Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/old template talk

This page was formerly Template talk:Spoiler. The template having been deleted, the talk page was moved here, to keep a record of debates about the template. An archive of even older discussion (2003–2004) is now at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/old template talk/Archive 1.

Change to "only use sparingly, only for brand new stuff"
This change today added the text "This template should only be used on very recent or unreleased works of fiction. Be sparing in its use" and the same editor immediately went to work removing it from older works.

I'd like to ask why? Was a consensus reached somewhere about this? I don't understand why someone who hasn't read or seen something would only want a spoiler warning if it was brand new. What purpose does it serve? Notinasnaid 18:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have reverted it. i don't agree, and i can see no discussion of such a change. Such rules have been proposed before, and generally did not obtain consensus. DES (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is an excellent idea to use spoiler only on recent stuff. It insults the reader's intelligence to put a warning that the plot will be revealed in a section called "Plot". In articles on Shakespeare's works, warnings that the ending might be revealed are really silly, too. People have put spoiler tags on books from the Bible. If spoiler is to be used at all, it should be limited to things that are current. Kusma (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. While Shakespear and the bible may be excessive, many works that are not "recent" are none the less not nearly as well known as thsoe, and are new to many readers. if there is a point to the spoiler tag at all (and I think that there is) there is just as much point on most older works as on new ones. This point has been debated before, and there has not in the past been anythign like consensus for such a limitation on the spoiler tags. DES (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See lots of previosu discusson at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning DES (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should make spoiler warnings opt-in instead of opt-out, then people could use as many as they want. Or create a warning "Warning! Information that you do not know yet might follow!" at the top of every article. Kusma (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is now saying "Use this template sparingly. It should not be used in sections that are clearly marked with a heading (such as "Plot" or "Ending") that already indicates that information about the plot or the ending might follow." I don't think there is consensus for thsi, either. This text is transcluded in from Template:Spoiler/doc. DES (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the recent change
See this, that editor has screwed up, what: 1/2 of articles on Wikipedia? That wasn't discussed at all. Should be reverted ASAP. Matthew 21:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And here I was about to complain. Yeah, that's a horrible idea. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Frankly I'm so shocked by the edit I'd like the admin to go through recall (which I doubt they'd agree to do :\). Matthew 21:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't go so far. This just seems like an idea poorly thought out. The idea is nice, but the execution fails miserably. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Pages displayed wrong for a few seconds between saving and  . 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  saved a few seconds before  and therefore in the meantime pages rendered wrong. Gee.. -- drini [meta:][commons:] 21:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not just that. The bar cuts though infoboxes, images, and other such things. On top of that, in undefined cases, you're hiding entire articles. Really, this is a very bad idea. It really needs to go. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

editprotected


 * Another agreement here. This template appearing on pages like James "Sawyer" Ford looks horrible - the bar goes right over the top of the image, and also messes up the formatting of things like headers within the box. Please can an admin revert this asap? Mike Peel 21:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've refreshed the screen and the text is still justified "center".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I just came to this through Laura (1944 film) where the spoiler top is covering the infobox... I see there has been at least some friction with reverting this so I won't try... but, I just want to point out that I really dislike this a lot. WOW, look at Babylon 5 and other pages without end spoilers.  This has to go, NOW. gren グレン 21:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I just noticed this problem at The Dark Knight (film), where the bar cuts across the Infobox Film template. I understand the intent of the design, but if it causes formatting problems like this, I strongly suggest we return to the original format. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you guys NEVER use endspoileras you are supposed to do :P that's why. Go and fix THAT. -- drini [meta:][commons:] 21:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't shouldn't screw up hundreds of pages because you think it is someone else's error. If we agree on these changes then we can run a bot to make sure all pages have endspoiler templates but we should not screw up articles and then fix them, we should fix them so that it's a smooth transition.  That is if we agree on this new style... personally, I think it's hideous. gren グレン 21:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Dude, my example uses the endspoiler tag, but it still screws with the formatting. And some articles are spoiler-ish all the way through regardless. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Formatting issues, Sylar is centred instead of justified - and why wasn't there some wider discussion about this? At least a mention in the Signpost would have been nice. --Ckatz chat spy  21:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So you create a box around the text automatically that pushes all of the info into a center justification, and covers headers and the infobox?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Bah, brain damage, do as you wish. See User:Drini/sandbox to know what it should look like if you use PROPERLY the template -- drini [meta:][commons:] 21:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You need to consider other items on the page, like images and box templates. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your sandbox still shows it centered, instead of left justification.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have reverted, but I am up to 2 reverts on this page, so i would prefer not to have to revert again. DES (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Awful idea. There is no need to hide plot sections; they have prominent spoiler warnings. Mgiganteus1 21:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This messing about with messed up Meerkat Manor and I wondered what was happening. Anthony Appleyard 21:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea
The template right now looks exactly as the average encyclopaedia user would expect: i.e. it's completely blank. Which is perfect. We don't need to be warned to look away before an encyclopaedia (read: comprehensive source of information) tells us that the gorilla dies. So, since a small number of people seem to want the warning, how about this: rework the template so it is hidden by default for all users unless they turn on a css variable in their personal css. In other words, reverse the status quo, making content visible unless poeple specifically choose not to see it. Guy (Help!) 20:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Disabling the template by default is a great idea, and those who wish to see it must enable it. Matthew 21:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue with that is anonymous readers, who would lose the warning and wouldn't have the choice to enable it. Mike Peel 21:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * They do, they just need to tell their browser to display spoiler tags. Apparently that can be done without logging in. Kusma (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * They'd have the choice to register. It's free and easy to do.  However I think this is a bad idea because it still lumbers us with these stupid templates.  We should just phase them out and delete them. --Tony Sidaway 21:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think things are fine as they are. If the template is going to be phased out, or its functionality changed (e.g. hidden by default, or put in a big box), then it needs to be brought up at the Village pump, and probably mentioned at WikiProjects like WP:TV, to give people time to comment on it before it's implemented. Mike Peel 21:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

How will new readers who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia even know that they have an option of enabling spoiler warnings? Richard75 22:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

blanking
I am blanking this temoplate. The MfD/RfC on the policy page, shows there is no consensus for its use. Rather then delete it, I shall blank it until consensus for its use is arrived at.--Docg 21:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please revert. Where is this discussion? Mike Peel 21:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? Doc's measure is a temporary one which will prevent edit warring in articles while the RfC is in progress. Picaroon (Talk) 21:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning - it's a nice idea on the surface but has proven severely problematic in practice, as documented at length there. If it stays at all, its use is likely to be severely proscribed - David Gerard 21:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Why isn't this linked to from the template? (cf. Template:tfd) Also, this template is protected, so there shouldn't be any edit warring? Mike Peel 21:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The template is not protected for that reason - but for preventing vandalism. There was no reason why I could not edit it. what I really resent is people reverting me who have not even the grace to enter into a discussion here. That's disruptive.--Docg 21:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I would have loved to revert you, but I'm not an admin. I've just finished scanning through the RfC, and it looks like there's some good discussion going on there (which I'm not going to join as I don't have the time). What's the harm in leaving this template as it is until that discussion has ended and a conclusion has been reached? Mike Peel 21:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Because it is currently screwing up the encyclopedia and making us look ridiculous. It has been added to Biblical Books, Classic English literature, Mark Poppins, and Shakessphere. When it has been removed from those individual articles, people have put it back claiming that it is 'standard policy'. That's quite unacceptable. --Docg 21:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've unblanked it, as it's still widely used, and I hope that I've effectively pointed people to the discussion appropriately. Thanks! Demi T/C 21:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine. But it would have been courteous to have entered the ongoing discussion here before reverting.--Docg 22:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So, which is the policy that says "if something is, in the view of any editor, making Wikipedia look ridiculous it can be globally removed without consensus, and despite ongoing discussion"? I don't know all the policies, so I may have missed this one. However, I observe the magic phrase was used in [], but this didn't seem to result in immediate removal of content. Can any editor define "quite unacceptable" in this way, or is this a limited privilege? Notinasnaid 22:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "If the rules stop you improving the encyclopedia - ignore them"--Docg 22:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, Ignore All Rules (Sadly, the protection of the template means that in this case, this is a privilege only open to adminstrators). So what you are saying is that, whatever the outcome of any ongoing debate, for the good of the encyclopedia you intend to ignore the result, and remove the tag in any way you can? Notinasnaid 22:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. If there is a policy on these things that commands consensus support - I will abide by consensus.--Docg 22:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Doc, that's just rude and disrespectful to the people who are discussing this issue. IAR was something thought up to help newbies who were nervous about rules, then expanded as a way to explain our occasional odd situations. But you're just kind of using it to just get your way.. I'll be honest, I won't really care that much if spoiler warnings are removed, but it pisses me off when I see people try to strong-arm the situation like this. -- Ned Scott 00:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * At least, that is, when they use a lame excuse like IAR. -- Ned Scott 00:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought I should note here as well, I jumped to a false conclusion about Doc's motives, which I now realize. -- Ned Scott 15:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Formality
The present look is in-formal, "spoiler warning". I propose we change to the below design, without the "spoiler warning" text... instead, just stating the need to know information. Matthew 15:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not just use a standard wikipedia headline ===Plot=== or ===Ending=== which would convey the same warning and fir the style of the rest of the article - problem solved.--Docg 15:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I do agree, very much. But still, if this template is to stay (for now, anyway), it should be fixed. Matthew 15:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's probably inevitable, but the cute "i" icon looks like an invitation to click for more info. The response to an "i" icon is so ingrained I did that even knowing how Wikipedia works. So the picture may be counterproductive. Any please consider: what to do with "end spoiler". Notinasnaid 15:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

editprotected Please place the contents of Template:Spoilers within this template. This new version is more formal, uses standard wikitable markup and also avoids usage of the word "spoiler" (which itself is informal and unneeded to state "plot/[..] follow". (this is a BOLD action to give it a test run) Matthew 15:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ugh, that makes it stand out even MORE than it did. Do not like at all. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Somebody else put it central... not me, heh. Matthew 16:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't like it one bit. It's unattractive and stands out more than before. I think it should be changed back and discussed more if it really bothers people. Voretus 16:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that we use Image:Information icon.svg as the icon instead of the Image:Template-info.svg one. The template-info one is more associated with info relating to templates (like documentation) as opposed to info from templates. Also, non-editing readers probably will not know what the  are.  Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 16:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The new template stands out too much. Having said that, the icon really needs to be changed as it will confuse people. Introducing Wikipedia markup syntax to the general readership is not the purpose of this template. --Darkbane  talk 16:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it sloppiness, or is it that formality is not needed for Spoilers end here. ? Notinasnaid 16:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're keeping an image (which I recommend against), please replace it with Image:Information icon.svg. The current image is ugly, especially at such a small size, and intended for template documentation – the make no sense outside of the context of mediawiki templates – Gurch 16:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No images is definitely better if it has to be changed at all from the normal. It serves no purpose other than to make the stuff stand out more. Voretus 16:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a change at all. 'Spoiler' is a perfectly legitimate word and I don't see it as too informal. Having it there in the template is a useful descriptor and title. The image really is unnecessary, and the template looks very obtrusive. I understand the principles of being BOLD, but for me this wasn't broke, so there is no need to 'fix' it. Tphi 17:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, there is no reason for the constant, radical revisions to this template lately. It was entirely fine the way it was. Each implemented change disrupts a lot of articles. And, pardon my French, but the current revision looks like ass. Pele Merengue 17:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've disabled the editprotected request while discussion continues. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please revert
editprotected I like to request that this template be reverted back to its previous state. The new design is fugly, stands out too much, doesn't complement the way in which the template is used in articles, and it disrupts the flow of the article more so then the original template. --Farix (Talk) 17:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just want to say that I personally agree. Hell, even something like this would be better (In fact it doesn't look too bad). It's very ugly indeed and definately interrrupts the article. To be honest I think the template should really be here anyway as people shouldn't come looking for details on something if they don't want anything revealed, but I guess this isn't the place to discuss that...- .:Alex:. 17:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Get rid off that piece of junk that I just stumbled over elsewhere. It's ridiculous. --Servant Saber 17:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I too would like a revert. Hiding the spoiler warnings using CSS is no longer possible. —Zacha</b><b style="color:#1c55b5">r</b><b style="color:#2965db">y</b> talk 17:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. The new design is too small &mdash; it looks like it's just been slapped in the middle of a page somewhere and it doesn't improve upon anything that I can see. For compatibility, aesthetic, and visibility reasons, please revert. --Cadby (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If this is a vote for a revert, then yes, if I am forced to choose between the current version and the old version, I vastly prefer the old version. Mainly because of the image, which should be removed or changed as I said above – Gurch 18:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * At the very least, the image needs to be removed or replaced. JavaTenor 18:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't fit in well with wiki's scheme... I say it, and the about version, go back to their prior states.Lego3400: The Sage of Time 18:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted based on apparent overwhelming support for the old format. This is not an endorsement of the old format or a call to prevent future reformatting, but please try to make the template stylistically pleasant next time. —Cuiviénen 18:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I do personally believe that this template works best on the left (rather than central). Perhaps I speak for my self, but surely sweet and succinct is better? Perhaps the image should be changed, or removed. Matthew 18:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the old design is fine as it is. Why does it need to be changed? --Farix (Talk) 18:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Matthew 19:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the more simplistic and unintrusive the design, the more formal it is. Fanciness with images, boxes, different sizes of font, just makes it look less so. --Cadby (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't like it. It barely stands out, at least add red to it or something. --Kaizer13 00:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

When the design changed for the first time today, I thought something good will come of it. Now I feel like you guys are arbitrarily changing the design on a whim. ^_^; Isn't the argument about the existence of these templates in the first place more important than changing the template back and forth? --<font face="Copperplate Gothic Bold" size="2" color="000000">Darkbane  <font face="Copperplate Gothic Bold" color="000000">talk 00:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What, and be logical about it?! Are you crazy? Hehe, you're probably right &mdash; but it's also sort of important to ensure it doesn't look too ridiculous so people don't get the wrong idea about its intrusiveness and how much it detracts from the article (a big discussion, as far as I have read). But I agree, I think it should just stay as it is for awhile until its fate is decided; changing it in the first place wasn't really that urgent of a matter. --Cadby (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. These changes are pointless and do nothing but make the articles using this template look more obtrusive, less "formal", and all-around worse. Please go back to the old format, I see no sign that anybody really wants this change. Where's the consensus for it? - Redxiv 02:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

editprotected Restore to this. The recent changes have broken the ability to turn the warnings off via CSS. -- Ned Scott 02:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC) .spoiler{ display: none; } Should work I believe (remember to purge : - )). Re-add the editprotected if it doesn't work. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Silly me. -- Ned Scott 01:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * editprotected I can't be sure what the above editors are referring to, but the current version (here) is a lot uglier and more intrusive on an article than it used to be. This is how I remember it. It's the same font as most articles, and thus fits in much better than this font, which I have seen nowhere else. Please change the font and format of the text back to this. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. There seems to be broad consensus on this talk page (above) for changing the template back to its previous format. I've done so. To see the increased font size, you will need to purge your cache. And the ability to disable the warning in your CSS has been preserved. Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

New guideline draft
A new draft is in the works to help act as a compromise for the recent RFC, see Spoiler warning/draft. Feel free to modify, discuss, etc. -- Ned Scott 01:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

RFC note on template?
I and David Gerard are apparently in agreement, an event shocking by its rarity over these last few days, that there should be more informing going on. There's been no invitation to discussion of this public matter, so an issue far more important than (say) a webcomic AfD is getting less exposure than one of those would. Snowfire suggested a TfD-style message on the template along the lines of "The status of spoiler warnings is currently being discussed; see this debate," and there have been no dissenting opinions. Can I ask someone who can to add one? --Kizor 17:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. Please place editprotected next to such requests either, to increase the chance of an admin comming across them. --ais523 11:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you dearly, my good ... man? I've already made note of that template for further use. (Sorry if I sound like a 18th century statesman. I've been watching a movie about those. You should've seen me when I read the Silmarillion.) --Kizor 20:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Merging spoiler-about
editprotected

Looks like we're going for a single spoiler tag with the discussion on WP:SPOILER, and with that in mind I propose we simply merge the function of spoiler-about to spoiler. There is also spoiler-blank, but -about is far more used, and is less of a change than -other. I also propose we put back in "metadata" in the div class, which hides the spoiler warning when the article is printed. The updated code would look like this:

Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.

-- Ned Scott 08:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I object to this change. It's unneeded, simply saying spoilers follow is enough. Matthew 09:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not done. If there is consensus for this change, please link to it and put editprotected back up. --ais523 11:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Erm, this is not controversial in any way. Matthew has clearly misunderstood the situation, as this addition ADDS the the descriptive abilities of spoiler-about to spoiler. From a template standpoint, nothing at all will change for the end reader, and this is a technical merge made possible by phaserfunctions, which likely were not considered when the second template was made. -- Ned Scott 21:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Which, for example, is no different from the time we merged test1 with test1-n. -- Ned Scott 21:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * and this should have been done regardless of the recent spoiler warning debate, as I said, for technical reasons. -- Ned Scott 21:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all, I understand fine. I still object. There's no need to use multiple variants of what spoilers follow, it's OTT. The other templates that do it should be deleted. Matthew 21:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I misread your comments then, as I thought you objected to the loss of functionality to spoiler-about. -- Ned Scott 21:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case, allow me to make an argument for this change. Spoiler-about simply allows the editor to add what is being spoiled, used for when the work of fiction might not be clear. For example, "Plot and/or ending details about Star Wars follow." -- Ned Scott 21:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, reading that I forgot the argument part, which is that such a minor addition seems reasonable, and when the topic of spoiler is unclear (say, an article related to the fiction, but not specifically about the fiction) it just makes things confusing. This is very different than some of the other spoiler templates which replace the entire message or expand it to a great length. -- Ned Scott 05:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's a good idea to have one template rather than two.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest just deleting spoiler-about or redirect it to this template. Is there really a reason to state what the spoiler is about? spoiler-season would be a better candidate for merger with spoiler. --Farix (Talk) 23:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"request for comment" text should be moved out of the template
editprotected

Do we really want to put the text "The status of spoiler warnings is being discussed at this Request for Comment" right on the template? This is gonna show up at every place the template is used, which is a lot. I can see a need to solicit comments but this is rather in-your-face. Can't the message be simply put on Template:Spoiler and Spoiler warning? 131.107.0.73 20:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think so. The discussion over there is so ridiculously long I wouldn't think either side needs any more advocates. -- Phoenix2  (talk, review) 23:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that it should be removed, per WP:ASR--<font color="blue" face="comic sans ms">Ed  <font color="maroon" face="comic sans ms">¿Cómo estás? 00:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it should stay - this is a very important matter and there's no other place to inform readers about this. I should very well hope that the discussion's ridiculously long, it's not a thing to be done lightly. --Kizor 14:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Metadata class
Spoiler tags are considered metadata, correct? I'm about to change the rest of the spoiler tags, but I thought I'd ask here first. --- RockMFR 00:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What's metadata???--<font color="blue" face="comic sans ms">Ed  <font color="maroon" face="comic sans ms">¿Cómo estás? 01:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Meta usually refers to things referencing themselves. In this case, a spoiler warning is text talking about the article itself, as opposed to the article's topic. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Spoiler warnings are not metadata, IMHO. They refer to the article, not the encyclopedia project.--<font color="blue" face="comic sans ms">Ed  <font color="maroon" face="comic sans ms">¿Cómo estás? 01:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * They refer to the article, not to its topic, so they are obviously metadata. "Plot details follow" is not information about Darth Vader. Kusma (talk) 09:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm specifically referring to the metadata CSS class that we use on a variety of templates. This class is commonly used to prevent certain things from appearing when printing pages. --- RockMFR 03:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. It might not be a bad idea to leave spoiler tags in print versions of Wikipedia, but that probably merits a larger discussion on the matter. It is not, after all, as impertinent to the subject as a fact or cleanup tag. —Cuiviénen 03:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, by definition.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Linking Spoiler
It's got "guideline" at the top now and the RFC appears, with the link in the Spoiler tag, to have turned into a chat page with no plausible hope of a resolution being reached through it (though I haven't delinked the RFC) - David Gerard 01:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Anchor to End Spoiler
Hello,

Someone should create an Anchor Link inside the Spoiler. Clicking <A href="#EndSpoiler1">Go to End Spoiler</A> should refer the reader to the end of the spoiler section, which is marked by <A name="EndSpoiler1">End Spoiler</A>.

Thank you, LAUBO 20:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've thought of this too, but there are some problems. The main one is that most articles don't use the end spoiler. For this to work, it would have to be added as an option in this template, like  so articles that already have the tags would need to be changed and editors would need to learn the new way to tag articles. The other (minor) problem is articles with mutiple spoiler sections, this would only link to the end of the first one.  Mr.Z-man  talk <i style="color:navy; font-family:cursive;">¢</i> 21:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Change text
editprotected To something like:


 * Warning: Significant plot details or twist ending follows.

The reason is because the template should only be used to precede significant plot details or twist endings and not general plot details. This should help discourage the overuse of the template, as has been mentioned repeatedly in the recent RfC and during the construction of the new Spoilers guideline. It also removes the use of "spoiler" which many editors consider a non-academic term. --Farix (Talk) 14:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, it certainly should (in theory at least) help keeping it from being overused. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 15:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And without any objections, I will make this this an edit protect request. --Farix (Talk) 13:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The grammar seems wrong to me. What about "Significant plot details or twist endings follow."? --MZMcBride 20:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll except that. --Farix (Talk) 23:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A twist ending is a plot detail, I propose the simpler Significant plot details follow. Tphi 02:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If/when this change is made, please also change Template:Endspoiler in a similar manner. --ais523 16:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If I could further the request, please remove the "Warning:" bit... because the style of it makes it clear that it's a warning... so the text is redundant. Matthew 16:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. The change was made before this final request, however, I believe that the warning text should remain. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Dang it, one week's discussion is all that's needed before changing the wording? Youse peoples are being impulsive. ... So do I correctly understand that the Spoiler tag is now used to bracket just the surprise or twist plot elements? David Spalding 13:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read Spoiler. Why isn't a week long enough? Spoiler tags are deprecated. --Tony Sidaway 14:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have read it, several times. 1) A week is not long enough because a proposed change, followed by "Okay nothing heard from interested parties, indicating no opposition, making the change," is unwarranted. Why not 1 day? 1 hour?? The answer is, leave a proposal up for more than one week, providing other editors time to respond. If you require that other editors log in daily just to prevent renegade policy and guideline changes, then you don't understand this community. 2) "Deprecated?" Says who? My reading of the ongoing arguments (last 4 weeks or so) is that there has been NO consensus, just rampant edit warring and reversion by opposing opinion-camps. Anti-spoiler editors making changes all over does not indicate a consensus towards deprecation. I'm still withholding judgement on this pending observable actions. David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍  ) 15:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

remove redirect
editprotected I think that the link to Spoiler warning should be changed just to Spoiler. The amount of times that the template is used justifies the change to remove the redirect. -anabus_maximus (Talk to me) 18:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

WALL-E
The spoiler template is not working properly on this article. It is covering up an image and an infobox on the page. Can this be fixed? ANNAfoxlover 23:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I fixed it for now by removing the spoiler tag for now. If you want to put the warning back, a more technically-oriented fix may be required. --Tony Sidaway 14:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur, the spoiler warning really isn't called for, as the "synopsis" is really just a story description from a Disney meeting record. Ongoing discussions (cough, fights, cough) and revision of WP:SPOIL indicate that spoiler warnings are really only needed where plot surprises and twists are described. A Plot section heading generally is sufficient warning that story details follow. -- David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍  ) 15:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning
OK, it's good that "spoiler warning" has been replaced by plain "warning"... that's a step in the right direction. But why do we need a "warning" at all? Won't the phrase "significant plot details follow" do its job admirably by itself? "Warning" is rather intrusive, but "significant plot details follow" is merely informative. 131.111.8.99 17:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How about "Note:" —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a good idea. 131.111.223.43 00:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think "Note" or "Notice" would be better than "Warning". Just please don't ever put an image in this template again, folks.— The Storm Surfer 01:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. The word "note" instead of "warning" and no image is much better.

New look
Why does it even need a new look? The original was fine.--Indakeepyo 20:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks a lot better stylistically and no longer has unnecessary legalistic verbiage or formatting. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * New wording avoids the use of non-encyclopedic terms, such as "spoiler", and makes it clear that the template should only precede an identifiable spoiler instead of general plot details. --Farix (Talk) 15:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

kk ty I just wanted to know the reason. i'd like to see Significant plot details follow in bold but if not ok.--Indakeepyo 21:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The current template is completely useless and says nothing. "Significant plot details follow" is completely redundant. 68.146.8.46 04:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it any different from its usefulness before? —Centrx→talk &bull; 05:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that the new format isn't great. The old way that said Spoiler warning: Plot and/or story details follow. was simple, straightforward, and easy to read. This doesn't do any of that.  It wasn't broken before, so why did it have to be "fixed"?  I suggest an RfC from the community since various users have brought up these concerns.  --<font style="color: #000099">M <font style="color: #FF0000">PD T / C 04:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've created a spoiler template that warns people better
It can be found at template:spoiler2.

Here it is:


 * Please, please, please, no new templates. It confuses readers if different templates are used in different places, as editors have to choose (if they even know there are multiple versions). If you think I'm being harsh, review the gaggle of spoiler templates which were recently nominated for deletion. Just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean need to do that thing. (sigh) David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍  ) 16:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

don't move. Kusma (talk) 09:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler → Template:Plot information — "Spoiler" is a non-encyclopaedic term (hence a reason why it's no longer used in the template itself). It's also of note that naive users are still affixing this template to articles, therefore I believe no redirect should be kept if this template move reaches consensus (a blank page -- with some information surrounded by noinclude tags). Matthew 10:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support — per my reasoning. Matthew 10:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable, and now is a good time to do it. A good way to tackle the problem of encroaching internet culture on this encyclopedia is to deprecate the language.  Phil makes a good point, however.  I'm going to oppose for now. --Tony Sidaway 13:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the change in name would be an unsatisfying compromise that would retain most of the bad parts of spoiler warnings but try to pretend that they are not still spoiler warnings. Phil Sandifer 15:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Non-encyclopedic is just a fancy way of saying 'I don't like it'. Users adding the template are not 'naive' and wrecking their efforts by obsfucating the template is unfair.-- Nydas (Talk) 09:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose; I see no reason to change the name of this template, particularly because the template name does not appear in the product itself. — The Storm Surfer 10:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There seems to be no good reason I can see for this that is not outweighed by the problems. The spoiler policy isn't settled, and this would only make it harder for people to place warnings where appropriate, plus serve to drive arguments that they're redundant.  To me, debatably unencyclopedic but clearly understandable and useable is much better than encyclopediac but obscure, prone to confusion, and being hard to us.  Wandering Ghost 13:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support- renaming it doesn't change any of the spoiler crap behind it, we can still argue about it afterwards. However the term 'plot information' is a little clearer. David Fuchs 13:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Also because whether or not knowing something about a plot will "spoil" that work is a matter of opinion. Stating that a classic work of art will be spoiled, i.e. ruined, if you know the plot beforehand is an insult to that work in my opinion. Classics are often classics because they can be enjoyed again and again. They can't suddenly become ruined, and we shouldn't claim that they can, with tag-names or otherwise. Shanes 20:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose This looks like a naked attempt to suppress spoiler tag use by hiding the tag. The call for deleting the spoiler redirect makes that obvious. Making Wikipedia tools hard to use to bias consensus is a violation of consensus policy. It's also inflammatory to do this during an unsettled spoiler guide dispute. Furthermore, calling the term "spoiler" unencyclopedic is an unsupported personal opinion (that's what the unencyclopedic tag page said last time I read it). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Milomedes (talk • contribs) 07:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Changing the name will make it confusing. People know what a spolier warning is, they're used regularly in published reviews. I see no problem with alerting someone who has not read a book or seen a movie that if they continue reading the article they might find out something that will reduce their enjoyment of experiencing the fictional work later.  That's neither encyclopedic, or non-encyclopedic, it's simply respectful to the readers. It doesn't harm Wikipedia or violate any policy. --Parzival418 Hello 11:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Due to the inflammatory discussion(s) about the tag on WP, moving may throw gasoline on the fires. Also, spoilers are often, but not always, plot elements. They may relate to allusions of characters (name, appearance, metaphorical relationship) which would divulge story twists indirectly. For now, let's handle spoiler introduction on a case by case basis, without the added confusion of a moving template. David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍  ) 16:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Ain't bust. Does the job well. Pointless fixes are just asking for needless trouble. Disagree that the proposed wording is any more encyclopedic. Andrewa 10:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Andrewa and Davidbspalding. The proposed replacement is less accurate and functional, and since this deserves to be said again, ain't bust. In addition, I'm not at all clear on the precise meaning and implications of the word "unencyclopedic." Can someone direct me to a good working definition? I've seen articles deleted because of votes saying "Delete - unencyclopedic", which for the life of me I can't parse as anything else than "this doesn't belong in the encyclopedia because this doesn't belong in the encyclopedia." --Kizor 16:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have a link to a definition, but I think you're correct that the word is vague and not useful. In deciding content, we whould stick with the core policies, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR.  Everything else can resolve to those.  As a spoiler alert is not a content issue, per se, but more a style issue, I suppose you could refer to WP:MOS.  (My personal opinion I already registered above; I think it's just polite to readers to warn them before wrecking the movie or book for them...)  --Parzival418 Hello 19:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * follow-up: I found the definition of "encyclopedic" and will add it in a new section below. --Parzival418 Hello 21:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * On actual naming, I think "plot detail" (with a redirect from "plot details") would be a better name. Although "plot information" is acceptable, I'm concerned that without emphasis on detailed information the tag could again become a kind of wiki condiment, to be sprinkled indiscriminately on all remotely plot-shaped sections of articles.  --Tony Sidaway 11:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Plot detail" is good with me. Matthew 11:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this really the best time to be messing around with the template itself? Kuronue 21:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So? Really, nothing else is coming out of the Spoiler MedCab, etc. Changing the name, in any case, does not change the point. David Fuchs 20:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I just thought I'd add here that just now, working on something totally unrelated, I came across the following instruction on a project page, in a list of instructions for how to stadardize pages within that project:


 * Use the Spoiler and Endspoiler tags on a case by case basis.


 * I mention this to point that out how this template is part of Wikipedia culture. While redirecting can stop any technical problems resulting from changing the name, it seems like people expect to see this name for the template.  Everyone knows what a "spoiler" is in a review or synopsis, and editors want to respect readers by announcing the spoiler in advance.  I don't understand what it would accomplish to change the name, or why it would be a good thing...  --Parzival418 Hello 20:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

meaning of "encyclopedic"
(I added this in a separate subsection for clarity, but do not intend to interrupt the discussion.  Please continue discussion comments above this new sub-section, unless you want to reply to this particular part of the topic.  Either way, as you prefer...)

Here is the definition of "encyclopedic" from wiktionary:

encyclopedic
 * 1) having to do with an encyclopedia
 * 2) as with an encyclopedia, having a comprehensive scope, especially of information or knowledge (either in general or on a specific topic)

encyclopedia
 * 1) A comprehensive reference work with articles on a range of topics. Some encyclopedias are intended to convey general knowledge, while others focus on one discipline, subject, nationality or ethnicity. Since the 18th century, always arranged in some systematic order, usually alphabetical. Encyclopedias may span several volumes (if printed), and contain illustrations, maps and statistics. --Parzival418 Hello 21:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments about the definition as relates to the question of the Spolier alerts
I can't see anything in these definitions that would imply that spoiler alerts are either encyclopedic or non-encyclopaedic. Wikipedia's value as an encyclopedia will not be affected one way or the other by whether or not we use Spoiler tags.

Therefore, this is a question of Wikipedia culture and usage, not a question a scholarship or utility as an encyclopedia. --Parzival418 Hello 21:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think the argument is what encyclopedic means. Tony Sidaway (I think) and others have asserted that spoiler tags are not "scholarly," and WP is intended to be a scholarly or "serious" reference project. I tend to agree, in general, that in a comprehensive and objective work, identifying or highlighting content with spoilers or specific disclaimers (e.g. "This article is about oral sex and contains explicit descriptions of the act...") is rather pedestrian. "Encroachment of Internet culture" is a snobbish or prejudicial characterization, but points out the valid fact that WP is not a site in which rumor and misinformation is tolerated (as you'll find on BBSs, USENET, blogs, etc.). Formal bibliographic citation practices are in full force. So readers are presumed to realize they're viewing an encyclopedic work, not a review site, fan site, tribute, dissertation, or promotional production, or blog. Hope that helps some. - David Spalding (  ☎ ✉ ✍  ) 14:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Without repeating the arguments, the reason I posted the definition of "encyclopedic" here is that it was used in the statement of the RFC at the top of this section:


 *  "Spoiler" is a non-encyclopaedic term (hence a reason why it's no longer used in the template itself).


 * The debate goes on, but there is nothing in the definition of encyclopedia that specifically implies spoiler alerts don't belong in one. I could imagine a print encyclopedia including them.  It would be unusual, but it would not stop it from being an encyclopedia.  Encyclopedias are written for a wide variety of readers, with various levels of scholarship and/or simplicity, and in various styles.


 * My main point was just that we need to make this decision based on Wikipedia policies, not based on our ideas about what an "encyclopedia" is in any ideal sense. There is no ideal "encyclopedia" for us to use as a style reference. Assuming there is one would be a form of reification. --Parzival418 Hello 23:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

MedCab case
In case anyone here did not realise it, there is currently a MedCab case to attempt to resolve disputes on the spoiler guideline and its application. Matthew, I think you missed that one, but you should probably be involved. Anyway, while there is an ongoing dispute, as Kuronue alluded to above, I don't think that it's appropriate to be making major changes to the template. -Kieran 12:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's now over, so you can argue about changes otherwise. The guideline is essentially stable. David Fuchs 23:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Viewed now, this comment is slightly humourous, in a very bitter way. -Kieran 15:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why humorous? Why "in a very bitter way?" --Tony Sidaway 16:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC current?
Active discussion appears to have shifted to WT:SPOIL. Unless having discussion active in multiple places apparently unconnected to the others is considered a good thing - David Gerard 23:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It does seem to have died. See edits since June 30, and it looks like it has degenerated into a meta-discussion about the tone of the dialog, and a side-discussion about the acceptability of the pictorial representation of rape on Wikipedia. This isn't the kind of discussion we want to promote on our encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 00:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed the link to the RFC and expressly pointed discussion at the guideline talk page - David Gerard 00:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to invert "use sparingly" guideline
I propose that this template should be used liberally, not sparingly. The downside of using the template too liberally is minimal (an extra line of text appears); the downside of using it too sparingly is much worse - readers irreperably learn the endings of works. It is perfectly reasonable to expect to be able to obtain a plot overview of a work without becoming aware of the ending (the back covers of books and movies do this routinely.) If detailled discussion of the spoilers is desired, simply add the template. Just because a section is called "Plot" is not enough to imply that it will contain spoilers. I just learned spoiler plot details of a movie I haven't seen yet because I expected that there would be a spoiler warning with any spoilers, since this was standard practice on Wikipedia until very recently. Kwertii 02:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion belongs at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler, the guideline that explains when spoiler warnings can be used and why they should not be used everywhere (for more explanations: there is a huge amount of discussion of these issues at the RfC and its many archives plus some on the mailing list). Kusma (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Note -> Warning
I propose that the word "note" be changed to "warning" again. "Spoiler warning" is the common term used for this. Also, it is a warning, no matter how you put it. We are "warning" the reader that significant plot details follow; if it were just a general note, we wouldn't use this tag (it's like making a template with: "Note: Significant details about the etymology of this word follow.") If anyone has any objections, tell me, and I'll discuss it.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 17:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Also, it is a warning, no matter how you put it" I used to think that too, but that usage is colloquial. Look up "warning" n. at M-W.com (not "warn" v.). No formal "warning" can exist by definition, where there is no bone fide danger or hazard. Readers' disappointment if they learn spoiler plot details too soon is not dangerous. Since there is no danger, spoiler tags are a content "notice", like the table of contents box and the disambiguation (non-contents) notices. These points have been repeatedly discussed at Talk:Spoiler.
 * Nearly everyone, everywhere has been duped into using "warning" by falsely-hyperbolic, profit-driven, spoiler-aversion publicity. There is big money pushing spoiler avoidance (ref. billionaire author J.K. Rowling / Harry Potter / SF Chronicle spoiler controversy editorial.)
 * Spoiler notice tags are also not an arbitrary general note without requested purpose:
 * 40+% ( 37 to 52, but the poll was halted while the minority was still slightly rising ) of editors/readers polled (#Poll 1) wanted spoiler details placed on historical and classical works of fiction (meaning all fiction since current fiction is already taggable).
 * 68% ( 28 to 13, requested "for readers") of responders polled (#Poll 5, for readers: Do you USE spoiler warnings?) that they do use spoiler tags.
 * Encyclopedias use formally correct language by default, and certainly do when there is any doubt or controversy. Coloquial usage might not have mattered except that anti-spoiler-tag editors at at Talk:Spoiler began making a chain of false arguments rooted in the false 'cry wolf' "warning". For example, the spurious claim that spoiler tags aren't permitted due to being a disclaimer warning (like an FDA black box display of 'This pill can cause death'). Disclaimer analogies to obscenity, porn, or emotional triggering are also false since those victims claim harm, while fiction readers do not claim harm and only want a delay before they do intend to learn the spoiler details. Even further afield, this disclaimer notion is falsely reinforced by the existing false WP general spoiler disclaimer, chain-based on the false "warning", chain-based on hyperbolically-false external publicity.
 * As an encyclopedia with academically-devalued correctness issues exposed in global news circa March 22, 2007, and being too close to the wrong side of the expanding spoiler public controversy, Wikipedia editors should at least move in the right direction by knocking down this incorrect "warning" house of cards.


 * For the other missing word, feel free to, and I consense to, restore the word "spoiler" in the tag. I recommend a non-noisy minimalist tag, since (only) fiction readers may see a lot of them if the optionally-hidden-tag compromise is eventually accepted:
 *  Note: Spoiler details follow 
 * which in text code looks like  Note: Spoiler details follow 
 * The word "spoiler" was removed from the tag several months ago due to being questioned as a neologism, but User:Parsifal recently found it in the American Heritage Dictionary. As part of the J.K. Rowling / Harry Potter spoiler controversy, it is used in BBC newscasts, and notable spoiler-tag-controversy editor User:Phil Sandifer has recently stated at Talk:Spoiler that "spoiler" is acceptable for use by Wikinews. Milo 22:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There were previous discussions about problems with the use of that word "warning".


 * How about using "Spoiler Alert", it to "Alert" the reader that a spoiler is coming... ? --Parsifal Hello 18:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Follow-up. I forgot this is a different talk page than the page where the word "warning" was discussed in detail.  For more detail:  Wikipedia talk:Spoiler.  It might be neccessary to search the archives.  That's where the decision was made to make the change to the template content.  --Parsifal Hello 18:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Alert" is completely unacceptable. The word has implications of some serious problems and would be very distracting on the page.  For the same reason I prefer "Note" over "Warning".  It's just a reminder that some plot detail will be discussed.  --Tony Sidaway 18:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. "Note" (or "notice") is formally correct for a technical writing reference to content. "Warning", "Caution", and "Alert" all hierarchically exceed the proportional command of reader attention appropriate for listing or flagging of contents. Milo 22:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I looked it up and "alert" is indeed related to warning - as in "a condition of readiness to respond to danger".  So, I concur and withdraw my suggestion for use of that term.  "Note" or "Notice" is better for this usage.  --Parsifal Hello 22:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The word "Note" is sufficient and less pushy. This could help to increase the acceptance of this tag. --Lasttan 18:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to see the word "Note" replaced with "Spoiler warning".


 * I think the current wording, by not mentioning the word spoiler, fails to make it sufficiently clear that it is warning the user about spoilers. Because spoiler warning on websites, forums etc. commonly include the word "spoiler", and because the phrase "Spoiler warning" was used on Wikipedia until recently to denote a spoiler warning, people might assume that a note not includinng the word "spoiler" is not intended to be a spoiler warning. It hints at being a spoiler tag, rather than proclaiming itself to be one.


 * In addition, the subtlety of the current spoiler tag has not increased acceptance of the tag. IMO it makes spoiler tags seem less acceptable; because the current spoiler tag, being so weakly worded, *is* pretty much redundant. It seems to me that the current tag is being deleted far more often than the original tag was, although this could be a coincidence - I don't know which came first, the changing of the tag wording or the increase in the number of people who believe that spoiler tags are redundant. --Akiyama 23:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. If we're going to have spoiler warnings at all, we should at least use the word that everyone understands, which is "spoiler". Marc Shepherd 00:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

"Note" replaced with "Spoiler warning" But it's NOT a warning. If you favor increased use of spoiler tags, why would you want to assist the deletionists' agenda? By formal dictionary use, if there is no danger, it's not a warning. Does it matter? Yes, because formality wins encyclopedic debates. Do you want to win or just repeat past mistakes? Those opposed to spoiler tags will use any excuse to suppress them. Some of the anti-tag editors will distract the local consensus editors during spoiler tag debates, using a false "no disclaimers" issue if the tag is labeled a "warning". See the details of the falsely hyperbolic use of "warning" when there is no danger, in my 2007_08_03 post above. The correct phrase is "Spoiler notice", although "Note: Spoiler details follow" is also ok, and way of avoiding the "Spoiler notice" phrase. However, by beginning with "Spoiler notice: significant plot details follow", you can make the notice less subtle. Adding "Spoiler" back is good, because "spoiler" is listed with a narrative suspense-related meaning in the American Heritage Dictionary, and even the tagging opponents have consensed that it is ok to use the "spoiler" word. "the current tag is being deleted far more often than the original tag was" That's due to active sppression by the spoiler police squad that operates out of Talk:Spoiler. They report deleting at least five IP-added text tags per day, plus they scan the system for new template tags and show up to pressure any account editors who dare add this template tag. Milo 01:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, my point was that I think the text displayed should use the actual word "spoiler". I wasn't taking a position on "notice" vs. "warning," but now that you mention it, I agree that "notice" is better. Marc Shepherd 08:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I also think that the word "spoiler" should be used in the text of this template ("significant plot details" arn't neccesarily the samee thing as spoilers to my mind so the current template isn't specific enough). And since some people seem strangely agitated by using the word "warning" I think that "Spoiler notice: significant plot details follow" is a good suggestion. Tomgreeny 03:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the difference between a "significant plot element" and a "spoiler"? --Tony Sidaway 03:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Beats me. All I know is that the template is called spoiler.


 * A "spoiler" is a plot element, the for-knowlage of which is likely to "spoil" someones enjoyment of a work of fiction e.g. the identity of the murderer in a murder mystery. A "significant plot element" is a plot element which is significant (obviosly) but the fact that it is significant does not necessarily imply that it will "spoil" someones enjoyment of a work of fiction (for example the death of the character in the first act of a murder mystery is clearly a significant plot element, but is probably not a "spoiler" because the main      purpose is simply to set up the mystery). Tomgreeny 04:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection request
The protection log for this page lists:


 * 23:30, 16 December 2005 Kyorosuke (Talk | contribs) protected Template:Spoiler ‎ (Too visible and easily vandalised- Used on 5,000+ pages)

Now, two years later, there are very few uses of this template on Wikipedia. According to the research done at Wikipedia Talk:Spoiler, it's only on a around 20 or so mainspace pages. The majority of the links listed in "what links here" are on talk and user talk pages. Per the what-links-here for current mainspace uses of this template, it seems like only a few.

Other templates used on many more pages than this one are not protected. Here are a some examples of unprotected templates used in mainspace:


 * Template:Disputed
 * Template:Totally-disputed
 * Template:Blpdispute
 * Template:Advert
 * Template:SectOR
 * Template:POV-intro
 * Template:Content
 * Template:Weasel
 * Template:POV-check
 * Template:Contradict
 * Template:Fansite
 * Template:Story
 * Template:Peacock
 * Template:3O
 * Template:Magazine
 * Template:Synthesis

Since the reason for protection that existed in 2005 no longer applies, I request that this page be unprotected, based on: "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". --Parsifal Hello 02:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[I re-edited my above comment above to clarify the request and add the current mainspace what-links-here link. --Parsifal Hello 03:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)]

Actually, I think it'd be more appropriate to delete this template, as it is also superseded by Content disclaimer. L337 kybldmstr 04:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Spoiler
Template:Spoiler has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. L337 kybldmstr 07:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

editprotected I've nominated the template for deletion, I'd like to have the TfD nom. tag added, please. You can remove it after the nomination is closed, if the template is kept. Thank you. L337 kybldmstr 07:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Kusma (talk) 08:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion...
The template has an extra little thing at the top saying that it's currently being considered for deletion. The talk page says that it was but that the result was keep. Would it not be better to remove the little box as it is outdated? &mdash; Polish Name  21:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, didn't read the post - ignore this...&mdash; Polish Name  21:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In memoriam
Why did this template have to go? *sigh* I used Cryptics anti-spoiler template, so spoilers were hidden, but now it doesn't appear to function anymore. It is fortunate that I noticed this on a talk page for something I had already read, but of course that doesn't change that I am not very happy with it. Why did people insist on killing it? How can people be so mean and foulhearted? I'll miss you, my little spoiler template. Shinobu 07:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Really, I think it was an extremely dumb idea. Had more than a plot summary or two ruined because of wikipedia's self righteous desicsion to remove spoiler templates, thinking you'd have to be dumb not realize you'd run into one. At least they could have made an announcement on the main page for a signifigant amount of time telling us that our all-helpful spoiler warning was so callously removed... -Alreajk  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.220.151 (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, even when they were on many fiction articles, they weren't on ALL of them. IMO, that's worse, as if you're expecting it, you actually WOULD have a case. When it's not on any, well... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They were on a great deal of them, until a few vigilantes decided to go ahead and remove them before the delete verdict was reached. Does Wikipedia have a policy regarding the re-establishment of deleted templates, policies, etc? --Alreajk

Redirect to current fiction?
I am not sure that was such a good idea. There are some pretty significant differences between current fiction and the former spoiler template. Current fiction emphasizes the new-ness of the work and the lack of critical commentary. "Spoiler" emphasized that the article presented significant plot details.

The former spoiler template had a high percentage of misuse — for instance, slapping it on the entire plot, thereby making no distinction between spoilers and general information. If "spoiler" redirects to current fiction, I suspect that a high percentage of misuse will continue.

I'm inclined to think that Current fiction is different enough that it shouldn't be regarded as a synonym of "spoiler". Marc Shepherd 17:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am also not a big fan of this redirect, especially right now, when some people will assume spoiler still exists. My personal preference would be to delete it (and keep it redlinked through cascading protection if necessary). Kusma (talk) 09:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I deleted the redirect. Garion96 (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Second closing of deletion review endorsed deletion so I deleted the redirect again. Garion96 (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm now convinced that the redirect was an error. This is because nearly every single remaining transclusion of this template was on a talk page or something, where the boilerplate of current fiction was inappropriate and would almost certainly cause confusion.  --Tony Sidaway 02:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV finished. deletion overturned for now. Relisting optional
FYI, The DRV has been closed as overturning and closing as no consensus. See. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have objected to JoshuaZ's involved and early close by 1 day, 4 hours, 21 minutes of the Spoiler Template Deletion review, and requested that he revert himself and allow the five-day DR debate to run to completion. The Deletion review#Closing_reviews says: "'A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least five days.'"
 * The debate was still in process, and the irregular close prevented my reply comment.
 * JoshuaZ was also on List of administrators present at previous TFDs/MFD/Deletion Review related to spoiler warnings, and should not have closed due to the appearance of conflict-of-interest.


 * Community, ask yourself this: If admins don't have to obey rules for admins, why are there any admin rules at all? How about just stating straight out that rules only exist for serf editors, and that feudal-hierarchy admins can do anything they please? Milo 21:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * JoshuaZ has reverted his close due to having miscounted the five days to DR close. That's appreciated, but he continues to defend his status to close at all:


 * (Copied from User:Milomedes)
 * "I've reverted my close for now since I miscounted how many days the DRV was open. I will however say that I find the notion that I am involved administrator for this purpose to be ridiculous. I was involved in making comments at that discussion and as you should be able to see from it changed my mind repeatedly on the matter. User:JoshuaZ 21:15, 18 November 2007"


 * Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators COI rule 3 states: '"3. As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it."'


 * JoshuaZ's defense is that while he did previously discuss (and vote) spoiler issues, he "changed my mind repeatedly", therefore felt free to violate the conflict-of-interest-based rule 3. That's not what the rule allows, and the critical principle that the rule upholds is that clean judging in both fact and appearance calls for the least previous involvement by the judge, in the case to be judged.


 * If there were only a small number of previously involved admins to choose from, JoshuaZ might be the best of a smudged lot. But there are a minimum of 836 active admins who haven't expressed any known opinion on the spoiler topics. There's no excuse not to follow COI rule 3, and let a group of successively uninvolved admins do the closes of all future decision venues in the spoiler topics. Milo 22:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to be missing the point. Your notion of what constitutes an involved admin is erroneous. An admin who made a variety of observations about a matter not favoring either side is uninvolved. It is simply ridiculous to suggest that anyone who has made any remarks about a matter thereby becomes involved. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "An admin who made a variety of observations about a matter not favoring either side is uninvolved." Which part of "...don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in." do you not understand? Milo 00:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Milo, which part of my explanation that having made comments in no particular favor over a year ago doesn't constitute involvement by any reasonable policy interpretation do you not understand? L337 makes a much more interesting argument below, but yours simply doesn't hold any water aside from being evidence for L337's concern. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * ←As written, there's no room for interpretation, and there currently exists no reasonable basis for any such interpretation. You broke the plain text meaning of a rule, which directly upholds that most critical conflict-of-interest-avoidance principle in both jurisprudence and private administrative regulation. Without exception, no good judge will do this.
 * Good judges must be both neutral and appear to be neutral. Centuries of experience have shown that COI interpretive loopholes will either be abused in fact, or the public will lose faith in judges due to suspicion of abuse. Intentional deviance from neutral seems to be a genuine slippery slope. If you actually believe the principle of Neutral point of view, then honoring the strict and uninterpreted rules of COI is its necessary companion.
 * If you refuse to obey COI Deletion guidelines for administrators rule 3, then at least consense to repeal it and let Wikipedia descend into open rule by cronyism. That way new editors will at least know that if they stay, they will have to form into power groups to protect each other in the tradition of the old Europe feudal castle regions.
 * If you hypocritically attempt to retain the rule without actually obeying it, suspicion and mistrust will spread like price inflation in an economic system. Ultimately, power groups will form anyway (political parties at best, gangs at worst). Jimbo has said he does not want political parties to form. Upholding excellent COI-avoiding process governance is one way to avoid it. Milo 02:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I should also add, there is currently a clear consensus to endorse the deletion. So it looks like the closing admin didn't take this into account or as you said, has a strong conflict of interest in this matter. Since the DRV close has been reverted and no decision made, I am reverting the undeletion until the DRV is (properly) closed. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There is not a clear consensus as such(especially not if one discounts the people who are endorsing simply because they are sick of the matter) and even if there were it would be less than relevant. We can't have a non-consensus close one way and then say "but see! Consensus matters too much here to do this". Uhuh, doesn't work that way. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does. From WP:DRV itself: Closing reviews - A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least five days. After five days, an administrator will determine if a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Undeletion policy. If the consensus was to relist, the article should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.
 * Of course, it is the closing admin who has to determine the consensus, but they should be a neutral party in the debate. You were involved in the first TFD and originally opted to have the template kept, then changed your mind later and decided to abstain with a slight lean towards deletion. Even though it was a while ago, I have a feeling that if you close the DRV again, someone could possibly maybe declare a COI on your actions. But it's just a feeling. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So is the argument that the appearance of a conflict is too severe? That's an argument I understand and could sympathize with. Especially with a controversial issue that might make sense. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy or merge?
Well, the template was deleted per the talk page. So, what do you guys think? Should we merge this talk page into the Current Fiction TP, or speedy delete this per CSD G8? L337 kybldmstr (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see what's wrong with keeping the talk page, myself. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there isn't much of a point to keeping a talk page for a template that no longer exists. But some people probably don't want this deleted, which is why I'm asking this question: I want to help reach decisions the community agrees with. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If I counted the Nov 8 TFD votes correctly at 26 keep to 24 delete, there was a slim majority in favor of the template. That confirms that the underlying issues remain alive. Those issues more related to the template design and message were explored here on the template talk page. If they're deleted, those issues are likely to be debated all over again. Milo 06:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should keep this talk page, at least for now. There is still useful discussion here (like whether the redirect should be made) that people won't find otherwise. Kusma (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I second that. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Along with Spoiler and its talk page, this page has an appreciable history and documents the gradual evolution of thought about spoiler tagging from an initial standpoint of 100% agreement that it is necessary and beneficial right through to the controversy about the mass removal of tags, and the final successful tfd.  It should remain. --Tony Sidaway 11:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

How to delete a template you don't like?
Check this out: User:Grue/howto. Coming soon, "how to delete an article you don't like".  Grue  11:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Copied from Template talk:Spoiler? page history: "23:08, 23 November 2007 Tony Sidaway (?How to delete a template you don't like? - Not constructive. In context, could be taken as a personal attack on certain parties involved.)" [-279]


 * ''Copied from Milo's edit summary: (/* How to delete a template you don't like? */ rv deleted post pointing to Grue's user subpage - Tony, the community objects to unilateral deletion of editors' posts for less than very serious reasons)
 * — serious reasons like personal info outings, dangerous libels, and extreme threats. Get consensus first for just about everything else, especially where you have a COI like here. If you don't like Grue's subpage, take it to MfD. Even if you don't like the subpage for your stated reasons, there's nothing wrong with his post here.
 * N.B., Oct 4, 2007 you went through Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 4, where one of the issues was unilaterally removing seven things you disagreed with (regarding the Oct 1, Kelly Martin 2 RfA fiasco, where Tony Sidaway vociferously supported Phil Sandifer's reversion of bureaucrat Nichalp's early RfA close). Ironically, had anyone else but Phil made that eye opening comment regarding your exceeding of his own RFCU count, you probably would have deleted it. Milo 01:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Look, let's not edit war over this. I removed the original by Grue because it's an example of what Wikipedia is not for.  It's a blatant example of assumption of bad faith, and close to a personal attack on certain unnamed individuals.  Grue (and anyone else who is engaged in spreading bad faith on this subject) should resort to the dispute resolution procedure instead.


 * Milomedes thinks the attack belongs on this page, and in addition has added some material that as far as I can tell is irrelevant. As a result of our disagreement about this content, others have become involved and there have been several recent to-and-fro reverts between other parties.


 * Well it's time to admit that the damage caused by leaving these attacks is probably somewhat less than the potential damage that would be caused by an escalation of edit warring on this talk page. However that is not to condone such attacks.


 * I again strongly urge Grue and anybody else who wants to continue making these grossly inappropriate comments on this talk page to stop doing so and use the dispute resolution procedure. This applies both to Grue's comment here, the page to which he links, and various comments, over a matter of about five months now, by various editors including but not limited to Milomedes.  Launching personal attacks is not the way to resolve disputes on Wikipedia.  It is itself, in fact, against one of Wikipedia's fundamental policies. --Tony Sidaway 03:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No offense, Tony, but seeing you accuse people of committing "personal attacks" and urge them to follow the dispute resolution process is downright hilarious. —David Levy 03:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Tony is correct, the dispute resolution process is the appropiate way for this to proceed. At User talk:Grue/howto‎ I've made some suggestions on how to do so. - CygnetSaIad 04:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with that. I just find the above hilarious coming from Tony.  He engaged in blatant personal attacks against me and responded to my attempt at formal dispute resolution by removing my request (and others' replies) from the project page with an edit summary that labeled me a "troll." —David Levy 04:43/04:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you take this to my talk page, please? I honestly have no recollection of any prior interaction with you but if I've wronged you I'll make amends. --Tony Sidaway 05:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You honestly have no recollection of any prior interaction with me? Holy crap.
 * There are no amends to be made, Tony. I just wish that you'd practice what you preach.  —David Levy 06:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Never a dull moment in the spoiler topics...
 * "thinks the attack belongs on this page" That's a strawman, because there is no attack, personal or otherwise on this page (Template talk:Spoiler#How to delete a template you don't like?) . The fact is, that on this page, Grue posted little more than a link with an inoffensive coming attractions title.
 * "close to a personal attack on certain unnamed individuals" I've read User:Grue/howto and WP:NPA twice now. There is absolutely no identifiable personal attack to be found in User:Grue/howto, or a reference to any particular editor. As Grue sees it, I suppose one could call it a generic attack on process corruption (my terms, not his), modeled after the Nov 8 TFD of Template:Spoiler (not referenced by Grue, except by the above link).
 * "It's a blatant example of assumption of bad faith" If so, WP:AGF reads, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." Does Grue have evidence for every generic charge he makes? #1,2,3,5,6,8,9 look evidenced-enough to me. For #4 & 7, I don't know what evidence he has.
 * "should resort to the dispute resolution procedure" In the case of spoiler topics, it's broken. But MfD is not broken; that's why I suggested it instead of rogue link-post deletion, if User:Grue/howto was the issue.
 * So why was Tony still trying to delete this post? Tony habitually deletes things he doesn't like, and eventually that may become Arbcom's problem. But what has me more concerned is that Melodia may be picking up Tony's bad habit.
 * "added some material that as far as I can tell is irrelevant" That would be my nota bene. Its purpose was to help prevent yet another deletion-by-Tony, but it didn't, so in that sense it does now seem irrelevant. Being one of his post-deleting victims, I didn't think it was possible for Tony to get me feeling sorry for him. But he has some good qualities, and he recently went out on a figurative limb that got sawed off in a way that would be hurtful to most people.
 * Therefore, my offer of compromise is to re-edit my Milo (01:55, 24 Nov) post and delete-edit my nota bene paragraph. Milo 08:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hay-soos, this is like herding cats. Can I try to make this as simple as possible:
 * Some individuals have complaint about the behaviour of other individuals,
 * There does exist a dispute resolution mechanism, which typically goes talkpage->rfc->arbbcom,
 * If the mechanism doesn't work the first time, rinse/repeat.
 * The most appropiate way to carry this forward is not by scrapping it out here, on this page, over a trivial link to a satire sub-page. The appropiate thing to do is to attempt to use dispute resolution again.  Since most of the principles here already have multiple RfCs and RfArbs, the most reasonable approach is to form another RfArb.  The talk page of "Grue how-to" has some suggestions. CygnetSaIad 23:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that User:Jd2718 includes in his Arbcom candidate support scheme the following statement: "If someone has a history ... of being a party to disputes, and working out the problems without intervention, that has to count as much or more than anything else."
 * "use dispute resolution again" Here's my suggestion of compromise to you. Go to the Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/archive4 and read all 1,850,000+ bytes through archive 12. Then you will know enough to write spoiler Arbcom request #3. Go draft it in your user space. In the meantime, the parties will try to settle things here. If they don't succeed, then they can take a look at your draft case and decide whether to support it. Milo 02:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What about plot details out-of-article?
I understand, even if I disagree with, the argument that users of Wikipedia ought to assume that the Plot section of an article about a specific work of fiction will include "spoilers" about that work. In numerous articles, however, details of the plots of works of fiction are included as part of a larger discussion on some other topic. For example, in Omega point, an article on a topic in metaphysics, the final twist of Robert Charles Wilson's Darwinia is revealed without any warning to the reader. Should Wikipedians wishing to avoid spoilers skip over sections on popular culture altogether? What about articles that are not organized to include such a section, should prudent Wikipedians simply leave them unread?

--Frostyservant (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In a word: Yes. If a reader is that worried that they might possibly learn something about some work/genre/etc of fiction, they shouldn't be reading an encyclopedia article on it.  :)  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 19:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)