Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/Proposals to alter the spoiler template

Proposal: Replacement
Perhaps to remedy this, the template can be redone. Let's say that the template always appears at the top of the page and in the standard box form that most top-of-the-screen templates go by.

This article is about. It may contain spoilers.

Now, could solve numerous issues expressed above.


 * It seems like the largest argument against the template is its misuse and misplacement. Assuming that this only goes on fictional articles and that it appears on all fictional articles, its use is consistent.


 * That whole argument about unwarned instances of nudity and medical text doesn't really make sense to me. True, Wikipedia is not censored, but as noted above, many readers don't take the time to read the disclaimers. So, if templates could be made similar to the spoiler warning, that could be remedied as well.


 * With the spoiler warning at the top of the page, The Crying Game and similar situations involving disruption of NPOV can be more easily resolved, as more things can go in the header.

Thoughts?  You Can '  t See Me!  17:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think "Warning !!! This article may contain information about its subject" is better. Kusma (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * While I agree with Kusma - I would say that the proposed is better than the current system. daniel  folsom  17:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the proposed replacement for several reasons. 1) It appears to satisfy the concerns about encyclopedic tone and layout, 2) it clarifies the proper use of the warning for fictional works only.  Although I consider a heading of "Synopsis" or (better) "Plot Synopsis" a fair warning, I also consider a spoiler warning an extremely polite thing to do.  And yes, I do believe we are building an encyclopedia that is supposed to be read by other people, not just the Wikipedia elite. Robertwharvey 17:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting idea. Could be combined with the suggestion made a long way above, which I agreed with at the time, of not including spoiler warnings for spoilers that are kept inside a synopsis section.  This would limit its application to only a tiny minority of pages, and would make it more meaningful.  Text would be something like "This article about a [whatever] contains spoilers concerning the [whatever]'s plot that are not contained in a plot summary section."  We'd have to make sure it didn't look like a maintenance tag, so as not to persuade people to "fix it", though. JulesH 18:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't solve anything. Moving the spoiler warning doesn't seem like it would satisfy any of the complaints. Who is arguing to move the spoiler warnings to the top of the page? --- RockMFR 18:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The suggested text is redundant with leading section. If the reader emerges from reading that section without understanding that the subject of the article is a fictional work, the leading section is poorly written. --Tony Sidaway 18:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The text doesn't have to be exactly what I put forth. That was just an idea.  You Can '  t See Me!  20:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That proposal will only make matters worse as it states the obvious, which is an encyclopedic article about a work of fiction will contain spoilers about that work of fiction. It also doesn't address the overuse of the spoiler warning, but simply moves the problem to the top of the article. We don't give disclaimer or warnings for any other controversial or offensive issues which could get readers "mad" at Wikipedia, so why are we making exceptions for spoilers?

Also the new spoiler guidelines don't get rid of all spoiler warnings, but it does outline cases where spoiler warnings should not be used. That is fairy tales, classical and historical works, and in sections labeled "Plot summery" or "Synopsis" where such warnings are clearly redundant. Yet, people are treating this as if it is an all-out assault on all spoiler warnings. --Farix (Talk) 21:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does have a disclaimer of sorts against things that would get people mad: Template:POV. Otherwise, articles (should) have a neutral point of view and as such should not anger anyone.
 * And pardon me for using an argument that I should avoid, but what's the harm? How will a disclaimer kill Wikipedia? That's all it really is: a disclaimer. Wikipedia already has one; I'm just proposing something that's easier to see, since passerbies go straight to the article in question rather than going through Wikipedia's policies first. Really, I'm quite surprised that such a fuss is being made over the current spoiler warning. Seven words and two horizontal lines should not need to spawn this large of an argument.  You Can '  t See Me!  21:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * By that reason, we should then place warnings on article whose contents may offend the reader. After all, such warnings don't do any harm, do they? But since Wikipedia has decided not to place those warnings on articles, the same should apply to spoiler warnings—or at least in most uses of spoiler warnings. We don't need warnings that states the obvious. --Farix (Talk) 21:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Who's to say that Wikipedia shouldn't place warnings on articles with potentially offensive material. Perhaps Wikipedia should have warnings for that purpose. It might be a step in the right direction. A friend of mine practices Islam. I can tell you now that when he was hoping to find out about Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, he did not expect to find the offending cartoons at the top of that page.  You Can '  t See Me!  21:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia is not censored. It's impossible to talk about the Muhammad cartoons without showing them just like it's impossible to talk about the Mona Lisa without a picture of it. In the same vein, it's impossible to talk about a book/movie/whatever without spoilers (when I say talk, I mean "write an article about", mind you). Axem Titanium 22:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that not every random passerby will know Wikipedia's policy on censorship when they decide to research about potentially offensive material. I'm sure my friend would have been happy with a warning that those images would be there. Let's say there was a warning atop the page and that the images were far enough down on the page that one has to scroll to see them. Does that damage the article in the least? On the flipside, think of how much less "damage" (for lack of a better word) that would do.  You Can '  t See Me!  22:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)