Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 4

Unacceptable alternatives
What about reasoning why those "Unacceptable alternatives" are unacceptable??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.165.250.10 (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC).
 * I thought the reasoning was explained well enough. Which one are you unsure about? — CharlotteWebb 20:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you just would have let me save endspoiler then it would display fine, kee jerk reaction, let me finish. See User:Drini/sandbox to see what I'm trying t oachieve. Spoilers collapsed by default so people won't see them if they don't want to. -- drini [meta:][commons:] 21:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Pages displayed wrong for a few seconds between saving spoiler and endspoiler. CSS hack cant' be turned on/off on the fly, NavFrame does. So if you wanna see spoilers, click on "show". I did NOT break half of wikipedia pages, it was jsut that endspoiler saved a few seconds before spoiler and therefore in the meantime pages rendered wrong. Gee.. -- drini [meta:][commons:] 21:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Reading this conversation when all the Template:tls were mistyped as Template:trs was quite funny. --tjstrf talk 23:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested complete change
To save this page from MFD, I suggest the German spoiler policy (this is a translation by me and babelfish, with adaptations by me):


 * ''When discussing creative works, e.g. books, music, computer games, TV series or films, then an encyclopedia's task is to give a summary of the work and its place in the overall field. Thus, it is natural that the action of a book or a film will be described and discussed in full.


 * ''Many books or films lose their attraction, however, if too many details or the ending are revealed before they are read or seen. So it became common on the Internet to put before such descriptions a spoiler warning.


 * ''In encyclopedias, however, this is rare. In the German language Wikipedia, after long discussions, consensus developed not to include spoiler warnings, and to remove existing ones. The section which contains a description of the plot should, however, always be clearly denoted, for example by the heading ==Plot summary== or ==Synopsis==.

- David Gerard 22:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Regardless if we have spoiler warnings or not, there should still be some form of spoiler guideline, even if all it says is to use or not use warning, and to not remove spoilers for simply being spoilers. -- Ned Scott 02:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The German wording seems okay to me. --Tony Sidaway 03:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, sounds like a good compromise, plot details go into a section that is clearly titled. --Iamunknown 03:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In the light of the massive amount of anti-spoiler-tag feeling on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning, and agreement her on David's suggestion, I've been bold and adapted the German wording to this enclopedia and inserted the result in place of the old guideline. --Tony Sidaway 03:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And I've reverted that. It's really messed up that people just go and ignore all the points brought up in the past simply because a little bit of time has passed. I know consensus can change, but this is more like strong-arming the change. -- Ned Scott 03:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's fine to revert. I was just being bold.  We now have a concrete suggestion in the history of the policy page to discuss.  Nobody is strong-arming, but it's clear from the MFD discussion that consensus no longer exists for the guideline as it stood, and we need to work on what to do about that. --Tony Sidaway 03:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The concrete suggestion was right here in the talk page. Putting it in the article was unnecesary, and yes, smacks of strong-arming the change.
 * Feelings are strong enough -- pro- as well as anti- --without that. Goldfritha 03:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No Wikipedia is a wiki and there was certainly strong enough consensus to support a bold edit. No harm in reverting it either. --Tony Sidaway 03:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Now the point is that we now have a proposed new version to discuss:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning&oldid=131208283

Whoever is edit warring please calm down and stop it. Whatever we end up deciding on will be the result of consensus. --Tony Sidaway 03:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, based on the discussion so far on various venues (including MFD and the mailing list), I think there is an emerging consensus that:


 * 1) Article structure should not be dictated by the need for spoiler warnings, especially if a balanced encyclopedic approach requires that they be mentioned in the introduction.
 * 2) Spoilers should not be used for anything but recent works; slapping spoiler templates on Shakespeare and the Bible makes us look silly.
 * If any commenters here disagree with the above two statements, please explain why. *** Crotalus *** 03:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Point taken about spoiler-tagging Shakespeare and the Bible, but they are remote examples. There are 20th century sound movies that I might not want spoiled, so how about defining "recent" as a 100-year retrospective window, which gives readers about a 10-year pad before the plots of sound movies begin to lose their tags?
 * Better still, since many will not agree with any particular size window of years, how about leaving this determination to local consensus? Milo 06:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Historical tag
I believe that the appropriate measure is to tag this page as historical. Even though it was prematurely closed, the MFD attracted substantial comment, and the evidence is strong that a consensus of users either wanted to delete the page entirely, or else deprecate it as historical. I think there is obviously no consensus for keeping the page the way that it is, as the MFD discussion indicates. A strong majority of users are dissatisfied with current spoiler policy. Crotalus horridus 03:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We've seen MFDs and AFDs swing in a matter of days, so it's hardly accurate to say that less than a day's worth of MFD was anything near an accurate consensus. -- Ned Scott 03:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you should have left the MFD open, so a fuller consensus could be reached. Crotalus horridus 03:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Unsuitable forum.
 * There has been a lot of passionate support for the template; unless there is a reason to believe it vanished, the less than a day has to be presumed to be the cause.
 * Note that the people who want the change generally are the ones who act first; responses come after. Goldfritha 03:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should continue the discussion here. --Tony Sidaway 03:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * MfD is back up in part because of MfD talk page. --Iamunknown 03:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

MfD closing is disturbing
I find it ridiculous that the MfD was closed. Hate to say it, but the MfD was an infinitely better method of handling the situation. First, it's more clearly advertised then a conversation on a talkpage. Second, it gains the appeal of a wider range of editors by displaying it in multiple ways. Third, it gauges consensus easily. Just because it violated protocol doesn't mean common sense should be used. IAR really needs to be renamed to "Use Common Sense". I'm confident those numerous "delete" !votes will not be drowned out so easily. &mdash; Deckiller 03:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, its back up so no more disturbance is needed. --Iamunknown 03:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If someone reverts it again, I'm contemplating pasting the entire discussion here. Nulling consensus building by hiding behind policy is appalling. &mdash; Deckiller 03:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not surprisingly, a user has reverted once again. We have a policy called WP:IAR for a reason. Streamlining community discussion as a means to improving Wikipedia is still improving Wikipedia. Again, circumventing a large delete swing by hiding behind policy isn't good. &mdash; Deckiller 03:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting the feeling
That not everyone is on the same talk page... -- Ned Scott 03:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for protected page edit
editprotected

Please could someone remove the MFD tag because that discussion has been closed as inappropriate for discussion of a guideline, and moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. Perhaps the tag should be replaced by a note that discussion of the guideline is continuing on that moved page. --Tony Sidaway 13:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * done. Kusma (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Closed again to move to an RFC.. heh. -- Ned Scott 18:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

With the TfD closed...
How will we notify the people reading the pages with spoiler templates? 168.229.22.213 14:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We won't. That way we get to have our way instead of the reader's way. — The Storm Surfer 13:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings and netiquette
The major problem, not just with this guideline, but with spoiler tag itself, and the reason why it keeps getting supporters even though it's flatly unencyclopedic and goes against most of our other policies on content warnings, comes, I think down to the first edit, which inadvertently says why spoiler warnings are bad policy that keeps surviving. From the very first edit:


 * Wikipedia is an attempt to write an encyclopedia.
 * It is traditional netiquette for this discussion to be surrounded with warnings of "spoilers".
 * It is traditional netiquette for this discussion to be surrounded with warnings of "spoilers".

This is, in a nutshell, the problem with spoiler warnings and the reason people keep insisting on adding them. Spoiler warnings have no place in an encyclopedia; but people are simply used to seeing them on message boards, in internet discussion forums, on Usenet... There are many compelling reasons for including spoiler warnings on message boards, but none of these have anything to do with making an accurate, professional encyclopedia. Worrying about how an article will affect someone's enjoyment of a book or movie is, basically, unencyclopedic; the logical extension of spoiler warnings would be to say that we can't report critical opinions of books and movies, even when widespread or noteworthy, because it might make it harder for people to enjoy them. Likewise, netiquette does not apply to Wikipedia content, and, indeed, a concerted effort should be made to avoid having netiquette and other internet-biased views influence article space. I think that this policy should be simple, straight, and to the point: "Spoiler warnings are always unapproprate for an encyclopedia, and should not be used in articles." --Aquillion 18:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * An intelligent analysis. Very nice, and I agree. &mdash; Deckiller 18:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Wikipedia is not quite the same as every other encyclopedia, is it? We cover a great many more subjects, of a different character, than others, and present information in a different way. The idea that because other encyclopedias don't have spoiler warnings, we shouldn't either, doesn't hold water. Maybe we shouldn't cover subjects trivial or unimportant enough to include in a real encyclopedia, either? Or include dynamic media, which doesn't appear in a print encyclopedia? Demi T/C 20:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My concern was with new users who often will exclude or remove spoilers when they are appropriate. But, to be honest, it's not a major concern. -- Ned Scott 18:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Demi, the issue is that the reason why it is always unencyclopedic to employ spoiler warnings applies equally to Wikipedia: The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide accurate and useful information, as clearly and directly as possible. That is all.  Aside from necessary legal concerns, there are no other issues worth considering in writing an encyclopedic article.  When people start making arguments like "This will annoy--" or "This could ruin someone's day--" or "This might hurt someone's enjoyment of--", they've gone wildly offbase.  That is appropriate for a webforum, perhaps; but it has no place in an encyclopedia.  Spoiler warnings are an artifact of this flawed way of looking at Wikipedia; the concerns they are made to address are simply not of any relevance to us at all.  Whether or not it ruins someone's day to learn the ending of the book, or even whether or not (as some people have threatened) they stop reading Wikipedia to avoid spoiling the book, have nothing to do with the way we write articles, and should never, to the slightest degree, be used to influence our policies and guidelines on writing articles.  Wikipedia is not "the free messageboard anyone can consult for a fun look at a book they were thinking of reading."  It isn't a review service, or a political party that has to worry about who's going to vote for it, or anything like that.  It is an encyclopedia, and that means that when you click on the Wikipedia page for a book or play, you should get a complete, immediate, straightforward description--a listing of what it's famous for, who kills who, what the major plot twists are, and so on, preferably with the key points in the introduction.  If a book or play is famous for a particular plot twist, that should definitely be in the introduction; and, for clarity's sake, that introduction plainly cannot be broken up.  That is why spoiler warnings fall completely and irreconcilably outside of Wikipedia's scope; that is why, I think, in the long run they are going to be removed completely, and policy rewritten to (at least) strongly discourage them. --Aquillion 05:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler removal
Several editors are systemically removing spoiler warnings -- from everywhere as far as I can tell. At least one explicitly declared that he does not care about that the use of the spoiler tag is disputed. (See Talk:A Wizard of Earthsea.)

This sort of end-run around the policy does not bode well for the end results of the dispute, if they are not reined in. Goldfritha 00:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Editing an article isn't an "end-run around policy". It's editing!  It's what a wiki is for.  Now please stop edit warring with the multiple editors who happen to disagree with you about the appropriateness of the tags you keep putting at the top of clearly labelled "Synopsis", "Plot summary" and similar sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs)


 * No, they are just using common sense. Think of it this way. The first section is "plot summary". Readers immediately see the wall of text. Two major reasons why spoiler tags are not only laughable, but unnecessary by any definition of the term in that situation. &mdash; Deckiller 00:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Then I will dare say you will have no objections when, in a month or two, other editors have attacks of common sense that spoiler warnings are appropriate to all sections with spoilers and then go and put them everywhere. Goldfritha 00:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not exactly common sense, because they aren't seeing where they are "needed" (although I'm in the deletion camp). There's a difference between removing poorly inserted spoiler warnings and adding them everywhere without thinking. &mdash; Deckiller 01:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you intend to persuade them that your view is common sense? Given that they are as entitled to the tactic of using "common sense" as you are. Goldfritha 01:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It would result dropping a spoiler tag on every "spoiler" on Wikipedia, even if it's common knowledge like the suicides in Romeo and Juliet, or in sections already labeled "plot summary". We don't have signs reminding us that "red light means stop", but we do have signs in those situations where right turns on red could be dangerous. We don't have signs reminding us what a "line" is at the grocery store. Nor do we have the definition of the word "stop" below the stop sign. People can read. A plot summary is a plot summary. Thin point, but the fact is that people will anticipate things, regardless of the scenerio. That is the essense of common sense. &mdash; Deckiller 01:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with "common sense" is that everybody has their own definition. To paraphrase Don't be a dick -- if a significant number of reasonable people differ with your definition of common sense, whether bluntly or politely, the odds are good that you are not entirely in the right.  See also WP:POINT.  It's clearly inappropriate to rampage around taking out spoiler warnings (at least the ones that don't immediately, clearly violate some of the guidance on the policy page, like a warning before the Plot subhead) when the dispute tag has already been applied. 144.51.111.1 14:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoever the editors are who are simply deleting spoiler warning because 'they can' - I would ask them to stop and discuss these edits on the pages themselves. Deciding something quickly (between only a few editors) on this page and then surfing thru WP and making changes to pages these editors harldy care about is rather rude and a bit presumptious. I am another voice asking these editors to stop. I am certainly not part of their hastily assembled "concensus"Smatprt 03:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And did the page editors at the time the warnings were put in decide through consensus then too? See the problem? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 03:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. And the problem is that the proper location to discuss this matter is here.  They should not be enforcing rules that are not part of the guidelines.  Goldfritha 03:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to be mistaking editing articles for "enforcing rules". --Tony Sidaway 04:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you check, you'll see that there have been discussions on many talk pages. No good reasons have been advanced for including these extra tags after, to take an example from some of the articles that you edit, the "Synopsis" header on an  article about a Shakespeare play. What we're saying is quite reasonable: if you must add this bold, intrusive message to an article, justify it.  Explain what the article loses without it. The Synopsis is clearly marked. What else does it need? --Tony Sidaway 03:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know where this idea that removing redundant spoiler warnings from sections whose titles clearly indicates that they contains spoilers is somehow an end run around policy. Exactly which policy is being "end run" around?


 * But the recent RfC does give an good indication that there is a consensus support to such removing redundant spoiler warnings and warnings from historical and classical works of fiction. --Farix (Talk) 12:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm slightly confused on all of this, so I'm just going to mention my take on this whole thing. I feel that Spoiler Tags are unnecessary and have only caused a lot of debate. This is an online encyclopedia, people come here to learn new information and they should expect something to be revealed. By telling people that they might find some information in an encyclopedia that might reveal something is pointless and completely defeats the purpose of it. It's a direct violation of Wikipedia:Not censored and is already stated in big bold writing in the Wikipedia Content Disclaimer. I don't see any of the other things on that list placed on every article on Wikipedia. The tag is only really used underneath headers that say Storyline or Plot, which really is unnecessary. I really think the tag should only be used for articles about an unreleased subject. - .:Alex:. 19:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the wiki-wide removal of spoiler tags is entirely justified and long overdue; reluctance to be bold in taking them out by the roots is what convinced numerous people to mistakenly conclude that they're acceptable, encouraged, or even required and led to this current dispute. Often they're added by one person with no discussion, and since they're made (wrongly) to look official, most other editors assume that that person knows what they're doing.  It's probably a bad idea to go through and remove them without explaining it, no, not until a MfD on the spoiler template itself finally goes through, but I think that if we talk it through most people will understand why they have to go.  If you're going to protest the removal of spoiler tags while this debate is ongoing, though, it has to work both ways...  would you agree that no new spoiler tags should be added to any articles until a clear consensus on them is reached? --Aquillion 04:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion?
Please point out the consensus leading to the addition of the section "Where spoilers may be inappropriate". --87.189.124.195
 * Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning shows pretty close to unanimous agreement on those particular areas. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I participated in that discussion, did I make the impression I'm that easily fooled? Please point out the section and paragraph where the the consensus happened. --87.189.99.112

I think spoiler warnings are great! They help you avoid information which might end up "spoiling" your enojyment of a piece of work, such as a movie, viedeo game, etc. (mainly involving the plot) Cause in the end, the way you find that piece of information might be the an exciting part of the work. I hope any wikipedia editors don't end up removing spoiler warnings cause they really do work! Plus, who gets affected if they just there, right? So just forget about the whole thing and leave them spoilers alone. Da_PipinFonz

Shortcut
Please remove WP:SW from shortcuts as it redirects the the Star Wars WikiProject. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here) | HISTORY 20:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the redirect change, as many talk pages and talk archives appear to still be using WP:SW to reference this page. -- Ned Scott 21:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What is classic?
"They are also generally inappropriate in respect of factual works, classic works of fiction (including films), or subjects where plot twists have been the subject of considerable external debate."

What makes a work of fiction a "classic work of fiction"? As a first approximation, does it refer to any work of fiction whose copyright has expired? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The only appropriate meaning in this context would be a work that you could expect any reader of Wikipedia to have read.
 * Given that Wikipedia is accessed worldwide, the suitable response would be none. Goldfritha 00:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would reasonably assume that literary and film scholars will have a say on what works are considered classic and which are not. --Farix (Talk) 01:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If reading or studying it is considered part of a well-rounded (western?) education, I'd think that would be a good indicator. It's basically there to codify the common sense guideline of not putting a spoiler warning on Beowulf, The Epic of Gilgamesh, or Macbeth. --tjstrf talk 17:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The works of Dickens and Shakespeare, the science-fiction of Asimov and Heinlein, the films of Hitchcock and Welles. There is a good deal of agreement on what constitutes classic in these areas, I think. Guy (Help!) 18:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be astounded if even 10% of the American population, let alone the world, even knew who Asimov and Heinlein were. Really, this whole debate is extraordinary. On the one hand we have people who want to take Wikipedia in the direction of one of those old-fashioned paper 'encyclopedias', but at the same time insist that 'everyone' knows who Luke's father is and what happens to Dumbledore, a view that only someone who spends a large amount of time on the Internet could have.-- Nydas (Talk) 06:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not here to fix real-world illiteracy :-) Regardless, anybody even moderately well-read in SF will be aware of who they are, and it's unlikely you'll find any significant discussion of their works that does not include the crucial plot details. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Rejected
I've marked this as rejected. Whilst its merits as a guideline are obviously disputed - some people think it ought to be a guideline - it is obvious that it does not have a consensus in support in its current form - so it is quite clear that it is rejected (for now anyway). Does anyone seriously wish to argue that there IS a consensus in support of this.--Docg 08:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We'll never know. The MfD was closed after a day, the TfD was closed after even less time, and the RfC is a bloated mess. It's interesting that the MfD (broadly in favour of deletion) is transcluded onto the RfC, whilst the TfD, (broadly in favour of keep) isn't. Of course, this whole sorry debacle is overshadowed by the mass actions of a group of admins, who seem to think that this has to be settled in a matter of hours, rather than weeks or months.-- Nydas (Talk) 10:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be interesting to know when the spoilers suddenly got so badly out of control. I don't recall seeing them on articles on Biblical books and the works of Dickens before this debate started. Guy (Help!) 15:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

New draft
Taken from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning, Tony Sidaway's adaptation of the German policy, several of the comments from the RFC, and a few of my own ideas. -- Ned Scott 01:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Like it so far. I think it does a pretty good (though not perfect, yet) job of reflecting consensus, and keeping a neutral tone, giving justifacation toward removing all the (what a lot of people consider ) silly places for them, etc. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

My problem is with "Spoiler warnings should never be used on ancient texts, literary classics, classic films, or works whose plot is 'common knowledge'." Can you confirm that the plot os all of Shakespeare's plays are "common knowledge"? For example, without looking it up, how many editors of this page can assure me that they know the plot twist at the end of "Timon of Athens" ? Smatprt 03:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, we can't, but this is a compromise document. Even before this whole mess, spoiler warnings were never meant to be a "right" to the reader, but only a reminder, because we were in a position to do so without a big fuss. You might have gotten used to using spoiler warnings on classics, but that's not why we allowed spoiler warnings. -- Ned Scott 04:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Who is this "we" you refer to in your last sentence. I thought on Wikipedia we are all "we".Smatprt 05:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "We" is referring to the consensus that allowed the spoiler warnings. Take a look around on the talk archives on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning. -- Ned Scott 06:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm opposed to all spoiler warnings. But I think I could support this new text as a compromise. Basically you can have them on very recent works - but most others get removed.--Docg 11:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * While I'm still opposed to spoilers in general, I think this cleaves them into a good middle ground. Nice job, Ned. David Fuchs( talk / frog blast the vent core! ) 13:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Commentary
Seems like a good start. Some commentary on a few lines:


 * should only be used where the spoiler is not integral to the understanding of the work, and that knowledge of the spoiler would likely substantially diminish the readers enjoyment of the work.

Why shouldn't it be used if the spoiler is integral to understanding the work? I think I see what you're getting at here- if the only thing something is famous for is inherently tied up in "spoilerness," then go ahead and put that in the lead, which should not have spoiler tags. But if a spoiler is integral to understanding the work and in most of the article? Well, tag the first section of the article with the spoiler warning, then. That won't compromise the article structure, but it will offer fair warning. I'd tentatively suggest just chopping out the first half of that sentence, although perhaps there's a better phrasing.


 * Tagging an article should only be done for recent works of fiction. (Maybe on this one?)

I would not support this line. While I'm not in favor of spoiler warnings for Shakespeare and other classics, I'd stretch the definition of "contemporary" considerably farther. Not sure what a good phrasing is, but roughly "one lifetime" seems about right. King Kong is fair game; something from the 80's, however, is quite likely to still be experienced afresh. The 60's are a grey area, although I'd lean away from spoiler warnings. (Also, Snape kills Dumbledore is absolutely worthy of a spoiler warning &mdash; if it's mentioned outside the "plot" section for some reason. The same is true of all your other examples - I don't think they're nearly as widely known as something which has entered the language itself, like, say, Jekyll & Hyde.)


 * Spoilers should not be unnecessarily disclosed in the lead, and avoided only when reasonable.

"Reasonable" is fuzzy and kind of circularly defines itself. I'd suggest something like "Spoilers are only rarely appropriate for the lead, but may be reasonable in cases where the topic is inextricably tied to such information."

Also, there should probably be a line in there about not twisting the article structure for the sake of spoilers. I'd propose something like:
 * Articles often break down neatly into sections which contain spoilers (such as plot summaries and literary controversy) and sections lacking spoilers (considering authorship or lists of actors / characters). That said, this is not always true, and articles whose best structure would contain spoilers throughout should not be bent into "spoiler" and "non-spoiler" sections.  Simply mark the first section with  instead.

SnowFire 05:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Make it rare, like fair use images
Should we add a sentence with an analogy comparing such tags to fair use images, i.e. use them only when absolutely required, because in most cases, and especially classical works (compare with fair use images and living people), they aren't necessary? Johnleemk | Talk 06:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Once only
I strongly object to "Such tags should only be used once in an article." Consider articels such as Aubrey-Maturin series where a whole series of works is discussed in a number of mini-articles. Spoilers can exist in multiple sub-sections of such articles. DES (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The idea is that we're moving away from spoiler warnings being an exact tag on an area, and more of a heads up, that Wikipedia might contain spoilers at any time, anywhere. -- Ned Scott 11:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Starts off on the wrong foot
This draft exemplifies the problem on the RfC discussion. The following text has appeared only recently in the existing spoiler warning (I realise it's not new to this draft), clearly placed there by the "anti" element:


 * When discussing creative works, e.g. books, music, computer games, TV series or films, then an encyclopedia's task is to give a summary of the work and its place in the overall field. Thus, it is natural that the action of a book or a film will be described and discussed in full.

This is a false description of what such articles should do (per the MoS:WP:WAF). It foregrounds in-universe plot summaries (bad) and relegates the primary purpose of the article (giving the work's place in the overall field) to secondary status. It is clear from WP:WAF that a good article about a work of fiction need not include a "full" description of the plot, whatever that means. If the work is of minor notability it need not include any details of the plot.

We also have the standard kow-tow to traditional encyclopedias:


 * In encyclopedias, however, this is rare, and spoiler warnings are generally avoided.

Right now, Wikipedia is THE encyclopedia (I speak as an academic). It is as accurate as any general-purpose encyclopedia, far more detailed, and far more accessible. Moreover, it is the only useful and serious encyclopedia designed for on-line reading, where spoiler warnings are particularly useful. PaddyLeahy 10:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with with you about WAF, and was thinking about that when I was tinkering with the draft. A few ideas had popped into my head for some better wording, I'm still a little foggy about how to best put it. -- Ned Scott 11:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And I'm not really sure what to do with "In encyclopedias, however, this is rare, and spoiler warnings are generally avoided." Something should be said to the effect that we generally try to avoid such warnings. -- Ned Scott 11:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the first problem with it is that it's inaccurate - we've found no instances of spoiler warnings in other encyclopedias or serious reference works, which is the problem. This is one of the major problems with spoiler warnings - ostensibly our competition is serious reference works like Britannica, and yet we have editorial practices associated with Internet forums. I've tried to tighten this sentence a bit, but I agree - it still needs something. Phil Sandifer 13:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a good point. Why don't we just cut the sentence? It doesn't really do any heavy lifting in terms of the guideline's meaning. In fact, I'll go kill it now. Phil Sandifer 13:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait a few days before declaring cooked
Ned's proposal, mixed with Phil's, looks not insane so far.

I'm still taking lots of inappropriate spoilers out to be shot, and I'm seeing that ... most are sticking that way. And those reverting them are tending to get themselves blocked for 3RR, i.e. are hotheads anyway. This suggests to me that the actual wiki-wide consensus either agrees with me or doesn't disagree. As such, I'd suggest leaving finalising this for a few days to see if complaints flood in from actual aggrieved readers (the people this is supposedly for) about spoilers.

(I don't hate spoilers. I've even added them myself. It's just almost all of them at present are redundant or ridiculous.) - David Gerard 15:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes - I like the current proposal, though it doesn't hurt to see if anyone comes up with improvement for a few days. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

preface to "Problems with spoiler warnings"
Somehow, I don't think the section on "Problems with spoiler warnings" is complete without first explain how the use of spoiler warnings have been abused in the past. So here is my attempt at an introduction to:


 * Spoiler warnings and spoiler protection came about as a way to protect readers of internet forums and newsgroups from being "spoiled" about what many considered an important plot point, plot twist, or ending of a recent TV episode/series, book, or film. However, as the internet culture matured, spoiler warnings were given when any detail about a work of fiction's plot was discussed. It was even argued by some that reveling the name of a character who will appear in a future episode or novel or the actor or actress who would play the character constituted a spoiler.

Perhaps someone can reword it a bit or take the basic idea and come up with their own introduction. --Farix (Talk) 17:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (EC) I can see spoiler tags being used on very recent works of fiction (unreleased or just released), but that should be pretty much it, and I'm even hesitant to endorse that, I personally think we should have it in the general disclaimer and that is all. Still, this is a step in the right direction, and at least we won't be seeing any more "spoiler warnings" on The Passion of the Christ or The Iliad. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding 'what is a spoiler' - David Gerard 17:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Magic tricks and puzzles
I've removed mention of this entirely. It is impossible to do even the weakest article on a magic trick without revealing its workings. Sawing a woman in half is a prime example of an article that is just dreadful because it's unwilling to reveal the method of the trick until the very end of the article, leaving it with an entire history section that leaves out key parts of the history like how the trick was completed at various times in its history. The same, it seems to me, can safely be said of any magic trick of sufficient notability to have an article - the history of the trick is its methods, and thus there is no article without revealing the secret constantly. Puzzles seem to me essentially similar - no meaningful analysis of them can take place without the solution being revealed. Phil Sandifer 17:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Having "spoiler warnings" for these just as absurd has having spoiler warnings for fairy tails. --Farix (Talk) 18:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am a beginner magician and I really appreciate spoiler warnings in magic tricks. If you cannot write about trick without resorting to explanation, you really are not that good writer you think you are. I think there is always a way. It may be difficult to accept that, actually, the *main* reason that magicians (today) do not advertise the techniques they use is the enjoynment of the people they show their tricks to. I believe the opposite has been tried, and failed. If I show you 2 tricks (no matter which), and explain one of them, guess which one would be more interesting for you? Which one you would remember after a week? Wikipedia is encyclopedia for people, and it should take the human nature into account. Sometimes we want to learn about something, sometimes we want to be entertained. You shouldn't ruin the latter by doing the former. Ditto for the puzzles (I also like to solve mathematical problems, even if they have been solved already). Samohyl Jan 19:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is lots to say about magic tricks without revealing their secrets, yes - otherwise magicians would be out of business. (Or would all be Penn and Teller, I suppose) But I'm not sure there's an encyclopedia article to be written about magic tricks that doesn't deal substantively and constantly with their technological development. Phil Sandifer 20:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a suggestion: Maybe you can split a history of the effect, and history of the method (behind spoiler warning)? Just like the magic descriptions are done: first from the view of the spectator, and then the secret is explained. Samohyl Jan


 * Does this mean that

tags should be removed from articles describing magic methods? Spoiler warnings must never be used for non-fictional subjects. seems to cover magic, but is that only for spoiler warnings related to plots? Magiclite 19:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers in articles not about the fictional work itself
I've added "about a fictional work" or words to that effect to various sections that say removing a spoiler is wrong. There are several cases where plot spoilers have been added to unrelated works and then marked with a spoiler warning, and in some cases the addition of the spoiler was really not relevant to the subject at all. For instance the Roger Bacon article has something about a Bacon character in a video game. This says:


 * A villainous character claiming to be Roger Bacon appears earlier in the story but proves to be an imposter, and eventually the "real" Bacon assists the game's protagonists in disposing of the pretender.

This gives the game away to some readers, but obviously it's of at best very tangential relevance to Bacon so the whole thing, or at least the spoiler itself, could be removed from the article and the article would most likely be all the better for that. A spoiler tag formerly on that article, on account of that plot spoiler, has recently been removed.

So I have added this:


 * It is sometimes acceptable to remove a spoiler about a fictional work from an article whose primary subject is not that work. For instance one might reasonably, if consensus for this exists, remove information about a plot twist in a film about ghosts from the article Ghost, but not from the article about that film.  If inclusion of the spoiler would otherwise suggest that a spoiler warning should be expected because of its appearance in a largely unrelated article, this is worth considering.

Perhaps this is over-egging the pudding, though. Please edit mercilessly. --Tony Sidaway 17:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems more like a problem with WP:TRIVIA then with WP:SPOILER. --Farix (Talk) 18:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Grim Tuesday
Currently, I have noticed that in the Grim Tuesday Article, lines from the spoiler formatting are impeding on pictures. This could just be my computer, but if something can be done...? 86.132.249.228 18:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Two of the images are in clear violation of our non-free content criteria policy. I've removed them as such. --Farix (Talk) 18:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

A Show of Hands
As much as we could argue about this 'till kingdom come, it appears that (finally) we're getting somewhere with the prop'd guideline. Can we just do a show of hands to see if the proposal has support/needs tweaking? David Fuchs( talk / frog blast the vent core! ) 18:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There needs to be some sort of mention or acknowledgment that a part of the English Wikipedia community feel that spoiler warnings are never appropriate in an encyclopedia, perhaps at the point where the German ban on spoiler warnings is mentioned. - Nunh-huh 18:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed these proscriptions

 * Spoiler tags are redundant when used in ==Plot== or other sections that are clearly going to discuss the plot. Using such headers is stylistically preferable to a tag.
 * As noted repeatedly on the RfC, redundancy is not a sin and these sections do not necessarily contain spoilers. Therefore spoiler warnings may be appropriate.
 * Except that we're trying to minimize spoiler warnings. Redundancy is not good if one of the redundant things, namely the spoiler warning, is something that we're trying to reduce. Phil Sandifer 19:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A plot summary that doesn't spoil the plot is (1) not comprehensive and (2) not a plot summary, but a "back-of-the-book advertisement". &mdash; Deckiller 19:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've responded to these points already on the RfC and had some support from other editors. PaddyLeahy 20:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Articles about fictional characters, objects or places can be expected to be substantially made up of elements of the story in question and should not need spoiler warnings.
 * This is an outright invitation to fancruft. If there is nothing but in-universe comment to give, the article should be deleted.

PaddyLeahy 19:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This misunderstands the point of that proscription - the point is that such articles can be expected to rely on details from the story, as their subjects are somewhat detailed. I've rephrased. Phil Sandifer 19:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you're just trying to have your cake and eat it. Given that the RfC has been bypassed by one side on this argument, edits to this page are the only way of carrying on the debate. PaddyLeahy 20:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd rather stop the debate, where it's clear that there is no consensus for the inclusion of spoiler warnings on much of anything, and move on to writing a policy that actually comes to a useful compromise. If you'd prefer to stubbornly insist on a minority viewpoint that is untenable, you're welcome to do that, but I'd certainly prefer you don't do it on a guideline page that has an actual chance of creating something useful. Phil Sandifer 21:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Rehashing the debate on the guideline page
Since the guideline is, in its current form, coming down against spoilers, it seems beside the point to rehash the pro-spoiler warning arguments. The purpose of that section, as I see it, is to offer an explanation for the logic of the guideline, which is important so that people, when directed to the guideline, do not see it as arbitrary. To rehash the debate implicitly promotes further fighting over spoiler warnings. If any of the counter-arguments listed sincerely have a consensus behind them, the guideline should be adjusted to fit them. Otherwise, they probably don't belong. Phil Sandifer 19:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If this guidline is to be accepted, it has to reflect the consensus. The only consensus possible at present is to agree to disagree. So I've been bold and modified the guideline accordingly. (This also stops it being used as justification for rash action by proponents of one side of the argument.) PaddyLeahy 20:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am very uncomfortable with this, simply because it all but invites further fighting and makes dissent from the guideline frankly encouraged. "It's only a guideline, and the guideline has all these reasons for disagreeing..." and then we're all but where we started. There's plenty of dissent about WP:RS - and I'm one of the main dissenters - but I'd never argue that counter-arguments should be put in the guideline. Phil Sandifer 20:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Seconded, Those arguments belong on this talk page or on the RFC, not on the guideline for future editors to war over. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 21:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Examples
In mid to late 2006, a spoiler template before the fact that Snape Kills Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince would be warranted. Due to the wide dissemination of this information, however, a spoiler tag would not currently be appropriate. The same reasoning can be used for major spoilers in Ender's Game, The Usual Suspects, and The Sixth Sense.


 * I can't be the only person in the world who has neither seen The Usual Suspects nor heard the spoiler. And I only know about the one in The Sixth Sense through participation in this debate. Thanks, guys and girls! PaddyLeahy 19:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're surely not. The better question, though, is whether the majority of people who are going to see The Sixth Sense or The Usual Suspects have already done so. Proportionally speaking, I think it almost unquestionable that in both cases they have. Phil Sandifer 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Lots of them havn't been born yet. PaddyLeahy 20:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And? The nature of popular culture is a tendency towards immediate consumption. Phil Sandifer 20:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How will someone who is 12 years old today manage to consume the last 100 years works of fiction and media "immediately"? How will someone who is born 100 years from now manage to consume the previous 200 years works of fiction "immediately"?  Are you saying that they should NEVER EVER DARE consult wikipedia for tidbits of information on fiction or media works?  Your comment smacks of elitism.  "Oh, YOU haven't read Enders Game yet?"


 * Another thought. I know they chose "encyclopedia" when they started making wikipedia, and "encyclpedia's" don't contain spoilers.  But maybe THEY SHOULD?  There's a reason that spoiler warnings developed into netequette!  Maybe we should be building an "encyclopedia+".


 * Finally, do encyclopedia's contain the full storylines of the works they are reporting on? Do they actually give away the endings as much as the huge all-encompassing "articles" that we have here?  I've seen articles on wikipedia that are basically a minute by minute summary of a work.  Is that "encyclopedic"? CraigWyllie 18:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually it's not, and it usually trimmed down because of the fact it's getting close to going against other policies (fair use, etc). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 18:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Snape kills Dumbledore" is on its way to becoming a cliched phrase in English and may deserve its own article soon - David Gerard 20:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The presumptions being made all through this debate are symptomatic of Wikipedia's bias. How many women over 50 will know who Luke's father is? How many English-speaking Africans will know the twist in the Sixth Sense?-- Nydas (Talk) 20:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How many will even be looking up these articles? Complaints from actual outside readers so far: 0 - David Gerard 21:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not our place to guess. Actual readers are unlikely to know how to complain now that so many of the tags have been whisked away after a couple of days of discussion. The sensible thing to do would have been to stick a link to the discussion on the tag and leave it for a week. Announcing the discussion on the Signpost would help as well.-- Nydas (Talk) 21:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actual users have, historically, been very good at complaining. Or, at least, we regularly field complaints from actual users. That is how WP:BLP got built. It's how we learned about the worst of AfD. To my knowledge, and someone who handles OTRS stuff can correct me, we have had no complaints in blogs, phone calls, e-mails, or elsewhere about spoilers. Ever. Anywhere. Phil Sandifer 21:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As one of those whose phone number seems to have become Wikipedia's phone number, I can corroborate this. I get people calling and complaining about their login not working as well as every other content issue under the sun. I have never had a complaint that we spoilt a work of fiction for someone. I await a single piece of evidence, not conjecture - David Gerard 22:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And that's testament to the fact that the public understands that we contain spoilers, or just doesn't care. Ironically, perhaps the anti-spoiler tag people, myself included, are putting it in perspective. &mdash; Deckiller 22:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Then there should be no problem restoring the tags, slapping a link to the discussion and letting it run for a bit more. And mention this in the Signpost. There's (three days late) a mention on the centralized discussion template, though it could use a more descriptive title. 'Changes to spoiler warnings guideline' doesn't really capture what you're trying to do here.


 * I'm more concerned about the systematic bias in all these 'obvious' examples, though. Only people who spend large amounts of time on the Internet are likely to know about them.-- Nydas (Talk) 22:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's in the form of a logical argument but doesn't appear to be. There seems to be zero evidence of the alleged benefits of spoiler warnings, and we're a top 10 website that's been around for six years. Therefore there should be no problem not restoring the tags until evidence that they're of any use is produced - David Gerard 22:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And regarding the claims of systemic bias by not including spoiler tags &mdash; perhaps the relevant WikiProject, WikiProject Countering systemic bias, can be convinced to take up the cause of spoiler warnings? - David Gerard 22:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I really don't see what evidence has to do with it. The last RfC in 2006 ran for two weeks. This one has been rushed through in two days. Why?-- Nydas (Talk) 23:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The last one was contentious, whereas this one found spoiler warnings actively hurting the encyclopedia quite quickly and has moved on to trying to fix the problem and create a good guideline? You might have more luck trying to tune the guideline to being useful instead of stamping your feet. For instance, if you know of anyone who has ever actually been upset by a spoiler in Wikipedia, that would be useful so we can make sure to write a guideline that helps prevent that. Phil Sandifer 23:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The evidence that lack of spoiler warnings is bad doesn't yet exist because your frantic removal operation has only been in operation for a day or two, and the discussion has been poorly documented and handled.-- Nydas (Talk) 23:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. We only ever had spoiler warnings on 45,000 articles. We discussed fictional subjects in far more than that. If people cared, we would have complaints. Phil Sandifer 23:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Six years. Zero documented reader complaints. Not, of course, that mere evidence has anything to do with it - David Gerard 23:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a distraction to the actual argument. See the reasoning as to why people might not feel too keen about complaining, especially when they might be derided as whiners for doing so. Arcayne  (cast a spell)  00:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC) As well, might I ask you to cite both the basis of your claim of 45,000 spoiler-tagged articles as well as your reference for zero "documented reader complaints"? Arcayne  (cast a spell)  00:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That was the number of pages that Template:Spoiler was transcluded on before David started removing it. As for documented reader complaints, I am not sure how to provide evidence of their absence. But since nobody seems to know of any, it seems reasonable to assume they're not around. Phil Sandifer 00:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, that must be an admin tool thing, as I didn't see any sort of numbering at the link provided. And not to be semantical, but stating unequivocally that there were zero complaints when you are unsure as to how to define the paramters for such complaints seems a bit unreasonable. It would be more accurate to state that you yourself have not heard of any reader complaints. I can guarantee you that they exist, as I put one in while still an anon user (and boy, doI wish I could remember the article; all I remember is that the editor who replied was kind of a dick about it). Arcayne   (cast a spell)  00:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not an "admin tool thing". You can count them by hand, or get the number with AutoWikiBrowser. My profound scepticism comes from the noted willingness of our readership to complain loud and long about every other aspect of Wikipedia's content, but not this one - David Gerard 04:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Callibrating the teeth of this guideline
It occurs to me that it would be easier to better calibrate where this guideline supports and discourages spoiler warnings if we could actually turn to the readers. Would the pro-warning people be so kind as to provide, briefly, any accounts they are aware of where people have complained because their enjoyment of a work was actually diminished by a spoiler revealed in Wikipedia? Not a case where you think someone's enjoyment might be, or where you personally learned a detail about a movie that you were maybe kinda going to see one day. I'm talking about cases where somebody looked up Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince while they were still reading it, learned that Snape killed Dumbledore, and were upset to learn this information. If we can have a sense of who is actually upset and hurt by spoilers, it's a lot easier to write an appropriate guideline. Phil Sandifer 22:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The only guy I've ever seen "complain" about spoilers was 65.184.123.30, who took it upon himself to repeatedly blank a page for being spoiler filled even though it had a warning on it. --tjstrf talk 22:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (as Phil and David seemed to use essentially the same post to argue their points, I will reproduce, with minor alterations, the response to David's identical argument) Not to be too flippant about it, Phil, but that question has been answered repeatedly by a great many users. In itself, the question is a logic contruct based solely upon the idea that the reader is some whiner who is going to complain every time when the surprise ending is given. the first time they may do so, and someone will berate them for believing in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus, or some other derisive comment. What's the point in complaining, when the damage is already done and nopting the disappointment will not only fail to fix the situation but will garner derision?
 * Speaking personally, I had not seen Unbreakable before I read the WP article. Imagine my surprise (and disappointment) when I discover the ending was given without spoiler warnings. Shymalan's other films appear to have spoiler warnings; indeed, the critical success of films with surprise endings, like The Usual Suspects, depends upon the secret being kept. Other films, like The Blair Witch Project (a mess of an article, to be sure) depended upon the viewer's specifically manipulated (via the media) belief that they are viewing actual documentary footage, rely on spoiler warnings - some people are still not aware that the film was a complete fiction. And yes, I was rather pissed when the Snape spoiler was provided without warning. I prefer to fal into the story like a reader, and not analyze it like a coder or some such.
 * People keep making the argument that WP is an encyclopedia, so we 'best grow up and act like one', or some such elitist nonsense. Frankly, the point being missed is that we are an online encyclopedia, and a great many people are used to spoiler warnings, as they are considered courteous. Not "mollycoddling", but polite. Do articles need to be written better? Yes, I think that's evident. However, changing the policy regarding spoiler warnings is akin to simply changing the brand of band-aid purchased to stop a sucking chest wound.
 * Lastly, its rather unfair to accuse users like David and Phil of attempting to cabal thir own interpretation of a guideline to force a fait accompli down the community's throat. Certainly, they are surely waiting for the dust to settle and some sort of guideline/policy to solidly emerge before doing something to disrupt Wikipedia simply to make a point. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me be clear on this: You saw a heading ==Plot summary==, read it, and were quite upset it contained plot elements? Or where was the spoiler without a tag that spoiled it for you? - David Gerard 23:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, treating me like a dummy isn't going to win my love and respect here, David. I think that kinda illustrates why folk don't bother complaining, if in doing so their basic reasoning skills are going to be called into question. Arcayne  (cast a spell)  00:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I'm asking if what I describe is or isn't the case. Was the article in bad shape? Was the spoiler in the plot summary? Was it somewhere else? Please keep in mind that this section of the discussion is for calibrating the teeth of the guideline - that is, coming up with a spoiler guideline that actually serves a purpose. If you can help with that, good; if you want to rant, it's probably not going to be helpful - David Gerard 00:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And, while noting yours, I was asking about any examples of people who had flagged their complaint before the question was asked here. Have there been any? - David Gerard 23:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely this is a difficult question to answer, because up until a couple of days ago, pretty much everything did have a spoiler warning on it (even nursery rhymes, which I agree is silly...) I don't mean to be facetious, but isn't it possible that this explains the lack of complaints? Now that spoiler warnings have been removed I can imagine complaints starting. Of course if they don't, then we can all rest happy. AEH 23:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There were, at the high point, around 45,000 spoiler-tagged articles on Wikipedia. I'm guessing here, but I think our coverage of fictional subjects vastly outstrips that. So we should have generated some complaints if anyone was actually offended. Phil Sandifer 23:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, 45,000 articles sounds like a lot to me. Does the number of fiction articles with detailed plot summaries vastly outstrip that? Have you encountered any articles yet that revealed an ending but did not have a spoiler tag? Again I'm not trying to be funny here, but I'm wondering if the reason for the lack of complaints is that there was a system that worked well. AEH 00:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that having 45.000 warnings against reading information in this very same encyclopedia is a lot. But, still, there are plenty of information in the almost 2 million articles we have that could be seen as revealing plot details in some works of fiction. The (dreaded) trivia lists we have in so many articles come to mind. And this is one reason why even trying to keep spoilers tucked in between tags is a bad idea. We can never make a completely "spoiler"-safe encyclopedia, even if everyone here wanted. So by the mere existence of spoiler warnings in some articles we only support an illusion that reading an encyclopedia will always only reveal information you are prepared to take in. It never will. We can't and we shouldn't try to live up to that and further the impression that we try very hard. That it's in an encyclopedia's mission to tuck away information. And the lack of complaints from readers in all these years is also a sign that the readers understand this. Readers are smarter than us editors often seem to believe. Shanes 00:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 45,000 sounds about right to me. A lot of fictional articles will be stubs with little chance of containing spoilers.-- Nydas (Talk) 08:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a vote for keeping spoiler tags. I had "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" spoiled for me wile reading it.. but that spoiler came on a message board about another film (someone making a snotty comment about spoilers in general dropped that bomb). I think this "all you people who have been spoiled by Wikipedia spoilers step up so we can gage it" is a specious argument. So lets see... we need to find people who read Wikipedia, know what a spoiler is, read a spoiler, are annoyed by a spoiler, read Discussion pages, and have the free time and inclination to post on a Discussion page that they were spoiled. That sample is so self-selecting as to be non-existent. Spoilers are annoying no matter where you read them. Courtesy dictates that you warn about them at least. I have seen no guidelines one Wikipedia banning courtesy. Halfblue 00:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Misapplication of guideline?
I think the misapplication of the spoiler tag is part of the problem as well. There should be tags for films (both relatively current and those which rely upon the element of surprise for effectiveness) as well as literature utilizing similar methods of surprise. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, is there a citation for that number?
 * Yeah. Eagle_101 counted them with a bot, I counted them with AutoWikiBrowser - David Gerard 00:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. And pray tell, which bot counted the "zero" instances of reader complaints as to spoilers? Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversy surrounding spoiler warnings on Wikipedia
This would be better as a talk page note, where people can still understand the background of this debate without having to read archives, but doesn't clutter the actual guideline. -- Ned Scott 22:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup box it on the talk page as a summary of the debate and not to be archived - then perhaps a link on the actual page saying - "this has been the subject of heated debate - for details see [here]"--Docg 22:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I still think some explanation of the reasoning behind the guideline is worth having in the guideline, it should be noted. But I'd accept a colorful box at the start of the talk page or something. Phil Sandifer 22:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, my feelings are mostly from a stylistic point of view, so whatever. -- Ned Scott 22:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The talk page notice would work for the list of arguments bit, but at least the paragraoh about policies on WikiProjects and other Wikipedias should probably stay on the main page. --tjstrf talk 23:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

People write essays about everything on Wikipedia, and sometimes links to these essays are appended at the end of guideline or policy pages. I think that could be appropriate here, too. Shanes 23:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * and a nice shrubbery would be pretty as well. ;) Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That would spoil it - David Gerard 23:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, then just down a tree with...a herring! (our dearly beloved President says to do so, staying the course, and whatnot). Arcayne 23:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate that having a lengthy section of "reasons people dislike this guideline" is silly. If any of these viewpoints actually have consensus, they are reasons to alter the guideline. If (as I suspect) they do not actually have consensus so much as a few dogged adherents, they belong at Why spoiler warnings are good, which should be tagged as essay. To put them in the guideline page they oppose falsely elevates them, and excessively encourages ignoring the guideline. Furthermore, many of the reasons in there currently are just... bad. People might not speak up about movies being spoiled? We should include spoiler warnings when we don't include any other disclaimers? Calling these arguments a reach is generous. Phil Sandifer 02:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's beginning to look like a debate with some of the few dogged defenders of spoiler warnings. Removing the whole thing off to an essay seems reasonable. --Tony Sidaway 03:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be because the general community has never been informed, or has it? No announcement, no tag. The debate is between those anti-spoiler editors who happened to see it and those pro-spoiler editors who happened to see it. --Kizor 04:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The general editor community doesn't complain on my talk page - it's those hotheaded enough to revert it it ways that get them blocked that seem to - David Gerard 04:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that disproves the claim that the editor community is quite unaware of the whole thing. --Kizor 04:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been on MfD, TfD, RfC, talked about on IRC, ANI, and the mailing list. Short of sky-writing, what exactly would you prefer be done to notify more of the editor community? Phil Sandifer 04:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The MfD and TfD were both closed in under a day. There was a single tangentially related topic about it, possibly two, on AN/I. Haven't been to the mailing list or IRC, I'm afraid. Very few editors read RfC. I would prefer a note of the ongoing discussion - at the moment, a webcomic AfD gets more exposure than this. (Not an exaggeration, to be anal, they're transcluded to a single page that is on a great number of watchlists.) Change the spoiler template. Add "The status of spoiler warnings is currently being discussed; see this debate." If there indeed is such an overwhelming consensus, you can do that. --Kizor 04:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridicules to the point that I've removed the entire section. The guideline should not be rehashing the debate where one side tries to "out point" the other. If you wish to make a point for or against spoiler warnings, it should be done here on the talk page or at the RfC. --Farix (Talk) 05:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates
This is severely disappointing: The "No disclaimer templates" policy page had a specific exception for allowing spoiler tags. It was removed because of the pressure to change spoiler policy here. The lack of the exception is now being used in the arguments here for pressure to change spoiler policy. Am I the only one who sees a problem with this? --Kizor 04:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I'm appalled it made it into NDT as an exception in the first place - David Gerard 04:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I know that you're extremely confident about you being right, but I'm faulting the process here. How does the validity or lack thereof excuse the use of such circular reasoning? --Kizor 04:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn't use the lack of the exception as an argument, so it's not clear who you're talking to here. There's more than one person behind all these "bad spoilers suck" accounts ya know - David Gerard 05:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am very well aware of that. I asked why your appallement is relevant. --Kizor 05:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't using it as an argument, just saying so. For further joy, here's one from 2003 - David Gerard 10:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop bringing in things that you openly admit have nothing to do with this argument! Some of us are trying to accomplish something here, foolishly or not. --Kizor 16:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Were you genuinely surprised when editors noted in the RfC that your smug condescension and sense of superiority come across as insulting? I mean, you're using what is desperately attempting to be a serious argument as your plaything. --Kizor 16:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If the "anti" element are seriously trying to write a guideline which allows use of spoilers in a way which minimizes distortion of article structure, they should welcome the use of. Without this tag, editors are driven to place spoiler material at the end of the article, after all the information they would like to be seen by readers who don't want to see the spoiler (e.g. those contemplating reading/viewing the work in question). By the same token, the advice (on the template page) not to use at the end of sections should be removed. PaddyLeahy 10:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Without this tag, editors are driven to place spoiler material at the end of the article" - this would only apply if they were editing badly, i.e. warping the article for the sake of spoilers. That's the sort of thing that inspired the demolition of spoiler tags in the first place: that the expectation of them is damaging to the encyclopedia itself - David Gerard 11:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I sense the agenda here is to use the stipulation that text should not be distorted to effectively ban spoiler tags despite apparently allowing them. Not very subtle. PaddyLeahy 11:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The agenda here is that writing a good encyclopedia article that conforms to fundamental content policies is far more important than any consderation of spoiler warnings, as I and many others have noted repeatedly. Because it is - David Gerard 12:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Endspoiler is the single worst part about spoiler warnings, in that it encourages restricting spoilers to a single section of an article instead of putting them where they would naturally occur in a well-structured article. By creating a spoiler section of the article Endspoiler implicitly advocates writing around spoilers. The vast majority of my objections to spoiler warnings would vanish if we stopped using them on plot summaries, stopped using endspoiler, and acknowledged that there are cases where thes poiler will have to go in the lead. Phil Sandifer 15:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is possible, and from the truckload of spoiler-warninged articles I've seen since this whole mess began, not uncommon, to use multiple spoiler and endspoiler tags. I've seen spoiler warnings often cover multiple sections until and endspoiler. Neither of those is restricting spoilers to a single article. Most of the rest of the uses of endspoiler that I've seen have been when there was a genuinely spoiler-free last section or sections, such as awards or themes. --Kizor 16:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I'll just echo what Paddy has said. I'm not in favor of spoiler warnings causing an article's structure to warp, and endspoiler will help that task if anything. SnowFire 22:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy
David Gerard has removed my deletion of the stipulation that "Plot" sections should not be marked with spoiler tags, labelling it "silly". But this is the heart of the argument. This line, which of course is the principle new item added in this draft, justifies David's (and a few other editors) precipitate action in deleting many hundreds of spoiler warnings. I have given two reasons for resisting this proscription, which have not been satisfactorially answered by the anti element:


 * Plot descriptions need not and often do not contain spoilers

For instance, up until I would guess about 1700 most works of fiction were based on stock plots which the writer expected the audience to know. Therefore knowledge of the plot can hardly be described as a spoiler (so the line on the tag "Plot and/or ending details follow" misses the point... the current project page gives a much better definition of spoiler). Even today, many fictions do not rely on a surprise ending or plot twists but get their impact from the depth of characterisation etc. And many plot summaries on wikipedia do not reveal crucial plot twists. Is any of this disputed?


 * Redundancy is not a sin.

F y dn't blv m why nt rmv ll vwls frm wkpd—t's wll knwn tht nglsh txt cn b rd wtht thm. Or why not remove the lead section since it is supposedly a redundant summary of the rest of the article? Re-inforcing the message that Plot sections etc do indeed give away crucial elements (in specific cases) is one of the main points of spoiler warnings. PaddyLeahy 10:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, would you have any actual complaints from actual readers who expected Wikipedia not to have spoilers and were upset to find them here? It's just that so far there's zero evidence their alleged audience actually wants them. Which strikes me as strange given how eager they are to complain about every other aspect of Wikipedia's content. Note that I mean complaints not invoked by me asking - I'm trying to gather complaints on the matter from the readership, rather than the editors, over the past six years. Thanks! - David Gerard 11:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Several contributors to the RfC including me avowed from personal experience as readers that they found spoiler tags useful. As has been pointed out repeatedly, such tags are very widely (I'd accept too widely) used in Wikipedia at present, so complaints about them not being used were not expected. Despite your trawl of the blogosphere you have only found one or two complaints about their actual use... you havn't said yet how many irate readers have rung you up, in your apparent role as the Wikipedia complaints dept, to complain about the presence of spoiler warnings. Per my first post on this issue, it ain't broke, don't fix it. PaddyLeahy 11:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK ... from people who don't keep getting blocked for trying to edit-war their opinion in? - David Gerard 15:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's simple: a plot summary is naturally assumed to summarize the plot. Furthermore, articles that don't summarize the plot are low grade; they lack comprehensiveness. &mdash; Deckiller 15:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Redundancy is bad when it involves adding something harmful to an article. Spoiler warnings are harmful. They introduce a neologism, they encourage restructuring the article in counter-intuitive ways, and they suggest that the level of discourse here is that of a fanforum, not a scholarly work. They may be necessary at times, but they are harmful, and their use should be reduced. Phil Sandifer 15:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Was that response to my comment? If so, my comment was anti-spoilertags, and I was explaining how a plot summary is naturally assumed to have spoilers. &mdash; Deckiller 15:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It was in response to the initial statement by Paddy. Phil Sandifer 15:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What was your take on the multiple suggestions for alternative phrasings in the RfC? --Kizor 16:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Searching for public opinion
OK, we have apparently zero complaints from readers about spoilers from before Phil and I started asking for such complaints.

So I went looking for general public opinions on spoilers in Wikipedia. Since the Internet public in general complain chronically about any and every aspect of our content.

Quickly hitting blogsearch.google.com with "Wikipedia spoiler", I didn't get a lot. Or indeed any. I did find an expectation of full detail in Wikipedia, e.g., , , (where he spoils 300 for himself by reading Leonidas), ,  (expects spoilers, doesn't sound entirely pleased by this),  (uses Wikipedia as source for a spoiler),  ("Spoiler warnings are the scourge of modern civilisation"), , ,  ... - David Gerard 11:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There's the fact that we HAD our spoilers clearly marked. Please check the German-speaking part. --Kizor 16:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent suggestion! I look forward to your data - David Gerard 16:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Some while back I went to Sky marshals looking for info. on the law enforcement officers. While giving an example of sky marshals in fiction, the entire secret of Flightplan was revealed . Very frustrating. This wasn't a spoiler within an article, but rather in an article unrelated to it. As to spoiler warnings in general--please keep them! JJL 00:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fictional characters, etc.
I like this write up. I think it accurately represents the consensus that has developed. The only part I'm not sure about is:

Articles about fictional characters, objects or places can be expected to be substantially made up of elements of the story in question and should not need spoiler warnings.

I'm not sure I agree. There are three types of information on fictional characters, etc. There is real-world information (who played them, who created them, etc), there is background information (who the character is, basically stuff that happens before the story starts and isn't secret) and there are the events that took place in the fictional work involving them. Only the last one involves spoilers. I think it can make sense in certain articles to include spoiler warnings before bits of information fitting into the 3rd category. Quite often those bits of information will fall into a "Plot Summary" type section, so wouldn't need a warning, but that's already mentioned in a different bullet point.

--Tango 16:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Including spoiler warnings in this class of articles would encourage sectioning spoiler information off when that is inappropriate. So it should be done only in extreme cases with a good rationale for each case. Kusma (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The first item - the one we should focus on in Wikipedia - should require spoilerish information if the article is well-written. A well-written article on a character is going to deal with criticism and analysis focusing on that character, documented fan response, writer/actor comments, etc. These are likely to be made in relation to the evolving plot, and certainly are likely to be torturous to de-integrate from the plot. Susan Ivanova is an article that I'm somewhat proud of how deals with this - but spoilers are integrated throughout the article, and with good reason. (I still think there's too much in-universe stuff, but sections like "Talia Winters" and "Departure from Babylon 5" are quite good, I think.) Phil Sandifer 16:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Works whose plot is 'common knowledge'
Can we have a coherent definition of this bias-magnet? Despite all the thundering denunciations of the 'everyforum.com' mentality, most of the examples (Star Wars, Harry Potter, etc) suggested as 'known to everyone' are really only known to members of everyforum. Are the works of Barbara Taylor Bradford or Jacqueline Wilson (both massive authors) 'common knowledge'?-- Nydas (Talk) 17:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope. Use editorial judgment on a case by case basis on article talk pages. Guideline pages give guidelines, not manuals. Phil Sandifer 17:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's still exceedingly vague, even for a guideline. Why not simply remove it and strengthen the other criteria?-- Nydas (Talk) 19:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, just remove this one. While the recency of a work certainly affects whether warning are appropriate for other reasons, "common knowledge" is such an extremely high bar to set it would apply in practically no cases.  I would venture that a plot spoiler is only common knowledge if people know it without even knowing the existence of the work.  For one of the rare examples of this, I'm sure that some people think that "Jekyll and Hyde" comparisons are just a phrase and have no clue who Robert Louis Stevenson is (for those not familiar with the book, it is in fact a spoiler; that they're the same person is not revealed until near the end).  Can the same be said of even canonical examples like King Kong dying?  I doubt it.  I'm not saying that King Kong should have spoiler tags, but "common knowledge" is not the correct argument here.  SnowFire 19:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Common knowledge" doesn't mean that everyone knows it; it means that everyone could know it. I think that the answer is to strengthen it, instead.  For example:  "Any play, book, movie, or other work that has been in publication for over a month should be considered common knowledge, and articles on such subjects should never contain spoiler tags.  Extremely high-profile works may become common knowledge much more quickly."  The exact length of time could be changed, but I think that that captures the idea nicely.  Additional advantages of this method is that it will make the eventual phasing-out of spoiler tags entirely that much easier by allowing them to be cleanly removed from the vast majority of articles; and that it will prevent the "creep" effect where people see spoiler tags on one article, incorrectly assume they're supported by policy, and start adding them to other articles. --Aquillion 19:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Erm... if you admit that you want to abolish spoiler warnings from Wikipedia forever, then can you just advocate that?  Advocating an equivalent "guideline" that says warnings are (basically) never appropriate is silly; just advocate against the policy as a whole, because your statement only makes any sense from the perspective of "let's destroy spoiler warnings, but slower to cause less alarm."  My statement was from the perspective that spoiler warnings are a good idea but may not be necessary in certain topics.  SnowFire 21:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that we've just had two completely different definitions of 'common knowledge' speaks volumes about the worthlessness of it as a guideline.-- Nydas (Talk) 21:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I do agree that we should eliminate spoiler warnings entirely, SnowFire. I just also support anything that would limit them as much as possible and prevent them from spreading further. They are inherently bad things, and the encyclopedia is improved every time one is taken out...  the eventual goal, naturally, is the deletion of spoiler itself and barring recreation or the use of warnings in another form, but that can wait until it's been removed from most articles.  The template has an inertia, I think, that these discussions are slowly sapping away. --Aquillion 14:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Common knowledge" means a random person on the street is likely to know it. You are thinking of "public knowledge", which means that a member of the general public can find it out if they want, but they don't necessarily know it. "public knowledge" would be a very bad guideline since by definition anything that is published is public knowledge. Common knowledge is a good guideline, it's just very difficult to really determine if something is common knowledge. I think Aquillion's definition is good - if you can find a major source for the information which doesn't mention the work and has nothing to do with the work (a magazine targeted at book clubs would be a bad source, for example, a general newspaper a much better source), as you could with Jekyll and Hyde, then it is common knowledge. --Tango 10:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Neologism?
The project page currently states:


 * Scholarly reference works tend to frown on the use of neologisms like "spoiler," however, (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (neologisms)) and thus spoiler warnings are generally avoided on Wikipedia, and are controversial when they are used.

"Spoiler" isn't a neologism. The American Heritage dictionary (4th ed, 2006) defines it thus:

spoil·er n. [...] 5. A published piece of information that divulges a surprise, such as a plot twist in a movie. 

Compact Oxford has the definition "a news story published with the intention of reducing the impact of a related item published in a rival paper" which is clearly a very closely related definition.

May I suggest removing this sentence and finding a different reason why people don't want to include them to elevate up to the top section? JulesH 19:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not think the OED definition is close enough to be useful. Neither the OED nor Merriam-Webster has it. the American Heritage definition that I'm looking at specifies "post to a newsgroup," which does little to remove the claim of neologism. Phil Sandifer 19:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Err... his says "2006", yours says "2000." His is the more updated version which outdates the last one. I'd say it does quite a lot to remove the claim of neologism... --Kizor 01:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What the hell kind of logic is that? Give me a break man, and cut out the bullshit. -- Ned Scott 10:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What I'm trying to say is that JulesH has a later edition of the same work, which supersedes the one Phil Sandifer uses. JulesH's edition does not have the specification which Phil Sandifer's edition has, and which Phil Sandifer uses to strengthen the claim of a neologism. If that's not clear enough, let me know so that I can try again. --Kizor 11:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * His comment made perfect sense. Try using a little logic yourself before you accuse someone, Ned. TK421 23:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Zero Documented Complaints?
"In six years, there are zero documented reader (as opposed to editor) complaints about a lack of spoilers in Wikipedia, when readers famously complain at length about every other aspect of Wikipedia's content."

Well I'ld like to destroy this argument right now. Try reading Talk:Shadow_of_the_Colossus. You'll find at least two. On top of that, the argument is fundamentally flawed seeing as there ARE spoiler tags. What do you expect? Why would people complain when there are already plenty of spoiler tags on most pages where spoilers occur?Ziiv 20:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I sincerely doubt the possibility of writing an encyclopedia to satisfy people who are capable of being surprised that plot details get revealed in the plot section. And, furthermore, people who keep reading, seeing that the plot is getting described in more and more detail, and then don't realize "Hey, this might go all the way to the end..." Furthermore, the big complaint on that page seems to be a lack of consistency - that spoiler tags exist in someplaces and not in others. This could be satisfied in two ways - putting spoiler tags on all discussions of plot, or eliminating them so that people know to be cautious on their own. The former solution is clearly unacceptable, leading me to think that the complete abandonment of spoiler tags is probably the more reader-friendly solution. Phil Sandifer 20:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I just glanced at it, and yes, it seems to me that the complaint was "I expected spoiler warnings because it's on other pages", not "I expect spoiler warnings " -- are there any complaints of people who don't have the PRESUMPTION of "Wikipedia has warnings" complaining about it? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Moreover, the lack of complaints implies that Wikipedia's current policy of marking spoilers is working - people who read on and see a spoiler have only themselves to blame if they didn't want to, and are unlikely to complain. This seems a rather weak argument "against" warnings, as I've seen several cases where unmarked spoilers in a surprising location have in fact caused a complaint on the talk page- one from me awhile back, in fact. SnowFire 21:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But was the complaint based on having seen them elsewhere in WP or not? THAT is the question we (or at least me) are trying to get examples of. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "I sincerely doubt the possibility of writing an encyclopedia to satisfy people who are capable of being surprised that plot details get revealed in the plot section."
 * Then I'm afraid that you aren't very familiar with the flexibility of the english language. You honestly can't expect people to automatically expect spoilers in the plot section unless it's specifically said so or demonstrated so.  Heck, you can't expect anyone to automatically understand anything unless it's specifically said so.  The presence or absence of spoilers in a plot section is arbitrary, as are the meanings of just about everything in English.  Expecting people to assume anything is a flawed concept unless there are numerous previous examples that would support the assumption.  In this case, there are no previous examples, and thus no reason for people to expect that the plot section in and of itself would have spoilers. I'ld like to think that the simplicity, consistency, and popularity of windows over other more complicated and arbitrary operating systems would be enough to demonstrate this fact.
 * You also say that spoiler tags are for some reason unacceptable, and don't give any reason. If you don't like them you can turn them off.  Please also tell me how abandoning spoiler tags is more "reader friendly"?  I see no advantages for the reader.  At best, all he can do is not read any articles which may contain spoilers at all, which makes wikipedia useless for him.  Whereas if spoilers are marked, he can read any trivial or background information about the subject without fear of spoilers.  (I'ld like you to note that many users are suggesting that spoilers should be allowed in opening paragraphs, so your plot summary argument is moot regardless)Ziiv 23:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Can anyone back this up, at all? And since when do we not count editors as readers? How on earth is such a small click of editors supposed to know about every single complaint about Wikipedia for six years? I don't care what side you support, this is just stupid. Pulling such claims out of one's ass isn't acceptable. Do you honestly expect any reasonably intelligent person to just accept such a statement, simply because someone said so? -- Ned Scott 10:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you read the discussion above? I'm one of the people who gets loud complaints about every other aspect of Wikipedia's content. I've not yet heard an outside reader complain once that we should have had a spoiler tag on something. I asked on wikien-l, no examples from there either - just more hypotheticals. Six years, zero complaints. I'm actually going out and asking this question and getting nothing - David Gerard 12:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But that's because we had spoiler warnings on everything!!! Arghh!!!!!! 142.177.42.255 14:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Untrue. Many articles do not have spoiler warnings.  Wikiproject:Final Fantasy, for instance, does not use them, so most of our Final Fantasy-related articles have no warnings.  The German wikipedia bars spoiler warnings quite strictly, and has reported no issues.  Additionally, realize how many complaints we get about other things that shouldn't have been that way--people who were called nazis by vandals, ugly-looking stubs, bad or incomplete information, whatever.  If there was genuine concern over spoilers outside of a handful of noisy editors influenced by bbforum conventions, you'd expect at least a few people would have come across untagged articles and complained.  Nobody has.  Ever.  --Aquillion 14:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to be a killjoy here, Aquillon and David, but neither of these processes constitute the adequate level of research to warrant the application of the statement that no one has ever complained. As niether you nor anyone else has pored through the entirety of Wiki-enL for such complaints (or even indicated the methodology of this search), I think that it is an opinion, and not fact. It would be akin to asking any of your acquaintances if they had ever met bin Laden and, receiving answers to the negative, stoutly affirm that bin Laden must not exist. Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Template merge
To simplify how many templates we have, I've proposed this change to spoiler. -- Ned Scott 21:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Guideline rationale

 * Ned Scott moved these here from the main page. --Tony Sidaway 11:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The use of spoiler warnings is controversial amongst Wikipedians. Key arguments against are:
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a current event discussion forum. It aims to contain complete information. The general content disclaimer states that "WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE".
 * Spoiler warnings have in the past spread to articles on authors, mythology, religious text, fairy tales and nonfictional works and topics.
 * Warning about such content in sections marked "Plot", "Plot Summary", "Synopsis" or similar is redundant.
 * Such warnings are disproportionate. Per (No disclaimer templates) we don't warn about other objectionable content &mdash; including, in cases such as Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, content that people have been killed over.
 * Some Wikipedias forbid spoiler warnings entirely, like the German Wikipedia (de:Wikipedia:Spoilerwarnung). On the English Wikipedia, some WikiProjects do not use spoiler tags, such as WikiProject Final Fantasy and WikiProject Opera.
 * Spoiler warnings might, by their nature, encourage bad article layout, causing important information that would normally have been referred to throughout an article to be restricted to one or two areas so that it can be delimited by tags. Where this means that important information is omitted from the lead section, this seriously compromises the balance of the article.

Key arguments for are:
 * Few readers look at disclaimer pages; indeed, most search engines take the user to the relevant article, bypassing the disclaimer page altogether..
 * The text will frequently be present on mirror sites where our disclaimer is absent.
 * Addressing plot points is believed by some editors to spoil the reception of the article for the casual reader.
 * Wikipedia is not censored; therefore, it is arguable that spoilers regarding key elements (surprise endings and the like) should have alerts, allowing the user to determine for himself if he wishes to proceed. It is not our place to decide for him.
 * Spoiler tags can be hidden. Editors with aesthetic objections can prevent themselves from seeing them.
 * Two years ago, No disclaimer templates was created with a specific exception for spoiler tags.
 * What is needed is a stricter policy in regards to the application of spoilers, and not their community-wide removal altogether.
 * What is good policy in other Wiki's is not necessarily good for the English language wiki.

Here's a couple more. Ken Arromdee 15:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not true that a section marked "Plot" or "Synopsis" must contain spoilers. Not every plot element is a spoiler.
 * Even if it was true that such sections must contain spoilers, redundancy is part of usability. It's better for all spoilers to be marked, thus making the use of warnings simple and consistent, rather than for some spoilers to be unmarked just because the user can figure out spoilers are there anyway.
 * The proper response to seeing spoiler warnings on fairy tales is to say "spoiler warnings must not be used on fairy tales", not to restrict spoiler warnings in much wider ways.

This looks good
This page is well-written and gives reasonable restrictions to limit the proliferation of spoiler tags.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It was also dictated more than talked out, I'm afraid. --Kizor 11:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd definitely like to hear more about what you think is missing, since I think a lot of interested parties are getting their sides of what makes a good spoiler guideline. Jussen 01:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not so much what is missing as what shouldn't be there in the first place. Debating the details while ignoring any debate that says that something simply shouldn't be there is not "interested parties getting their sides" in any even-handed manner.  It's like writing a guideline about how Wikipedia editors should be shot, and then being open to arguments about what caliber of bullet to use, then claiming the page was widely discussed and open to all interested parties, when the biggest change--not to shoot editors at all--was not an acceptable option. Ken Arromdee 15:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Question
"Spoiler warnings are inappropriate in articles discussing classical works of literature, poetry, film, theatre, and other fields. In grey areas, editors placing spoiler templates should attempt to justify this on the individual article's talk page and be ready to defend them in discussion."

What exactly constitues a "classic work"? Sabre Knight 12:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I think the answer is "a bias magnet." For one, Homer is classic; for another, Heinlein. --Kizor 12:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fundimentally, I agree with you; this is one of the reasons why spoiler warnings will always be inappropriate for articles. Everyone agrees, I hope, that it would be comically absurd for us to put spoiler warnings on Homer; therefore, it follows from Kizor's statements above, we must ban spoiler warnings everywhere...  if it is a choice between putting spoiler warnings on Shakespeare and putting spoiler warnings nowhere, I think it is plain that putting them nowhere must win out. --Aquillion 14:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately everyone doesn't agree, even on Homer. See for instance Talk:Iliad. It was also brought up in discussions here where people argued that everyone should be warned no matter how old the work is, because "readers deserve to be warned of spoilers that might reduce their enjoyment of the work", to quote an argument used. I find this commitment to warn against learning about the classics highly inappropriate for anyone writing an encyclopedia. Shanes 16:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

How does a spoiler warning on a classic work (British,Irish,American etc that's the problem defining a classic work ) stop you learning about any classic .You either decide to go off and read it or decide it doesn't matter if you are spoiled and read the article .Either way you learn about the classic .Garda40 19:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So we're like Cliff's Notes? Great... 24.224.148.174 20:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And you just illustrated the problem of one person's classic that another doesn't know anything. Cliff notes aren't called by that name here so asking people for them would get a blank stare in most bookshops  .Garda40 21:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That would depenmd heavily upon where you are asking. In the States, the guides are everywhere. And, in the course of film plot/synopses, we do summarize the main points of the film. -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

When and how to use spoiler tags
"Spoiler warnings may be used in articles whose primary subject is fictional where the editors proposing them can provide a compelling and justifiable reason to insert one. Such reasons should show that knowledge of the spoiler would likely substantially diminish many readers' enjoyment of the work."

This statement is extremely silly! How can we give reasons why people would enjoy a work less, if, say, they knew in advance who dies at the end of the sixth Harry Potter? Wouldn't such a thing break WP:OR? To me this seems like an underhanded way to prevent spoiler tags from being used legitimately. Either we use spoiler or we don't. No sitting on the fence. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would disagree that its an either/or situation, Temp. The main arguments about the use of spoiler tags is that they are misused, and its only a few editors interpreting the spoiler definitions too (imho) narrowly.
 * I think that what most are advocating is a narrower application of the tag, not its utter removal. Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that appears to be the matter of some debate. Who is actually suggesting the removal of all spoilers, following the stated example of the German-L wiki? - Arcayne  (cast a spell)  07:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What I'm actually saying is the statement doesn't make too much sense, since an editor's justification for using the tags will more than likely be original research. The section on when to use spoiler tags needs a little clean-up, that's all. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR doesn't prohibit editors from ever using judgment, it just keeps it out of the content of articles. NickelShoe (Talk) 20:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Swap positions of When to use and When not to use
At the moment, the order makes little sense. It would be better, in my opinion, to say when to use spoiler templates before saying when not to use them. Can I swap the positions of those two sections? --h2g2bob (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I really wouldn't care, enjoy. Jussen 01:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tags are redundant?
"Spoiler tags are redundant when used in ==Plot== or other sections that are clearly going to discuss the plot" - not if there are a "plot introduction" section (intended to be spoiler free) and a "Plot summary" which is for a fuller plot treatment 'likely' to contain spoilers. How else are we to indicate to the reader that the first is ok to read when wanting to avoid spoilers.

Also this rolling juggernaut of editing that is happen ahead of agreement on guidlines is huge concerning. Removing tag is "so" easy with tools like AWB. There are hugely difficult to put back, they represent months on work and effort. Another way to hacking off hardworking and responsible editors who are trying to do their best. Oh what the heck shall I just go and hang my head in my hands. 07:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Putting a template is hardly "months of work and effort". And in fact, I would think that such an article structure you describe would be hidious, and need to be rewritten. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 10:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * When you are talking of a fair majority of the Novel articles on wikipedia I would think a few months is a conservative estimate. And hideous it is not - just a different solution to the problem load of people are argueing here about. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  13:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out in the main discussion, redundancy exists everywhere. My calendar labels Monday and Tuesday, even though labelling Tuesday provides absolutely no information to any user who knows what day comes after Monday.  It's just there so the user can see a day of the week for every day of the month, rather than having to see it sometimes and having to figure it out sometimes.  Likewise, putting spoiler warnings everywhere there are spoilers--even if the user can figure out some of them anyway--makes for a more consistent user interface.
 * It also isn't true that "plot" automatically implies "spoiler" anyway. Not every plot detail is a spoiler, and it's quite possible for a plot section to contain only non-spoiler plot details, or contain them near the end. Ken Arromdee 15:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you want to cordon off every sentence that contains a spoiler? Kusma (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

spoiler tags in plot sections
I disagree with the idea that "Plot" sections should not contain spoiler warnings (as the current text of the proposed guideline stipulates). Plot information does not always act as a spoiler, inasmuch as it does not disclose the ending or other details. Often a part of the section is a spoiler and another is not. When reading about a work that you haven't read/watched etc., you will normally want to: 1. have some general info about its plot so as to know whether you want to read/watch it; 2. avoid spoilers so as not to have your reading/watching spoiled. So it is helpful to indicate where the spoilers begin - otherwise the reader has to guess for himself which part of it to read and the articles become much less useful.

An example is the article Ghost World (film) about which I'm engaged in an edit conflict right now. The first sentence in the "Plot" section is "The story focuses on the relationship of two teenage friends, Enid (Thora Birch) and Rebecca (Scarlett Johansson), who are outside of the normal high school social order in an unnamed suburb, often assumed to be in or around Los Angeles, where much of the movie was shot." This is rather general and is not a spoiler; indeed it is very likely that a future viewer would like to know it. That's why the tag was placed after it and before everything else. --91.148.159.4 13:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Such information should go in the lead anyway, where we do not generally put spoiler tags. Phil Sandifer 13:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's clear that in many cases such information may be too long and detailed or otherwise inappropriate for the lead (I don't know about this particular article). And in any case, the editors who are removing the tags on a mass scale at the moment don't bother to move the info to the lead either. --91.148.159.4 14:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is also spilling over into System Shock 2 where people are arbitrarily declaring they have the right to remove these tags, despite nothing being finalised yet. DarkSaber2k 14:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The "right?" Editors don't need to be specifically granted the right to try and improve articles.  Spoiler tags are, regardless of the debate here, optional at the very least--I don't think anyone is seriously arguing to mandate them.  Starting a debate over spoilers on a specific article where they are objected to is therefore quite approprate...  given how controversal they are it's fair to say that users shouldn't just add them without discussing first, and that spoiler tags that were originally added without discussion should (when an objection arises) be removed until an agreement is reached. --Aquillion 17:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're saying that each and every addition of a spoiler tag requires prior consensus (like a change to a policy page), while a removal of a spoiler tag does not. The debate is not over yet, but you have already invented a rule that a spoiler tag is "guilty until the contrary is proved". This is just ... wild. Common decency, if not a specific rule, requires that one should achieve consensus, and a clear one, before undoing what has been a general, traditional practice here on Wikipedia for years and years and years. And no, nobody has been, as you suggested, "starting a debate over spoilers on a specific article where they are objected to", or even checking whether some editor happened to foresee, in 2005, the current wave of anti-spoiler-tag-ism, and to discuss it on the talk page. No, this is being done quite automatically, see e.g. here. --91.148.159.4 18:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Spoiler tags have never been a traditionally accepted policy. Even in the past there have been credible attempts to get the spoiler tag deleted, and many Wikiprojects (e.g. Final Fantasy) eschew spoiler tags entirely and remove them from articles they encompass.  That is not the sign of a healthy or accepted practice...  many users, like you, have seen the official-looking spoiler tags someone whipped up and mistakenly assumed it was common practice, causing them to spread, but they have always been controversal.  Now, it is perfectly fair to be bold and make controversal edits; for a long time (whether they knew that it was controversal or not) many people have been adding tags without discussion.  If you're challenged on it, though, you should step back and discuss, not add the edit again. --Aquillion 02:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, to use your wording - if your deletion of an old spoiler warning is challenged, you should step back and discuss, not delete it again. Second, casting a glance at the archives, I see only one attempt to delete the template (May 2006), and no or almost no trace of people opposing the very existence of spoiler warnings prior to that time. But even if there had been a noticeable opposition to spoiler warnings as such for a long time, still the presence of a large number of people who use and/or advocate spoiler warnings means that the right thing would have been to address this on the policy discussion pages instead of embarking on a crusade across thousands of articles. A question about principles should be decided on the level of principles, i.e. here. If you know that an edit and the principle behind it is highly controversial, then you are not supposed to make it at all. If you make it, it is just an invitation to edit war, not a WP:BRD thing. --91.148.159.4 03:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fictional characters
This section is also unacceptable. Consider Valen, for instance, where the character's identity is a major spoiler, and is only revealed after some time, but it's possible to say things about him without revealing the spoiler. Or consider a murder mystery where a character is the killer. It seems reasonable to have a spoiler warning before the part saying that the person is the killer. Ken Arromdee 15:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Valen is about the worst example you could have used, because any lead that you write about the character that does not include the spoiler is going to violate WP:LS. Phil Sandifer 15:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If that's a problem, put the spoiler warning at the top of the page. That's no excuse for not having a spoiler warning at all.
 * Besides, LS is a guideline, not a policy, and doesn't look like it was written to take fictional topics into account at all. Ken Arromdee 20:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * LS is a summary of basic writing skills, and ought apply well to any topic whatsoever. Phil Sandifer 21:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Option to turn spoilers on/off?
Instead of outright remove spoilers, why don't we just add an option to turn them on or off globally? CDClock 17:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm, do you mean turn them on or off per user preference, like the way the date is presented? That could solve some, most, or nearly all of the problems mentioned. Milo 06:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you mean a hide/show option like the current invitation to Wikimania I get when I sign in? As someone who is in favor of spoiler tags, this sounds like a fantastic idea.  Of course, there are two issues here.  The "easy" problem is figuring out what the default for users not signed in should be (my vote is for "on," though I predict this breaking down along "party lines," so to speak).  The "hard" problem has to do with feasibility.  I'm not talking about how much work it would take.  If it is a truly worthwhile task then the amount of effort required is trivial.  The question becomes whether or not this is possible.  The mechanics of the Wikimania invite seems to suggest that it is, but I'm no expert on these kinds of things (that is, programming code and the like). Postmodern Beatnik 20:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagged as guideline
As a "suck it and see" test, I've applied the "guideline" tag to this page. There will be changes, even major ones, but I think we've got the basic shape of it now. Please revert and raise objections (to the current content,not my bold, reversible act) if you think it's unsound and unsustainable (rather than just flawed) in its current form. --Tony Sidaway 23:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As soon as it is made a guideline, all of its flaws are going into effect and will henceforward be envoked by editors everywhere as God's truth. Why, that was being done even before it was made a guideline. Obviously there are a lot of things in the text that are from the creed of the anti-spoiler warning faction and that I disagree with (and so do many others, as evident from all the preceding discussions, including the one about deleting the template altogether). That includes the statement that spoiler warnings must generally be avoided and that "Plot" sections may not contain them (I'm the anon who wrote about the latter issue a couple of sections above). But since personally reverting your edit would mean that I'm obliged to stay here and participate in an endless discussion (maybe an edit war, too) for days (more likely weeks) on end, I'm leaving it this way. I hope other people with more time and patience do something about it. Count this as a "vote" or something. --Anonymous44 02:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I also see this proposal as highly controversial. I've put it back to a proposal. This isn't ready yet, as you can see from the lack of a clear structure, which is leading to duplication of content such as the fiction-only requirement across different sections. Other worrying aspects from my point of view include the requirement of needing a "compelling and justifiable reason" being fundamentally at odds with the use of this template as a courtesy; plus the requirement that "must not interfere with ... encyclopedic tone" sounds reasonable but could be used to apply to any use of the template, effectively banning spoilers by the back door. --h2g2bob (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that there's a conflict there. I think our current wording contains both "compelling and justifiable" and "as a courtesy."  I don't see the conflict as unresolvable, because discussion of spoiler tags will take place on an article-by-article basis and different decisions will be made for different articles.  This flexibility is a Very Good Thing, though it may upset people who would prefer consistency.


 * In some places, it may be decided that courtesy to the reader is important enough to override concern at degrading article quality.  I expect this to be the case with many recent whodunnits, thrillers, films and television shows, particularly if it's understood that in time the warning may be removed as unnecessary.  I've been swayed by the argument that the reader of articles on recent television shows may expect to see a warning, and in practice my edits to the Doctor Who programmes, retaining all spoiler tags after May 2005, have always reflected this.


 * The overall thrust of the guideline, however, does emphasize the phrases "must not interfere with ... encyclopedic tone" and "compelling and justifiable reason" because, well, it's an encyclopedia. Spoiler tags can be used for the good, but until recently we've had them on everything from Romeo and Juliet to Ultimate fate of the universe, making appearances on the works of Huxley, Shakespeare, Dickens, Hardy, Trollope, and Dumas, to mention just a few, so we do need to adopt a fairly proscriptive approach to keep them under control. --Tony Sidaway 11:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings in leads
I suspect we should add a mention to the effect of "no spoiler warnings in leads," simply because spoiler warning tags, in their current appearance, break the visual flow of a lead, giving the false impression that a lead ends earlier than it does. The Crying Game in its current form is a good example of this - in terms of visual look the box cutting through the lead effectively creates a mini-lead that is incomplete. This is worsened by the fact that the box most resembles the contents box in its visual identity, which is the cue that the lead has ended. (Obviously nobody is going to be stupid enough to mistake a spoiler warning for a ToC, but the visual cue of "bracketed box" remains strong in this case, and suggests an end to the lead. The result, in any case, is to de-emphasize the later part of the lead.) Perhaps this could be solved with a new, smaller spoiler template that doesn't have the box look, or by moving the spoiler template to the beginning of the article so it doesn't bisect the lead. In either case, though, the current implementation is a problem. Phil Sandifer 03:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, as I preview the article with the spoiler warning put right under the disambigs, it doesn't look half bad. This may actually be the ideal location for spoiler warnings - less visual intrusiveness (which is undoubtedly part of their problem - by putting a bordered box across the article they really do disrupt visual flow badly) and a solid pass on having to organize around spoilers. "Any article that has spoilers outside of the plot section should have a warning put at the beginning of the article" might actually be reasonable. Phil Sandifer 04:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree with this... also while on the same article The Crying Game, if you look at the sentence with the spoiler on it... it starts with  The film was notable for its dramatic plot twist. . . Ok, if you don't want to see the plot twist... Stop reading! I mean really! How dumb do we presume our readers to be? I understand the usage in a small way if they are used when the spoiler is not so obvious, but the start of that sentence is almost like an inline spoiler tag. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 04:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I found that spoiler tag in the middle of a lead section so revolting I had to remove it pending at least some kind of justification for the monstrosity. I've removed it for now and left a note on the talk page.


 * The version Phil was discussing is here.


 * I would grouchily accept, if forced to, a spoiler warning at the very top of the article, as long as it wasn't too revoltingly ugly. It should be properly justified, though. --Tony Sidaway 05:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How about something along these lines?
 * This is an article on a work of fiction or a fictional subject, and may reveal portions of the subject's plot, storyline, or ending.
 * We can take advantage of this opportunity to resolve several issues in one stroke: Clearly marking subjects that are fictional (which is sometimes an issue), guiding people to guidelines on fiction in Wikipedia, and covering spoilers without disrupting article text.  It also avoids using the word 'spoiler', which I consider a plus. --Aquillion 06:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to just let the first sentence of the lead describe the subject adequately. For instance "Star Wars is a 1977 film directed by George Lucas..." and then you don't need to patronize the reader because obviously he knows films have plots. --Tony Sidaway 07:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a very famous case like this in Jára Cimrman. He is a fictional person, but also a sort of national hero (every Czech knows that meme). There was a big discussion on Czech Wikipedia if to ever mention that he was fictional (because the basic point is the mystification that he is real). Of course, the introduction must mention that he is fictional, but it takes the magic of mystification away. I am not sure if it is possible write about him at all without spoiler warning in the beginning (if you don't oppose spoiler warnings in principle). PS - please do not remove the tag in that article, unless you really know well this Czech meme, you will sure break a long established consensus by doing that. Samohyl Jan 19:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia articles aren't creative works of fiction, so it's not necessary to maintain "the mystification that he's real"--in fact if you did that it wouldn't be much of an article because it would be misleading. You have to be upfront about it, because a fair covering of such a subject would devote a lot of space to discussing the act of mystification.  --Tony Sidaway 02:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The article mentioned has a huge problem with distinguishing facts from fiction. A quick scan reviles that the article is treating him as if he was a real life person and the only reason you would know that he is a fictional character is from the lead alone. As it stands, it violates WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:NOR, and probably WP:NPOV. The article is a ripe candidate for AfD if it's not cleaned up soon. --Farix (Talk) 03:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I warned you, do not touch the article itself, unless you really know what you are talking about. Jára Cimrman is very well known in Czech Republic, and definitely notable (and no, it's not original research). The "talking about him as he is real person" is exactly the point, and this is the main thing article should make you understand! I only showed that case to show that spoilers in the beginning may be neccessary sometimes. There is no consensus about removing spoilers at large, so please don't (they may be useful for other people). Samohyl Jan 04:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "I warned you, do not touch the article itself" WTF, man? -- Ned Scott 04:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the consensus on the article has been established before this discussion, and there are many people against spoilers in this page, so I explicitly wanted people not to change the article, unless they can come up with some reason for doing so which has not been discussed before. I just pointed to it as an example for discussion about spoiler issues. I think you shouldn't really change the article, unless you really know the subject. That's my point, so I reverted it back to the point it was before this discussion. I don't mean the warning personally, I warn about the upcoming edit war, if someone just do that. I will not revert your edit, but I believe in month or so the spoiler warning will be back. ;-) (by putting the fiction tag you are asking for people to solve the problem, but they actually solved it before by having article exactly as it was) Samohyl Jan 05:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The further discussion has been moved to Talk:Jára Cimrman.

Scope of spoilers
In episodic works, is it appropriate to include information that gives away critical plot or character information from future episodes? I can see the reasoning behind much of WP:SW, but seems to allow for the inclusion of such information, which, I would argue, a reasonable reader should expect not to be present. Someone reading an article about the first episode of a 6 year TV series shouldn't have to worry that he might encounter information about the last episode, should he? &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 15:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not? A small percentage of secondary sources discussing the first episode will do so in isolation of the last episode, and surely any critical overview of the series as a whole will address the first episode, which should thus be reflected in that article. For me, part of the problem here is that spoiler warnings are, on one level, a warning against unexpected information. That is to say, if there's a warning, there's a reason not to expect that sort of information in that section. We ought not train Wikipedia readers to be surprised by thorough information. Quite the opposite, it should be assumed that Wikipedia is going to contain a lot of information. Phil Sandifer 15:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Because many (most?) readers of such articles are "reading along" with their viewing. We can, of course, "train" such people to expect such information; but their only response can then be not to read it at all. I can't see what the value of "containing a lot of information" is going to be if people aren't going to read it. &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 15:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We can try to be reasonable about this. When discussing The Hobbit, information about things that happen in the Lord of the Rings should be fair game if necessary for the encyclopedic nature of the article, but we shouldn't have inserted information like "Harry meets Dumbledore, who will be killed by Snape in Book 6" into Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone when Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince wasn't even released yet. Kusma (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would expect any good article on The Hobbit to allude to the Lord of the Rings, and the role of Gollum's "birthday present" in that larger work. Someone who hadn't read The Lord of the Rings would not know to expect that, but I don't think that means we shouldn't contain that information in the Hobbit article. --Tony Sidaway 16:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an excellent example, I think - obviously The Hobbit has to mention the significance of the birthday present. On the other hand, I'm unconvinced of the benefit of mentioning "Snape kills Dumbledore" in the article for the first Harry Potter. Again, if you discard concern for spoilers one way or another (that is, to ignore both "we cannot reveal" and "we must reveal" arguments), these decisions really do make themselves in what seems to me a respectful way. Phil Sandifer 17:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the significance of Snape's later death isn't apparent in the first books, from what little I know of them. Obviously putting gratuitous and unrelated information into articles is wrong, but that has nothing to do with whether than information is a spoiler, but relates to how the information in the article must serve to illuminate the immediate subject matter and its overall context.  But if for instance an event in a later book is foreshadowed by the one under discussion, that should be mentioned if it's significant.  And this also applies to cases where, as with Lord of the Rings, the author later decided to adapt elements of the earlier work to construct the later work. --Tony Sidaway 18:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example of the sort of thing that seems inappropriate to me. Clearly, as both Tony Sidaway and Kusma point out w.r.t. Lord of the Rings, significant background or contextual information from a "later" work is appropriate to include. But I think there are two differences between this example and the case that concerns me: first, the revealed information does not really contribute to an appreciation of the work that is the subject of the article; and second, the nature of the work -- a series in which suspense about events that will occur in future episodes is a central part of viewers' enjoyment (as in the Harry Potter example Kusma also cites) -- is different. If that makes sense, I wonder if WP:SW should discourage mention of specific "future" events in cases where it is not clearly motivated by a meaningful thematic discussion of the the relationship of the subject work to future works or to the collection of works as a whole. &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 18:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is bad, but I think it's bad largely because it's original research, not because it's inappropriate for the article. Phil Sandifer 18:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Putting gratuitous irrelevant spoilers into works of fiction can be a form of trolling, although it may also be due to cluelessness or a kind of free speech zealotry. It's disruptive and can be dealt with via dispute resolution or, in more egregious cases, administrator action. --Tony Sidaway 18:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I like Tony Sidaway's wording: "Putting gratuitous irrelevant spoilers into works of fiction can be a form of trolling". Perhaps this is something worth adding to the WP:SW guidelines. As they now read, there is a clear bias towards inclusion of information and a stance that, as Phil Sandifer puts it, readers should "expect" to come across information that might give things away, which I think needs to be balanced by pointing out that inclusion of specific "future" events, without good encyclopedic motivation, is rarely warranted (and can be considered trolling). &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 21:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What about a poll about actual spoiler warning use?
Hello, I learned about this recent "spoiler warning controversy" from Wikipedia Signpost. I wish that those people doing quick polls about such large-scale changes to current consensus would at least wait until it will be mentioned on Signpost, but I digress. As far as I can see, there was never poll about if people reading and editing Wikipedia are actually *using* the spoiler warnings (and that's the point, I would say). I personally use them sometimes, like, when I know I will go to some movie in cinema, I don't read them. I actually would prefer to have them even in the classical works, for example, when I read 1984 10 years ago, I didn't know how it will end, and that was part of fun (and I remember I got an offer from schoolmate to give away the ending, but I refused, and I was glad). So you never should assume who will know what, it may be obvious for your culture, but people from other part of world can also read Wikipedia. Anyway, shouldn't there be such a poll then? Samohyl Jan 20:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody is assuming who will know what. Rather, the main argument against SW (an argument that I disagree with) is that if you don't want to encounter spoilers, you simply shouldn't read a wikipedia article about the work at all. According to this view, if readers don't expect to encounter spoilers here, that's just the readers' problem, not ours. Here is the place where both sides explained their views in great detail. For some reason, the most active pro-SW editors seem to have abandoned the discussion on this page.
 * As for asking ordinary wikipedia readers, or people who mostly read rather than edit, that would be a very interesting thing to do, and a wikipedia first, I think. But I wonder whether it would be possible to prevent ballot stuffing by sock puppets in such a poll. --91.148.159.4 21:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure it would, they do it all the time on AfD. Try checkuser when justified. --Kizor 20:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Compelling and justifiable
In When and how to use spoiler warnings, there is a bullet point that says:
 * Spoiler warnings may be used in articles whose primary subject is fictional where the editors proposing them can provide a compelling and justifiable reason to insert one. Such reasons should show that knowledge of the spoiler would likely substantially diminish many readers' enjoyment of the work.

This was edited by Deckiller to remove the word "compelling".

I've restored that because I don't think the meaning is the same without it.

Several examples have been given, in the ongoing discussion, of why we shouldn't use spoiler tags: in particular, articles about subjects like The Crying Game, Julius Caesar and Romeo and Juliet that omit crucial information from the lead section. You cannot have a lead section about Julius Caesar, the Shakespeare play, that omits the conspiracy and assassination. Shakespeare himself explains the entire plot of Romeo and Juliet, feud, star cross'd lovers, suicide, and reconciliation of the families in the prolog of his play, the first speech that every theatergoer hears on curtain up. and one guaranteed to bring the auditorium to an immediate hush:


 * Two households, both alike in dignity,
 * In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,
 * From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
 * Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.
 * From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
 * A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life;
 * Whose misadventured piteous overthrows
 * Do with their death bury their parents' strife.
 * The fearful passage of their death-mark'd love,
 * And the continuance of their parents' rage,
 * Which, but their children's end, nought could remove,
 * Is now the two hours' traffic of our stage;
 * The which if you with patient ears attend,
 * What here shall miss, our toil shall strive to mend.

Mr Shakespeare and I are terribly sorry if that has ruined the play for you, but the continuing popularity of Romeo and Juliet is compelling evidence that knowing the plot of a fictional work does not hurt your enjoyment of the work.

And if any English speaking person says they don't understand the above speech because it's in archaic language, I have only this to say: Please take a remedial course in your native tongue, for the import of those words has not changed in the intervening four hundred years. While some Shakespeare speeches may have been made relatively inaccessible by time, the same cannot be said of this one.

No, we need compelling, justifiable reasons to include spoiler tags in Wikipedia articles, because the alternative is to continue to hide essential information about fictional works, for fear of giving out snippets of information. The master himself shows in those few lines above how stupid we have become in mollycoddling the reader. We may not be able to match the language of Shakespeare in beauty, but we should at least set our standards at the same level. The play's the thing. Shakespeare did not treat his audience like frightened children, and nor should we. There must be a compelling reason to conceal crucial details behind spoiler tags. It must be shown that the article is worse without them. --Tony Sidaway 22:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I'm on your side. I was just trying to think of our pro-spoiler tag comrades :) &mdash; Deckiller 23:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To underline the importance of article quality I have performed the following edit.


 * Before:
 * Spoiler warnings may be used in articles whose primary subject is fictional where the editors proposing them can provide a compelling and justifiable reason to insert one. Such reasons should show that knowledge of the spoiler would likely substantially diminish many readers' enjoyment of the work.


 * After:
 * Spoiler warnings may be used in articles whose primary subject is fictional where the editors proposing them can provide a compelling and justifiable reason to insert one. Such reasons should show that without the spoiler tag the article is of lower quality.


 * I cannot think of a way in which the quality of an article can be improved by putting a spoiler tag into it, but in my opinion improvement of quality should be the only justification for putting anything into a Wikipedia article. --Tony Sidaway 23:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the change. &mdash; Deckiller 23:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why would it need to improve the article? Inclusion of spoiler templates generally makes no difference - it does not improve, nor does it degrade the article. It normally only makes a difference to those avoiding spoilers, who find the article much improved with the template --h2g2bob (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've modified the wording to say "does not detract from article quality" or somesuch. Personally I think spoiler warnings are ugly and make our articles look extremely unprofessional, but others have a different opinion and matters of style and taste are best not hard coded. --Tony Sidaway 10:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Kizor already dealt with this argument on the other page: "And Romeo's slaying of Tybalt, the banishment, Mercurio's death, the straying messenger, the twin suicides, the monk Lawrence's plan and the balcony scene?"


 * The anti-spoiler camp would be better served by intellectual honesty, rather than mumbo-jumbo like 'compelling and justifiable'.-- Nydas (Talk) 07:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's not get off track here... I don't think anyone could credibly suggest that we're going to end up with a policy that allows spoiler tags anywhere in Romeo and Juliet or similar articles.  That's patiently absurd. --Aquillion 08:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well just so you know, there was until recently a longstanding spoiler tag on Romeo and Juliet, and the lead didn't say much about the plot. Here is a very brief but already highly encyclopedic early version. By late 2003 the main plot elements had been removed from the lead.  The spoiler tag was added in April, 2004. --Tony Sidaway 10:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know. But I think that for the most part things like that are the result of dozens of 'creeping edits' and the generally official-looking nature of spoiler; I suspect that a significent percentage of editors don't even realize that it is possible to create or edit templates or that policy and guidelines are generally discussed, so when they see it they automatically assume that it is official unchangable law that Wikipedia has spoiler tags everywhere, and start slapping it on everything.  I think that if you have people step back and look at the larger effect on Wikipedia, they'll eventually give up on spoiler tags entirely. --Aquillion 01:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what Kizor's point may be. While it might be true that the lead could be improved by discussion of the subplots, with the exception of the suicides which are already mentioned in the lead these are not the main themes of the play and certainly not what the play is best known for. He can add them to the lead if he can do so in a way that maintains balance. --Tony Sidaway 10:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But getting off the track is exactly what you have been doing, with your endless mentions of fairy tales, Shakespeare, the Crying game and other weak cases. Whenever someone tries to bring up examples of whodunnits, or John Le Carre novels, or older films, all we get is a barrage of abuse.-- Nydas (Talk) 10:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's hard to talk about hard cases without using actual spoilers. On whodunnits and thrillers, the plot device is often the most notable part of the novel.  Suppose, for instance, there is a novel in which it turns out that the narrator is the murderer.  If it's a very important plot point this fact should appear in the lead.  If the first sentence of the lead contains a phrase like "famous for its trick ending which reveals the identity of the murderer" or "is a classic whodunnit", then the reader can stop reading at that point and maybe there's no need for an extra spoiler warning.  On the other hand, there could be a compelling case for an extra warning.  That case would have to be made on the article's talk page, and I don't see a problem there. If it's compellingly obvious, then I wouldn't object and I'm sure no reasonable person would.  In that case, a spoiler warning could be placed at the head of the article before the lead section. --Tony Sidaway 10:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of thrillers and whodunnits are stand-alone works, the ending of which is not vital to the lead. As it stands, this guideline is a blancmange of vague gibberish like 'compelling and justifiable'. Please show a bit of intellectual honesty by admitting that you want to be rid of spoiler warnings entirely, rather than making the guideline as muddled as possible in an effort to sabotage their usage.-- Nydas (Talk) 13:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. In my view of this guideline, at least, it is an attempt to compromise between "remove all spoilers" and the current position - one that allows their use in limited circumstances. Phil Sandifer 13:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What are those circumstances?-- Nydas (Talk) 13:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Noting that there are no white line distinctions being drawn here, I would personally say that spoiler warnings would currently, under this guideline, be reasonable for Spider-Man 3, Pirates of the Carribean 3, Shrek 3, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (until at least August), any articles on the third season of Lost (at least until a UK airing or a DVD release of that season, whichever comes first)... this is all ballparky, but I think a compelling case for care can be made in all of these cases for a couple of reasons, which I can enumerate if you prefer. Phil Sandifer 15:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not simply say 'recently released films, TV and books' in the guideline itself?-- Nydas (Talk) 16:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For me, because I'm allergic to whiteline distinctions. Phil Sandifer 16:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, you'll have no problem removing the part which says that spoilers are inappropriate for classics.-- Nydas (Talk) 16:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it's okay to remove that. The term "classic" can embrace relatively recent works such as Midnight's Children, Gravity's Rainbow, and virtually anything from the pen of Salman Rushdie, Gore Vidal or Thomas Pynchon, and it's not inconceivable that there could be consensus for a spoiler tag on any of those works, though I think it unlikely.  I've changed the wording here to "usually inappropriate", and it already discusses what to do to resolve gray areas quite well. --Tony Sidaway 16:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not have 'usually appropriate for recently released films'? It's still a double standard.-- Nydas (Talk) 05:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

(remove indent) I'd like to stress something. When I suggested that spoiler warnings might be avoided on classics (which I defined as works not read for pleasure by a good chunk of the readers), that was a *compromise*. It was a willingness to give in to getting rid of spoilers on some things in the hope that the opponents of spoiler warnings would in turn give in to allowing spoilers on everything else.

Since that doesn't seem to be happening, I'd like to point out that I don't actually consider "no spoilers on classics" to be a good idea. There are too many fuzzy areas, and in the case of something like Shakespeare or Sherlock Holmes, it's too easy to read any guideline to not care about spoiling people when in fact not everyone who reads those is a literary critic and some people *are* reading them for the first time and *do* care about the ending. And it gets even worse if you define "classic" more broadly. Star Wars is classic in one sense, and who Luke's father is is widely known. But there are some people--like kids, or older people who aren't science fiction fans--who have never heard of it. If you asked my mother who Luke's father is, she honestly wouldn't know. If she wanted to watch the Star Wars movies tomorrow, mentioning the revelation without a warning could genuinely spoil her. Ken Arromdee 18:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We're not about to put spoiler warnings back on articles about the works of Shakespeare, Dickens, Trollope, Hardy, Huxley, Proust and so on. Putting spoiler warnings on articles about pretty ancient films like Star Wars (1977) or The Empire Strikes Back (1980) is pretty iffy.  If people don't know that Darth Vader is Luke's father, an encyclopedia is a pretty good place to come to find out.  The details of whether those articles may have spoiler warnings can be argued on the talk pages of the articles. --Tony Sidaway 18:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * All you've said in that paragraph is "no". In other words, you're making this new "policy" a fait accompli by assuming that the policy is correct, we damned well *will* remove spoilers from Shakespeare and probably Star Wars, and that this subject isn't even up for discussion.  That's the textbook definition of ramming a policy through.
 * I do not accept this as producing "consensus" for a policy, when the policy remains unchanged because anyone who would change it significantly or get rid of parts is simply ignored. Ken Arromdee 15:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Plot vs Plot Synopsis
I would like to see the guideline encourage the use of "Plot synopsis" over just "Plot". For starters, it is less ambiguous that the section contains spoilers. It also further reduce the need for the use of {spoiler} and is less intrusive of a warning.

I also think that this could be used as a base for an "Alternatives to spoiler templates" section. --Farix (Talk) 01:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Plot, Synopsis, and Plot summary are used interchangeably on Wikipedia. If there is a place for a standard recommendation (and I do think it would be broadly a Good Thing to have consistent section labelling) then it's in the main style guide.


 * Some wikiprojects seem to separate "Plot introduction" from "Plot summary". Presumably the intention is to give fair warning of spoilers.  I think this is probably a bad thing because, like spoiler warnings, it makes the editors write around the spoilers.  We shouldn't be squeamish about giving important plot elements due prominence, even if they're spoilers.


 * On "Alternatives to spoiler templates", while I don't think we're in the business of looking for further ways to obfuscate the presentation of the plot, certainly alternative strategies for presenting the information in a way that will improve article quality are always welcome. --Tony Sidaway 10:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If we put such emphasis on "Readers aren't morons", should we perhaps also put some thought into "Editors aren't morons"? Do we need to assume that the contributors must not be allowed the chance to break the rules because they no doubt will, instead of - say - dropping a note or a request for a rewrite or even going in ourselves when we see writing around spoilers going on? --Kizor 18:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, we can't presume that, as demonstrated by the edit-warring to keep the spoiler warning on The Three Little Pigs - David Gerard 23:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think in any case that Kizor has misread my comment as meaning the opposite of what I have said. I am as I've said above in favor of diversity.  I don't want to make a hard-and-fast rule. --Tony Sidaway 03:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

When and how to use spoiler warnings
I've rewritten this section as follows:


 * Spoiler warnings may be used in articles whose primary subject is fictional where the editors proposing them can provide a compelling and justifiable reason to insert one. Such reasons should show that the spoiler tag does not diminish article quality, and that knowledge of the spoiler would substantially diminish many readers' enjoyment of the work.
 * A spoiler warning is a courtesy note to readers, such as those who find articles from search engine results. It is a reminder note, and never guaranteed. It must never affect article quality.
 * Very rarely, a spoiler warning may appear in the article lead. If this can be justified, the warning should be placed at the top of the article. The presumption should be that article lead should not warn about plot spoilers.
 * Wikipedia provides the Spoiler tag to mark spoilers.

I've reworded the first piece to remove the requirement that a spoiler tag should improve quality, and replace it by a requirement that it doesn't diminish quality. I've also trimmed some detail.

--Tony Sidaway 10:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No spoiler tags in "plot" ?
I just want to say I disagree utterly with removing spoiler tags from sections headed "plot".

IMO the systematic presence of spoiler tags for all detailed plot discussions was a good thing. Quite apart from the courtesy to readers, it also represented a valuable on-page encouragement to editors to give a full and comprehensive plot summary (as per say Sight and Sound magazine), and not to hold back on key plot twists.

I don't see that the spoiler tags were causing any harm at all, but I do see significant harm in removing them. I'm also concerned that this is a change of policy has been made by a small clique of activist editors in a cupboard, without most WP editors having any idea that the change was being pushed.

I suspect when they do notice, I won't be the only one coming here to say: this proposed change is a mistake. Thank you. Jheald 17:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to be under the impression that this was for benefit of the readers. As far as I can tell, the readers have been a fringe issue. What this is about is that we are a real encyclopedia, and we need to prove it by looking like one (as opposed to proving it by being a useful reference.) I dearly wish that there was nothing but bitterness behind this little rant, but the need for spoiler warnings was dismissed by reducing works with them to a couple of ridiculously non-representative examples, such as the works of Shakespeare, and when I tried to point out that the entire genres of detective novels, thrillers et al were dependent on the lack of foreknowledge, the response from one person of this small clique was, quote, "Sucks for them." --Kizor 18:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The answer is a bit subtler than that. Ironically, the need to be encyclopedic is such that the more important a secret is to the subject of an article, the more important it is to reveal that secret openly, early on, and throughout the article in dealing with that subject. It's trivial to withhold the ending to Shrek 2 from an article because the ending isn't that important to the film as a cultural object. I cannot imagine an article on And Then There Were None that doesn't deal heavily and constantly with the ending. And, of course, the ending is the best part of that book. This is the problem with reader concern. In general, the more pressing a reader's interest in not knowing the ending is, the more pressing the encyclopedic interest in dealing with the ending constantly through the article. Phil Sandifer 18:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. The bigger the spoiler (e.g. Fight Club, Crying Game, Soylent Green), the greater the requirement to reveal it really soon for the article to be encyclopedic - David Gerard 01:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of Wikipedia knows about the changes. The spoiler tags had a link to the RfC transcluded for several days, the issue has been all over the e-mail forums, and numerous talkpages have established threads relating to the issue. &mdash; Deckiller 01:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there will be more waves of people who don't know what's going on, but it's unlikely that any new conclusions would be reached even with that added input. -- Ned Scott 02:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It has been pretty widely circulated. All the usual places and then some.  And the many thousands of edits you'd think would have pulled some people in.  And they did, but not as many as I expected.  A week ago I didn't expect us to make so much progress, but that progress did happen and I think it was because we realised firstly how many terribly misapplied spoiler tags there were, and secondly how little the readers care about their removal. --Tony Sidaway 03:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty damn sure deleting thousands of tags just to 'test a reaction' or somesuch is a violation of Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Kargath64 06:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I've removed maybe three thousand spoiler tags in the past week or so, and I'm still surprised how little fuss there's been - David Gerard 22:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes. There's the matter that doing any kind of significant damage to removals on that scale would take an equally massive movement - a movement of contributors who would have to be idealistic enough to not be intimidated by going against several thousand spoiler removals by hand and to not mind the fact that any gains they'd make would be almost instantly reverted. This hypothetical army of hardheads would also have to have the temper and the insight to restrict themselves to two, three articles a person, because a larger effort would be considered disruptive and grounds for blocking, as you and Sandifer have shown and demonstrated. You can call the lack of fulfilling impossible criteria implicit agreement if you wish. --Kizor 07:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me just add (in case new readers don't know where to find it, or didn't know it existed, like I didn't) that there is actually a straw poll still open on this very question, on a general RfC page on the spoiler question, with votes still being added on both sides at this time. Jheald 08:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It might be appropriate at this stage to turn the RFC page into a redirect to this talk page. This is where all the heavy lifting has been done. --Tony Sidaway 18:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It might - no, it would - be interpreted as an attempt to stifle opposing opinions. Let the discussion run its course, and let the debate remain in view for posterity. It's not like you have anything to fear. --Kizor 19:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And just because I'm seething, it's quite telling, and very descriptive of this whole debacle, that you describe this page as the one that matters, as opposed to the one dedicated to talking things out in detail and establishing consensus. (I for one was completely unimpressed to see the anti-spoiler crowd declare it had overwhelming consensus and rework this guideline in its image after two, three days of discussion in an obscure area with no public announcement whatsoever, and then ignore the event when a public announcement was made and the "overwhelming consensus" evaporated.) --Kizor 19:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Compelling reason
I'm worried about "compelling reason". I changed it to "good reason", but that got reverted (diff) with the edit summary "good is not strong enough. Otherwise, not spoiling the surprise to other readers would be 'good enough'". Not spoiling the surprise is the ONLY reason for using the template. If that reason is not valid, then the template should never be used.

If that is indeed the opinion of this guideline, then be a man about it and say so in the guideline, then re-list spoiler at MFD. Thanks --h2g2bob (talk) 04:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There are times when the vast majority of the readers of an article can be expected to be unaware of the plot. A program or film not yet widely distributed, for instance.  This might form the germ of a compelling argument for using the template, until the program is no longer new. It's not a given, you'd have to discuss it with other editors or within a wikiproject.


 * The reason I reject the word "good" is that it's too ambiguous. A good reason to jump into a bathtub full of water might be that I have an odd sense of humor.  A compelling reason would be that my pants are on fire.  I'd expect a substantial registration of distress to build up before anyone needed to consider a warning. --Tony Sidaway 04:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So, that would be (for example) only use the spoiler template on pages where there's a spoiler before it's out in the cinema? That's very, very close to never. --h2g2bob (talk) 07:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Before or just released. Again, the reason given has to be more then just "protecting the reader from being spoiled". --Farix (Talk) 10:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, h2g2bob, there is at least one group of cases where this will happen constantly, Anime. They're released in Japan first, usually fan translated into English online, and only make it over to the states commercially a couple years later. So a poor unsuspecting fan from the English television airing comes online, wants to look up information about that episode he missed last week, clicks on the wrong character article, and BAM, reads that the guy's actually the secret villain. A year and a half of setup ruined.
 * Arguing that the person should know not to read the plot section if they don't want spoilers is all good and well for series that don't have major plot twists, but in cases where there's no reason to expect anything unusual will happen, it's going to be one nasty surprise to them. (In the specific case I'm thinking of, the character is supposedly dead and shouldn't be doing anything, unusual or otherwise.)
 * So I guess what I'm saying is this: while we shouldn't use spoiler warnings just to say "Warning. Routine plot summary upcoming.", it makes sense to use them to say "Warning! MAJOR surprise twist ahead!". --tjstrf talk 10:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That does make sense to me (especially as I'm in the UK so get everything later than you guys normally). Can examples like this be put into the guideline page, at the moment the policy is too vauge - both "good" and "compelling" are quite subjective, with examples we could have some idea of what it means in practice --h2g2bob (talk) 11:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think the spoiler level is that high, honestly. As I've remarked earlier on this page, I adopted a commonsense approach for the Doctor Who episode articles, and removed all spoiler tags from episodes before two years ago: May 2005.  That's the vast majority of all episode articles relating to this long-running series.  To my knowledge, not one of them has been edited to restore spoiler tags.  For more recent episodes, the spoiler tags are still there and I have no intention of removing them for the next two years unless a strong consensus develops to do so.


 * I think two years for a television series is quite generous and ensures that everybody in an English-speaking country, and most non-English speaking countries, has a chance to see a full season broadcast or obtain the DVDs before the spoiler tags are removed.


 * The compelling reason in this case is that there's a substantial readership in fandom who expect spoiler warnings for recently produced content. The warnings can be removed in due course, which is consistent with eventualism. --Tony Sidaway 12:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not compelling. It's preferential treatment for fans at the expense of normal people.-- Nydas (Talk) 15:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, spoiler warnings themselves are preferential treatment for fans at the expense of normal people. --Aquillion 18:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody but a fan will read most fictional character articles in the first place, so I don't see how it's favouring one group of readers over another. --tjstrf talk 21:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If only fans will read them, perhaps we should export them to a fan wiki. But I don't agree here.  Well articles on written characters can be encyclopedic. --Tony Sidaway 21:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We have no business trying to guess who will be looking at our pages. Apart from anything else, most Wikipedians seem to be extremely bad at it, given the suggestions above that 'everyone' knows the ending the to Half-Blood Prince, or that only fans will look at character pages.-- Nydas (Talk) 07:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This guideline needs a companion: Manual of Style (plot summaries)
To along with the spoilers guideline, we need a dedicated guideline for specifying that except in exceptional circumstances, plot summaries should not be longer than two or three paragraphs. Pengo put it really well here: "Do we need "spoiler" tags to warn the reader that there's a terribly written "synopsis" following? No, we need better written plot summaries." --ragesoss 06:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Writing about fiction is that away (WP:WAF). --Farix (Talk) 10:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the writing about fiction guideline has a somewhat different purpose. The length of plot summaries are tangential to the main thrust of the guideline.--ragesoss 14:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WAF is more about fiction articles in general. It's not really about how actual plot summaries in the main articles of works should be treated. There are so many ridiculous misunderstandings WRT plot summaries (only a fool would expect analytical secondary sources in every plot summary, and each sentence doesn't need to begin with "fictional" or "the player or reader realizes that the characters encounter..."). I have a lot of experience with plot summaries and fictional articles in general; I can start a draft within a week or two if I'm up to it. However, two or three paragraphs is generally too short for certain works. A plot summary MoS would give ideal summaries for each type of work (for example, a 40 hour RPG would have a longer summary than a 2 hour movie). &mdash; Deckiller 14:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A while ago, the popular culture expert and Wikipedian Phil Sandifer produced a good, brief, encyclopedic plot summary for the second Doctor Who story, The Daleks. It was reverted at the time, but as I'd more recently done something similar on the first story, An Unearthly Child, Phil happened to mention his earlier work to me.  I had a look at it and have restored it to the article because it's an excellent example of writing in out-of-universe style.  It's true that it would be better to have more external sources, and in the case of forty-year-old Doctor Who or Star Trek episodes there's plenty available.  It's just that we haven't got around to citing them yet. --Tony Sidaway 18:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why don't you do all the WP articles on books of the Bible too, while you're at it? Don't you think they could use your "out-of-universe" perspectives too?  Seriously, if it's good enough for Sight and Sound to summarise what the viewer actually sees on screen, it should be good enough for Wikipedia too. Jheald 19:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll try to have a rough draft finished by Tuesday. Worst comes to worst, it can be a subsection on WAF or FICT instead of a separate page. &mdash; Deckiller 02:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to just make it apart of WAF, even if it is on it's "own page" for size reasons. It would make the information easier to find. -- Ned Scott 02:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I was thinking. &mdash; Deckiller 03:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Forward Spoilers
A discussion has emerged on the talk page for the Lost episode Talk:Tricia_Tanaka_Is_Dead, regarding the use of what I'll call 'forward spoilers'. What I mean by this, is giving away important plot points for some episode in an article for a preceding episode. If I'm following a television series, I'm assuming that the spoiler waring only pertains to the plot of the article's episode, so that I can read the article without fear of fining out important things about episodes I haven't seen yet. I would like this policy to include something about only using backward spoilers, or marking forward spoilers especially.

This is not about removing information, just about structuring it so that an episode listing can be used by people who haven't seen the entire show yet. I think this is a significant part of the audience for Wikipedia episode listings, and implementing this small guideline would not hurt the encyclopedic value of wikipedia, but rather add to it. risk 12:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If, for example, an episode of a show is primarily notable and famous for setting up something that happens in a later episode, that should be the primary focus of the earlier episode's article and mentioned in the lead, not merely something that is buried later on.  I don't think, overall, that 'giving away important plot points' is a worthwhile consideration in any case--what matters is covering the important parts of the subject as clearly and completely as possible. --Aquillion 18:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thus making the encyclopaedia less useful still for its readers. --Kizor 18:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It would make the encyclopedia less useful for its readers if we removed or concealed vital, central information on an episode's significance; thus, we should not remove or conceal descriptions of important parts of the plot, even parts from later episodes. If part of episode 7 belongs in the lead section to episode 1, that is where it belongs, and leaving it out would make Wikipedia less useful to anyone who wants to use it as a scholarly reference. --Aquillion 04:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an important issue not adequately addressed in existing guidelines. &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 18:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked at Manual of Style (writing about fiction) (WP:WAF) today and decided to have a go at writing a compliant out-of-universe plot summary of An Unearthly Child. Of course the most significant thing about the plot of that Doctor Who story is that it introduces the four characters who formed the basis of the program for over a year. So I said that. And of course that's a "forward spoiler" because if you know that you know one member of the four characters didn't last more than a year. Wel that's too bad, because it's a good summary. --Tony Sidaway 20:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, it can be significant to make these kinds of spoilers. What should be noted is that it's not necessarily the sort of thing you expect, even when a section has been tagged with the spoiler template, as one might take this to mean 'only spoilers about the subject of the article'. Perhaps a compromise would be to try and put these spoilers (where possible) in a separate section labeled 'Significance for future episodes' (or something better), which gives a clear signal to the unsuspecting reader. Anybody not ready to read about that could stop there, and there would be no need for any kind of extra spoiler tags. And if the bit of information is not significant enough for its own section, then it's probably best to keep it in the article for the future episode anyway. risk 02:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No. The quality of writing in Wikipedia seems to have suffered greatly over the last couple of years, and part of that stems from trying to split everything up into discrete sections, as if filling in a form, rather than to write a coherent article. Information like that mentioned in this example belongs in a particular place in the discussion, and arbitrarily ripping it out and placing it elsewhere harms the whole piece. PeteVerdon 00:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Spoiler (media)...
This whole paragraph is terrible:

According to Spoiler (media), "The term spoiler is associated with specialist Internet sites and in newsgroup postings." - Citing an unsourced article is not the best idea, especially when it uses weak phrases such as "is associated with"

Spoilers on the Internet are often precluded by a spoiler warning. - Okay, maybe so. Often? Prove it.

However, this is not done in scholarly reference works; - Okay, maybe so. But absolutely not done? Once again, disputable. And this line really doesn't help the guideline.

thus, spoiler warnings are generally avoided on Wikipedia. - This doesn't really directly follow from the previous statement. Something like "Wikipedia aims to be a scholarly encyclopedia" might help the logic here. --- RockMFR 23:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the claim that spoiler warnings are not done in scholarly reference works is fairly hard to dispute. Phil Sandifer 23:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction is fairly scholarly, and it apparently does. What Scholarly reference works mostly don't do, is discuss the plot of The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, for example, at all. Perhaps we shouldn't either; but if we do, their silence is no guide to us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * One experiment I performed this evening was to write a partly out-of-universe description of the plot of the latest episode of Doctor Who, which was broadcast at about 1800 GMT today. It's much, much briefer than the meandering, scene-by-scene plot summaries that are normal on Doctor Who articles for episodes.


 * I didn't realise it at the time, but I completely forgot to insert a spoiler tag.


 * Well it's lasted two hours without collapsing into the usual morass of in-universe stuff, and still no spoiler tag.


 * I'm really beginning to think those tags were just there because people thought they should put them there to comply with the site standards, or something. --Tony Sidaway 23:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "If a spoiler is added as trivia, and does not contribute to the article in any meaningful way, that information can be removed. However, the rationale is that the information was removed not because it was a spoiler, but because it was trivial or unnecessary." This line isn't really necessary. Suggest removing it. &mdash; Deckiller 02:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed it. To me, it just seemed like someone's way of mixing up this issue with other content issues. This guideline is about spoilers and the unique issues that involve them, not about fictional writing as a whole or trivia. We already have guidelines for that stuff. --- RockMFR 03:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm adding it back in. While we're not catering to the stupid, it's good to note that spoilers can be removed if the reason is for something other than "being a spoiler''. I've seen the confusion happen before. -- Ned Scott 03:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And spoiler issues will over-lap with other issues, which isn't a bad thing. -- Ned Scott 03:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ned Scott that spoilers explicitly added as trivia may be removed as trivia. This is generally true of all trivial plot details, wherever they are found because such details do not in general belong in Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 18:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Nutshell
We seem to keep changing the nutshell every few minutes. Perhaps that is a good indication that the guideline hasn't matured to the point to be summarized in just a couple of lines. But here is another possible suggestion


 * Wikipedia contains spoilers and strives to be a scholarly work. Therefore, spoiler warnings should be limited to articles about fictional works when there is a compelling reason, based on consensus, for the reader to be warned.

Farix (Talk) 00:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever gets it across in the minimum number of words - David Gerard 01:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ehh, I just noticed someone erasing every spoiler tag it seems using AWB, saw it because Barge of the Dead appeared on my watchlist, I don't see it explicitly written in this guideline anywhere, but does this mean spoiler tags are now officially out or what? Homestarmy 02:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, they're out. If you think an article needs one, argue a reason that editors will find compelling enough on the talk page.  Pay due attention to the requirements that the tags will not interfere with article quality, particularly neutral point of view, completeness, etc. --Tony Sidaway 02:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But since this particular article's creation by myself, I think i'm the only editor that really cares at all about the article anyway, and I was already sort of convinced to start with that the plot summary basically gives almost everything in the episode and constitutes a pretty big spoiler, am I expected to go find people to make them interested in debating with me first for all articles? Seems like a lot of trouble for an episode of Star Trek..... Homestarmy 02:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at the article, the spoiler template was unnecessary as the section's title provided adequate enough warning. However, the article does have two problems, one is that the article is entirely a plot summery, which violates WP:NOT. The other is that plot summery is written from an in-universe POV, which violates WP:WAF. --Farix (Talk) 02:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems too short of a guideline to need a nutshell box. -- Ned Scott 02:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Short is good. The nutshell is even shorter. --Tony Sidaway 02:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. If we must keep the spoiler tag, we might as well mention the process (consensus), the realm to which spoilers logically should be confined (fiction), and...well, I don't see any reason to burden it with needlessly bureaucratic verbiage. As noted above, I think that spoilers harm the overall mission of being an uncensored encyclopedia, but I'm not against editors using a good, brief guideline. --Edwin Herdman 02:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How about "If your article contains spoiler, it probably sucks and might as well contain cleanup"? - David Gerard 12:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway's edit of 05:29, 27 May 2007
I've restored the nutshell (how did that get deleted)? I encountered the wording:
 * Scholarly reference works of the sort Wikipedia aspires to be do not usually warn for spoilers

Previously this had read:


 * Scholarly reference works of the sort Wikipedia aspires to be do not usually discuss the plots of works of fiction

The latter made more sense in context, so I've restored it. --Tony Sidaway 05:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As I explained above (or in an edit summary), this doesn't make sense. The whole paragraph is illogical. Websites often use spoiler warnings, okay. Scholarly reference works don't usually detail plot, okay. The two sentences are not related. The bit about spoiler being a neologism does not make sense in this context at all. "Because of this, spoiler warnings should generally be avoided" does not logically follow from any of the preceding sentences. Changing it from "discuss the plots..." to "warn for spoilers" makes it halfway decent. However, the whole paragraph should bit split up, as 'spoiler' being a neologism and scholarly works not using spoiler warnings are two completely different ideas. --- RockMFR 08:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I find the new wording a little confusing but perhaps that's me. If any scholarly works warn for spoilers, it's news to me. --Tony Sidaway 15:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As there are millions of "scholarly" works in existence, there is a high probability that some of them use spoiler warnings, or something similar to it. It very well may be that no such works use spoiler warnings, but stating that as fact is something that we simply cannot do. Maybe something a bit stronger than "usually" could be used here though. Perhaps "almost never"? --- RockMFR 17:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The previous version, which was removed, said: "Scholarly reference works of the sort Wikipedia aspires to be do not usually discuss the plots of works of fiction." I support that version.  So yes, I think we agree. "Almost never" isn't necessary, "do not usually" is adequate. --Tony Sidaway 18:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing my point. The old version was not good because the statement was entirely irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether scholarly references works discuss the plots of works of fiction (which they do, actually). It matters whether they warn for spoilers. --- RockMFR 18:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Tony, why are you asking why the nutshell was removed when you replied to my comment about it, and you can see the page history? The guideline doesn't need a nutshell, it's completely pointless to use one on such a short guideline, and it's just another bickering point. -- Ned Scott 09:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd no idea you were seriously suggesting removal of the nutshell. I thought you were just making a flippant comment about the brevity of the guideline (which I think is something we should all be very proud of). I still have no idea why you want to remove the nutshell, which gives the basics of the guidelines and is obviously a lot easier to digest than a couple of pages of prose. --Tony Sidaway 15:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There are actually good arguments in general against the use of nutshells. The same reasons infoboxes drive some people crazy. Summing something up in a few words without distorting it or dumbing it down requires skill. But maybe the advantages/disadvantages of nutshells is not best discussed here. Carcharoth 17:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had some sand in my vagina. I still think it's silly, but I don't really feel strongly about it. -- Ned Scott 21:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Reading practices
This guideline implies that there is a preferred way of reading - without knowing the ending ahead of time. Not everyone reads that way. Many people, for example, flip to the end of mysteries in order to figure out the end before they read the rest of the book. Wikipedia should not privilege one kind of reading practice over another in its guidelines. Awadewit Talk 14:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's silly. Those that flip to the end of mysteries can skim the article looking for spoiler warnings and then read them. No problem. TK421 16:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"neutral point of view, completeness, encyclopedic tone, or other elements of article quality."
Although it doesn't seem to have been raised here as a problem, someone has removed the following statement:


 * Spoiler warnings must not interfere with neutral point of view, completeness, encyclopedic tone, or other elements of article quality.

As it's the core of this guideline, obviously removing it without discussion was an error, so I've restored it. --Tony Sidaway 15:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've changed this to make it simpler. I fail to see how the presence of spoiler warnings or otherwise could affect NPOV anyway. --DrumCarton 21:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That they were doing so was the impetus for the original MFD - David Gerard 12:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Dolly zoom article
Dolly_zoom appears to run into problems with the guideline as it is a non fiction article with mention of spoilers for various films yet to remove that many spoilers would probably disimprove the article.

Any Comments  .Garda40 16:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would question whether those are actual spoilers. Remember that a spoiler is not a simple plot detail, but an important point that would "ruin" the viewer's enjoyment if the point was reveled before the viewer saw the movie. --Farix (Talk) 17:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's deal with the basics first. Should that section be there? Yeah. The article would not be comprehensive without a number of examples. The only one that might be spoiler-ish is the Goodfellas one. The explanation of the plot here definitely seems reasonable. A spoiler tag here would be incredibly useless, so I think the guideline holds up here. --- RockMFR 17:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It might be spoiler-ish but it doesn't need a spoiler tag.That's logic I can't fellow unless you mean just for one item  .Garda40 17:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't put spoiler warnings into non-fiction articles, so there are no problems here. The discussion of what goes into the article should focus purely on article quality and those who want to know about aspects of the real world should set to one side their pre-occupations and avoid imposing the technical requirements of theirpreferred style of reading fiction upon  the contents of encyclopedia articles. --Tony Sidaway 18:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Requiring a compelling reason
Why is this in the guideline? This completely goes against Be bold in updating pages. Yes, a good editor will provide reasons for every edit; however, it is not required. If someone disagrees with your edit, THEN you should provide compelling reasons. --- RockMFR 17:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The presumption is that you don't insert these unsightly stylistic blunders without a compelling reason. The justification for this presumption is that spoiler warnings have provably compromised the balance, encyclopedic tone and quality of our articles in the past. This doesn't mean you can't be bold, or that the guideline doesn't have exceptions (all guidelines do, they're not bright-line policy). --Tony Sidaway 18:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you don't need to provide one right away. As long as you aren't inserting spoiler tags mindlessly, it's fine. However, in the guideline's current form, the nutshell incorrectly states that the editor must provide one. By changing it to must "have" a compelling reason, I think it will be clearer and more correct. --- RockMFR 18:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a nuance, I agree. Please remove the word "provide" and replace it with "have" or something. --Tony Sidaway 22:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It'd be better to remove 'compelling reasons' altogether, and replace it with 'recently released films' and so on. The only reason for keeping it is 'not a white line', an idiosyncratic principle which is not followed by the preceding 'when not to use spoilers' section, nor anywhere else in Wikipedia.-- Nydas (Talk) 09:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh I don't want to hard code stuff. I want people editing individual articles to make up their own mind.  This is a style issue and I don't really want to have a consistent style across Wikipedia because it isn't that kind of project.  Popular culture articles will tend to be influenced by internet notions like "canon" and "spoilers", which we can't really eliminate.  The real problem we had until recently, as I see it, was that those internet conventions leaked into articles on literature and even the sciences.  We've done what we need to eliminate that drift but I don't want people editing, say, articles about recent episodes of Lost or Prison Break, to feel that they need to look in a list of exceptions for an excuse to place a spoiler tag.  If the readers can be expected to want a warning, it's reasonable to put one there. This is why I'm not removing spoiler tags from articles about Doctor Who episodes that have aired first more recently than May two years ago.  The other Doctor Who people didn't object to that, in fact they don't even seem to be much interested in the subject at all.  But I'm erring on the generous side because this is a big change. --Tony Sidaway 22:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Recently released films' isn't hard code. And again I must point to the 'hard code' of the 'when to not use spoilers' section. As for your personal style issues, it has been possible to turn off spoilers for sometime now.-- Nydas (Talk) 19:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic?
People keep saying that spoiler tags are non-scholarly, or non-encyclopaedic. Can I suggest that as an example of a source which does aim to be scholarly and encyclopaedic, we might consider the film journal Sight and Sound, backed by the British Film Institute? I can't help but notice, looking at the articles of record they've put online, eg for The Lives of Others or Zodiac, that each one starts with a plot summary, headed Synopsis, and the first thing it does is to give the warning: Our synopses give away the plot in full, including surprise twists.

The other thing that is perhaps notable is that those plot summaries give a straight, "in-universe" summary of what is seen on screen, with analysis and discussion held over to the review which follows. It seems to me this model may be helpful for WP also - in particular wrt neutral point of view and verifiability concerns, by separating out material which can be verified from the work itself, from comment and analysis which may need to be supported by other sources.

Of course, quite correctly per Manual of Style (writing about fiction) (WP:WAF), it is important that the article as a whole present a detached and analytical "out-of-universe" perspective. But as the S&S articles demonstrate, a straight unvarnished summary of what is seen is entirely compatible with retaining this critical distance, particularly when it is clearly sectioned off and headlined "Synopsis" – or, in our case, "Plot Summary". Jheald 01:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well your Sight and Sound reference doesn't contradict our guideline; rather it corroborates the statement that when scholarly works do have a warning that warning is not couched in terms of neologisms such as "spoiler".


 * There are copyright problems arising from writing complete blow-by-blow plot summaries such as those that are common on, for instance, our Doctor Who articles. Otherwise this is good thinking. We can probably go with this, because there is no shortage of fans willing to write detailed scene-by-scene accounts rather than readable analytical summaries. --Tony Sidaway 02:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I researched the "spoiler" neologism claim. It's only a neologism in the narrow technical sense that it doesn't appear in, and maybe has been overlooked by, M-W.com or the COED. It has a Wikipedia article, it does appear in some web glossaries, and apparently has been in use for decades. Talk about Wikipedia looking silly — by Google test, { spoiler movie } appears an impressive 2,170,000 times. I'd say that anyone concerned about the issue, knows the term. Doesn't "spoiler", in the contextual meaning used here, fit the requirement of use in Wikipedia as "common knowledge"? Milo 07:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * According to the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, spoiler can mean "4. a news story published with the intention of reducing the impact of a related item published in a rival paper"; so a sense of 'reducing the impact of a published item' is long-established. Technically therefore spoiler is not a neologism ("a newly coined word or expression" according to the COED), at most it is the extension of use of an existing sense.  Jheald 09:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Tony, you seem to be focussing on the colour of the wallpaper rather than the elephant in the room. S&S is a clear example of a source which aims to be scholarly and encyclopaedic, which includes a warning.  Have any examples been brought forward of online resources with no-holds-barred plot summaries that aim to be similarly authoritative, which do not include a warning?   I see S&S as presenting the rule for us regarding what is professionalism, not the exception.  Jheald 10:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not all scholarly sources are online (or at least, their contents are not accessible without paying a subscription). Not all online scholarly sources are the one cited.  As an example of a very respectable source, albeit a journalistic one, that regularly gives major plot elements without warning, I'd cite The Guardian.


 * For instance in the review of 28 Weeks Later Peter Bradshaw refers to "one stupid plot-glitch around 30 minutes in" and then discusses it later in the article: "But then all its hard-won authenticity and interest are blown when we are asked to believe that Don, a civilian caretaker in one of the requisitioned buildings, can use his swipecard to gain secret access to a heavily guarded military prisoner - and exchange bodily fluids with her." He discusses other plot details that would probably spoil the film for people who care about that kind of thing.


 * Writing in The Guardian's Sunday sister paper, The Observer, Philip French gives away the McGuffin that drives the personal subplot of the film: "A bravura five-minute sequence follows that includes rapidly edited close-ups of shock and gore and a tracking shot from a helicopter of Don (Robert Carlyle) running for his life. To add to the terror, he's deserting his wife" and "After a switch to condition red, the order is given to abandon selective targeting. In a scene of slaughter followed by aerial attacks sending fireballs through the canyons of docklands, the populace realises that if the zombies don't get you, the snipers will. In an attempt to save the children, both for themselves and because their blood may possibly provide the source of a vaccine, a concerned military doctor (Rose Byrne) leads them across London on foot and by car."


 * Again no warnings are given. This is a serious online resource for ordinary filmgoers like you and me, and it make no apologies for giving us the facts we need to evaluate a film.  Why should Wikipedia editors hide the same facts behind infantile warnings? --Tony Sidaway 13:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Long-established internet courtesy within an internet encyclopedia. As you personally have frequently discussed, Wikipedia makes a big deal of courtesy. The article-writing problems are genuine, but now within range of solution. Milo 16:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think we can realistically expect import internet notions of courtesy that aren't really courteous, and just pollute the article space with insulting messages. --Tony Sidaway 22:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * By poll sampling, even unscientifically, quite a lot of people seem to feel differently about what is or isn't insulting versus courteous. A lot of this may have to do with the assertion of internet culture into mass culture. Any time two cultures merge, many customs that one culture has, may be interpreted as insulting to the other.
 * But in this issue, I think there are ways to compromise and accommodate most of the significant concerns.
 * I think maybe you have agreed to a principle of local control. In a previous section you wrote, " 22:22 Tony Sidaway (Requiring a compelling reason - I want people editing individual articles to make up their own mind.)" With that as a starting point:
 * Stage A: Write the article to best standards while considering inherent spoiling in balance with every other element.
 * Let local article editors decide whether to add spoiler tags; and if they do, add them anywhere they think advisable, at top, at plot summary, in multiples if necessary, wherever they locally decide. There will some divisiveness about this, but maybe editors can be persuaded to accept locally imperfect articles from either POV, until a technical accomodation arrives.
 * Stage B: As soon as developers can implement the feature, allow readers and editors to turn on or off spoiler tags, not text, with cookies and user preferences.
 * No doubt there will be further disagreements about who gets the default configuration, and 'I don't want to click through a screen even once' tiffs, but there are good compromises available for those issues. For example, why not a permanent screen click box for setting this and all future reader preferences.
 * Milo 00:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I again agree with Tony. An example of a Wiki that does not use spoilers is The UESP, a carefully updated and monitored Wiki covering games in the Elder Scrolls series by Bethesda Softworks. I asked what their policy on spoilers was, and was told that local consensus was that spoilers made writing articles needlessly complex.
 * As a compromise I would accept a "Wikipedia is not censored" type tag on articles with spoilers, but anything more than that is overkill. --Edwin Herdman 06:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My proposal addresses your concern in Stage A: which I've annotated above. If you can't support Stage B, how about at least supporting Stage A? Milo 13:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have any concerns here. The current guideline appears workable and there has been incredibly little opposition to the mass removal of spoiler warnings. --Tony Sidaway 14:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you should have concerns. I identify two separate issues that apparently you do not:
 * • (1) Actual consensus on spoiler tags.
 * • (2) Abuse of process in determining consensus on spoiler tags and underlying policy.
 * You claim "incredibly little opposition" over the mass removal of spoiler tags is essentially a consensus done-deal. Maybe so, maybe not. When process gets abused, how to know consensus in a short time, if the opposition has not been customarily notified?
 * I find it disturbing how little notice was given to editors of 45,000 articles before the spoiler tags were removed, and that the tags were removed, I think before any formal process was concluded. Both the TfD and MfD were invalidated. You wrote at the speedied TfD, "This is now closed. We're not discussing deletion of the template until we settle policy. --Tony Sidaway 14:37, 16 May 2007" Yet the tags were removed just as though the template had been deleted, and just as though policy had been settled. I don't agree that policy has been settled, partly because notification and other process was abused, and partly because the spoiler Wikiguide is still in an active phase of editing.
 * My experience with the TfD/AfD process is that notice of TfD and AfD is banner-displayed with the tag or article for at least a week. Banner notice to articles using the spoiler template TfD was 2 hours, 32 minutes, on 16 May which was then terminated by speedy. . Banner notice of the RfC was 11:22 20 May to 12:54 22 May. Two days of an expected seven strikes me as an odius short-sheeting, but better than the nothing (that I found) for banner notice of the vote-lengthy MfD of 21:31, 15 May to 11:59, 17 May . Farix revealed the MfD was 'no longer'ed (in some unidentified venue).
 * But you have no concerns.
 * Ok, let's level the policy playing field to make it clear in Wikiguides, that even large minorities of opinions (roughly 50:30 by my observation yesterday) can expect no future article courtesy accommodations at Wikipedia. There are strong arguments that Wikipedia must shock everyone, therefore courtesy in articles must become historically deprecated. I myself have argued that Wikipedia must be "equally unfair" to all.
 * Additionally, you seem to be constructively endorsing, that process inconvenient to the majority of editors should be deprecated. Are you willing to write into policy that "incredibly little opposition after two days of banner notice proves consensus"? I don't agree with substituting railroading for due process, but if you are going to endorse it anyway, I respectfully suggest writing it down. If written, there will be no complaints brooked when you are on the minority side of some future majoritarian coup. Milo 20:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

classical works
I would like to comment on the following sentence: Spoiler warnings are usually inappropriate in articles discussing classical works of literature, poetry, film, theatre, and other fields. Some people in this world might not have read classical works. For example, I am a freshman, and I have not read Romeo and Juliet until this year. We wouldn't want to spoil the development of the plot to the 8th graders, would we? While classical works are most famous for their plots, students might be google searching the web to learn about their writing style or publication and audience reaction.--Ed  ¿Cómo estás? 18:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Romeo and Juliet doesn't need a spoiler warning for its most famous plot element regardless of any policy, since Shakespeare says at the very start that they die.
 * But I'll repeat what I said above; banning spoiler warnings on classics is a bad idea. There are too many gray areas, and "classics" could cover Star Wars or many modern novels; and just using the example of Shakespeare, not every Shakespeare play has become part of the modern zeitgeist like Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet.  Most people would be genuinely spoiled by revealing surprising parts of other Shakespeare plays. Ken Arromdee 18:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a guideline. If a person thinks any article really needs a spoiler tag he can add it, and discuss it on the talk page to make a compelling case for it. --Tony Sidaway 18:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Romeo and Juliet was just an example (now that I think of it, maybe I should bring it up on the talk page there...). I realize that Shakespeare reveals the plot in the first few chorus lines; this is called dramatic irony. What keeps the play alive and intense, in this case, is the audiences desire to see the development of the plot. How do the two lovers die? What is the family feud all about? How do the lovers fall in love with each other? etc.--Ed  ¿Cómo estás? 19:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ed makes a good point here - although Romeo and Juliet isn't just an example, it's been used in this discussion repeatedly to exemplify works of fiction and thereby debunk the need for spoiler warnings, despite the fact that as Shakespeare's most major work and one of the cornerstones of English and indeed Western culture, it's completely non-representative of just about everything else. Anyway, to know of Romeo's and Juliet's deaths is not to know anything about Mercutio's death, Romeo's slaying of Tybalt, the banishment, the monk's plan, the straying messenger, the twin suicides or the balcony scene. --Kizor 19:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Shhh! We don't want to spoil the plot for those who didn't read the play, do we???--Ed  ¿Cómo estás? 19:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If you don't, somebody else will
When I use a search engine rather than getting to this site first, I come across many commercial sites which have lifted their text direct from this and decorate it with advertisements. I think that the problem of spoilers is so significant that one of those sites will surely come up with the idea of putting spoiler warnings into all the places where it is being removed from this one. So is this decision mere precursory for the arrival of a competing site? Despite all the touting, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia – the amusements of popular culture are traditionally beneath the purview of such works, and spoiling them therefore is likewise not going to be done.

[My own experience with spoilers is that I read Alva Rogers's Requiem for Astounding (on the shelves in the high school library) and it ruined all the plot lines of the golden-age science fiction stories for me (the Lensman, Foundation, Baldy, and Gallegher series, as well as the works of A. E. van Vogt) because the stories were out of print. But worse than this was the magazine "Protoculture Addicts", an anime fan magazine put out by people who had access to an entire series years before it became legally available in the West. It had pictures of anime characters, which attracted one to read the text, where there were spoilers.] Sobolewski 19:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why should we be concerned about a "competing site"? That would be a good development. Wikipedia is freely available for any purpose. I hope that a competitor provides spoiler warnings for those who want it and Wikipedia can get on with the business of creating an encyclopedia. --dm (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Back to proposed guideline
Just to get everyone's attention, please update this to guideline providing a permanent link to the demonstration of consensus for future reference. In six years, when we all are gone, people will ask "Where is the consensus for this?" And yes, this is happening right now with new users not understanding, in example, the naming policy (and despite my sarcasm and irony, I like having links to demonstrate consensus handy). -- ReyBrujo 05:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm sure some of us will be around six years from now. &mdash; Deckiller 05:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hope so, apparently Ned reverted without even reading the summary. Way to go! -- ReyBrujo 05:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You downgraded it from a guideline to a proposal... for what? Because you wanted someone to post a link in the edit summary? While that would be helpful, it is not required. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not even you are able to point where consensus is demonstrated. -- ReyBrujo 13:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thousands of removals, very few complaints. --Tony Sidaway 03:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ... -- ReyBrujo 03:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd have been complaining if this hadn't been changed to a guideline, and the same goes for plenty of others who just see "guideline" and don't bother checking the talk page. Now, as I see that changing this to a guideline is merely the POV-pushing of a handful of editors... I'm forced to join this ridiculously oversized debate. I've watched User:David Gerard use AWB to remove spoiler tags from nearly every article on my watchlist. Seeing as, if there was a consensus to use this as a guideline, this argument wouldn't be happening, couldn't AWB be used to add spoiler tags back with no repercussions? Yep. Why force this into a full-scale "Wikiwar" over spoiler tags? That would make this joke of a debate a waste of everyone's time, instead of only the core audience's time like it is now.


 * This guideline needs a consensus before it's put into practice, and "thousands of removals, very few complaints" is not even an argument. Most people just stand to one side of an angry mob, right? Why should they get involved when it has nothing to do with them? That's exactly whats happening right now. Those select few reverters get smacked down hard by gangs of biased users, and the page is either protected, or the user blocked for one reason or another. I couldn't care less which way this goes--remove spoiler tags entirely or put them on the top of every article about fictional material, for all I care. What gets under my skin is a vocal, angry minority getting its way by forcing it before they've actually won. Straw polls ganged by two sides of close-knit editors? What ever happened to Wikipedia not being a democracy?


 * I, for one, would like to see some real consensus for any of this. Those who say there is one have clearly not reading this talk page, no matter which side they're on. If it's alright to get rid of spoiler tags, then why are half the discussions here complaining about their removal? I wouldn't call that a consensus by any stretch. Also, if it's wrong to remove spoiler tags, then why are the other half of the discussions complaining about them being there? A consensus is not claiming that the debate has somehow tilted to "60/40", based on nothing. If a few more people were called in here, then the consensus could go back to "50/50" or even "40/60". That just goes to show that no one has convinced anyone of anything, and that there is no consensus whatsoever. I could go on about this, but I'm already probably pushing a block, here. This will probably all be derailed by the current "winning" side as BS, but I wanted to get it off my chest, as this utterly frivolous and disruptive flamefest has been getting on my nerves for some time. JimmyBlackwing 09:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Why removing spoiler tags kneecaps Wikipedia
As I understand it, Wikipedia aims to provide an encyclopediac reference for users looking for information. There are three types of information-searchers Wikipedia needs to cater for: -Those who are looking for a simple "what is it?" about something (and with fictional media NOT necessarily learn the major plot points) -Those who are looking for a particular detail or fact about something -Those who wish to do detailed research on a topic, and gain all the info Wikipedia has about it. Removing spoiler tags and bringing all the important essentially prohibits the first group from using Wikipedia in relation to works of fiction or media. First category users who have not used wikipedia before will come and quickly get burned, and learn not to Wikipedia any more for that sort of search. However, if we DO have spoiler tags, we cater for Category 1 users, whilst still serving the interests of Category 2 and 3 users. Kargath64 07:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * All disclaimer templates have be claimed to "do no harm", as they may be ignored. Nevertheless, Wikipedia has chosen not to have more important and more useful warnings on medical content, nudity, or content that is offensive or prohibited to people of some religions. We do that because Wikipedia is not censored, and disclaimer templates are self-censorship (and often violate NPOV about whether some content is objectionable or not). As for whether spoiler warnings do or don't do harm, read Phil Sandifer's arguments in the MfD or the rest of the 400-600k of discussion at the RfC. Kusma (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Disclaimers don't necessarily "censor" Wikipedia. They just warn people that they are approaching a touchy topic.  --Luigifan 11:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Where is the "censorship" with spoiler tags? What part of the MediaWiki code deletes text between beginning and ending spoiler tags? Really, c'mon... Kargath64 01:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing the spoilers is bad in many cases. Some of us like to find out a little about something, without necessarily getting the plot and ending ruined for us. --MacRusgail 16:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If knowing the plot of a fictional work ruins it for you, please avoid reading encyclopedia articles about works you haven't viewed or read. --Tony Sidaway 03:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't do the "if you don't like it here, go away!" dance, Tony. We should be working to make things better for *everyone*, not just you.Kargath64 03:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Tony's remark does not seem like he's telling you to go away. He is right, the best way to avoid spoilers, warning present or not, is to avoid the Wikipedia article on the work of fiction. People can always avoid spoilers by using the table of contents to stay clear of the plot section, they could get a quick summary from the lead, and then skip to what ever other information they are looking for. If you click on a header on the TOC, it takes you to that section, avoiding potential spoilers in the plot section. Category one users, as you so called them, risk finding spoilers in articles with or without the tag. The question remains: if the majority of them were taken away, would users and readers really miss them? There haven't been that many complaints so far as Tony has pointed out.Darthgriz98 03:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they can't. A point strongly driven by anti-spoiler editors is that spoilers central to the work should be placed in the lead, at which point it will be impossible for casual users to get any kind of information without being spoiled. --Kizor 04:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why hide something so important to the story? For a spoiler to be in the lead, it would be of absolute great importance to the plot. Wikipedia leads are supposed to outline the main points of the article, if a massive spoiler is a crucial main point, then it should go in the lead.  Hiding spoilers in the lead in this case would be inhibiting the thoroughness of Wikipedia. Darthgriz98 04:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This reminds me of the Monty Python sketch in which a couple walk into a department store intending to buy a bed. Things go fine until they ask about mattresses.  The assistant puts a bag over his head.  Another explains: "I'm sorry, you have to say dog kennel to Mr Lambert, because if you say mattress he puts a bucket over his head. I should have explained. Otherwise he's perfectly all right."  He won't take it off until everybody climbs into a tea chest and sings Jerusalem.  There just has to be a way of writing an encyclopedia article about something without being scared in case someone reading it finds out that the butler did it. --Tony Sidaway 06:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"If knowing the plot of a fictional work ruins it for you, please avoid reading encyclopedia articles about works you haven't viewed or read." - what happens if I want to know if I'd like something, without knowing what the ending is? That's why they have blurb on the back of books, and music/film recordings.--MacRusgail 16:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia isn't a blurb, it's an encyclopedia article on the movie or book that tells the whole plot. Then the reader should look through for what they are looking for and not scroll the whole way to the ending.  Darth Griz98  22:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I never said it was a "blurb", I just likened it to that. You can look up something without necessarily wanting to know the ending. What if I want to know say, the setting of Jules Verne's "Black Diamonds", but am not wanting to know who kills who and where (not that anyone does really - this is just an example).--MacRusgail 16:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Then find a review or just limit yourself to the lead section, which should give a brief one paragraph overview of the work. --Farix (Talk) 22:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What the anti-tagging brigade wants is the lead section to contain ALL major spoilers in the story. It's sheer zealous idiotry. Kargath64 08:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Look, if you don't want to know something, you shouldn't be reading an encyclopedia article about it. There are other places to get this information and an encyclopedia cannot cater to everyone who wants to remain ignorant about certain facts. You don't want to read spoilers, but others don't want to see pictures of human anatomy or read criticism of their religious beliefs, or learn about a bit of history that might diminish their patriotic feelings. When a spoiler is revealed, all that's been ruined is some enjoyment of a particular work of fiction. Others that read Wikipedia risk having their whole world view shattered. These risks have to be borne by the reader. Wikipedia should only be concerned with facts, not on how those facts might affect some people. --dm (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is rubbish. There's a difference between finding out a little, and finding out too much. Wikipedia was catering to people who wanted to find out just enough, but not too much. Now it's not. I've looked up plenty of things on here, such as books, films, TV etc, without wanting to know the whole caboodle, plot twists etc. It's not black and white. --MacRusgail 18:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course there's a difference between finding out a little and finding out too much. That's my point. But "too much" is in the mind of the reader and we shouldn't be saying where that line is. What we should avoid is too little information. That means we should be erring on the side of inclusiveness. As to your point that Wikipedia used to cater to those who didn't want to read spoilers, we shouldn't keep doing something wrong simply because we used to. --D. Monack | talk 19:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A simple reminder, in light of recent actions by some
To those in favour of removal of the spoiler template, do not go on deleting sprees until consensus is reached here and at the RfC.

Remember Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point ! Kargath64 03:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Only the minority disrupts. When majority disrupts, it is called consensus :-P -- ReyBrujo 03:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Since when is about 3 editors the majority? Oh, and no thanks for moving my reminder to the bottom of the page, where people will see it *last*. Kargath64 04:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ummm... talk page guidelines say all new stuff should go to the bottom. Axem Titanium 04:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As opposed to the ~50:30 editor majority polled about the spoiler-tagging issue, is the speedy deleting spree supported by descendents of The Silent Majority? Milo 05:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for purging so many of those unnecessary spoiler tags. Very rarely is there a reason to include a spoiler tag. They almost always appear in sections already identified in some ways as revealing plot, therefore the tag is redundant far more often than not. The tag invokes POV by saying that one part of plot information is more spoilable than another. Any criteria attempting to make use objective will only violate restrictions against arbitrary inclusion criteria. Thank you, thank you! Doczilla 05:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your simple position on the underlying issue is well-known. But please commit to approval of their consensus process violations, if you do approve. Your answer may be reminded to you as reason to railroad your side, if you are ever in the minority on any future issue. Milo 07:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A valid time to use Spoiler Warnings in the Plot section?
I'm consistently flabbergasted when I see that someone has added a detailed plot summary days, if not weeks in advance of a movie being released. I think this is a very valid time to use the spoiler warning tag even in the plot section, because who in their right mind would expect someone to have access to any REAL spoilers before the movie is even available for public consumption? This happened most recently with Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, which had a lengthy synopsis in place over a week before the movie hit theaters. I think we should allow this exception to continue to be a place where warnings are kept in effect. --Bishop2 13:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove such summaries - they're not based on reliable sources until the movie comes out. Phil Sandifer 14:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents on the spoiler tagging issue
As one who is in the obvious "minority" opposed to the wholesale removal of spoiler tags, my feeling on the subject is if they're going to be banned in one instance they may as well be banned utterly -- as in the template being deleted and everything. You can't have half-measures. And then, when people start complaining about either a) unwarned spoilers appearing in articles or b) articles being damaged by having to be written around spoilers, maybe the issue will be revisited. And for the record I resent the whole "this has consensus" thing -- no one asked me and I didn't even know about the issue until my Watchlist started to be filled by the deletions being made by a single editor. 23skidoo 14:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I respectfully suggest accepting the half measures for now. With our being in the roughly 40% polled minority (last time I checked), half measures can evolve into the good compromise that is available:
 * Generally accept Phil Sandifer's fiction article writing standards, with tweaks.
 * Consense that spoiler warnings are entertainment consumer information, the need for them is enforced by a big money system, and are therefore a system feature, not a "courtesy".
 * Allow one or more spoiler warning tags anywhere local consensus determines their need, with tweaks.
 * Use existing technical options to allow the spoiler warning tags to be off for those that don't want to see them, with tweaks.
 * Improve the technical options for spoiler tags and all future such situations, by consensing future development of a non-registered reader-customized preferences system with a "My preferences" click box available on every standard page.
 * Milo 16:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The second point is an unacceptable violation of WP:NPOV. I cannot believe that Wikipedia policy would support this biased point of view. It goes against everything I have ever heard with regards to spoilers -- a term created by FANS not corporations -- in the years since I first heard the term being used. 23skidoo 20:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Words and terms are normally created by people and not corporations.... And the term spoiler (in regards to spoiling fiction) has been around before the web. -- Ned Scott 20:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Spoiler warnings are a courtesy in the eyes of those who add them. No one is getting paid to place them in there. No one is making money off of spoiler warnings... -- Ned Scott 20:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If they are a corporate tool enforced by "big film/big publishing", all the more reason to remove them. However, I have to agree with Ned and skidoo in that spoiler warnings are an invention by the fans for other fans. --Farix (Talk) 21:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Will you accept the other elements of compromise? Milo 00:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If it is to be left up to consensus on each article, then the thousands of spoiler warning deletions should be reverted (by the person who did them, who has access to the scripts he used to delete them.) These deletions were made without consulting consensus on the individual articles--they were made wholesale.

And making massive deletions and saying "I won't accept consensus for the original situation unless you change the article back" is a form of opt-out. We really have no business forcing 5000 or 10000 or whatever articles to run through an opt-out gauntlet where we say "interested parties must take positive action just for us to leave this article alone". Ken Arromdee 06:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Your logic is somewhat faulty. SINCE the guideline -- as it stands now at least -- says they are NOT needed without consensus on the page, then removing them IS the thing to do, and they need to be added back if there's consensus for them to be there. Remember, most of the time people added warnings because they assumed it WAS the general policy on WP, not because the contributer thought it was somehow needed for the reasons most of the supporters are giving (conjecture? You bet! But do believe this is what happened). As others have said, those that actually care as opposed to saying "Oh wait, this page needs a warning like all other pages on WP!" and moving on, never returning, can decide if the warnings should be put back in. (And In ALL this debate, I've still never seen a good solid answer as to why spoiler warnings are ok, and others are not) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "logic ... faulty. ... guideline -- as it stands now at least" Isn't it amazing how changing the rules during the game can turn faultless logic into faulty logic on the turn of a dime? (This situation is related to the reason why ex post facto laws are unconstitutional and "grandfathering" exists in the real world.)
 * "people added warnings because they assumed it WAS the general policy" If so, this is a minor problem that could have and should have been handled slowly and gently.
 * "a good solid answer as to why spoiler warnings are ok, and others are not" I can walk through the showbiz rhetorical reasons, but a thought experiment is more entertaining — call it the 'hidden warning tag test':
 * "Warning: Your probability of death may be increased by taking this drug for pain."
 * "Warning: Your enjoyment of this packaged entertainment may be reduced by learning the following designed details."
 * Assume that both exist at WP, and that both are completely hidden unless the reader somehow learns to set obscure preferences that separately unhide them. Further assume that you are a person with a reasonable ability to generalize previous news, about the kinds of things that make people think they could be seriously harmed. Which hidden tag might cause serious complaints of potential or actual harm? Milo 23:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Spolier tag / Solution tag
Just a question - on a number of pages, this one for example, we have solution tags (and sometime spolier tags when they should be solution tags). Anyone know if there's a debate on the removal of them on the same premise? Pedro |  Chat 15:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove them when they are clearly unnecessary like in the example you gave. Kusma (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That is the most unnecessary and redundant tag I have ever seen. Remove them please.<font color="#084B8A">Darth <font color="#008080">Griz98  15:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone tell me why we have a solutions tag? It seems rather condescending to the reader, more so then some uses of the spoiler tag. --Farix (Talk) 21:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Got rid of most of the redundancy for this tag. I left most of the more questionable usages alone. --Farix (Talk) 02:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you to all for the consensus and clarity. We now have a reference if challenged by other editors, which is they key thing. Pedro | <font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat 07:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Down to 4 - perhaps it is time to rewrite the remaining articles and get rid of the template. Kusma (talk) 11:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Template for Deletion nominations
I've nominated a slew of duplicate spoiler templates and one disclaimer for deletion tonight. You can find most of them at Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 1 with an earlier nomination at Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 30. This also doesn't count the half-dozen or so duplicate spoiler templates that Ned Scott redirected instead of put up for deletion. --Farix (Talk) 02:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good, good, love to see some cleanup around here. Will be voting on this. --Edwin Herdman 02:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * After this, I suggest targeting the various spoiler redirects, such as spoiler-storyelements. Most of them are unlikely to be used again. I am thinking of restoring some of Ned's redirected spoiler templates, orphan them, and then send them to TfD. --Farix (Talk) 11:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Farix. I had no idea that create-happy editors were stinking up the harbor (imho) with an onslaught of spoiler templates while the edit war over the main template rages on. Le sigh. David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍  ) 15:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be that hard on the creators. Most all of them were created in good faith long before the recent debate over spoiler warnings began last month. All of them, however, just are not needed regardless of what the outcome of the debate would have been. --Farix (Talk) 16:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

'Compelling reasons'
I've removed this pending worthwhile arguments for its inclusion. The two arguments advanced so far have been very weak. The first, that we don't set hard rules or 'white lines' in guidelines, is a principle not followed elsewhere in the article, specifically the section which says that classics should not (usually) have spoilers. Most Wikipedia guidelines do set hard rules. Imagine if WP:WEB had 'compelling reasons' instead of actual criteria.

The second, that these things should be hammered out on talk pages, sounds superficially reasonable, except that it was a principle totally ignored by the anti-spoiler brigade in their mass removal campaign.-- Nydas (Talk) 08:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have reverted you. Inclusion should be justified on the talk page. The default is no spoiler tags. Kusma (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Inclusion of spoiler tags no more has to be justified than any edit one may do, whether removal or deletion. It is a clear double standard to insist upon muddled guidelines for inclusion. The default of no spoiler tags is not a policy, nor is it even consensus. Even some of the anti-spoiler camp have said that new fiction articles should have spoilers.-- Nydas (Talk) 09:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We need to have strict anti-tag guidelines to prevent nonsense like spoiler warnings on the works of Plato (see here). I don't have a problem with including a spoiler warning in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows for the first couple months after it is released, but it shouldn't be hard to find a compelling argument for that. Kusma (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do we even need to have a 'compelling argument' on the talk page? Why not have 'spoiler warnings are appropriate for recently released works of fiction' in the guideline itself?-- Nydas (Talk) 09:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a bit too absolute: Films that fictionalize a historic event don't really need spoiler warnings. In many cases, knowledge of the ending does not diminish enjoyment of the work (or people wouldn't go and see movies like Revenge of the Sith: you already know that Anakin will turn into Darth Vader). In these cases where no enjoyment is spoiled by knowing the ending, warnings will be unnecessary. Kusma (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't 'films that fictionalize a historic event don't really need spoiler warnings' also too absolute? It surely depends on the film; some will be so thoroughly fictional that a spoiler warning will be in order. Once again, I don't beleive that we should be making judgement calls as to what people 'ought to know' about films before we see them. The end result is an encyclopedia undermined by fannish beliefs that everyone knows the ending to Harry Potter or the Asimov novels.-- Nydas (Talk) 10:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Compelling reasons doesn't have to reside on the talk page, though it does help. But you can include your compelling reasons can be put in the edit summery. Help:Edit summary even encourages us to make compelling reasons, i.e. explain why we made the edit, for all edits. --Farix (Talk) 10:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's still a magnet for edit wars and biased assumptions about what 'everyone knows'. Why we couldn't have some of the more common 'compelling reasons' listed here, as they will be the same in most cases?-- Nydas (Talk) 10:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Most recent fictional works probably won't get a spoiler warning, simply because the kind of people who edit the articles don't have the "spoiler warning" culture that is only really common on the internet. Films like Harry Potter have a large number of internet-acculturated fans and those people may well expect such warnings.  This is a compelling enough reason for recent releases, in my opinion.  There may be other compelling reasons but I can't think of any.  The thing about a compelling reason is that nearly everybody will agree with it.  This is how you know that it's compelling. --Tony Sidaway 11:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So why not say 'if everyone agrees' on the guideline, rather than the compelling reason mumbo-jumbo? Your suggestion implies that anyone can veto spoiler warnings in an article, which strikes me a thoroughly unwikipedian.-- Nydas (Talk) 07:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Magic-spoiler
What to do with this template. I really don't really see a need for it and it falls under WP:NDT. It's not a "spoiler warning" in the way that spoiler has been traditionally defined. I also see a lot of redundancy with how this template is used.

The justification behind the template has more to do with protecting the content from magicians who want to keep their trade secrets...well...secret, then to warn the reader. It also gives editors of magic articles an excuse to violate WP:NOT. Both of these makes it a bit harder to go out and delete the templates outright like we are doing with various spoiler and solutions templates.

Bottom line, the template is more a disclaimer then a "spoiler warning". But spoiler warnings are also a form of disclaimer, so I guess that point is moot. The question is, does the infrequent exception for spoiler warnings also apply to magic secrets? --Farix (Talk) 19:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say replace the warnings by a ==Method== header and delete the template. Kusma (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In all instances where Template:Magic-spoiler was present with no subsection, I replaced it with ==Method==. There where a couple of instances where I removed it because the template didn't make any sense. All other instances I left it alone. But in the end I've sent the template to WP:TfD for evaluation. --Farix (Talk) 15:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

And I though spoiler warnings on fairy tales were bad...
...but these two just takes the cake:


 * Test Track
 * The Disney-MGM Studios Backlot Tour

Yes folks, we have spoilers on amusement park rides. It would be somewhat amusing if it wasn't down right ridicules. --Farix (Talk) 02:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You didn't see the spoiler tag on Roger Bacon, then? --Tony Sidaway 02:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * For some reason, I'm not that surprised about Bacon. But the amusement park rides made me scratch my head.


 * Of course, on of my favorite absurd uses of the spoiler templates was the use of spoiler-blank to replicate spoiler or something like, "Plot follows." after the plot heading. spoiler-about was also used in similar ways. --Farix (Talk) 03:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It does make sense to me, some rides can have stories or surprising endings. When a new ride is opened, I don't want to see a video of it, I want to experience it myself, I don't want to be told of what happens. -- blm07 03:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess its hard for some people to understand that theme park rides and films can actually have a story. -- blm07 20:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet another complaint
I'm sure there are a lot of these complaints here now concerning the removal of spoiler warnings from plots. But give me a minute to express my views anyway:

AAAARGGGHHH!!!! The stupidity of it hurts! You're seriously going to drive people away from Wikipedia just because you want to act professional? NO!

Look. I know that encyclopedias don't have spoiler warnings. But since when do you look up a book in Britannica and get a whole plot summary? Wikipedia is beyond the point where it should try to emulate other encyclopedias. What is the point of imitating them, anyway? I'll tell you: it's to establish ethos. You can't gain the public's respect for an encyclopedia if it's written informally. But Wikipedia has long since gained much of the public's respect. And if you're trying to attract the doubters by sneaking ending details onto them when they don't want them, it's a bad idea. Let me repeat: IT'S A BAD IDEA!!!!! I am obsessed with Wikipedia. I don't contribute much, but I use it for every question I have. And now, I promise you, I will never, ever look up anything that has a plot in it if I haven't read/watched it. Often, there's something I hear allusions to all the time. Star Wars, for instance. Believe it or not, I've never seen anything but Episode IV. It's clearly a huge part of pop culture. I tried to learn a little about it, without spoiling anything (I plan on watching it some day), and I hit a spoiler in the first paragraph! What am I supposed to do? What about things other than movies, which are easy enough to watch? What if someone wants to know the whole big deal about Harry Potter, then finds out that Dumbledore dies before they even start reading? It would ruin so much for them. The entire purpose of Dumbledore is that he is infinitely powerful and wise. How would it be to read the series knowing, all along, that he really isn't so infinitely powerful, and that he's going to end up dying? This is driving me away from Wikipedia, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Clearly, you can tell that I'm angry. I'm reminded irresistibly of a friend of mine who always tries to act professional. He does ridiculous things, just because he's seen the pros do it. For example, when he pitches (in baseball), he nods and shakes his head at the catcher, as if he's getting signals on what to pitch. It's ridiculous! And now I see Wikipedia--Wikipedia!--following in his footsteps.

Tell me, please, what the purpose is of explaining a plot to someone who doesn’t want to know it. The answer: nothing. Now, tell me, please, what the purpose is of explaining a plot to someone who already knows it. The answer? Nothing! You’re driving away the people who could benefit from some details, but not all, and you’re giving unnecessary information to people who already know the plot! Wikipedia is becoming Cliffs Notes! No use to people who have read the book, dangerous to those who haven’t and care about it. The only people left are those who don’t care about the book. That makes enough sense to fill a buckyball. And no more.

Let me copy and paste from the FAQ page, with emphasis added: What is Wikipedia? Wikipedia is an online free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has described Wikipedia as "an effort to create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest quality to every single person on the planet in their own language." Wikipedia exists to bring knowledge to everyone who seeks it.

Again: Wikipedia does not exist to imitate Britannica. It is not an attempt to make an encyclopedia that’s almost as good as Britannica, but free. It’s something completely new to this world. It is, as Jimbo has said at other times, an attempt to bring all of human knowledge together in one place. This is done in encyclopedic form, but this does not mean we’re trying to copy other encyclopedias. Britannica, World Book, and so many others exist to give a brief overview of a topic. Wikipedia goes the next step and gives in-depth information. So why, why, are we saying that “it is unusual for scholarly reference works (of the sort that Wikipedia aspires to be) to warn for spoilers when discussing fictional works”? An encyclopedia doesn’t have the kind of spoilers Wikipedia has, because it doesn’t have the depth. Literary journals don’t have spoiler warnings, because it’s assumed that the readers of literary journals are going to be well-read, and they aren’t going to be going to a journal to learn about the cultural impact of a book; they’ll only be going to read analyses of a plot they’ve already read. So why are we trying to pretend to be one of these “scholarly reference works” when aren’t one of them? We’re different, and we shouldn’t pretend that we aren’t. Remember this: Be bold!  Twilight Realm 00:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, if someone could point me in the right direction of where to debate this further, I'd be quite thankful. Twilight Realm 00:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are that naive to not understand that a section called "Plot" will contain spoilers, then you deserve to be spoiled. Wikipedia is not a fansite and has never been obligated to give spoiler warnings. If you want to minimize your exposure to spoilers, then I suggest that you avoid reading plot sections or anything else where the section title indicates that it may contains spoilers. Context clues will also help, that is if the article is properly written from an out-of-universe perspective. --Farix (Talk) 01:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But that's really not fair to someone who is naive. I agree, having so many spoilers is ridiculous, like on the roller coaster ride.  But I do think that spoilers should be placed on some articles. I find them useful.  --myselfalso 01:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your point of view, Farix. But that's the elitist attitude that causes so many problems in so many places: people always assume others will be logical. But if you look around, it's clear that logic has little to do with what people do. Many got airbags disabled once they were mandated, because a few hundred people were killed by them, despite the fact that thousands were saved. And that's just the one example that leaps to mind.


 * Everyone's an idiot sometimes. There's no such thing as someone "deserving" a spoiler. I almost never read a Wikipedia article top to bottom. I skim it for the relevant information. If I miss a heading while doing so, do I "deserve" to be punished? What good does it do to punish idiots? Think about that. Even if someone does bring a problem upon themself, does that make it not matter that there's a problem? If someone is an idiot and doesn't wear a seat belt, then gets fatally injured in a car crash, sure, they brought it upon themselves, but does that make it okay that they're going to die? No!


 * Anyway, just look. This page says that "Concerns about spoilers should play no role in decisions about the structure or content of an article, including the article's lead section." That is not the plot section. Yes, some spoilers in the lead section may make the article more useful in some ways--by summarizing important plot devices used, and other analysis--but completely nullifies other uses of the article, by eliminating everyone from the readership but those who have read the book/watched the movie/whatever. Let me quote from the article on encyclopedias: "Works of encyclopedic scope aim to convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain. Works vary in the breadth of material and the depth of discussion, depending on the target audience." Wikipedia is not a literary encyclopedia. Its target audience is the entire world, not just the part that is well-read.


 * Two last things. First, what does not being a fansite have to do with anything? Is a site not allowed to warn people of things like spoilers unless it is a fansite? And finally: I agree, Wikipedia has no obligation to give spoiler warnings. So what? Wikipedia has no obligation to exist! Tell me, what is its purpose? I thought it was to provide as many people as possible as much information as possible. I need hardly add that sneaking spoilers upon people is not going to make this a more user-friendly site. User-friendliness is not, of course, an obligation. It is simply a method of distributing knowledge more effectively. Are the wikilinks necessary? Of course not. They simply make it easier for the lazy. Should we eliminate them?


 * Do you disagree with me? Has Wikipedia obtained a new purpose that I am unaware of? Is it supposed to be useless to anyone but those who don't need to read it, such as the people who write it? Please, tell me. What is your concept of the purpose of Wikipedia?  Twilight Realm 02:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, and one more thing. Once you've finished explaining your view on the purpose of Wikipedia, can you please explain how a spoiler warning could actually hurt? Twilight Realm 02:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much it, Twilight Realm. Thanks. --Kizor 04:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. We're *still* saying things like "If you are that naive to not understand that a section called "Plot" will contain spoilers, then you deserve to be spoiled," when that has been addressed over and over again?

First of all, it isn't true that every "Plot" section will contain spoilers. Not every plot element is a spoiler. A plot section that contains only non-spoiler plot elements would need no warning.

Second, a spoiler warning doesn't have to go at the top of a section. Even if every plot section did contain spoilers, putting a spoiler warning in them would be useful--since if the plot section has the spoiler at the end, we could put the warning near the end of the section and people who don't want to read spoilers will know they can read the first part.

Third, even if every plot section contained spoilers, consistency of user interface design may require redundancy. It makes a lot of sense to put spoiler warnings on everything that contains spoilers, even if the user could already figure that out for some of them, because using the same format (spoiler warnings) for the information everywhere, rather than a different format (spoiler warnings outside plot sections, section titles in plot sections) simplifies the user experience. We don't remove the word "Tuesday" from the calendar on the grounds that everyone who reads a calendar can already figure out that the day after Monday is Tuesday. Ken Arromdee 04:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The belief that plot sections in an encyclopedia will always contain spoilers is not an a priori truth, despite the beliefs of some of the anti-spoiler crowd. It's only 'obvious' to people who spend very large amounts of time on Wikipedia. An ordinary person with little experience of Wikipedia coming in on a search engine simply cannot determine if a plot section contains plot spoilers or not. And no, the small print of the content disclaimer is not good enough. The deplorable 'they deserve it' attitude simply has to stop.-- Nydas (Talk) 13:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Reading the plot section of an article will not always spoil enjoyment of the work. That is actually only true in rather limited circumstances, so there is no need for a warning in every plot section. Kusma (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Narrative suspense is a key ingredient of the vast majority of modern fiction. That a handful of the anti-spoiler people find the concept aesthetically objectionable is irrelevant.-- Nydas (Talk) 17:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, I consistently see the word "should" used by the spoiler-tag removal cabal. That's a big clue. The aforementioned example of a new (to Wikipedia) user finding a movie page on Google, reading the plot, then suddenly finding out "Darth is Luke's father!," "Holland is dead!," "the girlfriend is really a guy!," may be caught unawares of the detail, before enjoying the film. A classic example is the dreaded review New Yorker by Pauline Kael of Planet of the Apes, in which she divulged the surprise ending (Taylor finds the Statue of Liberty, indicating that he's not on a distant planet, but back on Earth, and the "ancient, destructive civilization" was his own). Many scorn Kael for having leaked this surprise, thereby (ahem) spoiling the surprise for anyone who hadn't seen, but wanted to see, the film. The same standard, IMHO, applies here. Describe the work in a real-world perspective, but if we divulge surprises in the interests of complete coverage, do the reader a courtesy of alerting that "reading further will spoil surprises." Stop applying made up rules about what WP "should be," or "ought to be." Those are personal agendae, and have no place in a "anyone can edit" community. Off the soapbox,.... David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍  ) 14:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand your objection to the word "should"? Every time someone makes an edit to Wikipedia, they are making a statement about what it should be. Pro-spoiler tag people think it should warn about spoilers; others think it shouldn't. All rules on Wikipedia are "made up" by editors. This doesn't make it a personal agenda. --D. Monack | talk 21:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What I meant (and probably didn't make clear) is that "should" applies to what WP should be, that is, be like a paper encyclopedia (which it is not), or should not be like other Internet resources which preface disclosure of plot twists with a spoiler warning. What bothers me was the rapidity with which some parties asserted a change to the guidelines, then rampantly edited film articles based on this perspective, while the discussion was ongoing. Clearly disruptive editing to prove a point, in my view. David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍  ) 13:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, as Kusma says: "Reading the plot section of an article will not always spoil enjoyment of the work. That is actually only true in rather limited circumstances, so there is no need for a warning in every plot section." I'd like to reemphasize that. I don't know what Kusma's intention was of saying that, but it seems like a good argument to me that, indeed, it makes sense to include a spoiler warning when necessary, or else you will drive people away from reading any and all plot sections, even in those with no danger of spoilers.


 * I'm going to say something that I hope won't be taken wrongly. I respect frequent Wikipedia editors and admins a lot. I think they are doing a lot of good. But I think that, in this case, they're doing harm to Wikipedia because they care a lot about it. They're the ones who take it seriously, so they are the ones who, 1) would want it to seem as professional as possible, and 2) who would vote in the polls (because apparently there have been votes on this). They forget that the average user of Wikipedia (virtually all of them) check it only once every few days or once a week, and see it as no more than a huge database with whatever information they may want in an easily-searchable form. Now, that may not be how editors see it--they may prefer to see it as a true encyclopedia--but that is not how virtually everyone else sees it. And for a project such as this, paying attention to the average user is extremely important. The whole purpose is to get information out there to whoever wants it. The best way to achieve this is to make Wikipedia popular, even if it is at the "cost" of breaking tradition. Anyway, since when is tradition supposed to bind Wikipedia? We broke the one unbreakable rule of encyclopedias, or indeed any reference work--or indeed, anything ever in existence. Just try to imagine how loud the laugh would have been if you had gone to the board of directors of Britannica 5 years ago and suggested that every one of their volumes come with a phone number on it, and that Britannica should take all suggested additions and add them to their articles, without even reading them first? The entire concept of Wikipedia is, frankly, ridiculous, but it works amazingly well (I've only ever reverted 5 vandalisms or so in all my time of using Wikipedia). So, apparently, there will be some people who will be doubtful of Wikipedia because, for all reasons, it uses a neologism such as "spoiler"? I'll grant you that maybe one hundred people in the world might be turned off by that word enough that it will tip them from semi-trusting Wikipedia to distrusting it. But I can only imagine how many people will be unhappy because some significant plot twist is revealed to them. And I can virtually guarantee you that if you put a poll on the main page of Wikipedia, so that everyone, not only the very active editors, would vote, the results would be overwhelmingly in favor of spoiler warnings. And, though I know Wikipedia is not precisely a democracy, I think we should listen to the average user, not the elites.


 * I have yet to hear another objection to what I have stated. I have asked some questions for which I am still waiting for an answer. And, indeed, in skimming this page, I haven't seen anyone but Farix counter people's objections. I'm too busy to take this issue up elsewhere, but in a week and a half, I'll have plenty of time to go seek out the right place to argue this and hopefully get some answers. Or better yet, get something changed. The best way to get this issue resolved would be to find out what book each of the admins is currently reading and tell them the ending, which would surely get them to understand that spoilers are a bad thing, but as this isn't quite a realist plan, I'm going to just have to hope that they listen to logic. Twilight Realm 00:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Spoiler is scarcely a neologism anyway. The paragraph mentioning it is bad even by the standards of this guideline, and should be removed.-- Nydas (Talk) 08:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your belief in reason and the force of your arguments are both invigorating, but I don't know if there's anything to come back to in a week and a half. --Kizor 19:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed the tortured 'spoiler is a neologism' paragraph. Its dubious claims and implausible logic served no purpose whatsoever.-- Nydas (Talk) 20:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It was added again without the word 'neologism', which doesn't really help, so I've deleted it again. It still included the dubious claim that it's unusual for "scholarly reference works of the sort that Wikipedia aspires to be" to include spoilers.  What Wikipedia aspires to be is not given anywhere in enough detail to know whether Wikipedia aspires to be something with or without spoilers.  (And spoiler opponents taking out spoiler warnings and spoiler policies and then making claims about Wikipedia aspirations based on the absence of the material they took out is, well, circular.) Ken Arromdee 14:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's been added back again. Aside from the points that I have already made, which I do not think need repeating, I'd also like to comment that citing one "scholarly" source to prove what they all do is absolutely ridiculous. Twilight Realm 18:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)