Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 3

Back on track
Lets get this discussion back on track here. I think the best idea so far has been the idea of hiding the tags by default. We place a notice on talk pages and portals that explain how to turn on the tag, and let the reader go from there. The only thing being turned on or off is the spoiler tag, not any of the content of the article. Even trying this on a limited level will at least give us a better idea of this concept.

Also, we need to file a Request for comment on this issue. Basically, all sides would be allowed to better organize their arguments and we'd let more editors know about this debate. Right now it's very unorganized, and takes hours to catch up on discussion. Things are repeated on both sides, and end up in loop arguments. It would help both sides to start fresh and restate key points. I can only imagine how many editors saw there was a debate going on, took one look at this page, and then left. We would also need to set up some ground rules for the discussion, to prevent the looped arguments from flooding the page. Maybe some way of saying "refer to message 5" instead of repeating things. I'm not sure, just... this talk page is so long and not a lot of new stuff gets brought up. Maybe look into mediation or take a look at some heated debates in the archives and see how they handled things. Doing this will get more editors involved in the debate, it will give us better feedback and more ideas, maybe some that both sides haven't even considered.

We also need to be more respectful, and I say that knowing that I myself need to do that as well. Some ideas are real concerns, and some things being brought up are opinion and not fact. We need to respect that, and not just spout off and insulting those who disagree. For example, the definition of encyclopedia does not comment on spoiler tags, but the idea that such tags are un-encyclopedic should be respected, but it is not fact. See how that effects both sides? Be respectful when someone disagrees with you, if you know they've already read your response don't go and re-explain to them something you've already said, to avoid loops.

Here's an idea, everyone gets a subsection that they can use to explain their reasons, and everyone can update that section throughout the debate. Instead of re-wording things, we'll re-write things. Maybe also provide a direct link to old versions so people don't get confused, like:


 * I think spoiler warnings are blah blah blah blah with balh and whoo haaa! and Weeeee. In addition, I would like to consider the idea that.. 
 * (original) | (revised on 7-14) |

Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 03:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We can at least try it. This compromise of spoiler tags off by default (with no option to hide spoiler content itself, right?) is certainly better than us having nothing whatsoever come of all this,. It makes more sense to accept this at least than to remain steadfastly behind what I would like to see happen, instead seeing nothing happen at all. I'd have only myself to blame then, wouldn't I?
 * So, I'll say let's go for it. Your idea about us having our own sections in the Request for Comment is also a good idea. I fully support that. It would be way more organized, and it should remain coherent. I think we should all agree to place messages only in our own sections in that regard, as well, unless specifically asked to respond elsewhere by someone else.
 * So yeah, let's see what kind of opinions there are out there about turning the tags off by default, and then find out if it's feasible for the Developers to do it. Ryu Kaze 03:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

In short, well said. Although i believe it would be best if another choice would be added in the "my preferences" tab. And i believe that, as a default, the warnings should remain on as quite a few users like the idea. Dan 15:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've filed a request on Requests for comment/Style issues. -Randall Brackett 06:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * While this is a great idea, I think it's a pity in some respects that it's been done now'. As lots of people have said (Ned and Deckiller among others) this has got so big and complicated and taken so much time and energy that we've all got really rather fraught. I'd be much inclined to recommend taking a break from the debate for a few days before we have to present our arguments for comment. Give us all time to calm down and so on (I've spent so long trying to catch up with the debate that I've not had time for my watchlist, and the debate's usually moved on somewhat before I've caught up to comment anyway. And then I've often been too cross to say anything civil, so I've stayed silent. So - let's all just say nothing more for a few days and then come back to it fresh? --JennyRad 14:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I've mostly been working on Final Fantasy X today and trying to get Final Fantasy VIII up to FA status. Deckiller suggested that working on some other pages I would put a lot of energy into for a bit might help some, and I have to agree. Even before this morning, my hostilities over this issue were largely gone once John and I apologized to one another, but I was just feeling burned out over the whole thing at the time.
 * At the very least, taking some time to work on something else for the better part of a day will help refresh you for this. I'm feeling a lot better about it already. I think I can live with this compromise of hidden tags. Ryu Kaze 18:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Provided, of course, the tags are off by default. This is an encyclopedia. The unbiased, uncensored version is first in a source of comprehensive knowledge, every single time. -Randall Brackett 18:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course. Well, I guess that makes for most of us "major players" in this discussion being in agreement now. If we can agree on something, then it's probable that those coming in form RfC will. Ryu Kaze 19:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we've been working on Final Fantasy VIII nonstop for the last 48-72 hours :). Feel free to contribute to the peer review. &mdash; Deckill e r 18:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we're thinking it looks good enough right now, but we've also thought that like three times before, and then somebody always comes up with something new. I guess articles are truly never finished. Ryu Kaze 19:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I think we're all forgetting to address something that I only now remembered because of performing the archive: is this a Guideline or an Essay? I suggest Essay given all that's been discussed (for instance, the sentiments that it shouldn't be part of the standard presentation of the site, and given that it's not part of the Manual of Style) and the nature of the current compromise. Ryu Kaze 00:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's part of the solution discussion. Even if tags were to be off by default, a guideline might be needed to remind putting the spoiler tags in there. --GunnarRene 21:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Something maybe both sides can agree on
Even before I was aware of this dispute, myself and another editor have been in a dispute over the use of two spoiler notices. Basically, the other editor wishes to use both spoiler and a second message that reads "Some of the episode overviews may contain spoilers, but attempts are made to limit their spoilage." Here's the current article in dispute: List of Planetes episodes. The others are List of Air episodes (which is currently locked over a further dispute with the other editor, and currently does not display the second message), List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes, List of Oh My Goddess episodes, and List of MADLAX episodes.

While we might disagree on the template's usage, I think that non-template spoiler warnings should be out of the question. We have no way of tracking them, maintaining them, and so on. Also, the statement itself is false, as I have pointed out to this other editor, as on List of Planetes episodes he was not the main contributor to the summaries, and he is also not the only contributor to summaries on the List of Air episodes. As I've said before, I'm pro spoiler warning, but I'm NOT for removing spoilers when they are appropriate, and the second message suggests just that. I thought I would get everyone's take on this issue here. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it pretty obvious what we do here: point him to the fact that we're supposed to be comprehensive and that we don't exclude relevant info for the sake of shielding. Now that ' s worse than the spoiler tags ever were. Ryu Kaze 12:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments by folk fresh from WP:RFC/STYLE

 * Have intentionally not read (i.e. become embroiled in) the lengthy discussions above. Have no problem with the concept of spoilers nor current execution, nor with the idea of making them hidden. Regards, David Kernow 16:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Setting up for the RfC
I was thinking that we could either use this talk page or make a sub page and structure it like:


 * basic neutral overview of the dispute with links to previous discussions
 * Pro spoiler tag arguments - where we would have individual sections for each editor to update, as suggested above
 * Anti spoiler tag arguments - where we would have individual sections for each editor to update, as suggested above
 * Key issues (might want to add/remove/rename some suggestions)
 * Are spoiler tags a violation of Wikipedia's censorship policy
 * Are spoiler tags a violation of NPOV
 * Are spoiler tags considered encyclopedic and/or professional
 * Do tags help readers
 * etc etc
 * pro comments that do not fit in above sections
 * anti comments that do not fit in above sections
 * neutral comments
 * possible solutions (tell editors to note if solution(s) would change any above opinion, for example, if an editor felt that changing this to an essay would address an issue if brought up above, etc, allow editors to choose more than one option if they feel more than one option is acceptable, etc)
 * Hiding spoiler warnings by default
 * Essay or guideline status
 * Total removal of spoiler tag
 * Stricter guidelines on spoiler tag usage

So if that basic idea sounds good to everyone, then we should then figure out the details and such. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 00:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That seems unnecessarily cluttered to me. It would make more sense for everybody to just make their own section if they want to comment and summarize all of that into a single paragraph or two. And since we've gone over all that already, it would allow us to focus more on discussing the compromise itself. If anyone coming in from RfC is wondering about our reasoning for this particular compromise, they can just read our individual comment section.


 * So, really, this is how I would format it:


 * ==Header==
 * ===Explanation of what we're here for===
 * (Including a notice that everyone must offer their reasoning for where ever they apply their sentiments)
 * ===List of people in favor of the compromise===
 * ===List of people opposed===
 * ===Area for comments===
 * ====Random individual 1====
 * ====Random individual 2====


 * This would be more suited to our purpose, I think. Ryu Kaze 01:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We need something that will still invite other editors to the core of the discussion, not just for the sake of moving on. Hopefully this debate will involve a lot more editors, as it affects a great many of articles. We also want something that will be clear, laid out, and lasting. I don't want this debate to spring up one week after we make a decision. I suspect the RfC will take at least one month, if not more. I've made a draft that might help make it clearer what I had in mind at Spoiler warning/RfC which intros the debate and then has a structured talk page at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC.  At the very least I want us to be able to address the three core "con" issues individually (censorship, npov, encyclopedic). Feel free to edit, adjust, and start to fill things out.  I wouldn't consider the page "live" yet, so just go for the basic statements for now before diving into discussion. -- Ned Scott 05:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would think that my suggested layout will still invite new users in, but now that I've seen your page, it looks like it will do fine. It will still be a far more organized way to join the discussion than it was for us. Anyway, I'll see if I can help with filling this thing out some. Though I still don't see anything about the proposed compromise in here. Mind if I add it? Perhaps under the "Previous discussion" header? Ryu Kaze 13:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait, I see it now. Sorry. It's at the bottom of the talk page. Hmm... I think we should link to that from the Previous discussion thing. Just to say "This is what previous discussion reached." Ryu Kaze 13:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I just finished getting everything ready. I pretty much left it the way you had it, but combined some sections and reorganized others. Ryu Kaze 16:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Things look good to me, we should start inviting others via talk pages (such as WikiProjects on fiction, etc). -- Ned Scott 20:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * One of the "for" headers doesn't make any sense. It implies that plot details can't currently go outside sections marked "Plot," "Story," "Characters," etc. and that spoiler tags allow that to be done. That's obviously not the case, so that's misleading. Ryu Kaze 23:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I know I haven't been involved in this discussion as long as some others here, but I had two "con" points which haven't been mentioned. I don't know if they're "core" enough to deserve equal airtime on the rfc pages, but I thought I'd bring it up now and ask if there was a place it would be appropriate to integrate them.
 * The first is organization. This is my biggest personal grievance with spoiler tags: the "spoilers begin here/spoilers end here" format encourage a "spoilers go inside the box" approach to editing. I think it's bad to have that kind of implied restraint on the structuring of articles. I'd prefer if editors judge the placement of information based on logical flow rather than having to worry about keeping certain information together to avoid the use of multiple warning tags.
 * The second is the question of if spoiler warnings even help people looking to avoid spoilers. I know this sounds like a given, but considering Wikipedia is freely editable and its articles are largely considered "in progress", is it fair to give readers the impression that the site is "spoiler safe"? In the long term, won't inconsistantly applied warnings do more harm than good? -- Lee Bailey(talk) 23:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The comment about organization is probably an issue to itself. I'll add it to the list of core issues soon, but the other one could certainly warrant a place on the "against" part on the front page. Ryu Kaze 23:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I added the organization thing into the professionalism section, and placed the other on the front page. Ryu Kaze 00:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The organization bit is actually what drew me to the issue in the first place, and although the comments of others have since caused me to realize many of the more compex points involved in this, I still think it's worth throwing on the table.  -- Lee Bailey(talk) 00:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, one more thing. The bit about the New York Times... I'm concerned that it makes it sound as though the NYT has a policy of using spoiler warnings. The example is still relevant, I think, but I'm not sure it indicates that the Time uses spoilers habitually as much as it indicates an individual reviewer's freedom to editorialize in the manner they see fit. I read the NYT's reviews regularly, and I don't believe it's a common practice. Just a thought. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 00:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll adjust the wording. Ryu Kaze 01:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Opposed to spoiler warnings being hidden by default
I am opposed to "off" being the default. If this is the case, editors who are trying to maintain articles will have to deal with new editors who are angry because they just read a spoiler. I've encountered enough arguments that have been created by such angry new editors that have been solved the use of a spoiler warnings to know that if suddenly the spoilers are all hidden by default, these revert wars will increase in number. It seems to me that the people do not wish to see spoiler warnings tend to be seasoned editors who know how to alter their settings. Either way, I simply have not seen revert wars over the use of a spoiler warning. Setting spoiler warnings "on" by default, will prevent more trouble but also allow editors to make the change for themselves. --Chris Griswold 02:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to spending time on a system to hide spoiler warnings. However, if such a system is to be used, I absolutely believe spoiler warnings should be on be default.  It is likely that a new reader will want to be warned of spoilers, and it is unreasonable to expect them to know they have to go set a preference somewhere to see the warning. Johntex\talk 15:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it extremely unreasonable to comprimise the intregity of wikipedia as an encyclopedia simply in view of those that think ignorance is bliss and being likely to endorse baby golves. I think that is unreasonable to expect we should clog up article space of those who haven't an inkling of what an encyclopedia is and what it entells. I absolutely believe that new readers should have the basis of being readers and not be treated as those who have a say in sweeping about those who edit the encycloepdia in a neutral manner and should not have the leeway to diverge from that goal. I am opposed to those who think its any of our concern to intrude upon the basic learning process and oddly think it as "considerate" when an editor of wikipedia is merely meant to construct the encyclopedia and not concern themselves anything outside of this goal. -Randall Brackett 16:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it extremely unreasonable to suggest that these templates pose any problem whatsover. I am opposed to the thought that our readers can't chose for themselves to read past a small template, if they so desire. Johntex\talk 17:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am baffled that readers are so helpless they would require a template to "choose" to learn from the outset. I think it extremely unreasonable to suggest that these templates were required in an encyclopedia from the outset. -Randall Brackett 17:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I find it extremely unreasonable to believe that these templates are a problem if section headings are not a problem. They both describe to the reader what is coming in that section so that they can choose to read about it or not. Johntex\talk 17:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, so we don't need them both, then. Section headers were present first. Section headers are a pillar of manual of style. Section headers do not intrude upon the workings of an encyclopedia.


 * Its one or the other. I really don't percieve a need for both if they both attain similar goals, as you describe. "It doesn't harm anything" is a poor argument. If that were relevant AFD wouldn't be normally cluttered with nominations. -Randall Brackett 17:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * After a short break, I'm back to give my view on the matter. I think spoiler warnings are a good idea, and eventually I'm probably going to have to write a long explanation why, as people don't often challenge my arguments - they usually just disregard them completely.  Right now, however, I want to make it clear that I feel there would be very little point in having spoiler warnings switched on by default.  I'm not saying I personally wouldn't support such a motion, but I don't think it would satisfy those who consider spoilers to be an infringement of policy.  If you think about it, that would undermine the whole concept of spoiler switches, which was originally put forward as a compromise to satisfy both schools of thought.  I still think the best solution would be spoiler warnings that are switched off by default.  RobbieG 20:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Welcome back. It seems the compromise that led to us forming an RfC was randomly murdered the instant said RfC got off the ground. Spinning our wheels seems to be the soup of the day. Or the year, as the case may be/is. Ryu Kaze 03:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Be clear there's no consensus on the use
I think one of the things we've got to work out is that we're going to have to be clear there's no consensus for the use of spoiler templates, but that we're going to have to offer guidance on how they should be used if there is consensus within a given article to use them. I think it might be an idea to look at offering an additional template, rather broader in scope to be placed at the top of an article, for articles where agreement is hard to reach. Hiding Talk 20:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Examples of other sources avoiding spoiler warnings
I'd note this review of Superman Returns by Philip French in The Observer contains no spoiler warnings. It's an online source, and the article is a critical evaluation of the film, so similar in approach to Wikipedia. Hiding Talk 20:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but are there any spoilers in the review? -- Ned Scott 20:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should move this over to the /RfC page under the "professional/encyclopedic" discussion. -- Ned Scott 20:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

RfC format tweak
I realize the point of having individual user statements was to avoid unnecessary redundant arguing, but the comment section added by RobbieG is irresistable. Would it be possible to have a collapsing section underneath each user's statment for comments, which one would click to expand? I don't know how to format like that, but there's an example at the Good Articles page. That seems like we'd be able to keep user comments, which a user could update if they changed their position during the course of discussion, but wouldn't require the average reader to read through a huge debate that ends in no change. Maybe? -- Lee Bailey(talk) 14:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How about a sub-page for the individual user statements? --GunnarRene 15:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not just keep doing it the way we have been? Inviting discussion to each one of the user comment sections is like taking the 444kb discussion we had previously and multiplying it by however many user comment sections there are. Ryu Kaze 17:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry. :( RobbieG 11:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * For what? You haven't done anything. You've been one of the most well-behaved people in this entire discussion. Ryu Kaze 21:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * For inviting people to comment under my user statement. I realise now that that defeats the object somewhat.  I presume that's why that section was moved?  RobbieG 16:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, it was just that it got very long, 'tis all. -- Ned Scott 04:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Skip Spoilers
We sould have some kind of link on the spoiler tags to skip down to the end spoiler tag that follows. --Blackjack48 01:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree in fullest DPM 15:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have created a templates that do something similar. They can be viewed at User:NetRolller 3D/spoilertest. When they are called without the "name" parameter, they look like ordinary spoiler warning. But when the "name" parameter is used: the endspoiler template suddenly contains an anchor with a name specified in the "name" parameter of the template, while the other templates get a link that can be used to skip to the anchor specified in the endspoiler template. So, once they are landed, Text of the spoiler will yield a skip link in the spoiler warning. Don't need the endspoiler template, but need the embedded anchor? Simply wrap it around with DIV tags styled to be display:none. Comments go here or to User talk:NetRolller 3D/spoilertest. --NetRolller 3D 22:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Guideline revision talk page
In response to the recent RfC, a third talk page has been started for WP:SPOILER to address revisions to the spoiler tag guidelines. You can find the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/guidelines -- Ned Scott 02:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Redundant spoiler warnings
When an article title or section (e.g., "Character history") makes it clear that plot details will be revealed, no spoiler warning should appear because it's redundant. It looks silly too. Doczilla 08:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, I would agree with that. --Chris Griswold 09:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Totally makes sense to me Rlquall 14:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Except that usually only part of such sections contain spoilers? -- Ned Scott 23:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, a character history section is entirely story information. Read the definition of spoiler. There are people who post spoiler warnings for stories that were written a hundred years ago. That's when the word loses all meaning. Doczilla 05:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand you.. Is this a complaint about spoiler tags in sections like "Plot" and "Characters" or a complaint about using spoilers in articles on classic fiction? I agree that most classic fiction spoilers are usually common knowledge, and aren't really spoilers (at least with the examples I can think up of right now). -- Ned Scott 05:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No, that was just a tangent. My main point is that a spoiler tag on a section titled Plot or Character History is ridiculous! The section title already says it contains story information. Doczilla 06:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, then I go back to my main response, not all plot summaries or character sections contain spoilers. Many don't contain any, or only contain them at the very end. Thus, the consistency you suggest is not there. -- Ned Scott 06:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Read the definition of a spoiler. Plot detail = spoiler. Doczilla 06:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess you don't own a dictionary, because that's not the definition of a spoiler. Not all plot details are spoilers. Spoilers describe a type of plot detail that can spoil one's enjoyment if learned prematurely. Some works of fiction might not actually contain "spoilers" at all, regardless of what detail you go into. A blanket label that all plot details are spoilers is simply false. -- Ned Scott 07:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * From spoiler warning: "A spoiler is a piece of information in an article about a narrative work (such as a book, feature film, television show or video game) that may reduce one's enjoyment of reading, viewing, or playing the work by revealing certain plot events or twists." If it reveals plot events, it's a spoiler. What will reduce enjoyment varies from person to person. If the spoiler warning is posted based on someone's judgment of what may reduce others' enjoyment, then the spoiler warning is not only redundant, but it inherently violates Wikipedia's own NPOV policy. Wryspy 06:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If editors in general can't agree on what is a spoiler and this becomes a problem, call it a plot detail warning and use it for all plot details. . --GunnarRene 01:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * All plot details can potentially be used as spoilers. As was said by User:Wryspy, different people define "spoiler" differently. Some people use it to refer to any plot detail (which the warning tag itself does, ironically enough: "Plot and/or ending details follow"), while some — such as User:RobbieG — believe anything you wouldn't see or read on the back of a piece of media's packaging to be a spoiler. It's most sensible, really, to use the word for anything that might be defined as a spoiler (in this case, every last detail of the plot, which includes all the details about the characters).


 * By the way, I really don't think that the RfC is helping anything at this point. All that's been going on there lately is someone showing up occasionally to vote. Aside from that, the page is far too bloated to be of use. Aside from that also, based on what happened at the guidelines discussion page, it seems obvious that what discussion of this matter will be likely to amount to for the time being is that things remain as they've been (the tag getting used on a case-by-case basis). We probably should just close that thing. Ryu Kaze 14:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warning as POV issue

 * Think of it this way: we never see disclaimers before X-Play stating "Review/spoiler alert: images and scenes from video game follow". It's unprofessional, redundant, and a violation of NPOV as per above statements. &mdash; Deckill e r 06:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * ( Before I start, hahahahahaha, X-Play as "professional" hahahahahahaha ). It's neutral point of view, NOT no point of view. It's no more subjective than what characters an editor feels is notable or not, or what parts of the topic they wish to expand upon. Spoiler tags are not driven by the motivation of morals, political, religious, or age-sensitive reasons. And did you two miss the big Spoiler warning/RfC link at the top? While much of that discussion doesn't show a completely clear consensus, I think the NPOV volition claim was pretty much blown out of the water. -- Ned Scott 06:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * ( Actually, X-Play is professional for what it intends to be. Encyclopedias shouldn't have redundant content alerts when it is cleraly established in one are that Wikipedia contains spoilers. ). And no, we didn't miss the big RfC link (I had my own statement). You see, in discussions, concepts carry over in the heat of the moment; if you wish to refresh the arguement agianst the neutral point of view arguement, feel free. Moreover, since Wikipedia strives to be a comprehensive source (especially since it's a major FA criteria), it is important to provide a summary of the storyline of the work. So, "on paper", all articles on fictional works should have a general, yet succinct plot summary, meaning Wikipedia contains spoilers. (And yes, policies and guidelines work "on paper", as well, but not necessarily in a such a large community where discussion is commonplace). And since this is a guideline (not a policy) which should only be implemented or not implemented via consensus by each individual wikiproject or group of editors, I'm leaving this discussion. &mdash; Deckill e r 06:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The idea is that a spoiler warning would be used on cases where editors generally agree that something is a spoiler. In some cases of disagreement you will even see a specific consensus on what is a spoiler for that topic. If any editor sees a spoiler tag on something they think only the original editor thought was a spoiler, they are totally free to remove it (or for any weak reason, for that matter). Spoiler tags will not reflect just one editors opinion, and most spoilers are of a chronological nature anyways. People generally agree on what is a spoiler and what is not, and when there is a disagreement then a discussion should happen on those particular articles and reach a consensus.  If you say "X character is shy in chapter 9" and it's really obvious that the character is shy and that is what the author was aiming for, is that a POV violation?


 * NPOV was to guard against biased content, and saying the spoiler tag is biased really misses the whole point.


 * The whole point of the RfC was so that maybe we wouldn't have to revisit the issue so often and have redundant debates. I don't see any of the arguments there as losing credibility for being in the heat of a debate, as it's fairly obvious which ones are in "heat" and which ones are logical statements.


 * Not all articles will contain spoilers. We are not just talking about articles that cover a general fictional work, but sub articles on characters and elements, as well as non-fictional articles on actors that discuss the characters they played. Not all plot summaries will contain spoilers, in fact, not all plots have spoilers. Also, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a verbatim retelling of fictional stories, as that violates copyrights and WP:FICT and WP:WAF. -- Ned Scott 07:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I was going to leave this discussion, but your last comment concerns me (especially since I'm a major guru of both of those policies). Wikipedia is supposed to describe the work, including its deveopment, reception, and, yes, the story (in a succinct manner). &mdash; Deckill e r 07:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And to clarify, the concensus comment was in regard to whether WikiProjects should use the warning at all, not actual spoilers. &mdash; Deckill e r 07:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying we shouldn't have summaries, or even detailed summaries, or even episode by episode article detail. I'm saying one's motivation for including that information should be to support the article's encyclopedic treatment. I didn't mean to say that you had suggested a verbatim retelling, sorry for the confusion. -- Ned Scott 07:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay. By the way, read your Wikipedia e-mail in a bit. &mdash; Deckill e r 07:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And then there are plenty of professional print sources and online sources (and some TV programs too) that have spoiler warnings of some kind. For example, SFX magazine used to have (and might still have) a spoiler section that you had to rip open to read. The way it was fashioned, like a very visible black and yellow pattern, it worked as both a protection from those who didn't want spoilers, and as an attraction and selling point for those who want all the hottest spoilers. So what is a spoiler in that case was rather obvious, while the choice as to whether are positive or negative was left to the reader/buyer. --GunnarRene 01:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Some people will want spoiler warnings, some won't. I honestly don't see the problem with twenty pixels of screen space that you can heed or ignore as you please. --Jrothwell 13:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The same can be said of the information the warning is being placed on. The only difference is that the information itself isn't warning you not to learn something (and, seriously, how many people want to challenge the promise that "This will be utterly trashed for you if you continue reading"? "Spoiler" isn't a friendly word). Ryu Kaze 14:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * look, it is NOT "warning you not to learn something" PERIOD. it is "warning you not to learn something" that you really might not want to learn here, outside of the context of experiencing the actual work of art as it was intended.  if you want to know, go watch/read/play/whatever and find out firsthand, at which point the info is rendered pretty much redundant for you, so why is it even there, i don't know, gosh this discusion is bizzare!  annyway, as just recently mentioned above, the idea of spoiler warnings being used for censorship is pretty rediculous, as editors can debate on which items constitute spoilage and come to a consensus. --Elgaroo 00:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * He's talking about spoiler warnings. Dmoon1 01:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Series spoiler warnings
Hey, I've noticed now that you put spoiler warnings for each series rather then just for the program as a whole. This is very good and I am wondering how this came about. I remember moaning about the crappy spoiler warnings going off what the Americans have seen in either Lost or Battle Star Galactica talk (it was about the latter but I may have been suggesting the former does it) a few months back. Could it be that someone actually paid attention to what I said?--Josquius 10:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure if it was their idea or not, but I first saw this being used at WikiProject Stargate. -- Ned Scott 05:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Shape and Size of the Spoiler Warnings
I often find that the spoilers themselves catch the eyes better than the spoiler warnings. I would rather have them bigger and in brighter colour.Hillgentleman 04:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that they could possibly be more intrusive is one of the few positive things about them. Exploring that fact, however, would be a terrible idea. Ryu Kaze 00:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a suggestion
Seeing there's all this contraversy about whether to use spoiler tags...why not just find a solution that avoids them altogether?

The majority of spoilers are used for summaries of what happens in fictional things (i.e. fictional novels, video games, movies...etc.)

So why don't we just create another article for the plot summary? What i mean is like in the article One Piece. There's an entry for "Story Arcs", as well as entries for One Piece episodes and movies, but the article itself has no 'spoilers' because there is a seperate page for information about the series and what happens in it. So basically, everything that would be a spoiler is put onto a seperate pages, for example Captain Morgan arc. This article does contain 'spoilers' because it basically summarizes everything that happens in that story arc, as well as the ending, but it needs no spoiler tags.

So why can't that be done for most articles about fictional movies/books/series/games/etc. So say, the movie "the sixth sense". You can have just a basic plot blub or introduction that doesn't contain spoilers, and basic character information on the actual page The Sixth Sense, but then have another page for the plot summary. So the page would be called "the sixth sense plot summary", or "the sixth sense/plot summary" (i'm sure if this is actually possible, but i've seen on some user pages where people have like..a 'subpage' inside their user page. So it's not just "wikipedia.org/wiki/User:[username here]", but "wikipedia.org/wiki/User:[username]/blah").

Then you wouldn't need spoiler tags on either page. Since the actual "sixth sense" page will contain no 'spoilers'. And the plot summary page will need no spoilers, because it's very obvious from the title of the page that the page contains a plot summary. People get to it either by searching for a plot summary, or by clicking on a link which would say "the sixth sense plot summary". So they won't accidentally stubble on a plot summary which contains spoilers when they are just searching for the movie, or clicking on a link for the movie.

The only problem is, it'd mean creating a lot more pages. And there may still be pages which are not about fictional works, but still require spoiler tages. But at least it'd reduce the number of spoiler tags down by a lot. No matter what kind of decision people reach for the spoiler tags, every option will have its faults. at least this means less spoiler tags on wikipedia in general, which means whatever problems there are with the different proposals for spoiler tags, it will be less significant a problem. Yaksha 02:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure if that would take all spoilers out, or make a situation where no spoiler template should be used, but it does raise a point that proper editing can remove many spoilers or place them in a better spot. For one WP:NOT #7 says "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger article." WP:WAF says that articles should be mostly out of universe and really only use summaries when you need to explain something about the show.


 * In other words, we shouldn't be including detailed summaries of fiction simply for the sake of covering all plot details, but to serve the article about the work of fiction (or to an actor, writer, filming technique, or other independently notable subject). A lot of spoilers exist simply because they're crufty information that should be cut out. While they could be spoilers doesn't necessarily mean they're an important part of the work of fiction.


 * Some spoilers are often included as trivial information, especially with popular shows where some editors want to write about the latest little fact they got off spoilersforeveryone.whatever.


 * If there is a character article, then it would probably be best to be brief on the description on the main article, then keep the details on the character's article. Not for the sake of "hiding spoilers", but because it makes sense for information organization. You don't always want to dive into deep detail during the overview.


 * So maybe some advice like Don't remove spoilers for the sake of removing spoilers, but their removal may be the result of following things like WP:WAF, etc -- Ned Scott 03:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * of course it's not going to take *all* spoilers out, but the point i was making is that this problem with spoilers isn't (or doesn't have to be) nearly as big a deal as people are making it out to be.


 * There are a few measured that could be taken which would greatly reduce the number of spoilers, and therefore the magnitude of this problem. For a start, it's the trivial facts that are added as spoilers, as you pointed out. People can argue censhorship, but clearly, unless Wikipedia is going to try to include *every* fact about a topic, people will HAVE to be selective. So we could easily just encourage people NOT to add the latest round of gossip/rumours/facts to articles about popular current shows.


 * "If there is a character article, then it would probably be best to be brief on the description on the main article, then keep the details on the character's article. Not for the sake of "hiding spoilers", but because it makes sense for information organization." - Yes, but it does serve the purpose of avoiding the need for spoiler tags, on either the main article or on the seperate character article. Which is the point i'm trying to make.


 * Another problem that really needs to be addressed is whether fictional works should have seperate articles for plot summaries. From what i can see, it seems rather inconsistent. for example, One Piece splits off many many MANY articles for different story arcs, goes into detailed summaries, but has only a very brief spoiler free summary on the main page. However, Naruto also has seperate pages with very detailed summaries of the plot line, but the plot overview on the main article goes into a lot more detail and does contain spoiler tags. Another similar series Hunter x hunter, doesn't have any seperate pages for the storyline, but relativly detailed summary on the main page with spoiler tags.


 * As someone who reads all three series, i can tell you that the amount of stuff that can possibly be written for the plotlines any of those three series is about the same. The only difference is how long the series have been around for and how popular they are, and therefore how many people bother to edit it.


 * I'm using that example just because i'm most familiar with manga. But i've been noticing the same sort of inconsistency with pages about movies and TV shows and books too.


 * This inconsistency is a problem on its own - but if we encourage a seperate article for plot summaries and analysis. And then encourage to keep the plot section on the main article brief when there is a seperate article (same with character sections when the character already has its own page), and also encourage to avoid trivial rumors and facts on pages for recent shows...i think it can reduce the number of spoilers by quite a bit. Even if the reason for this is to keep information more organised and to follow WP:WAF...it will also have the effect of reducing spoilers.


 * Sure, it may increase article number...but if it makes things more organised, then what's wrong? It's not going to fix the problem completely since there're sure to be cases where there are 'spoilers' in the article for facts that should be included and/or are a too small a section to be split into a seperate article. But if there's only a small number of pages needing spoiler tags, then it easier to make the definition of what a 'spoiler' is more objective and less subjective. Also, the "it would be just annoying and distracting for people to see a message about spoilers at the beginning of every article" problem would be less of a problem since only a handful of articles would be affected.


 * Plus, splitting sections off to seperate articles neither violates NPOV or "wikipedia is not censored" policies. Yaksha 06:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The best solution is to just not use them - people searching for article regarding films and fiction mostly expect the article to gain information regarding the happenings of the film, so it seems rather silly to actually use spoiler warnings. In short, let's scrap spoiler warnings altogether. LuciferMorgan 20:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about spoilers, or spoiler tags? As far as plot details themselves go, remember that one of the criteria for featured article status (the "best of the best" status that every article is theoretically supposed to try achieving) calls for the article being comprehensive, touching upon every major aspect of the subject. In the case of fictional works, their plots are one of the major aspects.


 * Also, some fictional works absolutely require important plot details to be mentioned in accordance with the real world significance of the work. Take a look at Citizen Kane, Final Fantasy VII or The Empire Strikes Back. Ryu Kaze 14:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * @Lucifer Morgan - actually, that's what i always thought too. I can't imagine why someone would look at a encyclopedia page for a movie and not expect to be told what the movie was about and what happened in it. I guess it's a matter of people getting onto pages by accident, or wanting to read one part of a movie article and therefore appreciating being told "spoilers start here" so they can skip that section (instead of reading it and then realizing it), or pages that contain spoilers but not obviously so (e.g. spoilers about a movie on the page of a famous actor). Although (despite those reasons) i still think scrapping spoiler warning tags on articles that are obviously about fictional works altogheter would not be such a bad idea. It does have its cons, but it fixes a lot of problems, it's a simple solution, there's little ambigiuty. Just a general disclaimer saying articles regarding fictional works contain spoilers. On almost all articles about fictional works, it becomes glaringly obviouse that the article is about something fictional from just reading the first introductionary paragraph.


 * I agree with the original point of this section. Do away with spoiler warnings entirely. They're pointless. If a section is title PLOT or SYNOPSIS, then you know you're going to read plot details. 70.247.242.194 23:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed completely. The entire premise of having "spoiler warnings" in an encyclopedia is absurd. These so-called "spoiler warnings" are superfluous should be eliminated entirely. -- -- BBlackmoor (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler redirects that reveal true identities
Colonel Moon, Darth Sidious, Janus (Angels and Demons), Numbuh Zero, Poppler, Scabbers, The Teacher, and Tom Riddle were spoiler-proof redirects that avoided revealing their subjects' true identities, until User:Ned Scott changed them to hard redirects without discussion. What does everyone think of this? —Keenan Pepper 04:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * They were "spoiler proof" using spoiler redirect, a process which hides content rather than placing a note on the same article, in this case in the form of a solf-redirect. We've discussed other such methods, such as Java-script and [hide]/[show] type stuff, and it was generally agreed that such alternatives were not acceptable. I don't think this is any different. I've defended spoiler templates in the past, but there is a limit to how much you can "protect" readers before you really have over-stepped. I do not think a spoiler tag in an article is over-stepping, but a soft-redirecting spoiler warning is. This is also something that can't be turned off, unlike other spoiler templates. -- Ned Scott 04:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That is to say, we should give fair notice when we can, but know that there are limits to doing so. -- Ned Scott 04:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I noticed in the edit note for Darth Sidious to Palpatine, you quoted Wikipedia guildlines "nothing about this in WP:SPOILER. Only basic use of spoiler templates is exept from WP:NDT." I would like to point out that WP:SRD does have an entry on the use of soft redirects (as oppossed to hard ones) when the title of the target article is in itself a spoiler. The only examples i recognise there are Darth Sidious and Tom Riddle, and both targets have article titles (Palpatine and Lord Voldemort) which are spoilers. That guildline seems to be pretty much useless these days since inter-wiki redirects can't be made anymore (which was what the guildline mainly dealt with), but i nothing suggests the bit about soft redirects for spoilers isn't in use anymore.


 * Maybe it's something that needs to be rediscussed here on WP:Spoiler?Yaksha 12:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I would think so, since the conversation consisted of two editors and two comments. -- Ned Scott 08:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

So are there any alternatives other than hard redirects which spoil things instantly? —Keenan Pepper 00:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes - you use a soft redirect. That a look at this previous version of Tom Riddle's page to see what i mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Riddle&diff=74740679&oldid=74740606 (you may have to scroll down a little) Yaksha 14:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The best alternative is to take about the spoiler warning template all together, then it wouldn't even BE an issue...but as much as IMO it's the best thing, that'll never happen, alas (just imagine the revert wars...). Whatever, honestly, the way I look at it is that the liklehood that someone will look someone up and be spoiled by a /redirect/ is so minor, it's probably not worth mulling about. An encyclopedia is the place to FIND info, not be shielded from it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 02:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, minor? Someone's reading Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, they want to find out more about the character Tom Riddle so they type it into Wikipedia and hit "Go". Immediately the article on Lord Voldemort is displayed and the book is ruined for them. What part of that seems unlikely? —Keenan Pepper 02:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah or someone might wonder if Ron's pet has an article while reading the first three books & search Scabbers. Since Scabbers isn't a mysterious character at all (unlike Tom Riddle) there's no way they could suspect searching that will lead to a spoiler. SNS 02:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously some cases are more important than others. —Keenan Pepper 02:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There's only so much you can do to give fair warning to readers, as there will always be a risk. -- Ned Scott 08:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And isn't that the whole crux of the issue? It's POV to decide which is "fair warning" and which isn't. And it's unfortunate, but I fear there might an issue of people refraining to create and article and/or add info for this very reason... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As I've said in the previous RfC on this issue, having a point of view is not a bad thing in an article. Our policy is neutral point of view, not no point of view. In other words, tagging only that which can reasonably be seen as a spoiler. Everything has a point of view, especially in fiction. Another reason for the spoiler tags is to prevent newer users from thinking they need to exclude information simply because it's a spoiler. -- Ned Scott 20:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I just felt like pointing out that example because I'm sure someone will argue against the Tom Riddle example by stating how mysterious the character is in the book he is introduced. SNS 02:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think this particular case of using spoiler tags raises any POV issues of what is a spoiler or not. The only time when you would need this is for fictional characters who have double identities or who hide their real identities. I think it's pretty clear when this is a case and when it is not.


 * In terms of fair warning, i don't think it is fair warning. Since a re-direct is automatic. I mean...for an article, you give a simple one-line spoiler warning so people will know. But for a re-direct, it just happens. I don't really consider that fair warning. Any one who is not completely computer illiterate will be 'spoiled' just by reading the url.


 * anyhow, i don't see what was wrong with the soft re-directs. I don't see them adding to the 'POV' problem...since i think it's pretty clear when the title of the article is a spoiler. And it's not like it means adding new pages...just means turning hard redirects into soft ones. Yaksha 14:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's fair warning as in reasonable, not fair as in "that's not fair!". Keep in mind that I personally don't have a big beef with a soft-redirect, but from the previous discussions / debates on spoiler notices it was clear that we're lucky to even get to use the template at all. -- Ned Scott 20:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * then how is a soft redirect no reasonable? or less reasonable than a hard one? A hard redirect automatically takes people from what the search for, or from the link the click on, to a page which they did not search for or did not click the link for. Obviously, if someone had typed in the article name with wrong capitilization, then the redirect will take them to the page which they were intending - they just typed the capitalization wrong.


 * But in this case, someone who's looking for information Darth Sidious may not be looking for information on Palpatine. The two are not indentical, not like the way cambridge university is the same thing as University of Cambridge. Darth Sidious may be the same person as Palpatine, but in the context of star wars, they are not the same thing. Yaksha 03:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you mean by "we're lucky to even get to use" it. If you are not arguing that soft redirects are unreasonable, then who is? Who am I supposed to be trying to convince? —Keenan Pepper 21:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Spoiler warning/RfC ← see that? When people brought up ideas to hide spoilers via things like java script or CSS it was generally viewed as a bad idea. Templates that we were discussing didn't distract from the article, but still were notable, which most if not all (who were in favor of some kind of spoiler notice) agreed was a good idea (one line of text vs having to click to continue). Click to continue methods of hiding spoilers aren't going to fly here.


 * It was also generally viewed that spoiler notices were mostly useful on the main article of fiction or in an article that was about something else but mentioned a work of fiction. Articles that are on characters, no matter which character that is, one would expect to see more spoilers than the main article because it goes into further detail. Spoiler tags aren't meant to protect someone who wants to read about Darth Sidious. Rather, they're there to alert people who just want general info on Star Wars or who want to know about Ian McDiarmid. -- Ned Scott 03:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * We can avoid using our own POVs in determining which identities "are more important" than others by simply acknowledging that anything that is known by one name and has a second, new name revealed should be given a soft redirect. That seems quite neutral to me. --Fbv65 e del / &#9745;t / &#9755;c || 00:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In the case of fictional characters who are known by more than one name - the other names/identities all already have pages anyway. It's just a matter of changing hard redirects to soft ones. It's not like there's any POV issues surrounding whether a character has two names/identities or not. Yaksha 03:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no POV issue either way, so I'm not sure what the point is in stating that. -- Ned Scott 03:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I brought that up because there wasa discussion above that using soft redirects doesn't show a NPOV. --Fbv65 e del / &#9745;t / &#9755;c || 13:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The point i'm trying to make is why are those pages still hard redirects? You quoted guildlines in your edit notes as the reasons for turning them into hard redirects. But i as i pointed out in my frist edit on this topic, there's also a guildline about why hard redirects shouldn't be used in those cases.


 * So what is the reason behind turning those soft redirects into hard redirects? because personally, i'm very much in support of using soft redirects, for reasons i've already pointed out above in this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler_warning&diff=76346182&oldid=76321952 Yaksha 06:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about respecting what consensus we got out of a large and recent debate vs something just thrown in on WP:SRD by two editors in a two comment discussion, probably gone unnoticed because no one watches that project page (at least at that time). What was added to WP:SRD was done so with very little input from anyone, without regards to WP:NDT, WP:SELF or THIS Wikipedia page. -- Ned Scott 06:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, so… I'm a bit confused about your opinion now. Do you think that the comment made at WP:SRD was fair, or do you think it should be amended per this current discussion? --Fbv65 e del / &#9745;t / &#9755;c || 13:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be added to anything yet, as we're still discussing it and there's not currently a consensus on the issue. Consensus also means not ignoring those recent discussions, or going by a number of support or oppose, but by looking at valid reasons / statements. -- Ned Scott 17:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't acknowleding consensus, I was asking about your personal feeling. Your recent comment (6:55, 18 September) confused me as to your latest opinion on the matter. So, again, do you think the policy should be amended so that soft redirects are in order for all identity changes, or are you in favor of how it stands now? If you are for the former, then it appears we have consensus. If not, we still need to discuss. --Fbv65 e del / &#9745;t / &#9755;c || 21:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * looking at both the Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler_warning/RfC and Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler_warning/guidelines, i don't see only discussion about what to do with spoilers in articles; no one bought up the possibility of redirects causing problems at all. Yes, there was a consensus...but it was about spoilers in articles in general. This problem of redirects causing spoilers ia a specific case that doesn't seem to have been addressed at all.


 * It's not like i'm saying to ditch the consensus. Just that the consensus doesn't seem like it covers this case at all. Or can you point out for me where redirects have been taken into account when forming this recent consensus? -Yaksha 01:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe we specifically discussed soft-redirects, but given the logic behind the arguments it's pretty safe to say that there would have been opposition to them if they had been brought up. It's basically a "click to continue" method of hiding a spoiler detail (granted that's the only way you could give prior warning), which isn't the same thing as just giving a one-line notice above a section in an article. There was no clear evidence that Wikipedia's policies or encyclopedic image are harmed by the one-line template notice (which could even be turned off by users). If the discussion got that heated over a one-line template notice then do you really think they would be okay with a soft-redirect, which turns a whole sub-page into a notice and presents a "click to continue" option?


 * The second factor is No disclaimer templates and Avoid self-references, which both give exception to the current spoiler notice usage defined here, but not to soft-redirects. Discussion is likely needed on those two pages as well for this new use of spoiler notice.


 * It's important that these points and concerns be addressed. We should not ignore valid concerns and views. To do so is a false consensus and a bad way to make guidelines. -- Ned Scott 05:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * a soft redirect is not the same thing as a click to continue method of hiding.


 * Click to continue would be something like this: a person wants to read an article on palpatine, but they have to click something before they can actually read the article, or that they have to click something before they can read parts of the article, on the basis that the article has spoilers. The basic problem here is that a person has to click something before they can read the article which they are wanting to read.


 * This is a matter of - a person wants to read an article on a topic, but is told there is no article on that topic, and that the article they should consult contains spoilers for whatever reasons. The point is - the person isn't being forced to click to see the article they want to see, they're being given a warning before being automatically taken to an different article which isn't the one they were searching for, or the one which they clicked the link to.


 * You speak of giving fair notice. What about something like this - a person reads the article Lightsaber, where there is a mention of Darth Sidious, however, no mention of him being Palpatine. The person clicks on the Darth Sidious link, and is instead taken to the Palpatine link. Oh dear...what if the person never wanted to know about Palpatine? What if the person has not seen the star wars movies, and they're only reading the lightsabre article because they are a fan of the star wars games? A re-direct that is automatic is hardly what i would call "fair warning". This would be completely different if the person was taking to a article for "Darth Sidious", where the introduction stated him to be a character from the movies, but the spoilers in the body of the article (which reveal he is palpatine) is within standard spoiler tags we now use. That user now has a change to read the introduction (which is spoiler free) and decide they do not wish to read on because they discover that Darth Sidious is a character from the star wars movies, which they have not watched.


 * There are also links to Darth Sidious on articles that are not entirely star-wars related. Examples include Messiahs in fiction, Supervillain and Electrum. All these articles contain Darth Sidious links, but don't mention that Darth Sidious is Palpatine. So someone who does not know Darth Sidious is Palpatine could click on a Darth Sidious link from one of thoses, and get dumped onto the Palpatine page. Further more, Darth Sidious is on at least one start wars template.


 * We put an unobtrusive spoiler tag on a page to warn people so they can stop reading once they get to that point and read the warning. However, someone who is getting re-directed doesn't have a choice. Someone who is clicking Darth Sidious from Supervillain has no idea they'll get re-directed. and why would they? It would be perfectly reasonable to think that Palpatine gets redirected to Darth Sidious, for reasons that aren't really relavent here. In which case the person would expect a Darth Sidious article, with a spoiler-free introduction, that they can read and then decide if they want to read on once they hit the spoiler tag. Instead, they get re-directed...to a page that they don't even need to read to be spoiled. All they need to see is the page title.


 * as for Avoid self-references, the soft redirect can be done differently to avoid self-reference. It just needs to be re-written. Advicing the reader to read a different article, instead of throwing in the jargon term 'redirect' and 'soft redirect' and so on. With No disclaimer templates - yes, it doesn't give exception to soft redirects. But if soft-redirects are deemed to be good, then they should be used. If not, then they shouldn't be used. the fact that they are not used or mentioned now on policies may be a complication, but it's hardly a valid reason why they shouldn't be used or considered. --Yaksha 14:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Something not given specific exception from WP:NDT is a VERY good reason to not include it without discussion first. No disclaimers means NO DISCLAIMERS. The definition of exception is that something is specifically allowed while all other uses are not.


 * And i'm *not* trying to get it included without discussion first. I'm trying to do the 'discussion first' bit, which is why i'm posting on this talk page, and not changing reverting your edits myself. And it's here because a user bought it up here first, and because it's pointless talking specifically about spoiler warnings on a general guildline like [WP:NDT]] without talking about it first at the page for the specific guildline involved (i.e. this one.) Yaksha 02:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The flaw in your argument is that any reader who's gotten to the point of reading Light Saber by then knows the level of detail we're including, unlike those who are just reading about a general topic such as Star Wars or Ian McDiarmid.


 * Similarly, readers who have gotten to the point of reading Electrum or Messiahs in fiction will know the level of detail we are including regarding SW characters. And of course, those Supervillain is far less of a general topic than Star Wars or Ian McDiarmid? Yaksha 02:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Your entire argument is nothing but "but they'll get spoiled!". I'll repeat something I've already said, the word fair is not being used in the sense you think it is. The word fair is being used to mean "reasonable" as in reasonable to BOTH Wikipedia's goals (and policies, guidelines, and reasonable encyclopedic image), as well as to the reader. Wikipedia cannot and should not take every possible step to warn and/or "protect" readers from spoilers. Sometimes we can tag a spoiler before the reader can read it, sometimes we can't. Sometimes we don't think about something in the same context as the reader, or consider one thing a spoiler while others do not. This is why we only tag that which is generally agreeable to be a spoiler and add a small template notice as an afterthought to articles (hiding spoilers should not dictate how one structures an article).


 * Yes, that's my entire argument. But you tell me...what other reason is there for spoiler tags at all except because "ppl will get spoiled"?


 * how is this not reasonable to wikipedia's goals?


 * Or rather, how is it any less reasonable to wikipedia's goals than the spoiler tags which are already allowed? Soft redirects for spoilers have not been allowed on wikipedia policies or guildlines exceot WP:SRD itself, but as far as i can see, it's because they haven't been mentioned/acknowledged or bought up at all, not because people have decided to disallow them (take the guildlines for redirects, it lists when redirects are used. I suppose this falls in the category of things which have more than one name. But from the POV of an un-spoiled person, the two are not different names of the same thing, they're two different characters).


 * As for the encyclopedic image thing, how is it any less encyclopedic than spoiler tags? I'll assume 'encyclopedic' is referring to real hard encyclopedias. Which i should point out - spoiler warnings are never used in the first place. Making what we have now very unencyclopedic.


 * In terms of re-directs. When such a thing is needed in a paper encyclopedia, there would be an entry informing the reader to look at another entry. Since wikipedia is electronic, we have the luxury of just taking the reader automatically to the other article...instead of telling them to go look at another article. People would argue that this is more convient/simple/efficient...etc, and i agree, re-directs are handy. But it doesn't make the more old-fashioned method of pointing the reader to go read another article unenecyclopedic.


 * So that's really my point. If spoiler tags to warn people of spoilers, which are unencyclopedic because encyclopedias do not have them, are permitted. Then why is the old-fashioned method of telling the reader to go off and read another page for the purpose of warning them of spoilers not permitted? The actual method of telling a reader to go read another page is not unencyclopedic in itself, since that's what encyclopedias other than Wikipedia do. Yaksha 02:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Another point is that we can't turn off soft redirects, while we can turn off spoiler template tags.


 * Speaking of "fair", wouldn't it be fair to assume that an article dedicated to a single character will contain spoilers? -- Ned Scott 00:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it is. But is it 'fair' to assume an article for one character will direct you to an article for another character? (which is what an un-'spoiled' person would think, since Palpatine and Darth Sidious are presented as different characters) --Yaksha 02:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the point about "See also" entries in paper encyclopedias is a great one – we can do a "see also" but have the advantage by not revealing where the see also will take you, until you get there, whereas you have to tell it to somebody in a paper encyclopedia. Yaksha, I agree with you entirely. I don't think we should detract from Wikipedia's goals, but it is entirely unreasonable to disallow SRDs because Wikipedia has something against spoilers – soft redirects are not outrageous, and we don't need to ruin somebody's reading experience. Don't forget WP:IAR: If something is better, go for it. --Fbv65 e del / &#9745;t / &#9755;c || 03:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The argument that "we allow this kind of spoiler notice, so we should also allow this one" totally fails because the way the two notices work is very different. One presents a "click to continue" option, can't be turned off, is a lot more obtrusive, is a minority spoiler issue, and isn't cleared by WP:NDT. The other is a single line message that doesn't require the reader to do anything other than scroll one line to read the rest of the text, is applicable to the majority of spoiler issues, can be turned off, and is cleared by WP:NDT.

And I don't mean this as a threat, but if you really want I can ask the anti-spoiler editors from the previous RfC to share their views on this issue as well. Just because they're not following the current discussion doesn't mean we should ignore views and points that were brought up recently and are still valid. I might not have always agreed with those editors, but I do respect their positions on the matter.

Where we go from here could be that we start requesting comments from more people (such as the previous participants of the RfC, WikiProjects on fiction, etc) and also start a discussion on this in WP:NDT. Since, I don't see this discussion going anywhere at this point with just us.

or

I got to thinking, I think this is all besides the point. The problem here is not the redirect, it's the link. It was pointed out, people don't know where the link on Supervillains will take them. Why not place a spoiler notice on those articles that says "the following link contains spoilers" or some message more specific? It would be less obtrusive, wouldn't require any additional discussion from WP:NDT, and could be turned off like all spoiler notices if one wishes. -- Ned Scott 06:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

But what if someone decides to use the search feature? Like I previously mentioned, a new reader to the Harry Potter series would have no reason to suspect that Scabbers is anything but a rat & would have a major part of the third book spoiled for them just because they were curious if there was an article on that (or they might suspect it would redirect them to an article on animals in the Harry Potter series but certainly not what it redirects to now). SNS 06:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * @Ned Scott - the problem with what you say is that you keep pointing out the difference between a 'click to continue' and a single-line spoiler warning, and what you are saying is not wrong. But it's within the context of article spoiler warnings. You fail the acknowledge that there is a difference between spoilers in an article (in which case it's about people being exposed to spoilers in articles they are choosing to read), and spoilers caused by automatic redirects of Wikipedia (in which case it's not the article they're choosing to read.)


 * You're second suggestion solves nothing, because one, it just means we have to shove spoiler warnings everywhere. Although i guess you're saying one-lined unobtrusive spoiler warnings in articles is alright. But it doesn't address the problem of searching at all.


 * When someone enters Darth Sidious and hits GO, they're still going to end up on Palpatine. The purpose of a redirect is to take people to the article they wish to read when they have made a mistake in typing out the article tytpe. That is, if they mispell it, or if something has more than one name, or if they mis-capitalize it. So we use a redirect to automatically take them where they want to go. But when someone hits GO with "Darth Sidious" in the search box, Palpatine is NOT where they want to go.


 * which is why i'm saying a redirect is wrong. Because a redirect isn't suppose to be taking people to articles they're not wanting to read. It's supposed to be helping people find the article that they do want to read.


 * Now if soft-redirects is so unwelcome, then don't use a soft-redirect. There are other alternatives that don't involve auto-dumping the reader off to another article. For example, the Darth Sidious page could become and short article in its own right. have a short paragraph detailing who he is and where he is from. Then your normal standard spoiler line, then a line stating he is actually palpatine, which would prompt the reader to go read Palpatine Which is neither violating no-disclaimers or what the spoiler warnings have set here.


 * Redirecting just on the basis of Darth Sidious and Palpatine being the same character is wrong. Or are you suggesting we're supposed to turn articles like Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker into the same article too and have one re-direct to the other? And don't say i'm been too far off, because that's what those two articles used to be a year ago.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anakin_Skywalker&diff=15422439&oldid=15418480 <<This old version of Anakin Skywalker's page a long time ago when it stopped being a redirect but before soft redirects were used. And something like that is what i mean, except maybe slightly longer and without the italics detailing why there are two articles, since that would be self-referencing.


 * As for other people, doesn't bother me who you want to inform. Yaksha 12:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be great to have more views on this opinion. We shouldn't be "scared" to have other editors who may not agree with us join in; after all, if they don't agree and don't participate in this, then we'll just have to go through it all over again.


 * I think what SNS and Yaksha have said makes perfect sense. A Wikipedia reader looks for an article on their search term, or, in some cases, articles frequently containing the search term. They have no desire to learn anything major, critical, revealing, unless they have been forewarned. In articles where a basic summary is given, and a more detailed analysis is later offered, we have the standard spoiler template, which we have decided is adequate for users to read, say, "Hey, I don't want anything more! I've read enough and don't want to spoil my reading/watching pleasure!" Then they'll close the window and wander off on their merry ways.


 * When you have a character who is known by two names, and the less popular of the two names is a search term, and the searcher does not know of the dual identity, you have a problem. Automatically redirecting somebody searching for "Scabbers" to "Peter Pettigrew" doesn't offer a forewarning. We do offer a warning when the spoiler appears later in an article, so why should we be any different just because this poor character had to go get himself two names? We don't want readers complaining that they were spoiled, even if there is the Wikipedia contains spoilers policy. If there's a way to assist readers by not jumping immediately to the second identity's page, then by all means we need to take advantage of that. --Fbv65 e del / &#9745;t / &#9755;c || 02:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll
Okay, there's been a healthy amount of discussion, and from what I've read it looks like we've at least established that current policy does not specifically apply to this situation. I'd like to take a straw poll to see which solutions are popular. Feel free to add comments and other solutions. —Keenan Pepper 02:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hard redirects
 * Support. Either an article is notable by itself or it isn't. Hard redirects when the "Anakin" subject is not notable by itself, no redirects and separate pages when the "Anakin" and "Vader" subjects are both notable. --- RockMFR 17:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Soft redirects
 * Support. —Keenan Pepper 02:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support as per my comments above. --Fbv65 e del / &#9745;t / &#9755;c || 14:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support as with everything i've said above --Yaksha 14:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support as per my previous comments SNS 15:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this still active? Support. Elegant solution, they help some readers, they don't hurt anyone, and I can see no use opposing these just to enforce a narrow interpretation of WP:NDT for policy's sake. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Other solutions?


 * Umm...is the term 'straw poll' meant to mean something? (as in other than just a poll).
 * See Straw polls. It means it doesn't really matter. =P —Keenan Pepper 00:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Other solutions - something like this (except without the italics bit at the bottom) >> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anakin_Skywalker&diff=15422439&oldid=15418480. Don't know what to call it. So like a short introductory article, then a normal spoiler tag, then advising the person to go read the other article.


 * I liked the soft redirects, but if self-referencing and 'no disclaimers' is such a problem for people, something like this will serve the same purpose of soft redirects but not cause problems with those two already existing policies. Yaksha 03:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yaksha, the Anakin Skywalker page is basically identical to the former Tom Riddle page without using the actual soft redirect. The two pages serve the same function, providing a brief introduction before offering a spoiler warning to the true identity article. The only difference is that the Tom Riddle page does not name what the new article is. --Fbv65 e del / &#9745;t / &#9755;c || 14:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the point is that the two pages serve the same function. Only that it doesn't self-reference, and uses a normal spoiler template (instead of the one that says "this is a soft redirect for the purpose of...etc"). I personally think the soft-redirect thing looks neater, but the fact that it self-references and uses a different spoiler tempate seems to bother people (see discussion above.) So i suggested this.


 * about naming the new article...i couldn't think of any other ways of providing a link to a new article without naming the new article if we're going avoid self-referencing. Anyhow, given the two options above, i'll go with support on soft-redirects. Yaksha 14:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what the point of a straw poll is right now. It's rather obvious that I'm the only active participant in the discussion that is opposing the soft-redirects, but I do believe that I am representing an accurate viewpoint from previous discussions. -- Ned Scott 06:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ned, as we've agreed to before, it would be great to have people who participated in the previous discussion come here and offer their opinion. We won't close the straw poll until they make their way here. --Fbv65 e del / &#9745;t / &#9755;c || 17:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * agreed. other people would be nice. After all, there's not much one can say in reply to a claim of 'an accurate viewpoint' short of saying that the person is wrong. --Yaksha 02:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

A straw poll is a straw poll, but it doesn't really undo the sentiments of previous discussion. If you want to gauge the opinion on soft spoiler redirects, I suggest making an RFC out of it and announcing it on the same pages where the discussion was held. Personally, I don't have a strong opinion on soft redirects. They're kind of nice, but I don't support them strongly. It's not the information hiding that we discussed earlier, but I would suggest a solution where some non-spoiler information is given first (X is a character in Y), then a spoiler warning, and then a link to the main article.--GunnarRene 20:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Gunnar, the Tom Riddle article, prior to hard redirecting looked like this. It combines soft redirects with what you are suggesting. Also, I don't have a lot of experience with RFC, could somebody who is more adept at that aspect of Wikipedia do it, or perhaps encourage me to do it on my own for the first time? :-) --Fbv65 e del / &#9745;t / &#9755;c || 01:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "but I would suggest a solution where some non-spoiler information is given first (X is a character in Y), then a spoiler warning, and then a link to the main article" am i the only one who believes we can just go with this idea and do it? Since it wouldn't be breaking WP:NDT (it's using the normal spoiler warning), or WP:SRD, which seem to be the two reason why Ned Scott made the changes in the first place. And i don't think it's conflicting with anything on WP:SPOILER or any other wikipedia guildines --Yaksha 06:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd let Ned Scott and some other people who don't agree with us have the say in it. Obviously I would go ahead and say yes. :-) --Fbv65 e del / &#9745;t / &#9755;c || 18:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)res

Please note the main point of my comment: This straw poll might not accurately represent community consensus. Ned Scott interprets the consensus as being against soft redirects, and I would tend to agree with him on that. But the only full way of gathering consensus is to ask this new question, about soft redirects, in the same places that were used to gather previous consensus. --GunnarRene 23:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As I have said a number of times, please go out and ask everybody who participated in the previous poll to vote in this one. It's been a while and nothing has happened. I'd love to close this but I want to wait for an accurate consensus. If there is a bigger hierarchy we need to take this to, then let it be done. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 19:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Are spoilers actually an issue?
just a thought....but has anyone actually done any research or any checking to see whether spoilers *are* actually an issue?

what i mean is has there ever been any opinion polls regarding this? or has anyone *ever* complained about spoilers in articles (as in people who says "that article spoiled [whatever] for me" not editors)?

Because for me, it seemed very intuitive that an encyclopedia which is meant to have everything is quite clearly going to have spoilers. It's like going to read a critic book on Hamlet when i haven't read Hamlet itself and am not wanting to know what happens in it. I wouldn't have thought spoilers were an issue at all on an encyclopedia...until i started reading articles about fictional works and noticed them everywhere... Yaksha 14:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Go back and read the LOOOONG arguments about it. Pretty much anything anyone has said, including myself, here is a rehash of that, though I don't remember much about soft-redirects when I read it. I somewhat wish I had been a part of the discussion, but considering how heated and long it got, maybe not...anyway, yeah, there seem to be a least a couple of people who mentioned that they were spoiled. If I had cared, I would have been spoiled by the HP stuff here, though IMO that's the risk I take reading the encyclopedia in the first place. I do wonder, though, REALLY how much enjoyment is taken away with a spoiler -- people still enjoy Empire Strikes Back after having seen it many times before. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 15:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers changed your POV on other parts of the story & you will never know how you would have reacted to those other plot elements if you hadn't been spoiled (a lot of people are bothered by this). Of course this doesn't apply to everyone but a lot of people like having an unspoiled POV during their first time with the story (& then they can look at the story differently on repeat viewings). Do you understand what I'm trying to say? SNS 20:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The question isn't whether spoilers affect people. The question is whether people actually get 'spoiled' by reading wikipedia articles that could contain spoilers and are not marked as so.


 * I wasn't making a point about spoilers in general. What i was asking is "wouldn't anyone who read wikipedia realize that wikipedia articles will have plot elements and 'spoilers'". I find it hard to believe that someone would read a wikipedia article in the first place if they are not wanting to be told what happens. I was asking whether that is true (i.e. do people in general know not to read wikipedia articles because they realize it most likely will have spoilers?)


 * Or are there actually cases where people have read a wikipedia article not realizing it could contain spoilers and have been spoiled. This thing is meant to be an encyclopedia...isn't encyclopedia by definition meant to include information about everything Yaksha 03:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have read wikipedia articles wanting to find or reaffirm certain pieces of information. Unfortunately too many articles front load information like talking about a characters death before even mentioning where the character was born.  Spoiler warnings would be less of an issue if writers could *Keep it Chronological*.  Gradual spoils allow readers to dip into wikipedia or read part of a page such as biography to get up to speed or get additional background and then go back to reading the book or watch the film without having had everything spoiled.  Horkana 00:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Keep it Chronological" is a terrible suggestion. Wikipedia, like most encyclopedias, uses "news style" which puts the most important facts at the top and then goes into more detail as you go further in. The most important facts are often last chronologically. That's why the lead paragraph of World War II explains that the Allies won. You wouldn't want to have to wait to the end of the article to learn this fact. Articles about fiction are no different. If a plot twist is an important point in understanding the story, it should be near the top regardless of where it appears in the story. We shouldn't be in the business of hiding things from our readers. If you don't want spoilers, don't read the article. --dm (talk) 03:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because I understand (and I do. I've been on the net for over ten years now and have seen many a used of the warning, and not using it), doesn't mean I agree that it's something that should be used here in Wikipedia, or that it's as big a deal as many make it out to be. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I was spoiled of the ending to The Chronicles of Narnia on Wikipedia because there was a missing spoiler tag. Tsk, it was okay, I didn't mind, but I was reading the series and learned of the ending. All the same, it gave me a purpose to get to the end so I wouldn't have to live with this lingering thought without having read it in the novels proper. :-) --Fbv65 e del / &#9745;t / &#9755;c || 14:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Spoilers are an issue for me, yes. Here's an example. In episode 11 of Jericho, the town holds its election for mayor. The outcome of that election is an important plot point for the entire series. I have not yet seen that episode, but I've already had that plot point spoiled for me, because someone decided that Template:Jerichonav should display the identity of the mayor. This template appears in every Wikipedia article related to the show, so the only way to avoid seeing the spoiler is to not use Wikipedia to read about Jericho. Pat Berry 03:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings on classical works
Recently, someone put spoiler tags on the Iliad and Odyssey pages. This seems, on the face of it, absurd to me and to most of the editors discussing the matter at Talk:Iliad. Is there a consensus that spoiler tags are inappropriate for works of classical literature? And if not, can we develop one? (I'm crossposting this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds very sensible to me. I'd also think that if the people working in wikiprojects on classical literature find the warnings inappropriate, that should be enough of a consensus to keep them away from such works. Wikiproject opera had the same discussion a while back and decided to not use the warnings and deleted the tags from some 20 operas where the tags had been added. It has to my knowledge worked out very well since. Shanes 22:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As I've said in previous discussion, I don't think there's any need for spoiler tags in encyclopedic articles on literature that's at least 1500 years old. I think Wikiproject opera's solution is quite sensible: in their "Guidelines" section, they have the short sentence: "The use of spoiler tags before synopsis/plot summaries is regarded as unnecessary and distracting." It would be nice if we had something like this for classics, so we could simply say "we discussed that already, here's what we came up with". Someone will try to stick spoiler tags back in at some point. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's /distracting/ no matter what the article, really. And if you think about it, it's POV to define what is and is not "classical" enough to not need the warning. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 02:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the spoiler warnings are distracting in all articles, but we're trying to come up with a guideline to apply to classical Greek and Latin literature--that's the sense in which we're using "classical". --Akhilleus (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, given that not all plot details, even surprising plot details, are spoilers, only that which, when learned really... well... spoils.. the story. If we generally agree that those parts of the plot do not ruin / spoil the plot if learned before hand, then a spoiler tag would not be needed. -- Ned Scott 05:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose the question is whether any classical works can be "spoiled" by a summary of their plots. I mean, is it reasonable to assume that someone reading about The Iliad would have their potential enjoyment of the work "spoiled" by foreknowledge of its plot?  Does anyone watch Oedipus Rex not knowing that Oedipus has unknowingly killed his father and married his mother?  And if so, should the concerns of such a person dictate Wikipedia policy?


 * Some works are read/viewed primarily for plot enjoyment: a reasonable argument can be made that revealing "whodunnit" in a murder mystery could spoil a potential reader's enjoyment of that work. I suppose it's possible to read a classical work on that level, but I suggest that very few readers do so.  There's a meaningful distinction between the way readers or viewers approach the ending of The Sixth Sense and the ending of Antigone, and it's silly to treat the latter the same way as the former. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Having learned (above) that Wikiproject opera has deleted spoiler warnings on opera articles, I believe the same should be done on articles about classical literature (I mean Greek and Roman, but the same can apply to other non-modern literature too). The few people who want to read such writings while remaining in ignorance of the denouement can simply avoid reading the plot summary section of the article. Andrew Dalby 13:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree that spoiler warnings should not be on classic works. I actually think they should not be on anything older than about 50 years. A proper encyclopedia article should discuss all important aspect of a topic and someone reading it should expect it to discuss the plot and ending, especially when the subject heading is Plot. Therefore the spoiler warnings aren't needed and in most cases don't justify their disruption to articles in most cases. - Taxman Talk 15:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should have spoiler warnings at all. But since we have them, I think we owe it to our readers' tender psyches to make the spoiler "policy" as intelligible as possible.  Right now, it is already three-part: We have spoilers on sections of articles that (1) Are about fictional topics, (2) Reveal plot or thematic details, and (3) Might cause emotional stress to a reader.  As we have discussed (and discussed (and discussed)) there is a strong demand for spoiler tags in these instances, but there is no very compelling argument for why they should be restricted to these instances.  I think anything we do that makes spoiler-tag placement even more arcane and arbitrary is a bad idea.  Let's come up with a consistent policy, use it, and see how people respond, even if it means spoiler-tagging the Trojan Horse.  Ethan Mitchell 18:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * We don't have a policy on spoilers, we have a guideline. We can ignore the guideline when it makes sense to, and we can apply or not apply spoiler tags in particular articles as consensus determines. By coming up with a guideline that covers all classical Greek and Latin literature, we're just trying to codify what we would do with a large but still finite number of articles. This actually makes things more consistent, not less, because without some "official" statement of editors' consensus, you might see a spoiler tag on Medea but not on Hecuba. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Recently, someone put spoiler tags on the Iliad and Odyssey pages. This seems, on the face of it, absurd to me and to most of the editors discussing the matter at Talk:Iliad. All spoiler warnings are absurd. This is supposedly an encyclopedia. Q.E.D. -- -- BBlackmoor (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the spoiler tags on anything, but I find the ones on classic works of Shakespeare especially absurd. It just makes us stupid to be warning users about plot resolutions that are centuries old. -- Cyde Weys 00:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I for one appreciate them. In high school I had the pleasure of reading several Shakespeare plays without knowing the endings beforehand. People shouldn't be deprived of that enjoyment just because a work is considered too "classic". --Grace 01:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm changing the title of this section, because a couple of commenters seem to be getting the wrong idea. We're just discussing whether spoiler warnings should go in articles related to classical Greek and Latin literature: which covers stuff from the Iliad (ca. 800-650 BC) to Valerius Flaccus and other 2nd century AD Latin poets, and possibly a few centuries later than that. We're not trying to say whether Shakespeare is "classic" enough to get a spoiler tag or not; just whether we should be putting spoiler tags on the Anabasis or Metamorphoses. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm changing the title back. The disucssion on Talk:Iliad applied to more than just Classical Greek and Classical Latin articles. As I wrote there: If your wikiproject establishes a consensus on not using spoiler warnings, you must of course leave room for exceptions, just like the Spoiler warning guideline leaves you room to use common sense.--GunnarRene 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Spoiler warnings are just as relevant on older works such as works of Shakespeare and even older. For anyone who ever reads the Iliad, there will be a time before they have read it.  It is perfectly reasonable to expect that some readers will come to Iliad prior to reading the book, just to see when it was written for example, or to see what categories we have placed the work in.  Those readers deserve to be warned of spoilers that might reduce their enjoyment of the work.  If they want to read the ending anyway, they have that choice. Johntex\talk 23:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * But there's the rub. might. How do you know reading a so-called spoiler won't enhance the anticipation of wanting to read it? You can't know what effect it'll have, any more then the effect a picture of a penis or whatever else will have on someone. I know a number of times I've read up on something, which caused me to take interest in it that I otherwise didn't have. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 00:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, but what we know is that if they want to read the information they can simply read past the spoiler warning. No harm done. Johntex\talk 00:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is harm done. "Spoiler" warnings on the Iliad makes Wikipedia look stupid. There's the harm, right there. Shanes 01:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * How so? Doesn't our article on the Iliad present information about the plot?  Johntex\talk 01:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The theory is that everyone should have read such a classic work already. However, "Peach Boy" is also a classic work.  Has everyone here read it?  I would say that it is the assumption that everyone reads the same classics is ethnocentric, and those who think such a warning makes Wikipedia look stupid are even more ethnocentric. Goldfritha 02:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If that is in fact the theory then I totally agree with you. Not only would that be ethnocentric, but age-centric as well.  We have a lot of very young readers.  For any given reader, there will have been a time before they read these. Johntex\talk 02:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody has read every classical work out there. It's not about that. Trying to explain why a "spoiler" warning in the Iliad looks stupid, is to me as explaining why the pope coloring his hair pink and piercing his nose would make him look stupid. It's simply not appropriate to have the warning there. It's a classical piece of work that for centuries has been a part of human history. We aren't spoiling the work by telling the curious reader what it's about. The Iliad simply can't be spoiled this way. And indicating that it can is an insult to the reader, but also to the work. I don't know how to better explain my feelings about this. But at least understand that there are people who find warnings in the Iliad to be seriously ridiculous and hurting the article. So having the warnings there is definitely not a "no harm done" thing. Finally I am half curious, half afraid, to hear your opinions on whether, say, Genesis or Book of Job should have warnings in them. We're revealing the plot in these articles as well, so are we therefore spoiling them? Shanes 04:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There is certainly no insult to the reader. Plenty of readers will not want to have the ending spoiled for them.  We are not the ancient Greeks so whether the ancient Greeks knew the ending before seeing the play is irrlevent.  As to your question, I don't think Genesis or Book of Job should have a spoiler warning because they are presented as historical fact (whether or not they truly are).  That makes The Da Vinci Code a grey-area case, but there will always be grey-area cases.  As always, they have to be dealt with case-by-case. Johntex\talk 17:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're sort of on the right track here, Johntex. You're recognizing that not all narratives are plot-driven.  However, the distinction isn't between fiction and non-fiction; it's possible to have a non-fiction work "spoiled", if it's presented in a plot-driven manner.  The reason that books of the Bible don't get spoiler warnings isn't because they present themselves as historical fact (actually, many non-fundamentalist Christians don't read them that way), but because they aren't primarily about the plot.  Murder mysteries are the classic example of plot-driven narratives; they generally can't be enjoyed in the same way if the identity of the murderer is revealed.  Not all fiction operates on this level, and it is an insult to the reader to assume that he or she is capable of reading only at this level. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I see some merit to this, please see my slightly longer post 4 posts below. Johntex\talk 21:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The point of spoiler warnings
People calling for spoiler warnings on classical texts are missing the point rather spectacularly. Spoiler warnings exist for recent works, or for works for which reader/viewer enjoyment explicitly depends on plot details remaining secret. The literature of ancient Greece did not work that way. The audience of a new play by Sophocles already knew the plot of Oedipus: their enjoyment of the work was not based on the shocking revelation that Oedipus had killed his father and married his mother, but on the manner in which this revelation was delivered. If you read Oedipus Rex today, you will realize that the text assumes this knowledge from the audience, in the form of asides by the chorus and deliberate foreshadowing.

Most classical works begin with an explicit statement of their theme. Many even begin with a plot summary of sorts. If the authors of classical texts had been concerned with protecting the audience from "spoilers", the works would be very different. As for contemporary readers, it's not that we assume that everyone should have read classical works already: it's that we assume that contemporary readers won't be reading classical works for the plot, any more than we assume that Genesis will be read for the plot. Not all narratives depend on plot details remaining secret for its enjoyment, and spoiler warnings should be restricted to works of fiction which do. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is helpful to accuse someone of "missing the point rather spectacularly". Either side could hurl this accusation at the other and what would it accomplish?  I think focusing on how the ancient Greeks enjoyed their works is missing the point.  We are not ancient Greeks, nor are our readers. Johntex\talk 18:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that we or our readers are ancient Greeks. I'm saying that different texts are written with different approaches in mind, and Wikipedia should reflect that.  Many texts do not require that plot elements remain secret in order to be enjoyed, and classical works are among these. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think your point that some works are not plot driven is a very good point. I am not an expert in classical works.  I have real the Iliad and my experience was that the plot mattered and that knowing the plot ahead of time would have lessened the enjoyment for me.  That may not be the case with other classical works.  I think the guideline should be the same as for other works.  If editors agree that the particular case at hand does not need a spoiler warning, then leaving it off makes perfect sense.  I just don't think it should be done de facto as some sort of "spoiler warnings are stupid" campaign. Johntex\talk 21:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Saying that the plot matters and saying that the plot can be "spoiled" by foreknowledge of it are two different things. I'll grant you the former for many classical works; however, I still maintain that the latter is inapplicable to works of classical antiquity, and I think there was a consensus supporting this sentiment above.


 * I wouldn't support a universal "spoiler warnings are stupid" campaign. However, I do think that spoiler warnings on works of classical literature of ancient Greece and Rome are stupid.  Sorry. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think for now we will have to disagree. I also disagree that there is a consensus to leave them off. I see several objections to that idea here.  I haven't counted, but it looks like a significant level of objection, too much to claim consensus.  Johntex\talk 23:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't support a universal "spoiler warnings are stupid" campaign. Not all spoiler warnings are stupid. However, all spoiler warnings on Wikipedia are both stupid and unnecessary. Anyone who reads an encyclopedia article about Citizen Kane with the expectation that the article won't "spoil" the film is an utter and complete imbecile. I think it does great harm to Wikipedia when editors pander to such individuals. -- -- BBlackmoor (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That's your interpretation of what the purpose of spoiler warnings is. Someone could as easily say the purpose of a spoiler warning is to mark anything that could possibly spoil a plot. Besides, "or for works for which reader/viewer enjoyment explicitly depends on plot details remaining secret" is also your opinion. I, for example, can't imagine any work which the reader/viewer's enjoyment can explicitly depends on plot details remaining secret.

With these classical works, if it's such a debate about whether or not to use spoiler warnings, how about a comprimise where there are no spoiler warnings, but rename the title of the section into something which more obviously shows there will be spoilers? What i mean is things like "Plot" or "Plot synopsis" (which just means a plot overview) into "Plot summary" (which obviously implies a summary of what happens). Or you could split the plot sections, into say...a section which doesn't have spoilers. And a subsection called "Ending" or "Ending details" which will reveal any twists/ending details of the story. If someone doesn't realize a section named "ending" is going to contain details about how a fictional work ends, or a section named "plot summary" is going to contain plot details; then i don't think any amount of spoiler warnings on our part will save them. -- `/aksha 00:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that the vast majority of such pages already do have plot information in easily identified sections: see Iliad, Oedipus the King, The Bacchae. Indeed, that's pretty standard on most Wikipedia pages for works of fiction and literature.  And I agree that the name of such a section should be adequate warning to anyone who really wishes to avoid reading the plot of any work.


 * You say, "I, for example, can't imagine any work which the reader/viewer's enjoyment can explicitly depends on plot details remaining secret." I'm not sure what you mean by that.  When I mentined "works for which reader/viewer enjoyment explicitly depends on plot details remaining secret", I was referring to works such as murder mysteries, or films like The Crying Game, which are structured in such a way that not knowing the ending or the "twist" is key to the reading or viewing of the work.  Are you saying that you don't think that The Crying Game or The Murder of Roger Ackroyd are structured in this way?  Or are you questioning the word "secret", which was perhaps ill-chosen on my part?  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What i mean is whether people get 'spoiled' is a personal opinion. Of course, there are going to be some fictional works where spoilers are an issue for more people, and some fictional works where it's barely an issue at all. I personally don't find knowing the ending of a book much of a big deal at all, even if it's meant to be a plot twist, because for me personally, it only makes me want to ge read/watch it even more. Of course, many people would have a different stand, but i just didn't really like the way that statement sort of made it seem like there are some works that contain spoilers universially. So that reading about the ending would spoil the work for anyone. Wasn't meaning any offense.


 * The comments i made about how we could just not use spoiler warnings, and instead rename title headings was completely different (hence it was in a different paragraph). But now that you bring it up, it would probably work for articles like that too. If The Murder of Roger Ackroyd has a subsection under "Plot summary" called "Ending details" or like "Plot twist" or sth...it would serve the same purpose as a spoiler warning since it would warn people that the plot twist/ending is in the article. Heck, it'd be better since it would be in the TOC, which means for most people, they'll get the warning earlier (as in they'll get the warning before they actually reach that part of the article). Actually, i can't understand why someone who isn't wanting to be spoiled would read a section called "Plot summary" Or am i completely missing the point here? -- `/aksha 04:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, that's perfectly fair. I agree that a reasonable person would assume that a section titled "Plot" or "Plot summary" might include "spoilers".


 * And I concede that it's difficult to make the sort of determination I was indicating without getting into the questionable area of authorial intent. But I still maintain that there is variety in the degree to which works depend on their plots remaining unknown to the reader.  The Sixth Sense is deliberately structured to lead the audience to believe one thing, and then reveal something else; if the twist ending is revealed, the film is viewed completely differently.  Works of classical antiquity, by contrast, do not require the reader to be ignorant of their plots in this fashion.  There's a lot of room for debate between these extremes, but I think that the absurdity of putting a spoiler warning on Antigone should be apparent. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's mostly the fuzzy grey area in between that causes all the problems. -- `/aksha 06:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess what I'm looking for is a consensus that works of classical antiquity are not in that grey area. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As a high school student, I can see both sides of the argument. When I first read the Iliad, I was rather upset when my teacher began discussing the death of Patroclus before we had reached that point in the book. While I agree that many classical works aren't exactly plot-driven, I do think that a story - even one thousands of years old - can be "spoiled" by information that reveals details in later chapters. However, I don't really think that spoiler tags should be added to these works. Most people who read the literature of ancient Greece and Rome read it for a different kind of enrichment than one might get from reading the Harry Potter series, and I think that's the important thing to remember here. People looking up information on these works are either researching them, or looking for information about the plot. There is obviously not quite as much information about origins, publication, commercial success, etc. as is found on other works' pages. Another thing to keep in mind is thinking about Wikipedia as if it were any other encyclopedia. Wikipedia is unique because it includes articles about popular culture and media that would not be included in many printed reference sources - this is why I think spoiler tags are somewhat justified, because most encyclopedias probably do not have an entry about The Prestige or The Sixth Sense. However, they might have an article about the Iliad, and I doubt it includes any spoiler warnings. Ministry of Silly Walks 03:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think one thing that bears mentioning is that the front matter attached to many of these works gives the ending away. (I remember being very annoyed in high school when the preface to Anna Karenina casually mentions that she kills kerself!) The printings I have of the Iliad and the Odyssey both have introductions that discuss the plot resolution in detail. If professional editors, translators, scholars, etc. are willing to put this information up front where the classics are concerned, maybe it would be good encyclopedic practice as well.71.59.178.111 08:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warning on plot and character pages
umm...this is just for clarification. But should spoiler warnings be used on pages that are specifically for plot summaries/discussion and character information?

I mean pages like Plot of Naruto I, and Jiraiya (Naruto). Especially the plot page, where just about the entire page except the contents and intro paragraph are 'spoilers?'Yaksha 03:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, a notice on those articles would pretty much notify someone that the entire article is a spoiler, but I guess it's left up to the judgement of the editors. Spoiler tags are best used for spoilers in unexpected places, but if the editor knows of a situation where there might be confusion, then I could see the justification. -- Ned Scott 06:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers
Is it really necessary to post the disclaimer that information is a "spoiler" as is the case in an increasing number of articles? This seems inappropriate to me in an encyclopedia format. I understand why this is used in fan forums but the Wikipedia ideally provides authouritative articles on a variety of subject matter. There should be an assumption that if someone is looking up an article that it may to contain a comprehensive account of a subject. I don't think it's appropriate to adopt a fan page convention in this case.
 * Check out all the archives. That's one of the most common anti-warning arguments that has been presented. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And there are plenty of counter-arguments given as well. Johntex\talk 23:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The internet is ruled by fanboys, so I think you're going to lose this one anonymous user. It wouldn't be so bad if they kept the practice to their Star Wars, Lord of The Rings and Pokemon fan-pages, but it's spreading to non fan-page articels like Othello too. Probably because one of the fanboys thinks he might read that one after finishing the collected works of Stephen King. Morningmusic 19:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A major spoiler
I think someone should make an icon to show that there is a major spoiler. I have just finished a very bad plot outline of Bec, and it has a huge plot twist at the end, but there is only a small spoiler warning which would be put on anything. i think you should be able to put on a major spoiler warning, to warn readers that there is a big plot twist revealed. Andy mci 09:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * simple answer...no. There were way too many people who were oppossed to spoiler warnings full stop. So the small one-liners are the only ones used.


 * In the case of bec - the table of contents should serve as a BIG spoiler warning in itself. Since "Plot summary" logically implies "events that happen in the plot" which logically implies "all plot details". So someone not wishing to be 'spoilt' would notice the "plot summary" section on the Table of contents, and should know what to avoid before they even begin reading. -- `/aksha 11:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviving "Spoiler redirects that reveal true identities"
Higher up on the talk page is a discussion which was never completed; however, I felt that if I made a comment there it would not be seen. We still have to make a proposed amendment/RfC and include a larger variety of editors to make their opinion; it's been left open for nearly three weeks now. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 19:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

A hard case?
I was going to propose the addition of Data's mother to the Category Star_Trek_robots, but the addition would constitute a spoiler, as she is initially presented as a human in the episode. I'll err on the side of caution and assume that avoiding spoilers takes precedence over making a Category as complete as possible, though I don't know if there is an express policy on the matter. The issue suggests an interesting solution, though: a Category of entries that cannot be included in other Categories due to their spoiler nature. Although it might be argued that such a Category is needlessly "meta" at face value, the existence of such a Category might be useful in illustrating one of several problems in informational gatekeeping.
 * Without being an expert on Star Trek, I would add that article to the category, if the robot has its own article. If somebody are cruising through a catagory of Star Trek robots or, for example Category:Fictional messiahs, I gather that he/she is looking for more in-depth information and would rate completeness above spoiler protection. Just my preliminary opintion. --GunnarRene 01:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article should be added to the category. Wikipedia is not censored. Completeness and accuracy are far more important than protecting our readers' intentional ignorance. --dm (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

How likely does it have to be that something will lead to an assumption on the reader's part to tag it with a spoiler warning?
In the game Ever17, there are two characters that appear to be different. However, the game actually takes place in two times; character A in 2017 is character B in 2034, while character B in 2017 and character A in 2034 are different people (making a total of three rather than two). Both/all of these are voiced by the same character voice (CV). The opening video does not give the CV for character A, probably because knowing that they are played by the same CV might lead to the assumption that they are the same person in the story. (The ending video does say that they are both played by the same CV, so that is reliably sourced.) However, I would simply think that said CV is talented enough to voice two different characters, and would not assume any equality between A and B. What do others think? Does the listing of the CV for character A warrant a spoiler warning?

Also, did I handle the spoilers in the references properly? --Mercercounty 08:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Self-evident spoilers
It seems to me that an article section titled "Plot" or "Synopsis" is already announcing that it reveals elements of the plot. In the interest of reducing clutter, could the guideline suggest that spoiler warnings are unnecessary here? —Michael Z. 2006-12-15 00:52 Z 
 * No. The guideline only says how to use them and where, not whether or not to use them in the first place. Further, as an encyclopedia, our plot information sections might convey a lot more of the plot than, say, a movie review in a newspaper or magazine. Also, some articles give away a lot more information than other articles here do. In other words, in some cases even plot sections need spoiler warnings. So you'll have to make the judgement. Is there a specific article you're wondering about? --GunnarRene 00:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You two may be unaware, but it is common consensus between the Computer and Video Gaming project and Final Fantasy project that spoiler tags are not to be used in Plot sections. You'll be utterly safe to remove any spoiler tags in any video game article, especially in the Plot section. This guideline is quite ridiculous, it claims consensus but in reality there is consensus against it for the majority of editors. "Plot" makes it ridiculously obvious that plot is going to be revealed. There may be some sections that don't actually reveal any spoilers, but tell me, would you label a piece of wood as "a piece of wood" just because it might not be? No. --TheEmulatorGuy 00:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

More noticable
I say make the font bigger, give the notice a red background, maybe? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.72.98.108 (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Users aren't as dumb as bricks. The current warning is perfectly noticeable, and is normally useless (who is going to be oblivious to the fact that "instructions" explain instructions, and "plot" explains the plot?). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheEmulatorGuy (talk • contribs) 00:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

Anti-Warning Squatters
does anyone have any ideas on what to do about the anti-spoiler-warning folks who take over an article or project, remove the spoiler-warnings, and guard them from being replaced, deleting them immediately if they are and intimidating the editors? Elgaroo 23:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Interestingly enough, they have as much right to take away the warnings as you do to add them, as they are a guideline, not a policy. The three revert rule might come into play though, and intimidation could be against WP:CIVIL. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 00:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Should spoilers be made invisible?
So, there is a common technique used to hide spoilers. You make the background and the foreground the same color. If someone wants to read the spoiler, they highlight the section, and the words become visible again. The following blue block is an example: This is a block of text which is hidden from view unless you've overridden css or you highlight it. Note that some words may be visible if they've been made a link or such. I could reveal spoilers in this space without worrying that someone who wishes not to have something spoiled, might "see" it and read it in their mind.

This allows folks to not only have the spoiler warning, but also have to react to the spoiler space in order to read most of it. (links and references excepted) Thoughts?
 * Flip purr 18:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's bad enough spoiler warnings are in articles at all -- and you want to make them look even more horrid with that? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, To each their own. I for one hate having things spoiled and find the spoiler warnings to be somewhat lacking currently. Flip purr 16:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Go back and read the archives of this page. While the current consensus seems to be keep the spoiler warnings, for the most part of of them talk about the current warning being unobtrusive enough. What you propose just looks bad, and we're supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a fansite. People want Wikipedia to get respect -- making it aethetically crap is not the way to do that. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOT. That's all I have to say about that. Actually, I have a better idea - make spoiler warnings invisible - no, better - ban them and delete this guideline. --TheEmulatorGuy 06:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * IIRC there is a css option that you can set to make them invisible. Also, please read your user page first paragraph and stop, It's my birthday. ;) Flip purr 16:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Spoiler warning. -- Ned Scott 06:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ned, Interesting point about the reverseing fg/bg to highlight in some browsers. I find it hard to believe that it won't work with screen readers, since the software doesn't need to "see" the text like we do. I'll try to ask a acquaintance I have that uses one. As far as users overriding their browser settings, well... that's on them and the spoiler warnings are them, so they'd get the old behavior of just banners. Besides, "unacceptable practices" are a matter of public opinion. Flip purr 16:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, yes; but in the case of a guideline page like this one, "public opinion" might be better described as "consensus", which is what determines guidelines and policies on Wikipedia. I think that your well-intentioned proposal is unlikely to gain any traction, because the section Ned linked to is supported by a wide consensus of Wikipedians. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

CSS option to make spoiler content invisible
It seems there is a css option to make spoiler warning invisible, which satisfies the user who dislikes spoiler warnings

But what about the user who does like spoiler warnings, and chooses an option to never display spoiler content? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.109.250.207 (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

The use of a slash in "and/or"
Doesn't this violate Manual_of_Style? Fistful of Questions 17:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It sure does, and it's ugly as hell. I'd remove it if I knew how. 195.149.148.24 13:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Automatic hiding
Something like Template:Hidden could be provided (perhaps as a user script) that allows to click to see hidden spoiler text. --84.20.17.84 10:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see older discuscussion. The present situation is a consensus formed in discussions between those who wanted to hide, or even delete, spoilers and those that wanted no form of spoiler warning. --GunnarRene 00:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Multiple spoiler templates have been proposed for deletion
Multiple spoiler templates have been proposed for deletion, at separate deletion discussions: --GunnarRene 02:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 4
 * Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 1


 * It would be fairly easy to merge this same concept with spoiler-other, or hell, even further merge it with spoiler. -- Ned Scott 03:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Small question about this guideline
I have a small question for the supporters of this guideline...

Why does it matter if readers mistakingly read spoilers? Is there a policy that states "don't anger the reader", "don't offend the reader", "don't make the reader sad"? It seems ridiculous that the encyclopedia has to "protect" readers from the dreaded spoilers, for no reason whatsoever. If there is an answer to this, kindly direct me to it. --Teggles 18:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The answer seems to be that enough people want the warnings to stay, so they stay. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We need to make it clear that this guideline is taken on a case by case (or, rather, WikiProject by WikiProject) basis, and that users should not harrass other Wikiprojects to conform to the spoiler tag or non-spoiler tag school of thought. &mdash; Deckiller 22:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Melodia, that would violate WP:NOT. --Teggles 03:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really, more like there's no true consensus -- what other explanation can there be? All evidence I've seen points to that spoiler warnings are as (un)enencyclopdeic as warning disclaimers, etc...yet they stay. So why? Because enough people are vehement about them that even if people start to remove them, theywill be back, and people will probably be accused of vandalism. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 04:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * ignorance is bliss. all pages should have spoiler warnings, except the anime pages - they tend to dumb you down. The Jackal God 23:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

CSS
'Those who wish to not see spoiler warnings could use the following Cascading Style Sheets rule:

.spoiler { display: none; } Any web browser which supports CSS (as almost all do) will then hide the spoiler warnings. (You will still see them in the Wikitext when editing.) "

iF THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A TIP ON HOW TO DO SOME-THING, THEN IT IS REALLY BAD. iF YOU FOLLOW THE LINK, THERE IS NO REAL EXPLANATION OF HOW TO IMPLEMENT THIS.Kdammers 11:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)