Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/Discussion from Hamlet page

Spoiler warning? (Discussion from Hamlet page)
At the expense of making a long page longer, but with the aim of un-splintering this discussion, the following is the relevant section of Talk:Hamlet: AndyJones


 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I believe spoiler warnings on classical works are absurd. Obviously, some editors disagree. I understand that there are arguments for both sides (see this discussion), and I don't want to engage in edit warring, so I propose a straw poll.

The article should have a spoiler warning

 * Wrad 12:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * AndyJones 12:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Goldfritha 00:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Smatprt 03:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Waggers 11:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The article should not have a spoiler warning

 * Ashenai 10:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul B 12:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Voting is evil

 * On Wikipedia, we make decisions by discussion, not by voting. --Tony Sidaway 17:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Polls are fine if they facilitate discussion, which seems to be the whole point here. Wrad 17:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For goodness, not another poll. Discuss, don't poll.  --Iamunknown 19:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * If we don't put one up, people will come along and complain about it, or add it in themselves until we finally give in. I've seen it happen again and again.  It doesn't really hurt anything, so we might as well just put it in, I think. Wrad 12:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The article must have a spoiler warning, because Wikipedia is worldwide, for one thing. Hamlet may be a classic work in English literature, but it is not so in Chinese or other cultures. It is not correct that everybody who comes by will already know the story. JeffJo 23:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, "classics" are often classics only to selected cultures. Goldfritha 00:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes - all plays should have a spoiler warning. These pages are not just for Shakespeare buffs. This is why its good that most synopsis are close to the end of the articles.Smatprt 03:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the spoiler tag because we don't treat our readers like imbeciles. There is a very large warning about spoilers in our content disclaimer and further warnings are intrusive and unnecessary. This is a 400-year-old Shakespeare play, not some bloody silly comic book. --Tony Sidaway 17:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In doing that, you're acting against most editors of this page, and will definitely get reverted within minutes. Might want to try swaying the opinion before making enemies. Wrad 17:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've already got lots of friends, thanks. Consensus has changed, spoilers are out. --Tony Sidaway 17:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

People who keep deleting the spoiler mentioned this link, I think it's pretty good, so I'll go ahead and do their job for them and post it here, although I don't think it changes anything. It's a debate, not a policy. Wrad 17:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Template:Spoiler itself notes that it should not be used in sections named "Plot summary" or similar ... as these can be presumed to contain, um, plot elements. So reverting with no edit summary, against all sanity and against the documentation contained in the very template one is including is ... silly - David Gerard 17:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The arguments for the spoiler tag have been stated as follows:
 * if we don't do it, others will do it until we give in
 * It is not correct that everybody who comes by will already know the story/These pages are not just for Shakespeare buffs. This is why its good that most synopsis are close to the end of the articles.

If someone puts an unnecessary comment on the page, it can be removed like anything else that doesn't belong. No question of giving in. If they persist we show them the content disclaimer which has warned about spoilers now for years.

It is absolutely true that people coming to this article may not know about the play. This is precisely why they come to the article, Furthermore, if they see a section marked "plot" or "synopsis", they know that the section is a discussion of the plot of the play. It is not necessary to say the same thing twice. --Tony Sidaway 17:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where the content disclaimer page talks about removing spoiler tags. Seems like it advocates them. Wrad 17:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not that I can see. It does point to Spoiler warning, a guideline that has recently been strongly opposed in discussion and, insofar as it used to advocate spoiler warnings, no longer enjoys consensus support.


 * I applied to have the page protected so that those who believe that this article should have a spoiler warning in addition to a section heading clearly marked "Synopsis" will come here and argue for it instead of just reverting every time it's removed and saying "we have more votes" (which incidentally isn't at all true). --Tony Sidaway 17:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It now appears to be protected.


 * Personally, I see no good reason for warning that sections like 'plot' or 'synopsis' may reveal things like plot twists and endings. We do generally expect our readers to have living & functioning grey matter between the ears. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with whoever said "the concensus had changed". I see no evidence of that. In fact, I still see more editors in favor of spoilers. FYI, after they leave high school less than 3% of Americans ever see a Shakespeare play, much less read one. As an advocate of the theatre, I think spoiler warnings should stay. Wikipedia is for the common man, not just special interest buffs. Spoilers have been on most of the plays and have been agreed to in many previous discussions. To claim "consensus" has changed is just plain wrong, as this recent discussion proves once again. Smatprt 01:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This discussion demonstrates very well how radically consensus has changed. Moreover your arguments for inclusion of these superfluous warnings don't hold water.


 * The common man, as you put it, can read, otherwise he wouldn't be reading the article.  It follows that he can read the word "Synopsis", "Plot", "Plot summary" or somesuch at the start of a section and be informed thereby that the following text is a summary of the plot.


 * In the unlikely event that he's too stupid to realise that sections marked "Plot" in encyclopedia articles about a Shakespeare play are going to contain information about the plot, his misconceptions are easily remedied by referring him to the content disclaimer which is linked to every single page on the wiki.


 * There is no need for any extra warning, let alone these frankly insulting, ugly and intrusive warnings. --Tony Sidaway 02:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "after they leave high school less than 3% of Americans ever see a Shakespeare play" - I daresay less than 3% of Americans ever read an encyclopedia article on a Shakespear article, either. Those who do, do so because they are seeking information on the play, and if they choose to read the section on the play's plot, it is ridiculous to warn them that they may.. learn something they didn't know about the plot. --Stormie 03:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"Too stupid?" seems an insulting comment from someone who actually gets insulted by a template. If you are going to make a bunch of mass edits to the Shakespeare plays, (on which your infrequent edits indicate you don't see them as that important), then please bring up your proposed edits at the Shakespeare project page so you can discuss this with editors that actually work on these pages on a daily or weekly basis. Thanks Smatprt 02:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the wise thing to do would have been to wait until an official policy came out before changing these tags. Coming out and claiming consensus on a page that, frankly, has only had a few editors respond to it (The spoilers template page), and then blowing through and changing everything on several pages, ignoring previous debates and discussions, is inappropriate and rude. If you can point me to an official policy that says we have to take the tag out, or if a consensus for changing it develops on this page, then it would be alright to change, but your tactics now are hardly going to get us anywhere. Wrad 02:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"Too stupid?" seems an insulting comment from someone who actually gets insulted by a template. If you are going to make a bunch of mass edits to the Shakespeare plays, (on which your infrequent edits indicate you don't see them as that important), then please bring up your proposed edits at the Shakespeare project page so you can discuss this with editors that actually work on these pages on a daily or weekly basis. Thanks Smatprt 02:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss the use of the spoiler tag, you should go to the centralized RfC page located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. There is no point it splintering this discussion which will result in multiple "consciences agreements" that are in conflict with each other. There should be one general guideline for all. --Farix (Talk) 00:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That seems to be the view of the Shakespeare wikiproject, also: namely that all discussion should be directed to the RfC. I'll copy this discussion there. AndyJones 07:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.