Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/MfD

This should have been closed ages ago since this is no longer a MfD. Please direct your comments to the discussion below this section. --Farix (Talk) 10:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


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


 * See also the previous debate on the matter at Spoiler warning/RfC

This policy is a flat contradiction of the much more important Lead section, and, worse, is used to justify actively bad article writing where key aspects of a topic are buried outside of the lead. The entire policy encourages writing articles in a way that is organized around spoiler warnings instead of sensible portrayal of information, and has gone egregiously wrong (highlights including spoiler warnings on Night (book), The Book of Ruth, and Romeo and Juliet). The policy is overwhelmingly being used to make articles worse, not better, and for that needs to go.

The worst instance I've found yet is The Crying Game, where the twist ending makes the film a major film for anyone interested in LGBT cinema. Spoiler warning says that can't go in the lead. Lead section says the lead has to function as a short article unto itself. WP:NPOV says all major perspectives must be mentioned in an article. You can pick any two of the policies and successfully apply them to The Crying Game. Since we can't get rid of NPOV, either spoilers or lead sections need to go. Phil Sandifer 21:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete — The question, it seems to me, is what a spoiler is. And, for me at least, a spoiler is any damn bit of information I didn't know before.  Thus, in filmic terms, just knowing the director of a work, or even a cast list, constitutes a spoiler.  It takes some of the surprise away.  As a recent example, I was watching Dark Century, a 15-year-old British kids' show, about which I knew very little.  One of the biggest joys was in slowly recognizing that one of the leads was Kate Winslet.  Now, sadly, I've deprived you of one of the experiences I found most enjoyable about being an audience member for that show.  But I haven't violated spoiler policy, even though I've "spoilt" a part of the overall viewing experience for a 2007 audience.   The truth is, audience members are individuals.  Individuals will find different things particularly significant about a work, depending on who they are, when they experience the work, and where they're from.  For some, the plot's the thing, for others it's the way the plot unfolds that matters.  For others, it's all about the acting or direction.  One person's "basic information" is another person's "spoiler".  Labeling something a spoiler is, at the end of the day, a violation of NPOV, because it's imposing your definition of "spoiler" on others. CzechOut 13:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or Revert. I would love to know when the template got changed to a layout wrecking monstrosity. It changes my fonts, font sizes, creates a bizarre box around the entire article, sub-boxes when nested, and generally looks like HTML diarrhea. It used to be a basic text banner. Quiet, unobtrusive, but clearly warning others off. I hit my watchist today, and half my watchlist is suddenly the victim of bad design. (Comment left by User:ThuranX)
 * Delete or severely restrict to very recent or unreleased fiction. As per the above examples, it not only encourages ludicrously unencyclopedic labeling and article writing - on The Crying Game, it blatantly causes violation of NPOV, a fundamental content policy - David Gerard 21:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, I really like Kusma's suggestion of using the de:wp one translated (the below is my pitiful knowledge assisted by babelfish):
 * ''When discussing creative works, e.g. books, music, computer games, TV series or films, then an encyclopedia's task is to give a summary of the work and its place in the overall field. Thus, it is natural that the action of a book or a film will be described and discussed in full.
 * ''Many books or films lose their attraction, however, if too many details or the ending are revealed before they are read or seen. So it became common on the Internet to put before such descriptions a spoiler warning.
 * ''In encyclopedias, however, this is rare. In the German language Wikipedia, after long discussions, consensus developed not to include spoiler warnings, and to remove existing ones. The section which contains a description of the action should, however, always be clearly characterized, for example by the heading ==Plot summary==.
 * That's simply a lie. There was nowhere near a consensus, just a majority. They cannot admit that, so they had to add the lie.
 * Also the ==Plot summary== rule is ignored often enough to make it pointless. You just cannot avoid spoiler simply by avoiding summaries. --87.189.124.195


 * But that's the trap. There is no neutral definition of "recent". Wahkeenah 00:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you say so. Oh well, so much for spoilers - David Gerard 00:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, define "recent". My guess is it means "something you haven't seen yet". Wahkeenah 04:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was thinking a month or whatever. I have no idea if that's workable - David Gerard 07:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. I'd list elaborate reasons, but we've done that before. &mdash; Deckiller 21:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Encourages summary-cruft, and Wikipedia is not censored. Sean William 21:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Bogus argument. Tagging is not censoring. It's a courtesy to the reader. Wahkeenah 04:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I doubt I can say anything that hasn't already been said before, but they go against policy in various ways, are ugly, lead to bad articles (like The Crying Game example), and yes, dare I say it, are unencyclopedic. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've never been a fan, I've argued on many occasions to downgrade it from guideline status, it's too contentious and there's no real consensus either way on whether to use spoilers or not. For me, Wikipedia ain't censored and I trust our readers that they can work out what an article on any given subject might likely contain. As a UK resident I'm well aware of how to modify my surfing to not stumble across spoilage for US TV series I might enjoy. It beats me we'll stick a picture of an erect penis in articles but we get scared that someone might find out Romeo and Juliet die. Hiding Talk 21:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this please. Whilst there may arguably be some legitimate uses there are two problems. 1) It insults the readers' intelligence - if you look under 'plot summary' don't be surprised when you find (guess what) .... the plot. Wikipedia provides information - we don't censor it for taste, national security, religious sensitivities, or adult content - so we certainly should not censor it because someone doesn't want to know who was Darth Vader's father. We don't put sensitivity tags on images of the prophet telling Muslims to avert their eyes, and we shouldn't mollycoddle our readers like this: 'plot summary' is warning enough! 2) The second reason for deletion is that this is drastically being misused - Phil cites good examples - whilst buffyfandom may like such things - when applied to English literature (Shakesphere, Jane Austen, and Snow While (??), never mind classical latin texts (yes, Petronius's Satyricon - I kid you not!) it just makes us look ridiculous. Encyclopedias should do what encyclopaedias do - and that is not take their lead from trekkie episode guides. Yes, Snape kills Dumbledore - get over it!--Docg 21:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Tagging is not censorship. The information is there, if the reader wants to read it. Wahkeenah 04:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or translate the German version, which states that encyclopedias do not use spoiler warnings, and therefore Wikipedia does not use spoiler warnings. Kusma (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The butler did it delete. This warning is so overused it is becoming harmful. Dil is a man, Jack Dawson drowns, Gollum falls into Mount Doom with the ring, Sergeant Trotter killed Mrs Boyle, Leland Palmer killed his daughter Laura, Apollo 13 got home safe. Sam Blacketer 21:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Based on WP:NPOV and the Crying game example. Silas Snider (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Just before the MFD tag was added, Kusma added a short paragraph clarifying that article quality takes precedence over worrying about spoilers. Before that paragraph was added, I'd agree that the policy was a poor one, but in its current state is looks fine to me. It could probably do with some improvement, but certainly not outright deletion. --Tango 21:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't take anything I did today seriously; I also added a spoiler warning to the spoiler warning to show how ridiculous it is. Anyway, I don't believe that restricting spoilers will work. Either they all go or we're back at this point in a couple of months. Kusma (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't take anything I did today seriously&hellip; WP:POINT? — The Storm Surfer 23:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See, this is why jargon obstructs actual communication. If you have a look at the title of WP:POINT, your comment doesn't actually make sense. There's no guideline telling people not to help Wikipedia in order to illustrate a point - David Gerard 00:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * While some of the edits Kusma made today may have been debatable, and some are certainly good, I fail to see how this edit could be seen as help[ing] Wikipedia. — The Storm Surfer 00:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, adding a "o btw don't do this" doesn't change the thrust of it - it encourages NPOV violations as a habit and the way things are done here. That's really bad. - David Gerard 22:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Such things just encourage the industry's marketting plans. Eclecticology 22:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, if this goes through, I will believe that Wikipedia will have reached a new level of maturity, one where it transcends the everyforum.com mentality and becomes a real encyclopedia. I think User:Doc glasgow said it best of the people here, but I know that many eloquent speakers have taken to this cause before. A couple more things: Soylent Green is people, Darth Vader is Luke's father and Jesus dies (and comes back, too!). Axem Titanium 22:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Until wikipedia stops IP addresses from editing, there is no possibility of it reaching a "new level of maturity". Wahkeenah 04:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the comments on the mailing list. 86.143.233.233 22:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. In most cases you can write a comprehensive article without needing to blurt out plot details in the intro. Have respect for the readers of the encyclopedia who want to know the context and history of something they are reading or viewing and not have the ending spoiled for them.  Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that this page only demands ignoring NPOV on some articles instead of all of them does not seem to me to be a compelling reason to keep it. Also, given that we do not remove images of genitalia, feces, or other things, what is the reason to have a differing policy on spoilers? Phil Sandifer 22:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Apples and oranges. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. In censorship cases, such as Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy we include images that people have strong religious reasons to not want to see. In this case, we exclude information that causes no genuine harm. Phil Sandifer 22:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * When we have to for the sake of writing a good article, yes, but when we don't have to, there is no genuine harm in preserving spoilers. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your "strong keep" is invalid insofar as it advocates violation of NPOV. The lead summary is meant to be a complete standalone short article; this is actually important as many plans for a Wikipedia print edition involve pulling good lead summaries. So the twist actually has to be in the intro or the article, and hence the encyclopedia, is being deliberately hobbled. The Crying Game is the canonical example, but that's a reason for that to be the rule, not the exception. Oh, and Tyler Durden is Jack's other personality - David Gerard 22:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Such "canonical examples" can be dealt with on a case by case basis. Not every cultural product relies on a major twist like this. In most cases, the goals of providing reliable information and not spoiling the reader or viewer's experience need not conflict. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can think, without serious effort, of dozens of things where the ending belongs in the lead, ranging from The Crying Game to Romeo and Juliet. In every one of these cases, this policy mandates writing a bad article. Phil Sandifer 22:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And in those cases the goal of writing a complete article should supercede the desire to preserve spoilers. But we should not throw them out in every single article because of these cases. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep without prejudice, and perhaps modify to prevent NPOV issues? I always found the spolier warning tags useful. (Ok, so I typically read the spoiler warning sections first, but there are indeed people who hate getting spoilered ^^;;) --Kim Bruning 22:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think if the page is kept, we should modify the spoiler template to say "Warning! Information that you might not know yet follows below!" and put it on every single page. Kusma (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See Content disclaimer. Hiding Talk 22:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per David Gerard. Philippe 22:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or restrict to media released within the last (say) month or so. Putting spoiler warnings on films and books that just got released is annoying but understandable. Putting spoiler warnings on Citizen Kane and Hamlet, though, is just silly - their "statute of spoiler limitations" is long over. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 22:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Like good grammar, pleasing layout, consistent use of national varieties of English and other measures we take with reading in mind, this is a courtesy to the reader. Of course, there are exceptions, but luckily we are not a bureaucracy and need not be hidebound by our guidelines--the identification of an article that should be kept despite not meeting guidelines for notability doesn't mean we throw away deletion policy. The fact is that an encyclopedic article about a work of art is not primarily a list of stuff that happens it. Demi T/C 22:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with your last point, but I'm puzzled by your overall argument. To my mind, the focus on spoilers and when/where to reveal them encourages summary bloat of exactly the sort you're talking about. Valen and Sue Dibny both suffer badly from this. Phil Sandifer 22:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think fans' fascination with the object of their admiration does this without help of spoiler tags. I think I understand what you're saying, that providing a structure for content encourages that content to exist. But I really don't think overly-detailed plot synopses would go away if we removed this page and/or the associated template (which is neither here nor there as it's not the reason suggested to delete it). Anyway, my point was more about the pedagogical necessity of mentioning plot points in with an article on the work--I think the necessity is the exception rather than the rule. Demi T/C 23:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; an encyclopedia's first duty is to be informative. Spoiler warnings are the opposite of informative. Hiding information from users who come seeking it is not courteous; it is rude. ➥the Epopt 22:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The rudeness comes when you reveal information that users do not wish to have revealed. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to know information about a subject - don't look it up in an encyclopedia. If you don't want to know how the plot goes - don't read under s heading of 'plot synopsis' - it really is quite simple.--Docg 23:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the nannyism philosophy. Don't give them a choice. Force it on them. Wahkeenah 04:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How is that nannyism (I'm not even sure if that's a word)? It's the reader's choice whether to read or not. We as editors have no right to tell them what to read and what not to read, we just make it available for them when and if they want it in a NPOV form. Axem Titanium 04:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And who's to decide "what users do not wish to have revealed"? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 23:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The same people who decide the content of the article. Editors. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of perfectly valid reasons why you might want to look something up and not have it spoiled. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete &mdash; I've said it before and I'll say it again: "'Wikipedia is not censored.' Spoiler warnings break apart the prose and screw up formatting. It's ambiguous at what point in a game events must occur to not be a spoiler. A spoiler for one game isn't a spoiler for its sequel. Encyclopedic information is complete. It's ambiguous how long after a game is released that information becomes widely known and no longer a spoiler. Etc..." Bottom line is, if you're dumb enough to read an encyclopedia article about a game when you don't want it spoiled, then that's your mistake and not the encyclopedia's.  You are your own censor, simply don't read it.  --&mdash; Δαίδαλος  Σ  Σ  23:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no reason why we can't apply some common sense to this instead of going one way or the other. Including a spolier warning is not "censorship". You can chose to read further if you wish, the information is there and uncensored. There are plenty of valid, non-stupid reasons you might wish to read an encyclopedia article about a book or movie and not have the ending spoiled, and the encylopedia should respect those users. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And yet, hiding a picture (with a show button) is the same as "you can choose to read furthur", yet there's no hidden pictures on penis, nor almost any other article (I know there are a few, but they are by far the exception). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 23:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Apples and oranges. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I still do not understand why we should have warnings and disclaimers for information that does trivial harm but none whatsoever fro information that is so offensive as to cause riots. Phil Sandifer 23:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably due to our systemic bias. I personally would support more extensive tagging and markup, and allow users to set preferences to decide what and how to view--I think actually supports Nicholai's point that "You are your own censor, simply don't read it." Whereas, if no such tagging takes place, this is just glibness, since the entire point is that if you read it to see if you want to read it you've already read that it's people. Demi T/C 23:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You keep saying "apples and oranges" as if your logic would magically explain itself. In this case, hiding of pictures and hiding of information are perfectly comparable (ie, the opposite of "apples and oranges"); they both involve hiding something, a definition of censorship. A person who searches for something on an encyclopedia would obviously be trying to find out more about it. If the content exists (which it should, being an encyclopedia), then a spoiler warning isn't going to stop that person from reading and learning about it. The only thing that can legitimately stop a person from learning is himself and we as editors have no place to intrude on that. Axem Titanium 23:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Absurd, btw Snape killed Dumbledore. &mdash; Michael Linnear   23:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete; it's unprofessional. Its use is only valid if we stop calling the project "the free encyclopaedia" and start calling it "Jimbo's bag of trivia and review site" or somesuch instead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zoney (talk • contribs) 23:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Strong delete per comments by Phil and David. If people don't have enough self control to pick and choose the articles they read and edit, then they probably shouldn't be here. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 23:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nannyism. Telling the reader what to do. It's offensive. Wahkeenah 05:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Phil. bogdan 23:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep; since when is MFD a vehicle to change guidelines? And even if MFD has become a vehicle to change guidelines, this is a good guideline that we've had for many years, and, as Gamalie pointed out, in almost all articles it isn't a problem and in the few that it might be, other policies obviously trump it. And can we please stop tagging on immature comments like "oh yeah and X did Y in Z"? — The Storm Surfer 23:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Spoiler alert! ➥the Epopt 00:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments 1. This seems to be discussing the deletion (or perhaps retirement) of a guideline. However, many of the posts above seem to be strongly advocating the removal of the spoiler tag/template. It would be useful to clarify this point. Is it not the case that deletion of this guideline will leave the tag simply not covered by any guideline, and therefore open to use by editors without the guidance a guideline might offer? 2. If, indeed, the proposal is to do away with "spoiler" completely, then there will be many interested editors who are in blissful ignorance of this discussion. If the proposal is to delete the tag, it may be appropriate to, in the short term, pollute the article space with a small reference to this discussion, within the included template, so as to encourage the maximum amount of participation in the discussion. Notinasnaid 23:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Pollute the article space?" Absolutely not.--Docg 23:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I should perhaps clarify what I mean. Not a general notice, but an extra line within the expansion of the tag, so it appears with the spoiler warning. If the tag is such a terrible thing, then telling people a discussion of its deletion is under way is surely not a bad thing, and won't make articles a whole lot worse. I think I have seen such things before. Notinasnaid 23:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The two go hand in hand - the question was, to my mind, where to attack the practice. I felt that attacking the policy was a good start - once the current policy is repudiated we can work through the template from the perspective of some consensus about what our best practice should be. Phil Sandifer 23:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Would mentioning it on TFD be appropriate? - David Gerard 00:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good call. I've added an entry there directing people to this discussion. Phil Sandifer 00:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete templates and guideline. Guidelines aren't policy and this guideline is adding on needless formatting saying what should be implicit in our mission as encyclopedists. Plus, I agree it does violate policy. --Gwern (contribs) 23:50 15 May 2007 (GMT)
 * Comment Neutral-ish . I have three conflicting opinions: one strong one for delete and two weak ones for keep.  For delete, it is utterly unencyclopedic to have such a warning.  You wouldn't see them in film books which often not only completely tell the plot to the movie in question but also add spoilers to other films if they are relevant to analysis.  My reasons for keeping are that this does provide a practical yet amateurish service but it's the fact that I am not sure that MfD should be used to change guidelines.  While this isn't a vote it's still not the best way to gain consensus on a new policy.  So, there goes. ||| I've decided to make this a comment instead.  I've realized there is no way to draw a line about what should have a spoiler tag because it depends so much on the individual.  And this is just embarassing... to put a spoiler on an article like that.  I do think we need to build consensus on what to do with spoiler templates since just making a guideline historical won't help. gren グレン 23:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can someone explain how the proper usage o spoiler warnings is naught but a large dump atop the policy of NPOV? Arcayne   (cast a spell)  00:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, everything above? The nomination? They blatantly encourage articles to be written with a view to working around spoilers rather than with a view to neutrality. From your comments and those of your fellow project members on my talk page - up to and including advocating edit warring to preserve spoilers everywhere - it would appear that the film wikiproject considers working around spoilers to be of the greater importance. That this policy encourages such a view is directly damaging to the encyclopedia - David Gerard 00:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Arcayne (and other members) speak for themselves, not the Film project. I voted strong delete and I'm an active member of the project.  &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 01:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's good to know! - David Gerard 07:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So, if I am to understadn yoiu correctly, you are suggesting removing the idea of warning people using spoilers because some clowns try to do an end-run around the need for spoilers. Are you arguing that spoilers are ineffective in accomplishing their task, or that they are somehow encouraging folk to find a way around the policy? And please, can we forego the weasel words, please? Calling something blatant maybe your way of effecting a point, but a more matter-of-fact way to explain the issue might be more helpful. Arcayne   (cast a spell)  00:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the "end-run around the need for spoilers" you're talking about is. But, again, here's the basic issue - as before, using The Crying Game, but there are other good examples to be found. One of the most important things about The Crying Game is the transgender reaction to it. Because article leads are supposed to give an overview of all the important parts of the article, WP:NPOV demands this perspective get mentioned there. The spoiler policy demands otherwise. Phil Sandifer 00:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To begin with, let's stop using the Crying Game as an example; it's a bad article by any definition (which begs the question as to why someone didn't simply fix the article instead of pointing it out as some sort of bastard child of Ee-vil). The Lead shouldn't be including spoiler info about the plot, and spoilers allow the user to choose for themselves whether they want to learn about the story that they would rather avoid. I disagree with your interpretation of the Spoiler policy being at odds with the NPOV policy. Certainly, a better policing of articles to make sure they remain neutral whilst ensuring that plot information isn't revealed are not diametric opposites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs)
 * Well, no. The spoiler does belong in the lead because the lead has to work as a standalone short article - else the article is badly written and not up to scratch. So it's spoilers or encyclopedic style. Which will win? - David Gerard 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think The Crying Game has a decent lead, albeit a pretty lousy article after that. The lead needs some clean-up to remove some wanky praise (sensitive portrayals? I know a lot of transgender activists who'd beg to differ), but it does the basic job of telling you the highlights of the article. The problem is that it does this by spoiling the movie, and there's no way to do this without spoiling the movie. But if you want another example, Sue Dibny absolutely has to mention Sue Dibny's role as a flashpoint in discussions of women in comics in the lead to be NPOV. That involves revealing that she was raped and murdered. Phil Sandifer 00:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it has a better Lead now, avoiding the specific information about the transgender character (apparenbtly Phil and David took my advice toheart and fixed it up some). The Lead is asummarized overview of the artilce - it isn't the place to reveal who Keyser Soze is, which is why spoilers need to be in the Plot/Synopsis, and nowhere else. A well, Sue Dibney is an artic le you recently re-worked to make a point (an OR point w/out sources, unfortunately). The Lead as a summary doesn't introduce new statements unsupported by the article. The info about the "flashpoint" is not so much that but a symptom of the Women in Refrigerators argument. Hardly a flashpoint.
 * However, that is a topic for another time. We are currently discussing removing spoiler tags because they apparently inspire allsorts of - as yet unexplained - NPOV violations by their simple presence. That is akin to suggesting that we should do away with baby's diapers because it only inspires babies to crap in them. In both situations, crap is going to occur. Best not to blame the diaper, but rather to instead address the core issue.  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  01:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how best to respond to this, if only because it seems to contain the implication that editing articles to comply with our policy on article leads violates WP:POINT. In any case, I've added three sources to the Dibny claim now. But the point here remains - both Sue Dibny and The Crying Game, in order to be good, NPOV articles, need to mention things that are spoilers. Otherwise major aspects of the topic have to get exiled from the lead. I'm not advocating putting the endings to every book, movie, and character in the lead. But sometimes it is the best possible way to do it. The Chairs is another example - that article needs to discuss the play's ending in the lead. (And I'll go fix it as soon as I post this.) Phil Sandifer 01:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * An article which fails to reveal information or organizes it in such a way that a certain position is marginalized is by definition POV. Axem Titanium 00:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the plot synopsis is typically much larger than the intro, that is hardly "marginalizing" anything. Wahkeenah 05:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

--Kim Bruning 23:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This guideline is not in line with several policies and is an unnecessary exception of No disclaimer templates. All those ugly, unencyclopedic templates should go too. Prolog 00:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That page has an exception for spoilers, which I've removed. Some people may disagree.  I don't particularly care for "no disclaimer", but it's there.  Any exceptions to it should not be for such frivolous reasons as spoilers. Eclecticology 01:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There is no POV issue. It's a red herring. This is an attempt by certain editors to impose their will on the readers of wikipedia as to how they "should be" using wikipedia. It amounts to nannyism in the extreme. Wahkeenah 00:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How, exactly, is the forced exclusion of discussions of transgender issues from the lead of The Crying Game compatible with WP:NPOV? Phil Sandifer 00:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is your desire to discuss that topic outside the spoiler tag more important than respecting the readers of wikipedia who maybe don't want to have the ending ruined for them? Wahkeenah 00:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your question amounts to "how is writing a comprehensive introduction to an encyclopedia article in a manner compatible with our fundamental content policies more important than not revealing the ending of a movie that is best known for its twist ending?" If you cannot answer that one yourself, I cannot possibly help you. Phil Sandifer 00:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Spoiler warnings themselves are a way for other editors to nanny readers into the everyforum.com culture where it really shouldn't be. Personally, I don't see how this is a red herring at all. Your argument seems to be a "straw man" by turning this into a debate about certain editors rather than actually addressing the issue of Wikipedia policy (NPOV) and the rights of the readers. Axem Titanium 00:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * User talk:David Gerard is my personal example of the sort of editing this guideline and template leads to - David Gerard 00:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What that means, I have no idea. And it is about the editors, because suddenly today a few of them decided that they don't like spoiler warnings because it inconveniences them somehow. The spoiler warning is a courtesy to the reader and does no harm otherwise. How about putting the interests of readers ahead of your own? Wahkeenah 00:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I should think that one of the most fundamental interests of a reader that we, as an encyclopedia, care about is their interest in reading well-written, comprehensive articles. Part of that is well-written, comprehensive lead sections. The spoiler policy actively says that we should conceal information in lead sections rather than discussing it. This is contrary to our fundamental policies. Phil Sandifer 00:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict, responding to Wahkeenah)What interests? I'm trying to build an encyclopedia here, I don't know about you. Spoiler warnings violate the NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW by concealing important information from readers. It should be understood that a reader will get spoilers when he reads an article. The reader is harmed when he cannot get the whole story because it was blocked by a spoiler warning. Axem Titanium 00:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That is absolutely false. Spoiler tags conceal nothing. They simply let the reader know that plot giveaways are ahead, and he/she can read them if they want to. If you read Leonard Maltin's movie guide, for example, he gives all the info in a paragraph and does not give away any spoilers. Nor is it necessary here. It's simply imposing your will upon the reader, taking away the reader's choice by not warning him/her. Wahkeenah 00:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (Heading left because I can't count that many bullets)Maltin's guide is a collection of reviews, though. The lead of a movie review needs to do two things - tell me if the reviewer dug the movie, and tell me what sort of movie it is so I know if it sounds interesting. That's very different from what an encyclopedia does, which is tell me all the pertinent information about the movie. For some movies, like The Crying Game, the encyclopedic information includes discussions of the ending. Phil Sandifer 00:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What is a spoiler then? The climax? The first hour of a movie? The first 15 minutes? The first minute? It's all a matter of perspective. To someone who's seen a movie, 30 minutes in seems like it wouldn't be a spoiler but to someone who hasn't any early revelations would count as spoilers. There is no objective way to define a spoiler so it's impossible to keep this guideline. Axem Titanium 00:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. We really don't need to act like a fan site or a movie guide. We're an encyclopedia so there is no need to give out a warning to the reader that by reading our articles they might actually discover something they didn't know. --Tony Sidaway 00:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Mark as historical - effectively delete, but don't really delete it. Then restart discussion at TfD. BTW, a good use of the spoiler template was to track down articles that needed rewriting due to "writing about fiction" issues. People will still add spoiler warnings manually, even if the guideline and template family are deprecated. I for one don't want to have the last Harry Potter book spoiled. Carcharoth 00:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In that context, you're only a reader, so your opinion doesn't matter to these editors. Wahkeenah 00:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You might find that this discussion goes better for you if you assumed a bit of good faith. Personally, my major concern is for readers. I think a reader who looks up a topic should get a good overview of that topic in the lead section of the article. Phil Sandifer 00:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You all went through and took away the tags from dozens of articles, with no warning, just because you felt like it. Why should I have any faith in your approach? Wahkeenah 05:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that I suggest spoilers be restricted to unreleased or very recent release fiction, which would cover this example - David Gerard 00:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a trap. There is no neutral definition of "recent". Wahkeenah 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you say so. Oh well, so much for spoilers - David Gerard 00:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Recent" to you would mean something you haven't seen yet. Once you've seen it, that's all that matters, the other readers be damned. Wahkeenah 04:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: This is a guideline page. We do not delete guidelines, we merely mark them as historical. This is to (literally) prevent history from repeating itself. Therefore if consensus here is to delete, mark as historical instead. Under no circumstances must you actually delete.
 * Note on MFD: Note that it's actually not a good idea to vote on policy like MFD so conveniently seems to allow. Use the talk page instead. Discussion on the talk page of a guideline can easily overturn a decision made on MFD.
 * Note on notes on mfd's. Deletion Review usually comes after the close. Hiding Talk 22:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? --Kim Bruning 23:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have restored this to a normal bulleted comment, just like any other on this page. There is no pressing need to have extra emphasis placed on it by having it at the bottom complete with warnings in wiki-comments to post above it.——  Eagle 101 Need help? 00:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per nomination. Mr Rochester has a wife yet living. Mackensen (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per numerous excellent arguments above. Spoiler tags need to die, in much the same fashion as Trinity dies at the end of The Matrix. --Stormie 00:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - please STOP trotting out spoilers as a joke. People reading encyclopedic articles should expect spoilers. People participating in MfD debates on the general principle of spoilers might not expect real examples of spoilers to be used. It is a standard joke to add a spoiler tag to discussions like this, but there is a reason for it. This is not an encyclopedia article. This is more like a bulletin board or discussion thread, and that is what spoilers were originally used for (on Usenet) to allow people to navigate fractured, rambling, threaded discussions without coming across spoilers. Topics shift and change in forums like this, so spoiler tags are needed on Wikipedia, but on talk pages and project discussion pages, but not in article space. Trinity and Rochester indeed. Hmmph! Carcharoth 01:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Can't understand what the harm is in keeping it. If it helps some readers, why not? Making Wikipedia reader-friendly seems to me a good thing. But what do I know? -Ebyabe 00:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide a neutral point of view to readers. Hiding information does not seem too reader-friendly to me. Axem Titanium 01:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting this from? A spoiler tag hides nothing, it censors nothing. It simply gives the reader a choice of whether to read about the giveaway plot details. Wahkeenah 01:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But the policy page says "It is also recommended that editors avoid placing spoilers in edit summaries or section headers (unless the spoiler warning is before the table of contents) and avoid linking from another article to a section inside the spoiler area." And while there's a saving throw a paragraph down about article quality, the fact remains - the page advocates organizing articles around spoilers, not around information. Phil Sandifer 01:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read up on your definition of censorship. If information is organized in such a way that a certain position is marginalized or eliminated, that is still considered censorship (albeit more subtle and insidious). Axem Titanium 01:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, censorship is hiding information. There is nothing hidden with that tag. You can write the intro a la Leonard Maltin, with no key plot giveaways, and you can put the spoiler tag, and spill all the movie's guts, and the reader has the choice of whether they want to read about the details or not. Wahkeenah 01:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Censorship is perhaps too loaded a term. How about this - removing important aspects of a topic from the lead violates WP:NPOV. Phil Sandifer 01:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * All the information is in the article. The giveaways don't need to be in the lead paragraph. That's imposing your will on the reader. Wahkeenah 01:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between movie reviews and encyclopedia articles. In the former, you decide whether or not to see the movie. In the latter, you are researching everything about the movie. If I were to talk about, say, evolution and I wanted to advance the position that evolution doesn't exist, I could easily rearrange the article on evolution to discredit Darwinists. None of the information was left out, but the editor (me) was able to spin it towards his own POV. The same can be done with works of fiction. By organizing the article around a spoiler warning, it creates a POV. You also have not responded to my "definition of a spoiler" argument above. Axem Titanium 01:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, you're imposing your own view on the reader about how he "should be" using wikipedia, rather than letting him decide. Wahkeenah 01:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to know a lot about me. Tell me, what is "my view"? As far as I know, I'm using the classical definition of an encyclopedia and applying it to Wikipedia which claims to be "The Free Encyclopedia". If it's not my place to decide that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, then who's is it? I suppose I should turn Wikipedia into a soapbox for my own ideas. That way, I can actually impose my ideas on readers instead of protecting him from reading the encyclopedia. Seriously, what else do you do with Wikipedia besides use it as an encyclopedia? Axem Titanium 02:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * All I know about you and the other anti-spoiler-taggers on here is that your priorities are out of whack. Courtesy for the reader should come first. Show me another "classic encyclopedia" that reveals the endings of movies. Wahkeenah 02:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I couldn't find a single Britannica article on a film. Encarta has some, but they're all stubs by our standards and don't include any plot summaries at all. Britannica does definitely spoil the ending to The Iliad in its article on Homer, and Encarta has copious summaries of novels. But if we wanted to go strictly by the standards of classic encyclopedias we'd delete all our film articles entirely, or at least the plot summaries. Phil Sandifer 05:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the main reasons we started using spoiler warnings was because we normally rank very high on internet search results. -- Ned Scott 05:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe a compromise would be, when they click on a subject, to automatically pop up that one editor's lecture on the way the reader "should [or should not] be using" wikipedia, to put the reader in their place and keep their expectations low. Wahkeenah 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Week delete. Not really doing any harm, but along with issues raised above, there's simply no need for an entire guideline on how to use spoiler tags--nor should the use of spoiler tags really be encouraged more than it already is. That said, I'm really quite ambivolent about it and, thus, fail to see how such a trivial matter could spark such a lengthy discussion. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope that y'all mean "keep, reject and esperanzify" as opposed to "delete", no? Spoiler warnings, for better or worse, have been with us for a long time...  --Iamunknown 01:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or at least mark historical. If these tags were confined to works released in the last 5 years or so, then it would be acceptable, but there has been a drive to keep them on any literary work, ever; we've seen them on Shakespeare plays and even a book of the Bible. This is unencyclopedic and absurd. *** Crotalus *** 01:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Flat delete, do not mark historical, do not Esperanzify. Spoiler warnings are silly things to put into encylopedia articles, which by definition have to discuss endings, plot twists, etc. The time taken up by sterile disputes about spoiler tags is ridiculous--I've even had arguments about whether Odyssey or Medea should have spoiler tags, and those works of literature are 2500 years old. We don't need a guideline about an unnecessary template; we don't even need to mark it historical, just get rid of it. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Discard per nom. Even if we don't want to get rid of spoiler templates, we definitely don't want to mandate them as part of the Manual of Style.--ragesoss 02:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see how removing the guideline while keeping the template improves matters. That would increase, rather than reduce, the time-wasting arguments over spoilers.  This already includes one important piece of guidance -- don't distort the structure of the article for the sake of spoiler warnings -- and can be further improved.  Better a guideline page where we can reach a sensible compromise than a free-for-all.  &mdash;Cel  ithemis  02:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Guidelines are not overturned by deleting them. Tag it as rejected if it is, sure, but that decision must be made on the talk page. MfD isn't the right place. -Amarkov moo! 04:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong discard: The content disclaimer says that Wikipedia contains content you will find objectionable. Another warning for this is stupid. There's also the case of Wikipedia not being censored. Providing a warning to information is censorship. There's also the article untidiness and obstruction. I am stumped to their major use: plot sections. That's right, a section titled "Plot" has a second warning that tells readers "Plot follows". I am unsure about how removing guidelines works, but if this doesn't remove it, it will at least be leway to that goal. --Teggles 05:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Spoiler warnings are not helpful, I have found. They are merely a placebo, with people even moaning about spoilers even with a big honking warning. Matthew 06:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or mark as historical and do not use. Readers should expect that an encyclopedia article about a fictional work will reveal information about it, including any plot surprises. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator's arguments. Kariteh 07:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close per MfD: "Nominating a Wikipedia policy or guideline page, or one of the deletion discussion areas (or their sub-pages), for deletion will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy." Whatever the merits of this, and I can see arguments on both sides (lots of them, covering pages and pages of Wikipedia) MfD is not the place to consider deleting a guideline. AndyJones 07:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This allows us to make leeway on the discussion of spoilers, moreso than other methods. WP:IAR. --Teggles 09:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete or Completely redesign. Either delete this, or make it a small unobtrusive icon at the top right of a section with spoilers, like the 'locked page' or 'featured article'. - Francis Tyers · 09:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this misguided template. Spoiler warnings belong on fansites and book review sites, not in encyclopaedias.  If you don't want to read an encyclopaedic article about a book or work of fiction, that is, an in-depth article which explains it in full, including the plot twists and denouement, then please go somewhere where incmplete information is the norm.  Wikipedia is not such a place. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's simply courteous: new readers might not know whether Wikipedia articles are likely to reveal the plot or not; the spoiler warning tells them that they do. End of story. It's completely harmless in 99.9% of articles. I understand the Crying Game problem but I'm sure a sensible solution can be found for The Crying Game that doesn't require the altering of every other article to fit in with it. The NPOV article is an absurd red herring: spoiler warnings do not encourage censorship, they simply permit choice. You should all go away and do something useful, like improve the Crying Game article, which is rubbish, and not because of the spoiler warning. Cop 633 11:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * They'll know it after the first article they read. New Wikipedia readers are also not likely to think that Wikipedia contains nudity or offensive language where appropriate; do you want to start tagging those? It is the idea of tagging content that is bad. Kusma (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "They'll know it after the first article they read." Exactly. It's discorteous not to warn them. And no, I don't see how tagging potentially offensive pages can possibly hurt anybody. Cop 633 11:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep to quote Wahkeenah: "You can write the intro a la Leonard Maltin, with no key plot giveaways, and you can put the spoiler tag, and spill all the movie's guts, and the reader has the choice of whether they want to read about the details or not." Arguments that NPOV is ruined by a spoiler warning are entirely specious as saying a game or movie or book has a some key points that may best be witnessed for one's self is not non-neutral. Also, a spoiler warning does not indicate a poorly written article, rather, someone has thought abut what's coming and is showing consideration for readers. As for people suggesting that a spoiler warning tag ruins the way a pages looks: how? It's not like a small line across a page will ruin the reader's immersion in a gripping article. Images go at the left or right of a page. If a small line across a page is ruining it then perhaps we'd better realise that an inability to adjust an image's location by a sub-pixel is also unacceptable, and we'd all better use exactly the same monitor with the same renderer on our browser, and the same font so that the artistic aesthetic is intact and inviolate. We can make ourselves the William Blake's of encyclopaedias through acts like these. Really, people are putting in spoiler warnings as a public service, same as any contribution to Wikipedia. Waerloeg 11:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As a further point and much more eloquent, go here LV-426. Half the article deals with 'scientific info about a fictitious place. Events at that place that are well suited for a spoiler. Waerloeg 11:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but do you really think that people who have not seen Alien are likely to look up an article like this? Kusma (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or restrict to recently released films/books/whatever. From experience reviewing such things, it's difficult to comment on significant aspects of the work without spoiling something - and since we're an encyclopaedia, commentary > avoiding spoilers. The former should come above the latter. For newly released works, though, it might make sense to keep spoiler tags, if only because most people won't have seen the work and there won't be much commentary available anyway. Johnleemk | Talk 11:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, an encyclopedia will contain all information on a subject that it can, it would be slightly illogical not to expect "spoilers" in an article Alastairward 11:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It has a great template and does not hinder one's use of Wikipedia, rather excell it. It  offers a miniscule inconvenience in exchangee for a courtesy to all users. I have found it very useful when attempting to find key details without spoiling the plot. -- Xallium (talk • contribs) 12:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep and request discussion to be closed based on violation of disruption rule (unless proof can be generated otherwise). I've said this before on the TfD associated with this page, but I'll repeat it here: Spoiler warnings are just that--warnings, not censorship. If we attempted to censor, the spoilers would be gone, kaput, vanished. And in the end, that's exactly what'll happen with the removal of the spoiler warning system. Remove the spoiler warnings, remove the spoilers. On the subject of unreleased fiction, articles shouldn't be created for those until their release, because what may have been rumoured for release once may not be released at all. Put this to bed, ladies and gents; you've successfully filibustered it to death. --JB Adder | Talk 12:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as due courtesy to those who are reading the article. It doesn't harm anything, those who are searching for information are not stopped from doing so. And to those who are quoting "Wikipedia is not censored" this is in now way censorship - the onformations is always there for those who want to to read it. Viridae Talk 12:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment if this deletion goes through, as a user, I will find a different site to use for referencing TV shows. Without spoiler warnings, Wikipedia will only be useful after I've watched a show - which is to say, nigh useless. --Dyfrgi 12:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And what site, pray tell, will that be? Television without Pity includes spoilers in its recaps without explicit spoiler warnings, because they expect people to understand that recaps, by their nature, include spoilers.  Wiki 24 and Lostpedia contain only a single spoiler warning on their front page, not a spoiler warning on every single episode description, while Memory Alpha doesn't even have the front page spoiler warning.  All of those sites expect users to have the common sense to understand that episode articles will contain spoilers.  Why should Wikipedia be any different? Chuck 21:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - The spoiler warning system in quite nessicary, and by no means should be deleted. Anyway, It'd make a lot of template removing work for everybody :-). Ryan Got something to say?  12:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I could just as easily say that they are quite unnessesary and by all means shoul be deleted. So why are they /nessesary/? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, I think it's ironic that some wikitard wants to delete the ONLY useful tag in wikipedia. But you go to any other page and it's packed full of useless tags. 63.131.25.92 13:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Calling someone a "tard" doesn't exactly help your cause, just makes it worse. Anyone else notise how the majority of, mmmm, EMBLEISHED types of votes (ultra, etc) are on the keep side? Perhaps that says something. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I ==really== don't care. This used to be a great place about information, but now it's become a giant beurocracy that is more concerned with following the ever-increasing number of contradictory rules and regulations than with being the worlds largest repository of information. I've had perfectly edits removed because some guy who has no job and edits wikipedia 18 hours a day decided that his opinion was more important than mine. There's a condescending tone given by all full-time editors towards casual editors, and it really ticks me off, because they all have one huge circle-jerk where they support each other and dismiss anyone elses opinions simply because they don't live and breathe wikipedia. So you know what? I stopped making edits. Fuck if I care if anyone learns anything useful or interesting; I'll keep the knowledge to myself and gain a competetive advantage over everyone else. When wikipedia collapses under its own ridiculous rules, I'll be laughing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.131.25.92 (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
 * I don't know what you're referring to, but I have found only two textual edits by you: one that had (among other things) "many now believe that Module 10 will never be released" and another saying "over the years". I don't need to argue against these, you should be able to realize the problems. --Teggles 20:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There's these things called "IP Addresses" that many ISP's randomly change, and thus many people in a single year can have the same IP address at different times of said year.
 * ...and if the edits or IP addresses were mentioned, I could explain the problems with the edits. Because there are only two textual edits on that IP address, I can only explain those two. --Teggles 05:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - why throw this away? It's very usefull, because when I am watching a movie I don't want to know everything of the story already. Tukkaatje 13:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Per nom, Kusma, Doc glasgow, The Epopt, Zoney, Tony Sidaway, Akhilleus, Morven, Axem Titanium, and my own many comments on this issue in the past. Shanes 14:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As long as everything is properly cited... spoilers can be just as encyclopedic as anything else. I understand how the people who want to delete thes templates feel, but if the template is being used for bad wrting then you should clean up the bad writing this is another attempt by people who would rather create beaureacratic policies to sklirt around an issue instead of taking bold action to correct what is really wrong on a case by case basis. It's the same thing that happened in WP:MSOF with succession templates on pages for fictional characters. Let's not let it happen here too. The Crying game example is ridiculous because categorizing the film as LGBT does not give away the ending. Does categorizing Will and Grace as LGBT mean every character in that series ir Lesbian Gay, Bisexual or trans gendered... no it doesn't. So what has been revealed by this? Merely that it is of interest to LGBT people... for all anyone knows, it may have a supporting character who is LGBT.--Dr who1975 17:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Our articles come up at or near the top of many search engine searches, so the person reading the article may well have had no previous exposure to Wikipedia.  They just want to read some information on the book, film, play, etc..., possibly to see if they want to read it, go see it, etc...  What is the harm of warning them off?  The warning is so easy to disregard, it never seems to me to be in the way. -- DS1953 talk  17:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, totally unencyclopedic. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 20:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Spoiler tags are an important part of reader courtesy. It has often been common practice for encyclopedias that focus on literature to include spoiler tags. I propose instead that a wikiproject be created to trim down the excessive spoiler tags mentioned above. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 22:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It has? Some examples? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep It seems to be helpful. --thedemonhog talk contributions 23:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment/Weak Delete - honestly this is probably a violation of Wikipedia's policies on censorship/disclaimer templates - but the fact is, anyone that looks up a movie in an encyclopedia should expect to get info on the movie. We are an encyclopedia, and we do say the plot, we do say how it was made, we do say who acted in it (Spoiler warning: this reveals who acted in this film - if you don't want to know, don't read ahead), and they should expect that. daniel  folsom  02:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOT pretty much sums it up. If you are offended by spoilers, it makes sense that you shouldn't seek out a detailed encyclopedia article on that movie you haven't seen, just like those appalled by pictures genitalia shouldn't go viewing Vagina. Krimpet (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Spoiler warnings when dealing with fiction exist in many (most?) places that offer information on movies / TV / etc.  Particularly when dealing with recently released fiction (as wiki often does).  For many people the warnings add value, and I'm not convinved that the 'harm' to article structure is that big a deal. MkDoyle 03:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary (or not so arbitrary) section header

 * Point of policy
 * Note to closing admin: This is a guideline page. We do not delete guidelines, we merely mark them as historical. This is to (literally) prevent history from repeating itself. Therefore if consensus here is to delete, mark as historical instead. Under no circumstances must you actually delete.
 * Note on MFD: Note that it's actually not a good idea to vote on policy like MFD so conveniently seems to allow. Use the talk page instead. Discussion on the talk page of a guideline can easily overturn a decision made on MFD.
 * I'm sure the closing admin will know policy well enough and will read this comment, and the one above (that you posted earlier, and was also at the bottom of the page, complete with requests to post above it). There is no need for the extra emphasis complete with wiki commented <! -- warnings --> to post above it. What is stated here is no more or less important then what anyone else here has stated. (Please note I have not yet made a statement on this MFD) ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 01:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * MFD is wrong venue for policy discussions. This is a compromise as it stands. Two options : Leave MFD open, albeit with caveat, or speedy close MFD as inappropriate venue. One is giving folks a break as per WP:IAR, one is following policy. Your call. :-) --Kim Bruning 02:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For now I think it is best to allow folks to comment, there seems to be a large group of people willing to discuss this issue here, and as such it is probably best to leave it here, even if that is considered ignoring all rules. :) This seems to be getting a very large section of the community involved. Also may I please ask... why is it so important that your comments be at the very bottom of the page through this whole debate? Are they any more or less important then any other comment? I'm sure the closing admin will read the whole thing through, and the closing admin may very well say "ok this needs to go to XXX", but as I see it now, it is allowing some community debate to happen, and thats a good thing from where I am standing. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 02:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that it shouldn't matter at all in what venue the discussion is held, so long as it is held. MfD is as effective, if not more effective, at gauging support for the rejection of a guideline/policy as a policy's talk page, though it is clearly not the typical route one goes to seek the overturning of a policy/guideline. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ami, thats true, in a way, but this is likely better suited to a policy/guideline request for comment, though I'm not sure how much the forum really matters on cases like this. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 03:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep: For the reasons I described above. I do not find the arguments for deletion all that convincing. Rewrite the article to reflect NPOV, don't blame the Spoiler policy for bad writing. Arcayne  (cast a spell)  04:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Delete encyclopedias don't use spoiler warnings and as per the above reasons.  Darth Griz98  05:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per several reasons. One, MFD is an inappropriate format for this discussion, and those who want to delete spoiler warnings are strong-arming not only the change, but what format we use. Less than a year ago BOTH sides of the debate were able to agree for an RFC format, and as heated as those discussions got, at least we had the sense to seek out a discussion format that would be fair, easy to follow, and helpful. Continue this discussion on WT:SPOILER and don't give in to strong-arm tactics. -- Ned Scott 03:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * retracting this "keep" as the discussion isn't really an MFD (at least a normal one) anymore, and the format for discussion has improved. Undecided for the issue itself. -- Ned Scott 00:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This MFD was started by someone who did not participate in any of the previous debates (to my knowledge) so I wouldn't blame him for choosing the wrong platform. On the other hand, a debate is a debate, regardless of where it happens. MFD is just a name, just like RFC. Whether it happens here or there doesn't change the fact that discussion is happening and that discussion will be used to build consensus. In regards to your other point, who is strong-arming whom? Is reopening a debate such a crime? I've seen nothing but a desire to swiftly crush this debate from you and only after I called you out on it have you actually settled down to try to discuss. Axem Titanium 03:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Plus, this raises an interesting scenerio: if numerous established editors feel a guideline should be deleted, then allowing an MfD is a good idea. The nomination may have not mentioned everything, but that has been covered by others within this discussion. &mdash; Deckiller 03:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't blame the nominator, and in reality I'm not really "mad" at anyone for wanting to remove the warnings. However, saying the format for discussion doesn't matter is simply not true. "I've seen nothing but a desire to swiftly crush this debate from you " Because you've assumed that you've helped make the situation worse and not better. That assumption couldn't be more wrong, and in no way was anything being suppressed or ignored. Just because the comments had not been copied over right away doesn't mean they were going to be archived away. I strongly respect the opinions of my fellow Wikipedians, even when they disagree with me. I've stood up for those who disliked spoiler warnings when they were not available to comment, when it looked like the "pro-warning" side was the only ones commenting. But hey, thanks for assuming the worst of me and painting a completely inaccurate picture of my intentions. -- Ned Scott 04:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Though it's a side point, I was vaguely aware of the RfC (or at least, it was familiar to me when I looked at it, though I'd forgotten about it when I made the nomination). I think I declined to participate in it, largely because I thought most of the things being discussed in it (most notably the question of spoilers and NPOV as considered there, where the issue was mostly about whether it's a POV to label a particular fact a spoiler) were kind of silly and missed what seemed to me the major points about spoilers. Phil Sandifer 05:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment&mdash;if this discussion is moved to a place considered more "appropriate", please allow for a transition period to advertise and set up the transfer before closing this discussion. &mdash; Deckiller 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If the discussion continues here then such a transition would not be possible.. Of course everyone would have been notified and all comments would have found there way into the new discussion, but it's not really efficient to do that before closing, allowing the work of transition to grow as you are doing it. -- Ned Scott 04:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not doing a transition; I just pasted the discussion to the talkpage in case another revert war started. &mdash; Deckiller 04:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you're directly preventing the transition. -- Ned Scott 04:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And how am I doing that? I didn't make a single revert to this page, nor have I even really been around for at least half an hour. All I did earlier was post my opinion on the talkpage, paste the discussion on the talkpage when it was closed, and post the MfD tag when the debate was reopened. &mdash; Deckiller 04:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct, my mistake. -- Ned Scott 04:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not necessarily about poor wording; it's about the concept of spoiler warnings in general. &mdash; Deckiller 04:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he knows that.. -- Ned Scott 04:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If by "article" he means an example described above and not the spoiler warning guideline, then my mistake. &mdash; Deckiller 04:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Err, I was going to go to bed, but I thought I'd point out this is not a policy, but rather a guideline. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 04:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Reluctant delete. I didn't realize it was causing so many problems, although we have had trouble with the lead of Amazoness Quartet. Guess I have to be more careful looking stuff up now, that's all. --Masamage ♫ 04:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to be clear, we're talking about removing the warnings, right? It's pretty clear we'll need a guideline for spoilers, even if all the guideline says is "don't use spoiler warnings". Not to mention WP:SPOILER. Regardless of how you feel about the warnings, being able to tell someone what we decided is generally a good idea.... -- Ned Scott 04:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: May I ask one thing:
 * Does it damage the quality of an article by including spoiler tags? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you had read the nomination, you'd know that they do. They interrupt the flow, make information difficult to be covered in the lead, and confine information to one section. The major use, placement in the "Plot" section, is utterly redundant. --Teggles 05:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they don't. A properly used spoiler tag does none of these things. -- Ned Scott 05:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless you place the spoiler tag at the very beginning of the article, they do. Can you show me a spoiler tag that is "properly used"? --Teggles 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me give a simple solution - allow certain facts to be in the lead if they have ceased to be spoilers. Simple. Additionally, what's ugly about a spoiler warning at the top of a section? The header does a great enough job of breaking the flow from one section to the next. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a better solution: mention the spoilers in the lead, and don't give a warning. There's also the case of omitting information from the lead when WP:LEAD says otherwise. "Ugly" is a complete misnomer, I never said anything about that. My key points were information confinement (to a spoiler-tagged section), information omission (from the lead), and redundancy (plot warnings in a plot section). "Interrupt the flow" was only for when the tags are placed between paragraphs, not sections. --Teggles 05:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete - This guideline demands absurdly ripping apart the flow and text of an article to fit an ill-defined idea of a "spoiler" into a marked off section. It purposefully keeps relevant and important information out of the lead. It violates the spirit of WP, of disseminating information. It violates NPOV, by keeping points of view that are deemed "spoilers" out of the unquarantined areas of the article. This guideline needs to go. --PresN 05:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note I know consensus can change, and all that jazz, but people really should take a look at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC. We discussed each and everyone one of these points, and the comments there also apply to this discussion, just as much as the new comments. There we focused on the NPOV issue, the censorship issue, and the "considered encyclopedic" issue. -- Ned Scott 05:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be noted, you focused on a NPOV issue - but it's not the one being raised here, which is that organizing articles around spoilers can violate NPOV. Indeed, I see no discussion of the issue of lead paragraphs in the RfC, which seems to me a very good reason to re-open debate. Phil Sandifer 05:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We did discuss organizing articles around spoilers, and everyone thought it was a bad idea... It gives undue weight, it can restrict the format, etc. A misuse of the spoiler template does not speak for the concept itself. -- Ned Scott 05:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is why, notably, I nominated the policy instead of the template. There may well be something useful that can be done with a spoiler template, but a policy mandating that spoilers be hidden after templates, outside of section headers, etc. is a policy mandating that articles be written badly. Phil Sandifer 05:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But I'm pointing this out more in response to some of the other comments I've been reading, and not so much on the one you've brought up. And also, I have no problem with continued discussion. -- Ned Scott 05:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Doc glasgow, we need not mollycoddle and insult the intelligence of our readers any further. RFerreira 05:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's awful reasoning. Just because it seems obvious doesn't mean we should not put up something to shoo them away if they don't want to read spoilers. Some plots are just short summaries of the basic plot, while others are a complete coverage of every event. And what about characters? A list of characters does not imply that there will be spoilers, but there often is. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Mollycoddling and insulting" readers is a bogus smokescreen. Removal of spoiler tags shows utter contempt for the readers, taking away their choice and imposing the editors' views of the way the readers "should be" using wikipedia. In short, it's nannyism. Wahkeenah 05:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ideally, the plot sections of every article would be comprehensive. However, since Wikipedia is a work in progress, we are not there yet. But we shouldn't make exception for that since eventually all articles will (or should) get there. Anyway, Wahkeenah, you never seem to say anything else. How is removing spoiler tags imposing on the reader? Axem Titanium 05:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've already voted to discard, but here's a list of my points:
 * Make adhering to WP:LEAD very difficult, as it requires the lead to be a summary. You can not summarize without mentioning spoilers.
 * Confine information to a specific area. When you can only mention spoilers in a dedicated spoiler section, it makes development and reception sections less useful because the important spoilers cannot be discussed.
 * Redundancy. Warnings are very often placed in plot sections, but the "Plot" header already infers plot. Saying again is redundant.
 * Ignoring leeway of medical and offensive images, text. A reader may find spoilers objectionable, a reader may find genitalia objectionable. They are the same idea.
 * Point of view... what is a "spoiler"? It creates unnecessary difficulties.
 * Interrupting flow. Although this is not always the case, spoiler warnings allow to be placed in the middle of paragraph.
 * Obvious. An encyclopedia is a set of articles. An article is "a written composition in prose on a specific topic". A spoiler is part of a written composition.
 * I'm sure I've forgotten many points, but this should do. --Teggles 05:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, although I don't wholly oppose the use of spoiler warnings, at the moment they are being employed in an unacceptable fashion. Razing the whole structure, waiting a year, and then starting over on a more reasonable scale may the most effective way to produce a good balance for the long haul. As it stands, this page promotes behavior that is not compatible with our mission as an encyclopedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think its time I drop in my two cents. I see several issues raised on this little discussion of ours :)
 * First off I note that there were and probably still are concerns about the venue of this discussion. My suggestion as to that is to allow this conversation to go on till its scheduled close. Like it or not there is much more 3rd party input in a discussion of this nature then any discussion that is generated on the talk page of the guideline. (I'm sure if this nomination were on the guideline's talk, there would not be half the amount of discussion that we have now.
 * There are decent arguments both ways, the ones that I find most notable are:
 * Guideline needs to go because of concerns over conflict with WP:LEAD. This may or may not be clear, but we do have the perception of a conflict, and that alone is enough for this argument
 * Guideline needs to go because its overused, I found this one interesting, as it implies that the guideline is not written properly as to insure that the tag is used properly. (more on what to do about that in a bit)
 * Guideline does state that article quality takes precedence over worrying about spoilers. (this was an interesting reason to keep). But in any case there is the problem that this guideline is being perceived to be "spoilers are more important then article quality". If not in word, then in deed, shown by some of the examples that I have seen. (ways to fix this in a bit)
 * You don't have to blurt out details about the article in the intro, only thing this approach has is possible Neutral point of view issues, but doing this means that we are altering our writing style around spoilers, something that this policy does not encourage (or at least is said not to encourage).
 * There are serveral other intersting comments about this as well, I've just listed the ones that I found were most interesting, though there was one above about how figuring out what information is considered a "spoiler" can be considered a point of view. Interesting :)
 * Now that I've listed some of the arguments both ways, I'd like to point out some of the possible resolutions to this debate.
 * Keep - Outright, I don't think this is a feasable solution at this time, quite a few editors have stated objections to this guideline, so some revision needs to take place.
 * Keep - but discuss elsewhere, also consider adding a disputed tag to the guideline itself. (It looks quite disputed to me) this could be done, though I would recommend that discussion (especially since so many editors are having issues with this guideline) continue elsewhere other then the page's talk, to bring in as many 3rd party folks as possible :). I would suggest a policy/guideline request for comment if this route is taken. It may come to a point that the discussion agrees to the deletion of some of the spoiler tags, and or comes to a different conclusion. This of course does not clearly mark the guideline as bad, and the result of this further discussion may well be keep and use in much more limited context, or other fixes. Who knows :S.
 * Esperanzafy - mark historical - this could be done, but it leaves the issue of what to do with all these spoiler tags that we have in articles, as this debate is more so on the topic of the guideline page, then the tags themselves.
 * Delete outright - This is the only one which I will come out and say I'd rather not see. It is useful to maintain the page, even with the historical tag on it so that others in the future can see what did and did not work. Deleting pages like this is just in my view not that great of an idea.
 * Speedy close of this MFD, and move discussion onto a request for comment and mark the guideline as disputed. (which it looks like it is). (I forgot this option :) ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eagle 101 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
 * And with that, I'd like you guys to note that I have not really !voted here, but have given you guys some food for thought :) Feel free to discuss below here even if you have already voted above, there are more options then just a plain black and white, yea nay vote here. We do have the issue of what would be done with all the existing tags if the guideline is removed, and or if disputedpolicy is placed on it. I again would like to emphasize that there are multiple options and outcomes of this debate. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 07:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete with fire We are an encyclopedia. We give you information. If you have a desire to not see certain information, do not look it up on an encyclopedia. Do away with the whole damn spoiler concept. - M  ask?  08:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just because some people abuse it doesn't mean it should be deleted altogether. Spoiler tags are still useful for details that wouldn't make the lead. - Mgm|(talk) 09:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Additional comments: Spoiler templates do not violate NPOV. The information is still there and not hidden. The reader just gets warned. In cases were the ending of a piece of fiction is important enough to be in the lead, it should be, but there's plenty of articles in which that's not even near a requirement for good writing. Also, the no disclaimer templates guideline discusses things like "this article contains profanity" which is hard to define because opinions differ. Spoilers are information that would severely impact the entertainment value of something fictional. - Mgm|(talk) 09:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are cherry-picking the arguments to attack, there is more reason to removal than that. Check my list of reasons, it's about 4 comments up. --Teggles 09:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't believe I read such an argument. Can you really not see how an opinion on what is profanity is EXACTLY the same as an opinion on what should go under a spoiler warning or not? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: In all seriousness, if consensus is to keep, I will be proposing a "Nudity warning" template for all sexual content. This is to provide a equal fairness - people who find spoilers objectionable should be treated the same as people who find nudity objectionable. --Teggles 09:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A nude picture gives an instant shock but you'll probably still want to make out with someone afterwards, while a spoiler gives you an instant shock and then ruins a film experience or makes you not read the book. Bib 13:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh... there are children browsing Wikipedia. Not to mention you are missing the point - some find spoilers objectionable, some find nudity objectionable. --125.238.31.228 04:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Meaning we shouldn't have warnings about either - since by wikipedia policy we don't have warnings about nudity - See WP:NOT daniel  folsom  05:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I won't weigh in on if spoiler warnings templates are a good or bad idea. But deleting a MOS page is a really horrible way of deprecating the concept. Policies, guidelines, and MOS pages that have fallen out of use or no longer has consensus are kept and marked as historical instead of deleted. --Farix (Talk) 10:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Common sense should be sufficient to all readers who read articles about movies. When you have read the table of contents of the article, and a section says "Plot", then it is more than obvious that the movie will be spoiled. Templates that explain the obvious should not be kept, and excessive use of such templates in different sections of the film makes the page look not so good, especially it often gets interlayed with other objects.--Kylohk 11:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all associated spoiler templates and replace this page with a text explaining that we don't use spoiler tags. Too much fancruft and overly long minute plot summary is being written under the guise of "spoiler". A reader should know to expect spoilers if they go to read a section called "plot" or "characters". All it does is encourage editors to add more cruft, removing which later on is an uphill battle. --Darkbane 11:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I can't say that the spoiler templates bother me, but given the choice I'd prefer not to have them at all. It should be common sense to the reader which sections contain spoilers or not (the section heading "Plot" should be a dead giveaway). &mdash;Xezbeth 11:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: The Spoiler tag suggests editing your CSS to hide tags if you don't want to see them. A weak compromise would be to have the tags hidden by default, and tell people how to reveal them for themselves. Rawling 4851 11:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I see this as a valuable template, yes people reading will probably have an idea that it may contain "spoiling information" but its valuable incase one forgets. Regards &mdash; The Sunshine Man 11:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hissatsu Extremly Super Duper STRONG KEEP!!!! Spoiler warnings are very helpful. I'd hate to look up something, like a TV series, and get spoiled on a major event in the Synopsis. The spoiler warning alerts me that info I wouldn't get in the beginning of the series is ahead, so I won't find out Bob kills Joe. I think they're helpful, mostly because extreme spoilers are put within them. Sometimes a plot summary has no spoilers, and sometimes it might have a detailed explanation on the ending. How am I supposed to know without spoiler tags? I mostly looks up fiction before buying it or downloading it, and what's the point if I know how it ends? Pyrgus 11:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: Agreed, there are cases where spoiler warnings are redundant (i.e. The Crying Game), but there are many cases where a spoiler can be introduced in its own area without affecting the rest of the content. You don't need to know the endings of Pulp Fiction, The Sixth Sense or The Lord of the Rings to understand their significance. As somebody else mentioned above, there is no actual censorship going on: the reader has the choice to read the spoiler, while the editor has the power to keep spoiler material on a page while debating whether it is 'encyclopedic' or not. I frequently use Wikipedia to quickly review a possible book or movie before buying/borrowing/watching it, and appreciate being able to read a synopsis and information about the book without worrying that I will accidently spoil the book/movie for myself. User:Gaurav, currently not logged in from 137.132.3.11 11:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: It's a courtesy to users to make it clear when plot points are being revealed. If someone wants to read on then that's their call. Yorkshiresky 12:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: What would this mean for Template:Magic-spoiler and Template:Solution? (Sorry if this has been mentioned before, I have not read every comment.) -- Razor  ICE  11:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would think so, personally. I've always found them even sillier than 'normal' spoiler warnings, myself. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete -- these serve no real purpose, they aren't encyclopedic, and they possibly violate WP:SELF. A lot of articles have plot summaries. It's obvious that the plot summary is going to have spoilers in it, so why do we need the tag? Are people really reading the plot summaries for articles and being surprised when there are spoilers? If so, who are these people? -- MisterHand 12:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Just because it's an encylcopedia doesn't mean that no consideration for others is required. People deserve to be warned if they are about to see something that will affect their enjoyment of a work of fiction. Brisv e  gas  12:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. If the spoiler policy is being misused in articles, then fix it in those individual cases, or modify the policy to adapt in special circumstances. In the majority of cases I can't see why this policy is a problem. You can even disable the display of the spoiler warnings with a very easy monobook.js modification. Deletion is way over the top. - Phorque 12:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be more acceptable if people would have to opt-in to see spoiler tags. Encyclopedias do not have spoiler tags. Kusma (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: While I understand that users have concerns that spoiler warnings are unencyclopedic, their use is a critical aspect for usability - users will be turned off by an encyclopedia article that, for example, tells them all about the fictional Severus Snape's infamous murder. I can't imagine why this is being MfD'd and TfD'd - while we are here to build an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia should concern itself not only with the production of reliable, verified content, but also in the format presented to the viewer. Since any viewer would appreciate a warning before a spoiler, it's a simple question: do we serve our editors, or our readers? This also applies to articles where spoilers from outside topics are relevant, which will use the template to warn readers that even though they are not reading an article on a topic, they may regardless see spoilers for something else. The interconnectedness of such information negates the argument for "well, don't read the article then." Further, I don't see how spoiler warnings, of all things, violate NPOV - their purpose is as a courtesy to the reader, and isn't in and of itself a point of view. I haven't seen any spoiler templates yelling that a book sucks yet, or for that matter that you must read a particularly eloquent book. Further, some users say that they promote cruft in summaries. How would their removal affect the amount of cruft added to an article? The same user who sees a spoiler template is liable to do the same thing with a plot summary header, which we obviously aren't nominating for deletion, since it's a critical section of the article. If you see fancruft, edit it out, fix it! In addition, I'd like to point out that spoilers are somewhat of a different issue from that that Wikipedia is not censored. Censoring is for information which is liable to disturb a viewer, and we don't use it. It should be noted that at a movie theatre, we are never warned about spoilers - although we may be warned about disturbing content, spoilers are clearly not among them -it's not the same issue. Don't complain about a harmless and ultimately useful template, and further, I hate to see people trying to push this with a simultaneous MfD and TfD, this is clearly a case of WP:POINT, when it's simple to hide spoiler tags anyway using personal CSS. I'm reasonably sure that this will end without consensus. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 12:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral – I can't agree that a spoiler warning is a 'contradiction of' the Lead section guideline. I do, however, agree that they are extraneous and intrusive in an encyclopedia.  Personally, I'd follow the instructions at Spoiler warning; that way they don't bother me, and we don't have gentle readers upset that they've been spoiled. (Of course, at the moment, that means the TfD notice still appears.)
 * Perhaps readers shouldn't be looking up articles related to books they have not read/movies they have not seen. But they do, if only because they want to see who the director is, or who it stars.  While the amount of content covered by spoiler tags has grown ridiculous (the entire article in some cases, half the article in some cases – see X-Men: The Last Stand, in which the cast list is apparently a spoiler), that needs to be fixed by editors, not a deletion of the template.  My hastily-written two cents.  &mdash; Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 12:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - One would expect an encyclopedic entry to contain all the details about the subject - if you don't want a spoiler, use a resource with less information.PGWG 12:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Mark historical. Spoilers exist in encyclopedias, and we're not here to babysit our readers.  It's about time we removed those annoying notices.  I can appreciate accidentally stumbling upon an article for a book you haven't read, but what about people who stumble upon articles with nudity?  It's a slippery slope.  Wikipedia is not censored, and we're not here to editorialize.  --Chris (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I really can't see how it violates NPOV moving plot twists and so forth out of the lede. Apropos The Crying Game: this is the exception in the significance of spoilers. Does it violate NPOV to not mention the identity of Tyler Durden or Keyser Soze or the end of Se7en or whatever in the summary? It's perfectly possible to create a standalone mini-article without revealing the last five minutes of a movie. Even in the case of the Crying Game, it'd be sufficient for the lede to say that it deals with gender issues and is considered to be a significant film for LGBT studies or whatever. It can then elaborate after the warning. I often look to wikipedia for some info about a film before I see it that might not be covered by IMDb, or for some details about a TV show that may have episodes that have been shown in the US but not the UK. If this goes ahead I'll be forced to stop using wikipedia for anything like that. --ascorbic 13:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a movie guide, it is perfectly okay if you choose not to use it as a movie guide. Kusma (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Whis is exactly why I'd want to read an article here rather than looking at IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes. If I want to read something encyclopaedic about a film I haven't seen then I won't be able to use wikipedia. And yes, it is possible to want to read something like that before seeing a film. --ascorbic 14:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep This is a harmless courtesy to readers. I want to be warned before I read about the ending of a fictional work. Oce I have read it, I can't "un-read" it. Wikipedia is something new under the Sun and can have conventions like this that aid its readers.--13:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And once you see a disturbing image, you can't "unsee" it either. And as others have said, it's POV to descide just WHAT should be go under spoiler. You mention ending. How about something halfway? In the first fifteen minutes of a film? Middle of the first season on a seven season TV from ten years ago? Etc etc. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This template is/should be primarily used on articles regarding items of contemporary entertainment. Part of what makes some subjects entertaining is the suspense and surprise.  And there doesn't need to be a time limit on it: heck, I haven't seen Psycho yet, so being able to just skip past the spoilers on that article and get down to the Production section will keep things fresh for when I finally get off my arse and check it out from the library.  Sure, paper encyclopedias generally don't include spoiler warnings, but WP:PAPER... RTucker 14:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Psycho is probably, I'd wager, the very sort of article that is made worse by the need to write around spoiler warnings, similar to the main examples of The Crying Game et al given above. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 14:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly you haven't actually read the Psycho article, which is doing great, has been labelled a 'good article', and includes plenty of writing about the plot, including an entire section on the shower scene. All this despite that evil spoiler tag. Cop 633 14:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Snape kills Dumbledore Keep What makes spoilers so significant is that once you've read one, you can't just ignore it the way you can anything else (legal or medical advice, porn). If the spoiler template is deleted, either spoiler warnings will be typed by hand -- and be much less uniform in wording -- and endless revert wars will result, or else the public will criticize our coverage for containing unnecessary and unwarninged spoilers. Either way, our coverage of our strongest subject will be weakened as far as the public is concerned. Neon  Merlin  14:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What the hell? You can't just "ignore" porn or medical content. I have seen this argument before and it makes NO SENSE. It really doesn't. When a child has seen a dead body... he's seen a dead body. It can give him nightmares, etc. Also, I highly doubt the "public" will criticize for unwarned spoilers and not the nudity and medical content. --Teggles 19:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Let's be realistic for a second. Is the primary goal of Wikipedia just to be a resource of information, or do we want it to be a USABLE, FUNCTIONAL resource of information?  If all you do is throw information up on the screen without kind of differentiation between PLOT SPOILERS (sorry, but cast information/character lists in writings/names of authors are not spoilers) and the rest of the material, you're going to wind up with a resource that nobody wants to use.  People want to look up information on a work of fiction or an author they're unfamiliar with, that's great.  They shouldn't have to get slammed with things they don't want to know, because it's going to make wiki into something that people don't want to use and don't find pleasant to visit.  Wiki can't just be a repository of all information ever.  It needs to be a repository that people might actually want to look at. Alternative Suggestion - Simply delete all spoilers.  ALL.  It's the only other viable option - remove plot information from all articles about fiction on wiki. --Bishop2 13:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep — No harm is done by alerting people who haven't read/seen a story yet that they may not wish to know all details of the plot. If they do want to, the warning isn't stopping them. The alternative is to have two versions of articles, with and without spoilers, which seems unnecessary duplication. —wwoods 16:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No harm is done? Okay, great. Let's just add game cheats, a game guide, original research and a price list! It doesn't harm anybody! This is a pathetic argument. --Teggles 19:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Well, to begin with the first time I watched Psycho, I knew pretty much every single thing that happens in the move, but I was still shocked by the shower scene -- & enjoyed the experience. (I didn't know there was a detective character in the movie, though; he was a surprise for me.) Second, if you don't want the ending of a movie or book ruined, maybe you shouldn't read the Wikipedia article. Lastly, maybe someone should add to WP:NOT that "Wikipedia is not a substitute for reading the book or watching the movie"; the only reason I can see why an article needs more than a summary about the plot -- preferably not more than four sentences, but not as short as Woody Allen's summary of War and Peace ("It's about Russia."). Having written all that, I honestly can't find it in myself to care how this issue is decided: by consensus, by "one moron, one vote", by finding out who has the loudest voice & the strongest legs, or even Jimbo ex machina. I'm just going to abide by whatever gets decided if it's relevant to whatever I'm doing. -- llywrch 17:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Change to general warning on all fiction articles. If folks don't want to know how plots turns out then they shouldn't be reading articles about books or movies. The requirement of segregating all plot-related discussions distorts article structure, per the nom. Editors on certain topics, such as mysteries, may decide to handle plot twists in a special way, but there's no need to be coy about how Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace ends. ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 23:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete - honestly this is probably a violation of Wikipedia's policies on censorship/disclaimer templates - but the fact is, anyone that looks up a movie in an encyclopedia should expect to get info on the movie. We are an encyclopedia, and we do say the plot, we do say how it was made, we do say who acted in it (Spoiler warning: this reveals who acted in this film - if you don't want to know, don't read ahead), and they should expect that. daniel folsom  11:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep It seems helpful. --thedemonhog talk • edits • count  00:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ignoratio elenchi; nobody wants to remove that information. --87.189.124.195
 * By the way - does anyone else notice the differences in the voting- a lot of new accounts and IP addresses are voting to keep - that should tell you something daniel  folsom  11:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This looks like a classic Ad hominem to me. --87.189.124.195


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