Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/Spoiler warnings not needed in Plot sections?

Something else we've been assuming
There seems to be an assumption that sections like "Plot", whose name inherently implies spoiler, should avoid spoiler warnings, since they're redundant.

I'm *not* convinced.

All forms of human communication have redundancies. My calendar has columns labelled "Monday" and "Tuesday" even though the "Tuesday" provides no information at all. The day after Monday has to be Tuesday by definition; labelling it as Tuesday only tells people something they already know.

Yet most calendars label all the days of the week. There's a reason for this: we want a consistent user interface, and redundancy for the sake of consistency is an important part of user interface design. The user should be able to find the day of the week for May 14 the same way he can for May 15--by looking at the top of the column.

Removing spoiler warnings from "Plot" sections because everyone knows that "Plot" contains spoilers is like removing the Tuesday from the calendar because everyone knows that the day after Monday has to be Tuesday. Ken Arromdee 15:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really. The spoiler warning is distracting (it's designed to be) and since it's superfluous to the informational content of the page when it follows "Plot" it's better to remove it. --Tony Sidaway 17:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone above pointed out that spoiler warnings can be turned off. If so, distraction is a non-issue.


 * And as for being superfluous: well, I just got finished explaining that being superfluous isn't necessarily bad. If you reply to that by saying "but it's superfluous", you're really not saying much at all. Ken Arromdee 17:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The current version of the spoiler guideline already outlines why they're usually bad. That they're also dispensable is just the icing on the cake. --Tony Sidaway 15:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Plot vs. Plot Summary
Many contributors here claim that it is obvious that any section marked "Plot" will contain a summary of the plot that functions as a spoiler. While this is true for many (maybe most) articles about works of fiction on WP, it need not be. It is often possible (though not easy) to write about the plot without giving away so much of it that it spoils the experience for the reader. This is the stock-in-trade of book reviewers. I think it is a shame that this is not practiced more on WP, partly because it encourages writing from an external and critical perspective. On the other hand, a section marked "Plot Summary" pretty much guarantees a plot spoiler. (same for "synopsis" although our mythical naive reader may not know what that means). A spoiler tag on such sections is redundant, but like User:Ken Arromdee I think the redundancy is useful and harmless. PaddyLeahy 18:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We are an encyclopedia, we are not book reviewers. Our goal is to provide complete, comprehensive coverage of our subjects.  This is not possible if we do not include important plot points, especially twists and endings that may be subject to criticism and reception.  --&mdash; Δαίδαλος  Σ  Σ  18:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We should cover what is notable and only that. It is far from clear that notability in a work of literature confers notability on every detail of the plot. In fact I'm sure the contrary is stated in some WP guide or other. PaddyLeahy 18:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In FFVII it is notable that Sephiroth kills Aerith. In fact, this has been identified as an iconic scene from the game in several reviews and magazines, It is an important detail in the overall storyline, as her ghost plays a major role in FFVII:Advent Children as well as The Maiden Who Walks the Planet.  the fact is, there are spoilers that are neccessary to discuss a subject.  --&mdash; Δαίδαλος  Σ  Σ  18:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't mean that every plot point or spoiler is notable enough to mention. -- Ned Scott 18:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * [To Daedalus:] So? When a spoiler is required in a discussion of the plot, a spoiler warning would be a good idea. In many other cases no spoiler is required in the plot section. The book/game/comic may have a twist but its plot may be notable for something else entirely. (Or maybe the existence of the twist is notable, but the details of it are not). PaddyLeahy 18:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is one example. In general, complete comprehensive coverage requires that nothing is left out, including notable twists and endings.  We should not alter our scope of coverage just because someone may not want to read the information contained in the article.  If that's the case, then don't read the article in the first place.  --&mdash; Δαίδαλος  Σ  19:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

(lost indent count) On the contrary, every encyclopedia article leaves out almost everything about its subject. The art is to decide what to include. As per WP:FICT and WP:WAF plot summaries should always be a minor part of articles, which should mainly be based on secondary sources (e.g. reviews) not primary sources (the book/film etc itself), and should take an out-of-universe perspective. If these guidelines were followed more in practice, spoilers would be much rarer in WP articles, and the need for warnings about the occasional spoiler would perhaps be more acceptable, even to zealots. PaddyLeahy 20:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)