Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/Archive 2

Temporary spoilers
Setting a time limit is ridiculous. Not only are there going to be lots of opinions on what constitutes the right length of time, but also who wants to go back later and remove them after x weeks have expired? Clarityfiend 21:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Word up on thay, yo. Snape kills Dumbledore: spread like wildfire in a matter of weeks, if not days. The Mousetrap: From 1952, and now somewhat famous over how few have had it spoiled. --Kizor 21:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I notice that User:Hipocrite is systematically removing spoiler warnings from any article mentioned on this page. Seems a pretty petty and vindictive attitude... PaddyLeahy 22:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems to me like implementing "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" - David Gerard 23:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly speaking, I expected more from you than what comes across as condescending smugness. Well, it does. --Kizor 23:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Edits that even the presence of this template encourage that are cause for its destruction
Add your own examples!

And the tens of thousands of non-extreme instances that do not cause trouble and are not controversial? Does this have much of a point other than ridiculing the other side? --Kizor 23:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The Passion of the Christ:  - David Gerard 22:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Three Little Pigs:  - David Gerard 22:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Hamlet:  - David Gerard 22:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Sleeping Beauty  - David Gerard 22:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) The Passion of the Christ (again):  Read the edit summery and you see why I'm posting this again --Farix (Talk) 23:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) The Mystery of Edwin Drood, maybe? -- llywrch 23:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Sunset Boulevard (1950 film) --Docg 00:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Mary Poppins (film) --Docg 00:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) The Mousetrap Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Casey at the Bat - Eclecticology 17:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) King Kong (1933 film) - Eclecticology 17:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) John Wayne in the list of the ways he died in his films. Eclecticology 17:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is evidence that this template is direct incitement to bad and ridiculous editing, per the original nomination way up there on the page - David Gerard 23:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The proper response to an abused rule is not to get rid of the rule. And while these examples are ridiculous, limiting spoiler warnings to 2 months gets rid of a *lot* more than the ridiculous examples.  It's what I was saying before--opponents of the rule keep picking ridiculous examples to justify the need for a change--but the change they want encompasses much, much, much, more.


 * I would be in favor of a spoilers rule that *only* got rid of the above ridiculous examples and others like them. But I know very well we're not going to be seeing that.  The examples are Hamlet and Passion of the Christ, but the rule's going to be used against Valen.


 * (And I don't want to see a "compromise" that uses 6 months instead of 2, either. It's easy to game the system by proposing a length of time even shorter than you want and "compromising" on the length.) Ken Arromdee 00:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why a set length of time is bad. Instead, we should accept the fact that Wikipedia has spoilers and eliminate the need to use a warning at all. Axem Titanium 01:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why a set length of time is bad. Instead, we should accept the fact that Wikipedia is useful for both those seeking non-spoiler information and those seeking spoiler information, and leave the warnings in. --Kizor 01:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The spoiler warning is an artifact of the internet and do not exist outside of it. Those who seek information from an off-line encyclopedia would not have the benefit of a spoiler warning, so why should Wikipedia have spoiler warnings? --Farix (Talk) 01:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ...You're really saying that since readers of other works don't gain this benefit, those who read our work shouldn't gain it either? --Kizor 01:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Readers would also benefit from OTHER disclaimer templates, why don't we have those? Not to mention, they'd benefit from phonebooks listings, price comparison charts, pictures of living people, music samples on every album page, and external links to fansites... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 02:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are false analogies, as you know. There are reasons against all of them that are not an issue here. --Kizor 20:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's obviously not a benefit if readers are insulted by it and it also prevents proper coverage of material. Wikipedia should not cater to the minority who don't consider Wikipedia an encyclopedia and wouldn't expect spoilers. Axem Titanium 01:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, those are extreme examples, and clearly should never have had spoiler warnings. This wasn't what we had in mind for spoiler warnings. Most spoiler warnings don't insult a reader's intelligence, and they don't prevent anything. Spoiler warnings were thought to be helpful for those who were clicking on links from search results for recent and popular TV shows and movies, and has nothing to do with how people consider Wikipedia. Keep in mind, I'm leaning towards removing them all, but it was never "wrong" or stupid to have spoiler warnings. So stop trying to play it off as some massively bad thing, when really it's just a tool we no longer need. -- Ned Scott 02:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * At any rate, it feels just a little POINT-y to be listing ridiculous uses of the spoiler warning here. Just a little. Axem Titanium 02:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Endspoliler
Can we at least agree that undefined should be deleted? I see no purpose in that template at all. The Placebo Effect 02:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That'd be far too easy, now would it? I think it's the best thing since sliced bread. There are many more spoiler-free areas than just the lead sections. Take the Heroes article, for instance: At present, it's well-organized and structured for those who are familiar with it, yet those who aren't can avoid plot revelations to read all relevant data. Without endspoiler, if I was unfamiliar with the series, I could only learn the basic premise. With it, I could also learn about its reception in detail, the surrounding creative use of new media, stuff about the filming and controversies, and when my national TV network will start showing it. --02:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How, exactly, did I manage to leave that signature? --Kizor 02:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Five tildes. --Random832 <- three. five -> 02:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. --Kizor 03:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Advice
I've given this a lot of thought (well, not all at once, but over time), and I think the solution is.. Remove the spoiler warnings, but stop insulting the people who supported them. It wasn't such a bad idea, not at all, and it's not our fault that someone put a spoiler warning on some classic like Hamlet. It made sense at the time, so have some respect for our logic and reasoning. Maybe because Wikipedia is more well known now, maybe because we have stronger guidelines for fiction now, maybe because Wikipedia is maturing, whatever the reason, we have it, and those are strong enough reasons alone, without having to insult the other side.

Even if you really think these things, just bite your tongue for a while and you'll find that pro-spoiler warning people will be a lot more accepting of the removal. It also wouldn't hurt to help phase things out, instead of going cold-turkey, simply because people react harshly to drastic change in something they're accustom to. Look at the reactions to when templates were just blanked, or when people wanted a fast conclusion.

When this whole debate thing started I instantly felt like I went into "defense mode", which was wrong for me to do, but not surprising given the situation. It really made me think about why this whole thing seems more like a battle than a discussion. Lets try to not trigger each other's defense modes, it will make the process a lot smoother. -- Ned Scott 03:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And that goes for the pro-spoiler warning people too. Don't insult the people who want to remove the warnings. If you want to keep them, focus on your core reasons and don't make low-blows. And I apologies for my own low-blows and bad calls. -- Ned Scott 03:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There are warning-opponents that act disruptively throughout the discussion. I don't consider calling them out a "low-blow". --87.189.99.112

Usability and the vast horde of non-editors who read Wikipedia
Fascinating comments. I never knew before that I am but among "children" rather than adults. My intelligence is also apparently very low, because I prefer spoiler warnings which apparently are somehow an insult to the average reader's smarts.

Anyway. I will not try and argue the main point, as others have detailed the reasons as to why some people prefer spoiler warnings rather thoroughly, and detractors have also detailed why they don't like spoiler warnings. Fine. Both sides have some points, and we know that some people like them, and others don't. So which side to choose?

This is ultimately a matter of personal preference. Wikipedia is not an idealization; it was meant to be used so the preferences of the users should be taken into account. That's the point, right? To be read by someone? Now, if spoilers are compromising Wikipedia's editorial style and policy in other ways, then obviously let those guidelines win. No one is supporting torturing an article's structure to separate spoilers out, and where that has occurred, it should rightly be combined (and perhaps stick a spoilers tag on top of it all). Therefore, any discussion on these lines is a red herring; the pro-spoilers crowd is not, in general, standing by this.

Also, while I think it's quite a minor issue, removing the spoiler tag from under sections labeled "plot" is generally perfectly sensible, but only for the reason that it's a wasted line. It's the kind of fine tuning that should go into good and featured articles, but hardly worthy of seismic policy shift. Same with Shakespeare and so on. If it's older than 50 years, the statute of limitations has probably expired. No heated arguments here, either.

That leaves sheer personal preference. This is a case where a popularity contest is perfectly reasonable, because this isn't a matter where there is a universal "right" answer that can be reached via debate. Now, I believe that the last RFC is instructive on this. First of all, spoiler warnings were kept by a sizable consensus. Secondly, those against spoiler warnings were mostly "hardcore" editors. There were a fair number of experienced editors in the pro-spoiler camp, too (I'd estimate they split maybe 50/50?), but the casual editors who happened across the debate were overwhelmingly in favor of spoiler warnings. Also, though it's hard to tell, I've seen enough spoiler tags added by IPs (or even fakey not-using-the-tag spoiler warnings) for me to think that the non-editors like spoiler warnings too. Almost every time I've seen a spoiler tag removed (just the spoiler- ignoring blanking vandalism, obviously), it's been by established hardcore editors. I suspect that most non-editors who have no idea this discussion is even taking place would be either pro-spoiler warnings, or simply couldn't care less.

How about impact? Maybe if one side felt really strongly, that could swing things away from a "guess the majority" type issue. However, this favors spoiler warnings as well. I challenge anyone against spoiler warnings to call them any worse than "annoying." They're an extra line- ugh, maybe, but big deal. However, I can say outright that if spoiler warnings were removed, I would not be willing to use Wikipedia for most media I haven't experienced, at least beyond the lead paragraph. Others would probably still use it, but may get actively annoyed at having something spoiled and come off with a bad experience from Wikipedia.

So. If you are the type who doesn't care about spoilers, congratulations. Have a gold sticker. Really, I envy you. However, one of the good things to come out of the previous RFC was the ability to turn spoiler warnings off. Do so! Just turn 'em off! Voila, problem solved! If my hypothesis about most people detesting spoiler warnings being hardcore users is true, then anti-warning editors are unusually likely to possess the skill and inclination to do this. However, for the herd of us poor fools who do have our enjoyment "spoiled" by too much information, could you please humor us and let us have it? SnowFire 05:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ironic
I haven't contributed to the main discussion, and I don't plan to. I don't really have a solid decision either way yet, but I have noticed something ironic:

When this discussion started, nearly everyone voted to delete the spoiler tags. Things were going pretty solidly in the direction of deleting them. ..

Then, some people got excited over their consensus and got trigger-happy. They started deleting templates all over wikipedia, triggering edit wars and pointing users to the "consensus" on this page for support of their actions.

Promptly, the "consensus" (although that's hardly what it is, still) began to sway notably to to "keep" end. By getting trigger-happy and rushing to implement their new desire, these editors actually invited spoiler-tag fans to add to the discussion. Very ironic. It's like inviting the opposing candidate's voters to the polls.

Moral of the story: Sit tight and wait sometimes. Don't get trigger-happy. After all, guns backfire. Wrad 07:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the consensus is with the keep people - considering they were outnumbered 43 to 23. daniel  folsom  11:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wishful thinking. Wrad is one of the helpful souls who's been putting spoilers back on Shakespeare, no doubt for the purpose of vastly improving our coverage of Shakespeare - David Gerard 12:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF. AndyJones 13:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:WOTTA - David Gerard 14:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As someone undecided, condescending comments like David Gerard's make me want to support spoilers. Also ironic. TK421 14:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how it's in any way a good faith act to wait untill a page has false consensus to impliment it. If the only reason that people don't object to the policy change is that they don't know about it, that's not consensus, it's steamrolling. I know that some of the supporters of spoilers might want to steamroll, but that's not wiki. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 12:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are using disruptive methods to achieve your aims with no regard WP policies throughout the discussion. Stop claiming that you are the one steamrolled. --87.189.99.112


 * There was only a false consensus in favor of deleting them. Only the most truly dedicated editors visit MFD - which is fine, normally.  However, for issues in which casual editors have differing opinions, XfD can lead to the "wrong" result.  When this is because casual IPs aren't familiar with notability policies at AFD, this is okay, but that is not on the table here.


 * If we really want to find out what people think, then while TFD is the wrong forum, a TFD-style comment should be added to the spoiler warning again directing people to the RFC. We may find out what most people actually think. SnowFire 12:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The tags once removed tend to remain so, and the content of the article isn't harmed at all. It's quite clear that, despite a small number of people who think removing spoiler tags is wrong, there is a very strong consensus for their removal. --Tony Sidaway 17:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, there isn't, from actual editors of Wikipedia. This is not necessarily the same thing as "people who have noticed this discussion."  Example: Nacirema (warning, spoilers, etc.).  There was previously a spoiler warning in the lead (!!) despite spoilers basically being unavoidable for this topic.  I removed the warning.  It was quickly put back, and if you examine the talk page, you'll see a consensus from no less than three very low-contribution count editors in favor of the spoiler warning.  Now.  I still don't see much point to the warning in that article, but if there's a strong consensus by most Wikipedians in a case where a warning probably isn't appropriate, what do you think the consensus is in cases where a warning has some justification?


 * If there's such a strong consensus for removal, let's find out. Let's put the TFD-style message back on the Spoilers template with "The status of spoiler warnings is currently being discussed; see this debate," linking to this page.  Not quite as dramatic as the whole attribution policy deal, but we'll see where the actual consensus lies.  Wikipedia is viewed by many many more people than the tiny minority posting here. SnowFire 17:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would support this, though I'm way too opinionated on it to make the change myself - if you can convince any other admin to, go for it IMO - David Gerard 19:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sidaway, you are using disruptive methods to achieve your aims with no regard WP policies throughout the discussion. Stop lying by claiming that any kind of consensus for removing the warnings is reached on this page. --87.189.99.112

Just want to point out to all concerned (although I can't see why you would be) that I did indeed put spoilers back on Shakespeare pages early on, before I knew about the debate. At that time, I didn't know about this discussion, as the deleters failed to tell me about it, and I thought what they were doing was vandalism. Once I saw this discussion and read through it, I just didn't want to be part of the edit wars. I honestly don't know what I think, and don't really care anymore. Just wanted to make an Ironic observation. The below section, called "Hamlet", is copied and pasted from the Hamlet page, and occurred before I knew about this discussion. Wrad 19:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just adding that I knew nothing of this discussion until people started deleting the spoiler tags and I added them back and saw them deleted again.


 * I'm for spoiler tags as I know some people like to know in general about a film, book etc and though there is some articles with vague plot details I've seen many articles with very detailed plot details and the only reason I wasn't  spoiled was  that I had seen or read the work in question  .Garda40 20:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Not needed
We don't need a spoiler warning. This is an encyclopedia; we don't need to warn readers that they're about to read some information. It's basically saying "Warning, you're about to read details about the topic of this article". When I really don't want something spoiled, like the outcome of a sports event that I've recorded, I don't even turn on my computer, let alone visit the encyclopedia article that discusses it. If we place spoiler warnings before plots, we could equally place them before mathematical derivations that some people like to come to on their own, before summaries of the careers of fighters, and on articles about every Super Bowl. If you can agree that spoiler warnings would be inappropriate in these cases, then you should also agree (I think) that they are inappropriate in the case of plot discussions. Sancho 14:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Warning: the following article might make you smarter", eh? You're saying what's been said before, but I agree. The presence of the spoiler warning is just an open invitation for everyone to think that it's okay to go into detailed plot summaries, which are misplaced on Wikipedia (not to mention potentially illegal).
 * There's been a lot of commenting on this page, originating here or moved from elsewhere. I'm really losing track of what's going on. Are RfC's always this chaotic? :D We need some kind of bullet point digest of the major issues that are being raised. -- Darkbane  talk 15:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * One reason we do need spoiler warnings is precisely that this is a proper encyclopedia (among other things). Contrast on-line "encyclopedias" such as Wookipedia (Star Wars) and MemoryAlpha (Star Trek), which, as has been pointed out approvingly by the "anti" party, don't use spoiler warnings. These sites are pure fancruft and therefore spoiler warnings would be entirely redundant. (And surely these sites can't really function as models for editors hoping to make WP more "serious"??!) One positive virtue of spoiler warnings that has not yet been mentioned is that it reminds editors to put in non-spoiler material, which generally includes the "outside view" material that we would expect to be foregrounded in a genuine encyclopedia article. PaddyLeahy 16:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * All of that is already covered in WP:ATTRIBUTION, WP:NPOV, WP:N, WP:CRUFT and many other policies, guidelines and essays that remind us that we should include information other than plot summary. --&mdash; Δαίδαλος  Σ  Σ  16:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sadly, not all editors take the time to read every policy, let alone every style essay, before they dive in. However, media fans working on WP can hardly fail to notice the spoiler warning concept. PaddyLeahy 17:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The solution to that, is to point them to the welcome page, where it is more than adequately covered. And if they aren't new editors, ignorance of our policies and guidelines (and to a much lesser extent essays) is no excuse.  --&mdash; Δαίδαλος  Σ  Σ  17:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I meant to make clear that my point is that the particular virtue here is that new editors are encouraged to to write better articles without intervention by more experienced editors, hence saving a lot of work all round. PaddyLeahy 17:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Invisible tags?
Does the functionality exist to tag spoilers invisibly (e.g. kaiser sose is rosebud  ) - User preferences could then be used to either display or hide the appropriate sections. This assumes that nobody wants to read both the spoilers and then spoiler tags. - Tiswas (t) 16:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Functionally, it would serve no purpose. Why mark invisible spoiler tags if you're not going to mark visible spoiler tags?  If anything, that would invite casual editors to automatically add a spoiler tag if they saw that, in effect you might as well just add a normal spoiler tag.  It also would not solve the problem of formatting articles that have spoilers spread throughout multiple places with non-spoiler info in-between in the interest of better info organization.  It also doesn't settle the issue about what is and is not a spoiler.  In fact, it has exactly the same issues that visible spoiler tags have, except that it's invisible.--&mdash; Δαίδαλος  Σ  Σ  16:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a proposal for replacing visible tags, not as an alternative choice. It addresses the issue of spoiler tags littering articles, from the perspective of the end user. From a formatting perspective, there is no reason why multiple tags could not be used in line - much the same way as commented out text has no impact on formatting. The only imapact is on the end user that chooses to set their preference such that they cannot see the spoiler content. However simplistic it may be, out of sight, out of mind seems like a reasonable compromise. - Tiswas (t) 16:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's going to be invisible, what's the point of having them at all? --&mdash; Δαίδαλος  Σ  Σ  16:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind that previous comment. However, that would add a whole new dimension to formatting issues.  Now, editors are going to have to keep in mind how to write the prose so that the information makes sense with both spoilers displayed and spoilers not displayed.  And when casual editors add the invisible tag, they may not fix the grammar and prose properly.  Holes will seem to appear in the prose as one setence makes no sense from the previous setence.  This would only further complicate the issue.  --&mdash; Δαίδαλος  Σ  Σ  16:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Granted, but why not let those be the lumps to be taken for them that wish not to see spoilers. - Tiswas (t) 16:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Archer
I can see the case for not having this at all; although I appreciate it. But if we are going to have it, we should use it where necessary.

In this article on an author, there is a full summary of one of his short stories with a twist ending, which is most of a paragraph. Shouldn't this have a spoiler as much as anywhere else? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be much more inclined to just nuke that entire example - it's hardly a very good one. Phil Sandifer 18:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be one acceptable solution.
 * Spoilers on author articles are second only in odiousness to spoilers on generic non-artistic terms like anagram and kiss (really - there were spoiler warnings on these). Write around if you must, or ignore for neutrality - David Gerard 19:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The compromise
Taken from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning, Tony Sidaway's adaptation of the German policy, several of the above comments, and a few of my own ideas:

Spoiler warning/draft

Doesn't ban spoiler warnings, but greatly cuts them back. Feel free to edit and modify this proposal, or simply comment on it. -- Ned Scott 01:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well i saw this once on de.wiki in a book article, why not make a section plot overview and a section plot details. i think this works even better as the overview is guaranted to be free of any spoilers and the details part is for the people who want to know it all. Note that this is not really practiced in de.wiki i just saw it once in an article bout the latest harry potter book, but thought it was quite a good idea. This way you can get rid of silly spoiler templates, who warn people that the plot is revealed in a section called synopsis or plot summary and also have a section for people, who don't to get spoiled. But please restrict this proposal to only new works, otherwise it will creep in to culture articles. 80.133.173.182 01:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it would depend on the article. -- Ned Scott 01:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I also propose that we move Spoiler warning to Spoilers. -- Ned Scott 01:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That draft has its own problems, including banning the word "spoiler" because it's a neologism. As the neologism article says, we can use neologisms if the neologism has been written about in a reliable secondary source. I'm sure someone will find one sooner or later, and then we should be able to put the word back. Ken Arromdee 15:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It says we can write about them. It still discourages their use in the article namespace, however. All that means is we can probably have an article called Spoiler. That does not justify its use in articles on other subjects, however. Phil Sandifer 17:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * From WP:NEO: "The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles."

Excellent proposal from Ned Scott
Ned Scott has put up a not-insane propsal at Spoilers, being actively discussed on the talk page. It's been hacked around a bit since then, but it's IMO a workable solution to this discussion - David Gerard 16:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is so much talk going on about this subject, please could you be more specific, and perhaps provide a link? Thanks. – ARC Gritt TALK 20:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm rather concerned about the way its edit history is composed overwhelmingly of one side of this discussion. Phil Sandifer, Tony Sidaway, you, TheFarix, JzG, Doc Glasgow, Alex Titanium -- all have spoken on this page for the need to delete spoiler tags outright or at least severely reduce their use, none in favor of retaining them. Not a recipe for a balanced view. It's a bit of a relief to see that PaddyLeahy, of the opposite opinion, has just jumped in - props to him. --Kizor 20:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that just show who cares more? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not very enthusiastic about willing to be louder than the other side being an advantage, either. It helps that one of the most insightful pro-spoiler editors is still under a brief block after losing his temper in not excusable but rather understandable circumstances (including being briefly blocked, mistakenly as it turned out, by the administrator who'd been deleting his comments from AN/I), and I'm actively trying to disengage myself from this matter in order to keep my studies from going down in flames. --Kizor 20:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there anything in the proposal that you disagree with? If there is raise the objection here or on the talk page. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 20:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Could it be that perhaps the vast majority of editors are anti-spoilers? Perhpas the word your looking for is consensus daniel  folsom  20:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how we could infer that, when there is no "vast majority" on this page. Incidentally, your MfD vote used the reasoning that this is in violation of our disclaimer policy - how could it have stood unchallenged for years? No disclaimer templates has an "exception" section that states the express opposite. An old-timer editor points out on its talk page that the policy was first designed to not forbid spoiler tags. --Kizor 21:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahh I'm sorry - I forgot that it's impossible for something to be overlooked for a long time. And how can I infer - it's not so much an inference as a observation - look at the vote numbers from the MfD (deletes nearly double keeps - many of which are new accounts or ips), and this guy said himself that the discussion was pretty biased as the votes and discussions are " composed overwhelmingly of one side " daniel  folsom  21:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As to your latter comment - an "old time editor" can obviously be wrong - as one of the reasons for no discalimers on that page is "redundancy" - and if you want redundancy- look at spoiler templates and Content disclaimer. daniel  folsom  21:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, first, that guy was me. Second, I said that this discussion is not that, and that the edit history of the spoiler policy proposal, not this discussion, is. The TfD has a keep consensus. As for the old time editor, I mean that as in one who took part in making the policy. That was admittedly unclear. --Kizor 21:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CCC, a policy or guideline is not set in stone and as evidenced by 250kb, there is considerable debate over this guideline's status. I think the fact that the "old time editor" is you is irrelevant; anyone can be wrong and being "old time" does not give your opinion more weight. Also, strictly vote-counting the TfD, barely 60% voted "keep" which does not satisfy the super-majority needed for so-called consensus. Axem Titanium 22:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition TfD is not a vote :). I just had to note that :D ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 23:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We should also not make the mistake of using the outcome of the TfD as an endorsement of the guideline in its original from. Especially when you way in the MfD and subsequent discussions that followed. --Farix (Talk) 23:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Neologism
Is there any way we can at least find a better word for this? For me, a large part of the problem is that "spoiler warnings" are a neologism, and are not really suitable for the overall structure of an encyclopedia. It's not that other encyclopedias don't use spoiler warnings - it's that other serious reference works don't use neologisms. Phil Sandifer 18:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a good point. The word "spoiled" means ruined. And claiming that a classic work of art can be ruined by knowing the plot, is making a POV statement about that work of art. By warning readers that, say, Romeo and Juliet or A Doll's House will be ruined by learning the plot beforehand is rather insulting to these works of art. I claim they can not be ruined that way. That's one of the reasons they are classics and that people see them again and again. Shanes 20:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * One example of a "classic" (at least, best seller in its day) which has been literally spoiled is Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. The original novella was a mystery: who was Hyde and what was his connection to Jekyll? For a modern reader it now falls totally flat. (No, I don't think a warning is needed for that one!) PaddyLeahy 20:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny, that. The thriller element is still present and is just as enjoyable if you know that Hyde is Jekyll from watching Lon Chaney or Spencer Tracy transform from mild Jekyll into demonic Hyde on TV.  It's in the writing.  It has nothing to do with whether you know in advance or not. --Tony Sidaway 21:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * They still shouldn't be in classic fiction articles, though. The more and more I think about it, the more I don't see them as necessary, even for recent works. -- Ned Scott 20:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't consider this a problem myself. Consider that the neologism is a couple of decades old (pushing the definition?), very well-known, integrated into mainstream language, intuitively and easily understood, and explained in the template itself. (And it's not like we have to prove ourselves anything, including a serious reference work - some of the talk on this page about "sending a message" about being an encyclopedia has the tinge of an inferiority complex.) Then again, I'm more breezy than most. If it should be changed, in a pinch it could be trimmed down to "Plot and/or ending details follow", with a hyperlink in the words to spoiler or the guideline page. --Kizor 20:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's still not in Webster's or the OED, thus putting it in violation of Manual of Style (neologisms). Phil Sandifer 21:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh really, if the word "spoiler" is such a problem then just eliminate it from the template; in fact also eliminate the word "warning" if that causes such trouble, and just let the template say something like "the following section contains plot or ending details". There, now it's completely NPOV.  It does not say anything about "spoiling" anything for anyone.  It does not try to "warn" anyone about anything.  It just states a completely objective fact -- that the section about to follow contains some plot or ending details.  And if you think even that is too obtrusive, why not make it in a smaller font, and less intrusive colours, and so on ... ... ? Henrik Ebeltoft 01:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I cringe every time I see "Spoiler warning" in a article, not only because it's a neologism, but because it's entirely superfluous to an encyclopedia. Any reasonable person, having not read/seen/heard the book/movie/story of which the article is about, expects to learn something about it they did not already know (author, publication date, setting, plot, etc).  Additionally, any reasonable person, having seen the a section title using any form of the word "plot" would understand they are reading about the plot.  It makes no sense for an encyclopedia to forewarn someone that they might find out something they didn't already know.  This is the purpose of an encyclopedia.  Case in point: it would be ridiculous to assert that the Magic Kingdom article contain a warning in case the reader has never been there.  A visit to the Magic Kingdom is an experience, not an object.  Reading a book, watching a movie, and hearing a story are all experiences and should be subject to the same logic.
 * Writing a blog on Harry Potter? Sure, put "spoiler warning" before you tell everyone that Snape killed Dumbledore.  In an encyclopedia, it is sorely out of place. ++ Arx Fortis 22:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Aww, not again!
I just stumbled on this discussion and I'm not at all happy to see it. Once again the same flawed arguments are being churned out, and this time it looks as though spoiler warnings are on their way out. Having works spoiled for me makes me feel literally ill, but I really can't be bothered to go through this discussion over; anyone who can be bothered to see my view should read the previous discussion of this topic. I have no intention of actually becoming involved in this discussion, because I simply don't have the time or the energy to argue this point. But I am sad to see that spoiler warnings are on the way out. They did have a functional purpose, I liked them, they were never a problem, and anyone who stumbles on Wikipedia by accident is unlikely to read the disclaimer or policies. I think once the warnings are gone, I'm going to be using this site a lot less often, as it seems spoilers are everywhere. There are thousands of stories that I have never read, and once they have been spoilt for me I never will read them. I don't want to come across an unmarked spoiler outside a plot section, but since it looks like I'm in the minority, au revoir. RobbieG 14:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope you won't leave the discussion, as your perspective as a long-time occasional editor is valuable here. I'm genuinely curious what, as someone who feels very strongly about being warned about spoilers, you think about the following:


 * Cases where spoilers need to be disclosed in the lead to write a comprehensive or NPOV article (The Crying Game, Sue Dibny, Valen)
 * Spoilers on old or classic texts (Romeo and Juliet, The Illiad)
 * Spoilers on articles totally unrelated to fiction (Trivia sections on Wembley Stadium, Voyager 2, or 2005).


 * Thanks. Phil Sandifer 15:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have similiar views to RobbieG so I will give you my views

For (The Crying Game, Sue Dibny, Valen) I believe a spoiler warning should be given at the top since as you say it would be difficult to write a comprehensive or NPOV article.

I am in two minds about spoilers on old or classic texts as the spoilers in them are more than likely in popular culture but I would lean towards a spoiler warning for the occasional person who somehow doesn't know the spoiler and especially on lesser known texts.

I can't offhand see any justification for a spoiler warning on articles totally unrelated to fiction Garda40 16:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I actually can't take an active part in this discussion, as I'm far too busy with other (non-Wikipedian) projects at the moment, but since you specifically asked for my view:


 * I think that spoilers themselves should always be disclosed. I can think of only one possible exception, which is cases where the spoilers in question do not meet the notability guidelines anyway.   Apart from that, rather tenuous exception, I think relevant spoilers should be included without reservation, regardless of whether the article in question is about a fictional topic.  Obviously, I think we should avoid including spoilers in lead sections if at all possible (for example, I'm not totally sure whether even the examples you provide justify the plot twists that are revealed in their lead sections), but, where necessary, of course we should include the spoilers.  However, I feel, as a courtesy, it would be reasonable to include spoiler tags around said spoilers.
 * I think for neutrality reasons, spoilers in old or "classic" texts ought to still be tagged. I don't think that the tags are a violation of the NPOV policy so long as they are applied consistantly.  I have genuinely been entertained by the plots of classic texts such as Othello, The Canterbury Tales, Bleak House and even Alice's Adventures in Wonderland!  I feel that spoiling such stories does reduce many people's enjoyments of the works, as they may be read in the same manner as one can read a modern text.
 * I can see no reason to include these tags in articles that are wholly unrelated to a fictional work. However, as noted above, I can quite easily envisage a situation where a discussion of a non-fiction subject might need to mention a spoiler for a fictional work.  In those cases, I think spoiler tags are a good idea.  I don't think they are needed in other circumstances e.g. history (after all, I don't suppose anybody is concerned about having the events of the year 2005 spoilt for them, since that year is past and gone so they can never experience it first-hand anyway).  On the other hand, I would consider - as a compromise - a tag at the top of all articles stating something along the lines of "Wikipedia may contain spoilers for fictional works", the existing disclaimer being small and seldom read.  I still think the current tags are preferable to that, but other people may have different views.


 * Thank you for your time reading my views. Happy discussions :)  RobbieG 19:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

MY COMMENT
Honestly how many READERS do you think read disclaimers? I've more than once read something i wished i didn't (B4 I became an editor). I accept than they shouldn't be used too much, but I think they should be kept

For Example I read articles more copmfortably when I know I wont accidenally read a spoiler while examining other stuff 'bout it (critical reception, Intro etc.).

I agree how ever that no non-fictional artical what so ever should have spoiler tags. Also spoilers that are easily guesses (Such as the My Brother Sam is Dead, Around the World in 80 Days, Halo: The Fall of Reach etc.) shouldn't be tagged. Also stuff like The Crying Game where it is nessesary for a good lead.

I dont see how it violates NPOV...

For those with the paper encylopedia arguement: WP:PAPER (yes I am aware that it is about something else but it can also be used here, Wikipedia is not your average encylopedia, which is a good thing. Why do you what to make it less usefull for those looking for things about a movie other than spoilers?)

For those with the google arguement: Google hits often also have hidden spoilers, and unlike wikipedia, don't have the decency to mark 'em.

I agree with this proposal btw:

Spoiler guidelines strengthened for NPOV
I would like to comment that my intrest in wikipedia will be shaken if spoiler warnings are deleted.

Armanalp 15:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? You already know that Wikipedia contains spoilers, so it shouldn't really change anything for editors. Losing a debate is not a reason to lose interest; otherwise, none of us would be here. &mdash; Deckiller 16:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Because up to this point I go to the wikipedia page for a tv series or movie I've never heard of before, and I am confident that I can read a *bit* about what it is, without having it spoiled for me! The spoiler warning tells me exactly where to stop if it's something I'm very very interested in seeing someday.


 * If you remove spoiler warnings completely - I will HAVE TO stop using wikipedia for a HUGE range of useful queries.


 * Although I completely understand why the "editors"* want to remove spoiler warnings - I think the USERS would desperately like to keep them. Remember that whatever you build here may very well last for hundreds and hundreds of years - and will/could be used by people to "look up" information on a HUGE range of historical media/fiction and content BEFORE they choose to watch/read it.  If the first paragraph of every article completely spoils the endings for all media/fiction, wikipedia stops being USEFUL and becomes a dusty storehouse of information** people don't dare use "or else".


 * PS: I noticed that the spoiler warnings were much reduced in size and almost not-noticable sometime in the past week or so, but it's only today that I saw the link to this massive discussion. Are you telling me the admins went and argued about this and made a decision without consulting the people who USE AND READ wikipedia?


 * This is one case where the desires of the people who create the content and the people who use the content might very well be diametrically opposed. Be aware


 * (*) The people who are geared up about creating content and creating an encyclopedia, and are now geared up to prove just how great an "encyclopedia" can be created in this way.
 * (**) For the articles about media/fictional works.


 * CraigWyllie 17:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is what the table of contents is for. Why not just click on the next section down from plot then?  Or click the link that says critical review if you desire a review, this would avoid spoilers without a warning, and you wouldn't have to scroll through the plot section.  Readers don't have to look at the plot section if they don't want to.  Whether the plot section contains a spoiler warning or not, most people would avoid it, even if they didn't know it contained spoilers. After reading one or realizing that it contained the whole plot in depth, logically they would stop reading it before they completely spoiled themselves or read the ending.   Darth  Griz98  02:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree with Armanalp for the reasons given, and would also like to add that the so-called "common sense" deduction that plot summaries should obviously have spoilers is as logical as assuming that anyone should understand how to use a computer. You cannot say it is common sense that the plot summary should necessarily have spoilers without having read the customs and policies of wikipedia. (which many readers obviously do not read)  What goes in a given section is arbitrary as are the vast majority of definitions.  You cannot expect other people to have the same "logical" conclusion as you, nor can you assume that their intelligence is on a level that they would for some reason be insulted by seeing something redundant.Ziiv 19:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Yes or No?
I think spoiler warnings are a must, this is a site that gives information and too much information can spoil it for somebody. --Jennica 20:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have trouble taking seriously suggestions that we need to be cautious about giving too much information. Phil Sandifer 20:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As have I, but I did not read that as a suggestion to remove or not include information, but to mark a specific kind of it. With spoiler warnings, we can give as much information as we want, and readers can choose not to receive some of it if they consider it to be too much. --Kizor 20:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is fine, but I've yet to see a good explanation for why we should mark spoilers but not information that people kill each other over. Phil Sandifer 20:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's also been remarked that we're presently mainly removing redundant warnings after clearly marked plot summary sections. There are very few objections to this, and a very tiny number of people revert. --Tony Sidaway 21:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I stopped reverting The Life of Brian was because I realised something was going on,found the discussion and more to the point noticed that scalps were being counted on banning people for 3R.

Nothing to do with whether spoiler warnings are good or bad just the fact that I didn't want to get banned  .Garda40 21:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So the fact that you chose not to edit war had nothing to do with the fact that your two edits to restore the tags were reverted by two separate editors? --Tony Sidaway 21:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, 'cos people are forced to compulsively edit-war until they get blocked. Ya rly. My new mind control powers are unstoppable - David Gerard 23:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No,because I have seen in the past bad edits repeated by a second editor ,in good faith, until it was pointed out to the second editor that the original edit was wrong.All the second editor did was make me check further and then I noticed the scalp counting .Garda40 22:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Confused
So are we keeping spoiler warnings for certain uses, such as for character lists, etc.? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Character lists would be one of those areas where the presents of spoilers would be obvious. We really should give the reader more credit for being a rational human being. --Farix (Talk) 21:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The readers aren't stupid. But we create articles that looks like they target complete morons. For instance we use huge boxes at the beginning of every article on years in the future, explaining to our seemingly clueless readers that a year like 2031 indeed is in the future and that we don't know every thing that will happen that year yet. If we treat our readers like idiots, we end up looking like idiots ourselves. Instead we should trust the readers to know basic things like a plot section containing information on the plot, or that an article on a fictional character will contain information about that character, what is written about him and what happens in the work of fiction where he is a character. Shanes 21:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen many lists of characters that include spoilers, and many that are simply a short coverage of them. To say that one should expect spoilers no matter what in a list of characters when there are many lists where a spoiler tag wouldn't apply is completely wrong. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Obvious redundant use of spoiler tag
Example:

Comments
Many editors use spoiler tags where they are totally useless and redundant, as above. For example, in Landslide_(Heroes) and many other plot sections. Is it not totally ridiculous to warn users that there may be PLOT DETAILS in the PLOT SECTION? – ARC Gritt TALK 22:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree it's redundant. But that's beyond the scope of this discussion (which is the whole "proposed guideline/policy" thing, or it should be... I have proposes a more neutral message above. --Edokter (Talk) 22:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, quite redundant. The film project page in fact recommends that one put the spoiler tag in the plot section.  Why?  They cite  Spoiler_warning hopefully this will change soon, as the circular arguments are making me dizzy. Jussen 22:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea
First off, lololol 343KB, keep it up! In all seriousness, here's a big point made by this discussion: it's stupid because a section labelled "Plot" will obviously give away the plot so spoiler tags are stupid. Then how about we simply restrict it to sections of articles where a spoiler isn't so obvious? MessedRocker 02:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I was about to post nearly the same exact thing in response to the above conversation, and got edit conflict'ed. Many of the anti-spoiler crowd seem to want to conflate spoiler warnings under "plot" sections with their stance on spoiler warnings in general.  There is actually a good and proper debate on whether warnings are appropriate under "plot" headers.  However, it is entirely possible to say that such warnings are redundant, and still strongly support warnings elsewhere when they appear in surprising places.  The "redundant" argument does not apply against spoilers in general.  (Same with article structure, mind.  "Spoilers should not warp article structure" and "Spoiler warnings are good" are entirely compatible positions, and was in fact true already under the old policy.) SnowFire 02:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a problem that sometimes important facts are missed from article leads on the grounds that they're spoilers. For instance, until I edited it the lead of our article on Romeo and Juliet omitted important facts that, although technically plot spoilers, Shakespeare thought important enough to put into the words of the prolog to the play: that Romeo and Juliet die for love and their suicides are instrumental in ending the feud between their families.  As another example, until recently the lead our article on The Crying Game omitted the most famous fact about the film: that an apparently female character turns out to be male, and that the film is noted for its sensitive treatment of sexual minorities.


 * This is why I think Messed Rocker's suggestion only addresses part of the problem. We have to come of age as an encyclopedia, and cast aside our childhood preoccupations with plot spoilers. --Tony Sidaway 03:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Mm. I don't know what bee has gotten up your bonnet, considering your repeated references to how stupid readers who prefer warnings must be and your "childhood" allusions.  However, even if you think people who prefer warnings are stupid idiots, we are still users.  What do you think all those warnings on top of the image upload page are for, warning in big letters that "your image will be deleted and you will be banned if you lie?"  Clearly non-idiot uploaders will do their due diligence and research all the applicable policies before uploading, right?  And yet, we keep the warnings.  Hmm.


 * So, let me ask this: What horrible things will happen if spoiler warnings are allowed, but there is a stern reminder in the policy to not warp article structure for the sake of spoilers? Your recent examples still rely upon people violating the original guideline.  SnowFire 06:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * When I go to an article on Wikipedia regarding a work of fiction or other entertainment, I fully expect that it will reveal details about the ending. As a reasonably intelligent consumer of information I have found the spoiler warnings to be redundant, and inconsistent. As an example, the American Idol (Season 6) article does not give the warning (nor does The Bible for that matter), even though results are posted before readers on the West Coast see the results show.  If want suspense, I avoid the article for those few hours. We should assume a basic level of intelligence for encyclopedia users.Seaphoto 04:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Seaphoto, spoiler warnings are common practice in many other places. Do you think that's because those places are wretched hives of people without even "a basic level of intelligence"?  Or because people may want other information on a subject, without knowing the end?


 * Even if we ignore that and assume all articles are "fair game" for spoilers, while repeated users such as yourself may know that Wikipedia articles are not safe, it seems quite clear to me that the average anonymous IP editor- much less the IP reader - may not be familiar with Wikipedia policies. Even the smartest person in the world, as a beginner or occasional user, will not know many things.  Any website designer can tell you that making a site accessible and clear to first-time users is absolutely crucial, and well-worth possibly adding some seemingly useless "fluff" for repeat users.  Spoiler warnings are fairly subtle and easily ignorable if a user don't like them, and they can even be turned off by those who really don't like them.  Other websites can often times not even do that, and yet still keep the "basics" in view because it's just that important.


 * As for redundant, we're working on that, and as for inconsistent... this is Wikipedia.  A certain amount of inconsistency is expected when the project is managed by tens of thousands of editors, few of whom read even a single guideline.  For sure, that can and should improve, but it's hardly a unique issue- many if not most other style guides are also implemented inconsistently as well. SnowFire 06:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

non-deletion discussion
As this is apparently no longer a deletion discussion, let us think about what is wrong with the current use of spoilers again.
 * They make editors decide the order of presentation not by what makes the best encyclopedic article.
 * If a work of fiction is most notable for a plot twist, then that belongs in the lead section.


 * They are often redundant:
 * Use in "Plot" sections: There is no need to warn people that information about the plot may be found in such a section


 * They appear in serious articles that do not carry spoiler tags in any other encyclopedia:
 * People are commonly using spoiler tags on the Bible, the works of Shakespeare, Homer, or Dickens

The first point could be addressed by making it clear that WP:LEAD always takes precedence, but it is not clear whether people will follow this in practice. The second point could be addressed by prohibiting spoiler tags in sections that are already clearly marked by their section title. The third point could be addressed by only putting spoiler tags on works that are newer than a month.

Whatever the outcome of this discussion will be, it seems clear that a large number of people wish to see a significant reduction in the use of spoiler tags. If spoiler tags are not to be deleted outright, they will need to be strictly limited in their use and not allowed to grow wild again like they do now. Kusma (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. Please read the above, folks. Virtually all those wanting to maintain the present use have not dealt with these objections; they just say "But I like it!" without concern for addressing these pertinent concerns. Some people have not been helpful with one-liners like "Delete, not encyclopedic", but these are valid issues &mdash; we should not be splashing these all over the place so liberally as we do now. Like it or not, when the choice is between writing a proper article and avoiding spoilers, we must go with the former. In some cases, there is no conflict between these two goals; but in cases where there are, our encyclopedic nature comes first. Johnleemk | Talk 14:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with this, plus CzechOut's excellent "rant" at the beginning of the delete debate. If an outright rejection of spoiler warnings altogether is not accepted, perhaps spoiler warnings could be limited to use only in, say, articles on movies still at the theatre or in the new releases section of the video store, and television episodes of the current season.  That way, spoilers can be left only for those items that readers might be expected to only be recently aware of and which they might currently be contemplating seeing.  As for books, "recentness" might not be considered as helpful, but the use in, say, Catcher in the Rye (in which there isn't even an ending template; almost the entire article is considered "spoiler") is completely ridiculous. Lexicon (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I think a proper article about fiction containing spoilers needs a spoiler warning. Now what? --87.189.89.215
 * Well you could explain why, perhaps. Why do you think an encyclopedia article needs to carry a warning to tell the reader that he may learn something he doesn't know?  Isn't it implicit in the purpose of writing an encyclopedia article that it will contain mostly information that the reader doesn't know? --Tony Sidaway 14:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What's at issue here is information some readers specifically do not want to know.--agr 14:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT, we have the opportunity to offer both sets of informations for both kind of readers: The one wanting to look up an actor or a budget or the one wanting the while shebang. Why do you want to remove that opportunity? --87.189.89.215

Comment: Why are people intentionally posting spoilers in this spoiler warning RFC? Doesn't that violate WP:POINT? Ken Arromdee 14:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really. The "spoliers" in this discussion are used as examples to prove a valid point, not to disrupt. Lexicon (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * By spoilers here, does Ken simply mean that people are discussing the plots of books, films, television shows and plays? I'd say that they are doing so, but that it's seldom disruptive to do so.  The "Snape kills Dumbledore" spam was a rare and exceptional case where the intention was to spoil enjoyment rather than inform or engage in legitimate comment. --Tony Sidaway 14:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is my view that the use of spoiler templates/warnings ought to be retained, but modified. In no case should content be omitted from an article to avoid a spoiler, and rarely should it be put in a different place in an article (the lead to an article about an unreleased or very recent work should probably not include major spoilers: for example "Snape kills Dumbledore" should not have been in the lead of the relevant article in the week that the book was released, IMO. WP:NPOV must always trump spoiler protection. If there was a consistent way to mark spoiler warnings so that those with a suitable preference setting or css setting would not see the warnings, this would be good, but IMO such warnings should default to being seen by non-logged-in users. As for their use in section labeled "plot" or the like, yes in a sense they are redundant there, but not all plot sections contain significant spoilers, indeed not all plots contain the sort of twists that make their endings a 'spoiler. More importantly, humans are not perfectly logical beings, we sometimes need a reminder about things that ought to be obvious. I think that in spite of the technical redundancy, having spoiler warnings on, or within, sections labeled "plot" or the like should not be prohibited or discouraged. It is mentioned above that most encyclopedias don't use spoiler warnings at all, or do so in a much more limited way than wikipedia. This is true. But most other encyclopedias don't cover fiction and popular culture in nearly as much detail as wikipedia does, and don't include nearly as much plot detail. Given that difference, a different approach to spoiler warnings seems warranted. I do think that some changes should be made, however. My suggestions are:
 * Spoiler warnings should not be used on classic, widely known works such as the Bible, the plays of Shakespeare, or the works of Homer.
 * However, spoiler warnings should not be limited to recently released works -- many long relased works are new to particular readers.
 * Significant facts should not normally be omitted from an article lead merely to avoid spoilers. This may be temporarily suspended for unreleased or recently released works.
 * There should normally be a marker used to indicate the end of a section that contains spoilers, if a spoiler warning is used.
 * Editors should be urged to consider whether plot details are really "spoilers". Works where the plot details are relatively obvious and not in any way surprising, and no attempt seems to be made to surprise the reader should probably not have spoiler warnings used at all.
 * Plot sections in general should be reduced in size ans scope. WP:FICT calls for this now, but is widely ignored.
 * The use or non-use of spoiler warnings in a particular article should be a matter of consensus among the editors of that article, to be determined on its talk page, just as with all other matters of article content. Drastic changes without consensus are discouraged.
 * The general format of spoiler warnings should be uniform across wikipedia, and should be a matter of general consensus. Drastic changes should not be made without seeking consensus for the change.
 * I hope that these suggestions will be useful in this discussion. DES (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is bad enough that there are spoiler warnings in our pop culture sections, but the part of our content that is also present in other encyclopedias should not look less professional. Oh, and articles like List of suicides don't need spoiler warnings at all (but my removal got reverted anyway). Kusma (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * User:DESiegel (DES), most of that sounds reasonable. I'd expand that to say that we shouldn't normally put unnecessary warnings into articles.  We should instead put a note into the site disclaimer saying that the full plot of fictional works will be disclosed in an appropriate manner dictated by our relevant content policies, and no extra warning will be given. We don't put nudity warnings into our articles about famous artists or anatomy, we just have a notice in the site disclaimer. --Tony Sidaway 14:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we could do it that way -- it would be consistent. i think it would not get consensus, and i strongly suspect that it would lead to frequent edit disputes when some editors attempted to remove information that constituted spoilers, and to significant dissatisfaction on the part of a subset of our readers. If that is our policy choice, i will of course go along, but I don't think it would be the wisest possible choice. A general disclaimer, while logically equivalent, simply does not have the impact that a specific one does. And yes, I agree that a similar argument could be made for nudity and other content that is offensive to some readers, and i don't want such warnings. The difference is IMO that lots of people want to remove or hide all such content, and warnings might encourage this, and also that people might depend on such warnings in ways that we cannot guarantee would always work. Whereas the perceived "harm" of seeing a spoiler is far less, so if someone reads a spoiler that doesn't have a warning, there will be Far less in the way of violated expectations, IMO. DES (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually after making the above suggestion I went to look and found, to my surprise, that our content disclaimer already warns of spoilers, in very large letters. I've changed my opinion on this: I now believe strongly that spoiler warnings are nearly always an unnecessary intrusion on articles.  They should never be used except when there is a very strong justification.  Perhaps for the first month of Snape Kills Dumbledore, or perhaps not. --Tony Sidaway 16:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Tony, if someone uses Google to find information on a book or movie, such as John LeCarre's novel The Honourable Schoolboy, and the Wikipedia article on the novel tops the list of search results (as it did in 2005 when I first searched for it), what percentage of people do you suppose will consult the content disclaimer before reading the article? Maybe, 0.000001%? -- DS1953 talk  18:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: People seem to be ignoring the fact that sexual content, medical content, profane content and violent content are not warned on Wikipedia, which I am adamant almost everyone will defend. Yet all "keep" voters are shouting "be courteous"! It doesn't make any sense, they are no different. A person may find spoilers objectionable, a person may find nudity objectionable. More bizarre is the fact some people claim you can't "un-read" spoilers - what? You can't "un-read" nudity either. They are really no different. Even worse is I saw a person yelling "apples and oranges". Yeah, we're allowed apples, bananas, pears, peaches, kiwis and passion fruit, but oranges are different! --Teggles 19:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Using hysterical hyperbole does not help your argument. --Farix (Talk) 19:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My comment wasn't wholly composed of that. If you'd prefer, I'll restate the last comment, but the point gets across either way. --Teggles 19:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Teggles has the defining argument here. You are absolutely correct that there are many things, such as violence and nudity, which are not warned against. If we want spoiler warnings we must have violence, nudity, profanity etc. warnings as well.

It's true that not many people will read the wikipedia disclaimer (I know I never have) but that just can't be helped. Compare it, for example, to TV. At the start of South Park, there is a warning about violence, coarse language etc. but if someone is channel hopping they could easily see violence in the show without seeing the warning. Does this mean South Park should include a scene-by-scene set of warnings which appear just before every swear word, bit of violence and so on? Of course not.

And even spoiler tags as they are now suffer from the same problems as the disclaimer. If you scroll quickly past them, get section-linked from another page, or skip past them because you used the find function, it's easy to see spoilers without seeing the spoiler warning. In summary, I think that it would be admirable to warn people about violence, nudity, spoilers and everything else, but it's just not practical or even possible.Chutup1 10:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't rightly know about that. My own track record of avoiding properly marked spoilers is a very good one - very few mid-section links in fiction are above spoiler lines, anyway. No disclaimer templates was created with an express exception for spoilers and has retained it since except for two attempts of deletion by the anti-spoiler crowd in the last four days. Spoilers aren't apparently considered objectionable content - Which we cannot and do not ban - there as much as in-depth knowledge, like medical or law information, but, quote, "The only disclaimer on wikipedia should be the spoiler warnings, because you don't know where they are, and they ruin things for you. You can choose to ignore medical-related content on Wikipedia, but once you've read a spoiler, you can't just pretend you never read it." --Kizor 10:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers in Images
If a consensus is reached, and the spoiler tag deleted, does this mean we can upload images that contain spoilers? I know that the tag has, really, got nothing to do with images, but it may give some people reason to upload spoiler images. But then, I suppose fans will take down spoiler images anyway. — hippi ippi 12:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Look at Final Fantasy VII for an example of a major spoiler with an image -- and it was a Today's Featured Article, at that. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of the Final Fantasy WikiProject is anti-spoilertags, so we've enjoyed a level of freedom and expression that other projects discourage. I think it's helped us in our approach to our articles, which has yielded success. &mdash; Deckiller 16:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We have always been allowed to do that. Why shouldn't we have been? --Kizor 18:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you look at Lost and Heroes pages, fans will take down images that contain spoilers. They don't like them.  See Talk:The Man from Tallahassee for a short discussion - it led to the deletion of the original image — hippi ippi 11:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it is relevant here, but there are fair use concerns with including non-free images that give away important parts of a work. For instance if a player can normally only expect to find a certain scene by playing the game and achieving a level of skill, it's more difficult to argue that including an image of that scene in a Wikipedia article would be justifiable as fair use of the copyright owner's material, because it competes with the copyright holder's use of that material.  --Tony Sidaway 11:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete it already!
Since the recent mass-deletion and susequent revert-warring (you know who you are) of the spoiler template has pretty much caused it to loose its credibility and therefor rendered it completely useless, my advice is to put it up for deletion. If someone wants mark a section as a spoiler, my advice is to do so by hand:


 * This section may contain spoilers.

No warning, just plain and simple message. Again, the template, and the pages it occupies, are a warzone now and therefor completely rendered useless. Delete it. It doesn't save that much typing anyway. --Edokter 21:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't put redundant messages into articles. That's disruptive. --Tony Sidaway


 * Great... Before this RFC is long over, anyone wanting to put a spoiler message in, is now all of a sudden regarded as a disruptive editor? I find that highly offensive. --Edokter (Talk) 22:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We can get a spoiler warning across more subtly and elegant than that by combining a warning with encyclopedic information in the prose proper. For instance, above a plot section on a movie with many surprises we could write that "The movie has been hailed by critics for its many surprise turns and its remarkable twist ending(citation)". This can be an even more effective spoiler warning than simply using a standard tag used everywhere. And it looks much more professional. Shanes 22:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with that. Simply mentioning that a plot has "twists" or "surprise turns" is often spoiler enough to ruin things for a number of people.  Simply knowing that they're going to be surprised is enough to lessen the shock of the actual surprise.  A generic spoiler warning is a pretty good solution to this problem. King Zeal 22:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) Not only does that come across as non-NPOV, it is beating around the bush. I find my text to be the most neutral ad non-invasive of all the proposed alternatives yet. Give readers more credit and let them decide if they want to read the rest or not. --Edokter (Talk) 22:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, give readers more credit. If they are afraid of even knowing what kind of movie it is, they will not read an encyclopedia article about it beforehand. Readers aren't stupid, and we shouldn't assume they are. Shanes 22:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * People shouldn't be afraid to read an article for fear of ruining what happens at the end. There's plenty of ways to briefly summarize plot points without finding out that 'X character' dies or 'X character' turns out to be the mastermind.  Frankly, if I'm afraid to read an article, I'm not going to read it.  This is counterproductive to Wikipedia's purpose.  King Zeal 22:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * With spoiler warnings, they do not need to fear ruining what happens at the end when they read the article. Without them, they have to. They therefore will be able to read a Wikipedia article beforehand with spoiler warnings, and will not without them. Your point being? --Kizor 23:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A good article, though, is always going to have all the salient points about its subject in the intro. If a  book or movie is infamous for its twist ending or for a particular surprise, that twist should be completely covered in the first few sentences of the article.  Our article on The Sixth Sense must reveal the ending in the intro, because that is the main point of the movie...  encycylopedic articles are simply not, by any standard, structured for people who only want to know some things about their subject.  Readers who do not want to learn the details of Romeo and Juliet or a book they're planning on reading should not be reading an encyclopedia article about it, no more than someone who wants to be surprised as they read ancient history should be reading historical articles.  Spoiler warnings have no place in an encyclopedia, plain and simple. --Aquillion 04:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Who wants to read an encyclopedia article about something first before watching it? Wikipedia isn't a blog/reviewing site/IMDB/Rotten Tomatoes/forum. Besides, what's so difficult about admitting that readers will skip over a section labeled "Plot" without the need for spoiler warnings? Axem Titanium 03:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Gotta agree. I'm currently removing all spoiler tags from pages covered by my WikiProjects. they are useless, and this is not the first time this debate has taken place. Just get rid of it already. -007bond aka Matthew G 09:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts
I read about a tenth of this page before giving up. I'm going to give my thoughts and hope that I'm not repeating something. One of you needs to summarize the thoughts on this page and then archive all of it. Here's my thoughts: 1. Most novels have a coverleaf / back cover summary of the novel, and many paperback novels have an excerpt on the first page; these are presumably legal to use without explicit permission, and do not need a spoiler warning. I use these to determine if I want to read a novel or not, and the publishers are generally quite good about creating summaries or excerpts which accurately convey the essence of the novel. This summary is probably suitable for the article lead. 2. I saw some people say that classices should not have spoilers. There are many classics which I have not read and may want to read someday. Therefore, I think the rule, whatever it is, should be consistent for all fiction. Further, a novel or film which is considered classic or well-known in one English-speaking country may be a virtual unknown in another. Films, for example, are released at different times in different countries, so setting an arbitrary date to expire a spoiler does not necessarily make sense. If a spoiler is appropriate, leave it on permanently. 3, I've seen some articles use a technique to hide things (like the TOC can be hidden), and which can be revealed with a mouse-click. Can this be done wih spoilers and so forth? 4. I'd suggest that spoilers be part of a "things which a significant number of people may not want to see" guideline or policy, to cover spoilers, nudity, obscenity, pornography, and things which may generally be considered inappropriate for children who are othewise capable of reading the text, and so forth, in primarily English-speaking countries. 5. Combining items 2 and 3 above, can specific things, which meet whatever the guideline/policy turn out to be, be hidden by this technique? The default setting for this for editors could be controlled by the profile, or it could be hidden for readers (need to click), and visible for "flattened" print versions. Thus, images (but not the associated description) of a human male reproductive organ, for example, could be hidden, and the reader could click on the "(show)" link to see it. 6. There may be legal issues for some of this stuff, so it may be wise to make it optional before some government or court decides to either force Wikipedia to conform or not allow people in a certain jurisdiction to view Wikipedia (witness China, although I don't think optional hiding of material would have been sufficient in that case). 7. Quit talking about disclaimers; as a number of people have indicated, they're just technicalities. 8. I do not know if the hiding technique needs to be on it's own line or not; if it can be embedded in a paragraph, so much the better. The information is still there; the user only has to click to see it; it is the user's own choice whether to see it or not. 9. I think spoilers should be announced only if the ending or a plot twist is not relatively obvious (for instance, if the lead already says "this is the archetypical the butler did it story"), and I agree that using it in a "Plot" section is redundant. 10. Pictures are slightly different, in that it's hard to skip an entire section without seeing (comprehending) the pictures, so there should be no such exception if this technique is used. --Scott McNay 05:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The thing about the hiding technique is that it would interrupt the prose and hinder one's reading. Spoilers are nearly unnavoidable when dealing with fictional subjects; in effect, that [show] tag will appear every other sentence. This would slow the reader's speed, damage percent of comprehension, and in some cases, fully prevent understanding when a spoiled tidbit is absolutely necessary. Not to mention, this would be prone to overuse and a popular toy for vandals.  You Can '  t See Me!  05:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If showing spoilers could be disabled from a person's profile (I was under the impression they can), then that should be a nifty way to do that. --Kizor 05:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * People can disable the warning template, but not the spoilers themselves. -- Ned Scott 07:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

fine the way it is
I think it's just fine the way it is right now, because you can choose to see it or not. You don't need to go into psychological mindreading because everyone has their own choice. As for hiding, that would be much too complicated. I can't imagine a page like this:

[show]

[show]

References

[show template]

[show disclaimer]

--

That would really be pathetic. --Camelcast 06:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * One variation is to allow a spoilers=yes setting either in preferences or as a script add-on that inserts a spoiler tag into any section with a ==Plot== or ==Synopsis== heading. This could be expanded to include hidden tags as well. That way, anyone who wants a spoiler warning could get one based on their settings. Problem solved. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 07:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I waded through this whole page after seeing a spoiler alert on the first Survivor season. People have made compelling arguments on both sides, but I lean toward the convention that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  Information (often the most up to date information) is its hallmark.  If I wanted to get information about a movie, without spoiling the plot, I would never do a Google search or look in Wikipedia.  However, the spoiler alerts are a minor annoyance and can be rather easily skipped over (although they seem somewhat silly).  I would prefer a system where general users would have to turn spoiler alerts on rather than turn them off, but that is just one user/editors opinion.

Ursasapien 10:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be satisfied with an outcome where spoiler use was left intact and such a system instated. --Kizor 10:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Irony
You know, we are sooooo worried here about "ruining" a movie for some poor reader of Wikipedia. Have any of you watched any movie trailers lately? When I go to the movies, I usually stay away for 18 months or so afterwards, because the trailers for coming motion pictures give away the whole story now. They have decided, sometime in the past 20 years, that the public is too unsophisticated to be tantalized into watching a movie unless they know the whole story in advance. I remember going to movies back in the 60s and 70s and not even really knowing beforehand what the movie was about, but a cleverly edited trailer had whetted my interest. Today, that'll never happen. So you folks worried about messing things up, forget it. You know, Gene Siskel actually revealed the big secret of The Crying Game on the air in his preview show with Roger Ebert. Just how the hell important do we think we are? This whole discussion just demonstrates what an inflated sense of ego we all have. Look, we have just one thing to offer: Well written information for those who want to know.  Spoiler tags don't fit in that picture. Unschool 08:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. I just copied and pasted this whole discussion onto a Word document.  It was 114 pages long.  This is really ridiculous. Unschool 08:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * First, please cut the sarcasm, condescension, obscenities, veiled insults and open insults. Try to cut back on that "proclaiming absolute facts" attitude as well. We are trying to do something here. Second, not that you'd apparently care, but there are books it takes weeks to get through, TV series that take months to get through, book series that can take years to get through. There also are other ways of viewing movies than going to the theatre, there are people who manage to avoid trailers, and there are people from countries that do not share yours' movie conventions nor yours' public among the tens of millions of international readers of Wikipedia. I have several other cans of worms if you wish to view other sides of the issue. --Kizor 10:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, Unschool, that is a generalisation. I haven't seen a recent movie in months (though I have seen numerous trailers), but I *do* remember POTC: Dead Man's Chest, and I must say, the trailer did *not* spoil anything at all.  Therefore, your first point is no valid.  Also, please refrain from insulting us.  This is a discussion, and a polite one at that. However, I must agree with the "Well written information for those who want to know" thing.  I have written this a few times, but Wikipedia, an encyclopedia exists to inform with a high degree of quality.  We, as editors and writers should not need to speculate about what readers might want and/or not want to read (except for the fact that they want good quality articles that perform its proper function - to inform - to a high degree of accuracy etc.)  It is indeed the reader's fault if they are spoiled when they read an article about for example, a film.  For starters, the subtitle "Plot" should ring alarm bells. — '''   «   h i p p i i p p i   »   11:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * While I personally feel that you can't ruin a movie by knowing the ending, it's the experience of the work, not knowing what happens, that's important; (otherwise the Harry Potter films would have made no money). However as should have been gleaned from this discussion everyone has differing opinions, and we should learn to respect it and keep cool and calm about it all. David Fuchs( talk / frog blast the vent core! ) 11:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So because one movie doesn't, that means none do? Cast Away and What Lies Beneath both had quite revealing trailers (I'm more positive about the later), and I'm sure others could easily bring up other examples. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Does that affect us in any way whatsoever? Again, we also have books, theatrical plays, computer games, tv episodes and what have you, and ample ways to watch a movie without learning the plot in detail first. --Kizor 13:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, if ever there was a call for assuming good faith, wow—this is it! Man, I actually didn't expect any responses to my little post.  I was feeling lighthearted (what we would have called "gay" in an earlier time) and rather unconcerned about the way this whole debate pans out (not that I don't have any opinion on the subject; I do, but I don't think that the world rides on this one).  I've now reread my post, and tried to see it with the eyes of people who weren't with me when I wrote it, and yeah, I guess I can see that my cheerful demeanor did not come across.  Oh well.  But the vehemence with which some of you responded was absolutely remarkable.  Sarcasm?  Sure, I can see that.  But "veiled and open insults"?  Huh?  And then when I read, there are people from countries that do not share yours' movie conventions [sic], I can only think, really?  Okay, now I am being very sarcastic.  Of course there are people with different experiences and different opinions!  That's why these discussion pages exist!  Now who's insulting whom?  For you to imply that I don't understand that other people don't share my experience is to imply that I am still at the level of a four or five year old.  I mean, that's insulting. (and notice that I gave a specific example of the alleged insult.  As you did not, I could assume it was because you didn't actually find an insult, but I'm going to assume good faith and guess that you didn't believe it necessary to include a specific example either because a) you thought (erroneously, I'm afraid) that it would be obvious to everyone, or b)you didn't want to pour salt in the wounds, or c)you just forgot.  Frankly, I don't know what you found insulting, and I don't know why you didn't explain it, but it's okay; I'm assuming that you had your reasons.  So we're cool.  And regarding my comments about movie trailers being a generalization, well, I'm sorry to have to inform you that—you're right!  Most of what we say on these discussion pages is a generalization.  My comment had to be a generalization if only for the fact that I go to movies so rarely now that I really don't have a significant foundation for my statement!  But I didn't think it mattered because I was just making a light-hearted observation, not a brief for Wikipedia v. Spoiler Tags.

Authors spoil plots as well
Tony mentioned above that "Shakespeare thought important enough to put into the words of the prolog to the play: that Romeo and Juliet die for love and their suicides are instrumental in ending the feud between their families" - this is an important point, and I'd llike to add examples from the works of J. R. R. Tolkien. His introductions often told the reader what would happen in the story. It is just that the plot is not the whole point of the story in some stories. Sometimes a work of literature is more about the writing, and interaction of literary themes, than the plot per se. Not all works of fiction need the plot kept secret to avoid spoiling it for the reader. I can see an argument for the use of some spoiler warnings in some articles, but I don't know how we can prevent each successive generation of Wikipedia editors overusing spoilers in the wrong place? Maybe devise a system where you blacklist the use of spoiler tags, or one where you whitelist the use of spoiler tags? Have a place specifically to discuss addition of spoiler tags, and require near-unamity (say, 90% support) for them to be used? Though that kind of says "we don't trust some of our editors not to overuse spoiler tags"... Carcharoth 11:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The writing is always more important than the plot. The proposed new guideline, Spoiler, deals very sensibly with the problem of over-use of spoiler tags by requiring proponents to "provide a compelling and justifiable reason to insert one. Such reasons should show that knowledge of the spoiler would likely substantially diminish many readers' enjoyment of the work." --Tony Sidaway 11:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody's surprised that I have doubts about the effectiveness of that rule, in large part because the reason needs to appear "compelling and justifiable" to such editors as you, who has previously said that preknowledge of the plot does not substantially diminish the enjoyment of a work. Might be a bit hard in those circumstances. --Kizor 13:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is beyond question at this point, I think, that there is no clear consensus for the use of spoiler tags; if anything, there's a consensus leaning towards banning them in a wide range of situations. Therefore, if you want to use them, you must justify them on a case-by-case basis.  Naturally this will make them hard to use...  it should be hard to plaster a tag across thousands of articles when there is so much disagreement over it. --Aquillion 15:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)