler}} on a page. But {{spoiler}} isn't on very many pages, since the "spoiler police" usually delete it on sight.

So the people most likely to be aware of the deletion discussion are those who are placing spoiler tags, and who presumably are in favor of keeping the template around. Anyone who has placed a spoiler tag in the last week would be aware that it is up for deletion, and you'd expect most of them to vote "keep". But despite that, "Keep" is not overwhelmingly "winning" the deletion discussion.

The most likely case is that the vast majority of Wikipedians either don't care, or are perfectly happy with the status quo. But if you want to once again canvass the community, be my guest. Marc Shepherd 22:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The overwhelming support is evident from: (a) The enormous disparity between the tens of thousands of people who have added a spoiler tag versus the tiny number removing them. (b) The previous efforts to delete the spoiler tag (conducted in an open and straighforward manner) showed a 2:1 ratio in favour of a keep. Hence the need for the anti-spoiler admins to adopt secretive, anti-consensus measures.

As has been noted, the anti-spoiler people are obsessive; they're certainly going to hear about it. That they haven't managed to stuff the ballot enough to get rid of the template is surprising.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess you have a lower standard for "overwhelming" than I do. There are probably a lot of people who've added a spoiler tag once. But there are a lot of things that people do once (or more than once) without improving the encyclopedia. About 6% of all edits are vandalism, which is far more than the number of edits involving spoiler tags. You wouldn't say there's overhwelming support for vandalism, just because a lot of people pop in and do it.

In general, since anyone can edit Wikipedia, there's a very large number of low-value (or no-value) edits. This includes vandalism, POV-pushes, dubious facts, patent nonsense, vanity pages, non-notable material, copyright violations, bad writing, manual-of-style violations, fancruft, and so forth. That's the price we pay for offering a site that anyone can edit.

I'd venture to guess that the aforementioned low-value/zero-value edit categories vastly outnumber the spoiler tags placed on any given day. The fact that something gets done a lot doesn't really prove very much. The number of regular editors who show a sustained interest in adding spoiler warnings is not that high. You can basically count them up on the edit history of this page. Marc Shepherd 23:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite for {{current fiction}}

Since the spoiler template is gone, I've rewritten it to smoothly cover the bits that were about {{current fiction}}. Hack away. (If the spoiler template is resurrected, we can revert to the last spoileriffic version.) - David Gerard 00:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been a long while since I looked at this talk page.. but what the heck? You guys just retitled the spoiler template and made it bigger? ... Has anything actually changed? -- Ned Scott 01:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite. Tphi 01:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. The current fiction template is only for...current fiction. ANd it goes on tops of pages, not in the middle. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Two things need to be done somewhat quickly if this is to be the desired outcome. First, we need to completely bot-scrub the spoiler template, as its use on talk pages just rendered a ton of talk pages very ugly and unfortunate due to this redirect. Second, we need to think seriously about when "current fiction" sunsets so that we avoid absurd situations where, for example, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is tagged as current fiction. While I am loathe to create a time-based rule here, the implication of "current" does necessitate some serious consideration of sunsetting. I would tentatively suggest that, at least, a film is no longer current when it has served out its initial release in major English-speaking markets. Other media? This is, perhaps, something we need to farm out to individual WikiProjects? Actually, that seems ideal to me - let individual WikiProjects decide what their standards for currency are, and refer people to WikiProjects from this page. Phil Sandifer 02:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should scrub the spoiler tags before the current DRV on Template:Spoiler is resolved. Although at the current rate it might end up being closed as an endorse deletion per WP:SNOW, it may be an idea to wait first, otherwise it just suits the ASWs to retore the tag but not have it used at all. L337 kybldmstr 03:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, right now the tag is deleted. The DRV means someone is proposing to change that fact, but right now the tag is deleted, and, as David said, we can always revert back the changes if the tag somehow and improbably gets restored. Phil Sandifer 03:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, cool. Well, as for the CF sunset, I think it should be somewhere around 3-6 months. It can't be too long otherwise we get old works being tagged, and it can't be too short either or else, the obvious. L337 kybldmstr 03:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm OK with that, but I do tend to think that localized consensuses are preferable to broad ones in cases like this. This is a particular issue for things like anime and manga, where translation and varying releases can have a very strange sense of what is "current." Hence the "delegate to WikiProjects" idea. (Also important because, by any numerical standard, every article on a popular comics superhero would always carry the tag. I imagine that, in practice, WikiProject Comics would simply decline to use the tag at all. This seems optimal.) Phil Sandifer 03:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's a trivial matter to tailor what a template displays according to the namespace in which it is deployed. All that really matters, however, is what happens at article level. Editors who find the current text inconvenient will simply remove it and replace it with more appropriate text. The tag was not really intended for talk pages and the like in any case. --Tony Sidaway 06:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted all those edits to the last version by Pytom and replaced all instances of {{spoiler}} with {{current ficton}}. --Pixelface 07:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The current version of the page makes no sense at all. A complete rewrite is in order. Kusma (talk) 08:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The guideline was gutted by editors being bold. I'll admit that my revision based on the last version by Pytom with all instances of {{spoiler}} replaced with {{current ficton}} was lacking. I suppose we could edit then discuss, if that's what editors are doing now, instead of proposals that have consensus being added to the article. --Pixelface 08:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Kusma, you changed:

Citations from reliable sources that use spoiler warnings are acceptable in articles.

to

Citations from reliable sources are acceptable in articles whether these sources use spoiler warnings or not.

Perhaps my edit was unclear. I meant that editors are free to cite reliable sources that use spoiler warnings and mention that the source used a spoiler warning. I realize we also accept reliable sources that do not use spoiler warnings. Are you suggesting that reliable sources that do not use spoiler warnings can be cited for what they do not say? --Pixelface 11:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The important question is not whether a source used a spoiler warning, but whether that fact is germane to the article. We are writing an encyclopedia, not building an index of external spoiler warnings. Marc Shepherd 13:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

We may not be building an index of external spoiler warnings, but we are allowed to cite reliable sources for interpretation. Spoiler warnings are an interpretation of a fictional work — the interpretation that knowing certain information beforehand would affect your enjoyment of that work. Any interpretation should cite secondary sources to show that an editor is not performing original research. Are you deeming an entire class of citations invalid simply because you don't agree with what they say? When a secondary source uses a spoiler warning, that doesn't mean it's a fact. It means the spoiler warning is verifiable, like a rating of "4 stars" or "1 star" is verifiable. The criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. You don't have to agree with what a reliable source says. A citation means someone else said that (preferably a reliable source). You don't have to change your personal feelings to match what they said. And I'm getting tired of the "this is an encyclopedia" line. Yeah, okay. What's your point? What is it about the word "encyclopedia" that means spoilers must be present? Wikipedia is on the Internet. Spoiler warnings have been considered good netiquette for years. If you want to talk about print encyclopedias, when Jimmy Wales saw his first World Book in 1969 when he was 2 or 3 years old[32], I'm sure it did not contain a detailed retelling of Citizen Kane. If you want to talk about electronic encyclopedias, here's an article on The Sixth Sense at Encarta. I don't see a spoiler warning. However, I do see an 83-word plot summary that would in no way necessitate a spoiler warning. Encyclopædia Britannica Online apparently doesn't have an article on The Sixth Sense. So you have to admit that Wikipedia is rather unique among encyclopedias due to the real-time nature of information dissemination. And excluding reliable sources simply because you personally don't like them is biased. It's like saying an article about your favorite film cannot mention any negative reviews because you think they're wrong. --Pixelface 00:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Pixelface, your comment reflects a fundamental misunderstanding. It's true that any fact or opinion in a Wikipedia article must be backed by verifiable sources. But that does not mean that every such fact is relevant. Even properly cited remarks are sometimes deleted because they have very little to do with the subject matter, or are given undue weight, or because the point has already been made in another way.

Where narrative surprise is an important element in the reception history of a work of fiction, it would naturally be important for the article to say so. For instance, The Empire Strikes Back mentions (with cited sources) the efforts during production to ensure the surprise ending was kept a secret. The revelation that Vader is Luke's father is one of the iconic moments in cinema history, and the article (which has FA status) covers it appropriately.

The general question of whether our articles should contain spoiler warnings, merely for the purpose of protecting tender eyes that would rather not have the surprise given away, is something entirely different. But if such warnings should be present, the vast majority of them would be dependent on editor opinion for their placement—as was almost invariably the case before {{spoiler}} was deleted. There are very few works for which the placement of the spoiler tag can be backed up with a cited external source. Marc Shepherd 01:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no policy on relevance, only a guideline on notability. The guideline on notability applies to the topics of articles, it does not limit article content. If a notable film critic reviews a film and uses a spoiler warning and the review is published in a reliable source, they can be cited in an article. It's as simple as that. If you want to talk about undue weight, you're going to have to cite secondary sources that reveal spoilers. This is not about "protecting tender eyes", it's about citations in reliable sources. My personal opinion has no place in articles. Your personal opinion has no place in articles. If a reliable source says something, it doesn't matter what your personal opinion is. Editors collate previously published information. If several critics hold the interpretation that foreknowledge of a film's events affect the first experience of watching that film, you are personally in no position to contradict that. Editors cannot put their own interpretation into articles, that is against the policy on no original research. The interpretation that a plot description should be preceded by a spoiler warning is useful when presented before the plot description. If editors working on an article decide that a statement about the plot doesn't belong in the plot section, fine. I really don't think you need to worry about how many external sources use spoiler warnings. The burden of evidence is on the person who makes the claim, and there are plenty of reviews[33][34] for other editors to look at. Do you know why that moment in The Empire Strikes Back is iconic? Because it was a surprise. Because everybody seeing the film didn't know it was going to happen. Forcing every Wikipedia reader to read the surprise completely dismantles what the author created. --03:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's what you want to say. I don't see why this should be written in the guideline. If it is important to talk about spoilers in reviews (for example, see Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows#Spoiler_embargo) of course it makes sense to write about it. In general, I don't think it is relevant enough for every article whether a single reviewer does or does not spoil the plot or does or does not use a warning. That should only be included if the spoiling (or non-spoiling) leads to a notable debate that can be covered in our article. Really, I don't see a need to say anything general in this guideline. Kusma (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no policy on importance, or relevance. If a reliable source uses a spoiler warning, or if multiple reliable sources use spoiler warnings, editors should be able to cite them in articles. If you personally don't like what they say, you have no right to remove those citations from an article. I don't think there has to be a "spoiler embargo" on a fictional work for us to be able to mention and cite sources that use spoiler warnings. The fact that there was an actual "spoiler embargo" lends support to spoiler warnings. The guideline should mention citations and it should have from day one. --Pixelface 01:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Pixelface, editors delete material from articles all the time, even when cited; see WP:NOT#INFO. I have to wonder if you took any kind of systematic look at the usage of spoiler tags before the template was deleted. There was practically never any citation for them. But even where such citations can be found, the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to inform readers about the subject matter, not (as in a classic spoiler warning) to help readers avoid being informed. Marc Shepherd 01:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That's funny you mention WP:NOT#INFO because it says "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot." Citing interpretations by film critics that certain information may ruin a film is sourced analysis. Maybe the {{spoiler}} tag was in articles it didn't belong in, but having no citation was not the reason editors removed the tag. They removed it because it was "silly", "obvious", "redundant", "insulting", "censorship", etc. Those are personal opinions and have nothing to do with sources. I suppose it's good that unsourced spoiler warnings were removed, so now we can focus on citations — which this guideline should have focused on from day one. --Pixelface 05:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Pixelface, while I applaud being bold in general, I absolutely do not agree with some of the changes you made. As a guideline, this page requires a level of consensus before changes of any substance can be made, let alone the sweeping rewrite you did. Furthermore, you then proceeded to spam the template across video game and movie articles, several of which do not qualify as recent.

Suffice to say, I've reverted your changes to these guidelines as well. I encourage you to continue working on these guidelines but ask that you please be more careful about consensus in the future. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 12:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If changes do not reflect consensus, why don't you revert it back to this revision? David Gerard, L337 kybldmstr, Phil Sandifer, Tony Sidaway, and Kusma didn't come to a consensus on this talk page regarding their changes to the guideline before completely changing the guideline. I've already discussed the reason for tagging the articles I did on your talk page. You reverted this guideline to a version that advocates the {{current fiction}} tag, so I really don't understand where you're coming from. --Pixelface 13:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The earlier guideline clearly had to be changed, since it referred to a template that no longer existed. In your most recent edits, you are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Marc Shepherd 13:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The consensus needed for the version of the guidelines I reverted to is found here. Community consensus determined that the {{spoiler}} template should be deleted in favor of the {{Current fiction}} template, and so my reversion was to reflect that level of consensus, which calls for the latter over the former. While I may not agree with this consensus (and may in fact seek to change it at some point), my disagreement with your usage of the template doesn't mean I won't respect the voice of the community. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 01:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This guideline is about spoiler warnings. If a template is deleted, that doesn't mean the guideline has to be completely rewritten. This guideline does not exist to document how a specific template should be used, that is what the template documentation is for. I agree that the guideline needed to be changed, I think this revision was fine, but it was changed by Kusma and jonny-mt. I have not disrupted Wikipedia to make a point. What edits of mine are you referring to? Are you talking about tagging articles about recently released fictional works? The closing admin in the TFD said that the {{current fiction}} template is the better template. The admin said there was consensus for that template. So I followed what the admin said and tagged recently released fictional works like editors are supposed to. --Pixelface 01:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You are correct about the fact that the guideline does not have to be fundamentally rewritten--while my understanding based on this talk page is that the rewrites were done to reflect that the {{spoiler}} template is no longer in existence, a closer examination of the edit history (diff between just before the closure of the TfD and just before the series of changes by Pixelhead) reveals that this is not the case, and I may do some further reversions to add that old information back in. However, that does not change the fact that you then took it to the next step and made further major changes to the guidelines without examining consensus first.

As for WP:POINT, as I mentioned on your talk page the documentation there provided little to no information as to how the template should be used--in fact, one of the only stipulations of the documentation at the time you were doing your taggings was that it does not belong on every work of fiction. I agree with you that discussions about the usage of the template belong over there, but the template is mentioned here in connection with enforcement of the guidelines just like the {{WPBiography}} template is mentioned in WP:BLP. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 02:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've checked out the history (diff between pre-{{spoiler}} deletion and current version here), and it seems that the deleted text did indeed revolve around the use of the {{spoiler}} template, which means it is supported by consensus as noted above. I think some of the information in there is useful and should be re-adapted for the documentation of the {{Current fiction}} template, but I see no reason to revert back to it right now. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 02:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If the template no longer exists, because, once again, THERE IS NO CONSENSUS TO DISALLOW SPOILER WARNINGS, the most appropriate response is to include the means to mark spoilers in-text, not to suggest they're forbidden on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if the template is gone if consensus doesn't exist to forbid warning. We should make provisions for hand-made spoiler tags to be allowed, or for use of subheadings as spoiler warnings. Wandering Ghost 18:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to note that anybody who looks at the past six months and thinks that this is a remotely good idea will be blocked so fast their head will spin. Phil Sandifer 19:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you threatening to block editors who provide citatons to reliable sources that use spoiler warnings? Can you tell us why an entire group of citations should be excluded because you personally don't like what they say? --Pixelface 01:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless said edits are in the form of "According to Roger Ebert, X is a spoiler" they violate NPOV. Phil Sandifer 03:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

So this is acceptable in your opinion? I would like to propose some changes to this guideline to get some input. I've started a new section called Proposed addition to the guideline regarding citations below. --Pixelface 08:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the threat. It seems to be in keeping with what I've seen of you so far, so it's nice to have opinions confirmed. Now we can be threatened with blocking for thinking it's a good idea to have spoiler warnings in-text. Where exactly do I sign up for my time in the ministry of love? Please, by all means, block me for thinking that such is a good idea. And please point out where in WP policy there's anything against a home-made spoiler warning or using a section break as a spoiler warning.

And in any event, I've seen no evidence or even good arguments that spoiler warnings do violate NPOV, because a point of view is not being advanced. Nor do they violate NOR or V. Any more than saying a character in a movie is a killer, or a conracter, or an American is. All that matters is that we have a definition of what a killer, contracter, American, or a spoiler is, and then when that occurs in a work of fiction, we are free to point it out, using the primary source. -- Wandering Ghost (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ghost, I realize you're trying to get the deletion overturned, and if you're successful, what I'm about to write will be irrelevant. But assuming the deletion is sustained, no rational person could interpret it as an invitation to add home-brew spoiler warnings. Marc Shepherd 19:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains that the template deletion is a _template_ deletion. It does not necessarily suggest that it believes spoiler warnings as a whole should be banned, especially a) there were MORE KEEP votes than DELETE votes on the template, by my count (and yet still, an ANTI-WARNING editor closed it, and declared the result was delete), and since a number of the no votes were votes solely on the basis that the _template_ was _not_ being used, silent on whether they _should_ be used.

As such, the question of spoiler warnings within articles, is still an open one. You cannot claim victory on that.

Dishonest tactics were used to delete the spoiler template, as they've been used _throughout_ the spoiler debate by many on the anti-spoiler-warning side. Most people didn't engage in it, but enough did, and enough probably noticed and shamefully didn't speak out against it because they disliked spoiler warnings and were happy to see the results go their way. I may not be able to stop the subverting of consensus, but I'll still make sure it's not easy for you, and that you have to fight every step of the way. There is still no consensus that spoiler warnings, in-article, are inappropriate. As such, the fight continuse as to where and how to place such warnings. Feel free to offer proposals that fit in with compromise, unless you wish to be one of those who shamefully ignores consensus because doing so helps your own side.-- Wandering Ghost (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been two months since you last contributed to the mainspace. Why don't you go do that instead of fighting this debate further? -- Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Because I happen to believe that abuse of process in an organization I'm involved in is important to stand up against, speak out against, and fight against. I know, it's a crazy thing to believe in. Along with "the ends don't justify the means". Or "why not try answering the issues raised rather than diverting somebody". I would have thought that these ideas would not be so rare on Wiki, but consider the lesson learned. Incidentally, I have been contributing some, just usually from my other terminal where I don't bother to log in. However, it's true that my contributions have decreased sharply since I've seen, first hand, how wikipedia's principles can be corrupted and abused. So I'll continue here in the hope of finding like minded people on the other side who are reasonable enough to say "Yes, I may disagree with spoiler warnings, but we still have to follow the rules and the spirit of the rules". And if I find I'm truly as much a minority in the basic principles as I feel in this debate, I'll likely retire from any large scale editing (and of course, any hope I might have had of donating).

As to yourself, I have to ask, since you clearly do not like the idea of consensus, why don't you attempt to get a job editing a more conventional encyclopedia? I'm sure you have some editing skill and it would seem to cater more to your philosophical point of view. Wandering Ghost (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)