Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/Guideline status

Guideline
T Why was this page elevated to guideline status? There seems to be a vocal contingent opposed to the use of spoilers (see Template talk:Spoiler), and the spoiler warning is not suggested anywhere in the Manual of Style. Certainly a template:essay tag would be a better fit for such a controversial proposal. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 10:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This seems to have been done in act of WP:BOLD, which is fine by me, although not factually correct. What I found puzzling is that the page and those who advocate the tags note its helpfulness to the reader::


 * This is an encyclopedia, which strives first to inform, spoilers or not. The article may also contain analyses and background detail not available—or at least, not obvious—in the work being critiqued. 


 * Where is the research depicting readers have had any problem with this before hand...? As I've looked about, I've noted there was no such complaints from our readers.


 * However, not all readers will immediately recognise this as an encyclopedia. A spoiler notice should be made prominent as a simple courtesy where this is the case.


 * Who wouldn't...? On a link to the site, it says "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". Who reads about a subject in an encyclopedia to read of a few opening sentences...?


 * It is also advised that editors do not put spoilers in section headers (unless the spoiler warning is before the table of contents), edit summaries or link from another article to a section inside the spoiler area.


 * This seems to be the root of the problem. Editors have become so accustomed to the implementation that its marked on any page, plot summeries or not. Perhaps there could be clarification for this.


 * One standard way to warn readers of potential spoilers is to insert before the revealing text.


 * This is where it becomes surreal. How are biased editors to know what is and what is not a spoiler...? And how many cases has this been acceptable when the ideal of reader feedback has been considered...? Wikipedia readers aren't stupid. When one sees a header with plot or character history outlined with three or four pharagraphs, its implied there are plot summeries. That is what the encyclopedia does. -ZeroTalk 12:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Lately, I've begun to see the viewpoint of spoiler tags as a rather unnecessary addition. Given that this is an encyclopedia, by its very definition it's going to be comprehensive, which would include information typically referred to as spoilers. That being the case, people should be aware of what they're looking at when they come here. Now, while there are a number of possibilities as to how someone could accidentally stumble onto a link to a page that they didn't want to look at yet, such instances are probably going to pale in comparison to the number of people who actively seek out certain pages (the large majority of Wikipedia readers most likely), and if they really don't want to see that page yet anyway, they can probably close it or navigate away from critical info before seeing it.


 * One of the main issues that has popped up is that many people come to Wikipedia when they hear about a movie for the first time or something and want to get some additional information on it. This probably is a bad practice, at least if those people are looking to the "Plot" and "Characters" sections and expecting or hoping to not see spoilers. A place like RottenTomatoes.com would be better suited for those individuals, and I think that -- if the removal of spoiler warnings was to be agreed upon -- a simple change to the spoiler tag template for one month prior to their removal, informing readers that the spoiler tags would soon go the way of the dinosaur, would give readers all the time they would need to become aware of the fact that the spoiler tags would soon be gone, and that they should give their attention to critic sites, fan sites, etc. for such purposes. This is an encyclopedia, and if it didn't have spoiler info, it wouldn't be doing its job. That being the case, spoiler tags are redundant. Ryu Kaze 12:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I imagine that the idea came from sites such as the Internet Movie Database, which has its "here be spoilers" warning. After all, Wikipedia nearly always links there on any film or television page, and they frequently list Wikipedia in their external links. To be honest, I wouldn't expect to see any complaints; as the text states, it is a courtesy to prevent disappointment, and prevents editors removing end details because they believe it should not be there. Bob 13:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Spoiler tags are an example of netiquette in that regard. I don't think that they are appropriate in Wikipedia because of its nature as a general reference source. Many sites who use spoiler tags, with the notable exception of IMDB, are fansites for movies, videogames or comic books, so there is some precedent for their use in informal enthusiast-run resources. Academic reference works, such as Encyclopedia Britannica or The Cambridge Guide to Literature in English, do not subscribe to the idea of spoiler warnings.
 * The value of spoiler tags as a courtesy must be weighed against the practicality and appearance of doing so. In terms of practicality, adding such tags to every article which concerns a work of fiction is going overboard, it's nearly impossible to accurately pinpoint where spoilers begin and end, or what information would offend the sensibilities of a random reader. As far as appearance goes the spoiler tag is unsightly and often redundant, including "Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow." under a "Plot" heading assumes that those who visit wikipedia have never encountered a synopsis. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 14:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've never witnessed the removal of text in articles because it disclosed plot elements nor have I seen an instance of a reader or an editor expressing dissapointment in such a case. Perhaps I could be mistaken. Could you show some major instances of such a situation in the tag preventing this and where in a serious style guide for encyclopediac content is this encouraged...? -ZeroTalk 14:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the tag has become overused, because it is often seen on simple plot summaries. However, I believe this page could be seen to illustrate my point that some form of warning is useful and required. Bob 14:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not see where the tag inmplementation is constructive to the encyclopedia. I find it difficult to accept that you regard what you describe--clearly tags looked down upon and make wikipedia a laughing stock--as helpful. I'm utterly baffled by this.


 * Is there any other edvidence or reports to support this tag has increased the value, productivity or proffessional quality of the encyclopedia...? -ZeroTalk 14:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't really see anything about The Sixth Sense page that a spoiler warning contributes that it doesn't add to any other page. Which is to say, I don't see how it's more useful there than it is anywhere else. Spoilers are spoilers, and The Sixth Sense isn't the only work in media with a plot twist. The concept of the spoiler tag still seems redundant in light of what an encyclopedia is supposed to do in this case as well. Ryu Kaze 17:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I was just using that as a requested, notable example of a large plot twist that could be given away. I disagree that having a warning makes Wikipedia a "laughing stock" - indeed that appears to be just an interpretation. In my view, an external viewer would welcome the fact that they have been warned. After all, people may look up the works of, for example, M. Night Shyamalan and want to read the background of the film without actually reading the plot. The word "plot" can be interpreted as a summary of the work without revealing end details, so the banner acts as a simple courtesy to allow a reader to make up his/her mind whether to read it. Bob 17:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I do fully understand that, and I don't think the use of spoiler tags has made Wikipedia a laughing stock, but at the same time, I can see the logical holes in their use. In light of what an encyclopedia is, the only people who should really be benefitting from the use of spoiler tags are those unfortunate enough to accidentally access a spoiler-filled area by way of an external link. And even those situations are probably few in number.


 * I am a huge endorser of courtesy and such, and that's why I think that if the spoiler tags are removed, they should be modified for a period of a month prior to their removal to inform regular readers that they'll be disappearing soon. And, really, despite the matter of courtesy, they are technically redundant. In other words, a book labeled "A thorough guide to everything" should not have a spoiler label in each section saying "thorough explanations ahead." Ryu Kaze 17:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bob on this point. There are sometimes plot points tucked away within articles that might be accidentally stumbled upon without a person wanting to know them, and the spoiler tag is a courtesy to allow the user to decide on whether or not they want that particular part detailed. Someone who wants to know about the development history of Resident Evil 4, for instance, might not want to know about a certain instance in which a character dies during the plot. I also haven't seen any instance in which including a spoiler tag has made Wikipedia a "laughing stock"- there certainly hasn't been any linked evidence provided that proves so. --[[Image:Tinyducksig.jpg|20px]] Daniel Davis 18:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why would someone wanting to read the "Development history" section of Resident Evil 4 be looking at the "Story" section? Using the table of contents, one can easily navigate amongst the sections and there's no reason they should end up seeing anything from the "Story" section while reading the "Development history" section. Just like with paper encyclopedias. Ryu Kaze 18:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * New users very well might be looking it over and might stumble across the section. However, Ryu, I'm not going to press the issue, given that Zero has taken to resorting to personal attacks on me (check out Mongo's talk page and his rant on "respect" and trying to dredge up conflicts in the past). It's clear that he's taken this to an emotional level. I've had maybe five total conflicts with people in my entire year + edit history, and most of those were resolved after discussing it at length with the individuals in question. However, I don't think that can happen with Zero. Honestly, spoiler tags aren't THAT important to me- I'm not going to get myself involved with a user who can't seem to act civilly towards me. Cheers! --[[Image:Tinyducksig.jpg|20px]] Daniel Davis 18:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that spoiler warnings are vague and superfluous, you can't warn somebody that a work of fiction has a "Plot and/or ending", it simply makes no sense to do so. If you consider the literal interpretation of template:spoiler, all it suggests is that the article in question deals with the subject in question. The Sixth Sense is a good example, the spoiler tag is inserted because that film has a surprise ending. Except that the spoiler tag does not say that the film has a surprise ending, or that there is anything particular it is warning against. If the reader is informed early in the text that the movie has an unexpected plot twist they may consciously decide against reading further, lest the ending be spoiled. Such an approach to dealing with plot details is a better solution than some boilerplate warning. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 18:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Daniel, I don't think I'm saying what you think I'm saying. On spoilers, I agree that bringing these same templates through articles numerous times is pointless. I'd prefer to see far, fewer of these various assumptions made by editors on a neutral project cease.


 * There isn't really a lot of doubt or ambiguity about what Template:spoiler is about. I don't see, hear or experience any readers or editors of the encyclopedia explaining the productivity of these templates or how they have any proven effect on its value or where the dire need was required at the time of creation.


 * The belief on a user stumbling about wikipedia and invoking harm upon themselves from reading an encyclopedia is touching. The fact of an explanation when one assumes outside of the neutral boundries of an editor is not justified and completely covered in Wikipedia policy. It'll be a month or two at least, in my view, before a new policy stands a chance of reasonable discussion. Personally, the summary of a user in theory deciding upon content in this vein without any pevious studies is completely misplaced. The discussion is productive on this matter, however. This has, in part, been achieved. -ZeroTalk 19:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't really see any need to be patronising about this, particularly in view that the spoiler warning was overwhelmingly kept by a general consensus of editors only last month (see Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 4. Bob 22:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I see no consensus. There seems to be but a thin line in wikipedia concerning the knowledge of what works for wikipedia. I looked about the discussion and the reasoning for keep was generally attributed to the fact this template was around for an extended period of time and that of a practice that was uncontested. Such reasoning in the summary of resource for the encyclopedia is not concensus. Its also humorous that the template was never accepted by a concensus at its implementation. A case of WP:BOLD, but the declarance of concensus in this view is grossly misled.


 * The template discussion on a process where many of the best content introduced into the website is not properly dealt with is a strawman. So what is the reasoning for the productive gain for the encyclopedia...? This has been queried for a dull amount of time. The most prominent being its considerate; a basis for which no study has been shown and was a rebuttal provided by that of assumptions.-ZeroTalk 23:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * While the majority does seem to have had a consensus in that nomination for deletion, the support for most of the calls for "Keep" were rather flawed and didn't really address the issue at all. "Of couse" and "This is silly" not being the limits of what I'm talking about. Almost everyone who said "Keep" said so on the grounds that the spoiler tag isn't an issue of censorship (which I do agree with, by the way) or that "It's used so much, so it must be a good idea." While spoiler tags are not an issue of censorship as far as I can see, the response of "It's not an issue of censorship" isn't anything more than a rebuttal to the claim that it is an issue of censorship. It doesn't really address the major points: an encyclopedia is supposed to be a thorough, comprehensive collection of information. The presence of the word "encyclopedia" is your spoiler warning right there. To throw additional spoiler tags in is redundant and a little ridiculous.


 * While I'm all for courtesy and consideration of others viewing enjoyment, I would also tell readers that there are plenty of people who review stuff in spoiler free places and could tell them all the surface level information they would want to know. It's not necessary for an encyclopedia to be portrayed as unaware of what it is for those people to make an effort to avoid spoilers.


 * The matter of the torture picture warning was also rather conveniently ignored, despite serving the exact same purpose. We even had someone going so far in an unsupported defense of the spoiler tag as to argue that images of humans being tortured couldn't possibly be as psychologically or emotionally damaging as something like the ending of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince being spoiled (something that psychologists the world over would be interested in hearing, I'm sure). For that matter, given that this site is supposed to adhere to the concept of verifiability, there were certainly plenty of people quick to claim that the spoiler warnings are extremely beneficial to the site without making an attempt at supporting that notion.


 * While I also think that the spoiler tags have probably gone some length toward contributing to Wikipedia's user-friendly/reader-friendly reputation, I don't claim that to be a definite fact as those people did -- and continued to do, even after being asked to provide some kind of reference for the claim. Honestly, that deletion request was not an indication of anything more than the fact that people will jump behind an idea and support it vehemently without any actual reason related to the subject if it's popular. That said, though, again, the claim of censorship shouldn't have been part of the reasoning. The reasoning is really quite simple: spoiler warnings are redundant of part of the definition of "encyclopedia," and are, therefore, unnecessary. Ryu Kaze 00:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it should be pointed out that comparing Wikipedia to Encyclopedia Britannica in this respect is rather pointless. Britannica doesn't have any spoilable material, so it doesn't need any spoiler tags in the first place.  WP is patently not the Britannica, nor do I think it is intended to be.  If it were, we wouldn't have articles on movies, video games, and whatever TV shows are popular at the moment.  That said, even assuming that the "encyclopedia" is spoiler warning enough, you're simply saying that you don't want people using Wikipedia at all if they're worried about spoilers.  And I know I've used it in the past to find out the outline of books I'm interested in.  The articles were an entire piece and without a spoiler warning, I would have wandered right to the ending of the book.  --KSevcik 01:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't said that I don't want anyone using Wikipedia. What I've said is that an encyclopedia isn't specifically designed for telling you if Coyote Ugly is what you want to see tonight. We have film critics and sites like Rotten Tomatoes for that. If you would prefer to come to Wikipedia to do it, feel free, but the presence of the word "encyclopedia" should clue you in as to what you're likely to find if you look at the section entitled "Plot" (though in this particular film's case, it's not all that comprehensive). Ryu Kaze 02:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This should definitely be a guideline as it is important and it being classed as an essay would downgrade its importance. If it wasn't for the opposition surrounding it, I would say it should be policy. WikiSlasher 08:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I still don't see the problem. I don't agree with you on the policy/guideline implementation--that's very far-fetched. Also new users debating upon the relavancy of this I don't agree with. If you have a beef about wikipedia in comparison to Britannica I think you should take it to a policy page and discuss the relevance of not attempting to conform our standards to that of a professional tone; I think you're arguing the quality of the encylopedia rather than the usefulness of the boilerplates.


 * "And I know I've used it in the past to find out the outline of books I'm interested in. The articles were an entire piece and without a spoiler warning, I would have wandered right to the ending of the book."
 * Oh I don't think that mindset will ever be able to fit in to Wikipedia. That's simply not the point of an encyclopedia, nor the unwritten spirit that guide all our interactions here. And you come across a spoiler you'd rather not see, so what...? We're an encycyclopedia. To clam the proposal of selectively warning spoilers to readers from a neutral point of view is massively overstepping our capacity as editors and is quite an outageous act.


 * I've looked over the defense rebuttals by users in favor of the spoiler tag here, and, honestly I've had a good hard look at the project page and it just doesn't seem like such a big deal to me. It's just a group of lads explaining their unfounded beliefs. I encourage this conversation, but I'm concerned that all of the defenses initiated are from new users who have marginal article edits and experience. Looking at the premise, its simply silly- An articles content is clearly marked as detailed material and we know this. I don't think it can reasonably described as a template that assists the encyclopedia and currently, there is no argument fo how it has doen so or how the requirement for the template came to be lacking any edvidence that would jusify this. I was under the impresion this was an encycloepdia with elaborated content, but others may differ on this. -ZeroTalk 09:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I bow to your superior ability to denigrate your fellow editors. To get back to the point I was actually trying to make, I was pointing out that many articles are not broken out into various sections like Plot, History, etc.  They are simply a few paragraphs discussing a book, etc.  So without the benefit of spoiler tags, a reader is simply left with the option of avoiding all articles about books he hasn't read, etc.  --KSevcik 20:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that if I, personally, write a full plot summary, I like to think that I am not spoiling it for people because I have the disclaimer at the top. Removing it, I would imagine, will lead to people purposely missing the end of a plot out and we will end up with a useless collection of film-guide style entries which only offer a brief synopsis. Also, if we do not have a recognised and visible template for this with a guideline behind it, we will only end up with unnofficial-looking self-made ones or people removing endings from plot summaries. Is that really what you want? Bob 11:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think what is being forgotten here is that, it is not technically possible for an encyclopedia to spoil a reader by doing what an encyclopedia does - providing complete summeries. What makes you presume we would have to remove summeries because the spoiler tags aren't there..?


 * Unofficial..? There's nothing official about it. It was a useless template created by without any discussion, any comments on its constructive nature for inclusion and then accepted without anymore discussion pertianing to a purpose whatsoever. What designates an a article as professional quality, however, is the editor and his ability to compose the subject matter in a clear and explanatory manner. As a wikipedia editor, that is your duty.


 * What does "Will lead the people to purposefully miss the end of a plot out and we will end up with a useless collection of film-guide style entries which only offer a brief synopsis" mean...? Since when has this template designated what an encyclopedia does..? Since when does this template dictate what content stays and what goes...? Since when does the template assist wikipedia...? And where is the basis of fact clarifying that this makes content more informative to the reader and increases the value of the encyclopedia...? -ZeroTalk 12:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do people keep giving everyday encyclopedia-based advice about this site and use it as reasons why things should or should not be done? The only thing that makes this site like your average encyclopedia is that it holds a collection of gathered information. However, your average encyclopedia does not contain lists of television episodes or all of the popular movies and detailed plot summaries for each one, does not let anyone edit, does not contain links to websites or hundreds of links to its own other articles. It does not contain information like the average encyclopedia (it goes beyond) and is not edited like the average encyclopedia (it goes a step further), so why treat it like the average encyclopedia and feel like things (like hiding/skipping spoilers) shouldn't be used? CobraWiki 22:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Because, in the end we're still an encyclopedia intent on the summeries of various and informative material. "Treat it like the average encyclopedia..?" Indeed!


 * Wikipedia isn't an ordinary encyclopedia. Certainly not. All the more reason to erradicate this useless nonsense. Useless material has no place in wikipedia. If one comes to an encyclopedia, not to read an encyclopedia, but to skim about and look up three lines of prose, then how does a silly template assist them...? The template does not dictate a person's ability and capacity to read a selected amount of prose. If one sees the header "story" and three pharaphaghs inserted below it, then what does one expect to find below it...? What, discussion about the film's packaging material...? -ZeroTalk 00:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Many people find the spoiler warnings useful. Those who don't can easily disable their inclusion.  What's the problem (aside from the fact that some people choose to use Wikipedia in a manner contrary to your personal preference)?
 * Like it or not, it's considered common Internet courtesy to place spoiler warnings before text that reveals major plot details. As noted above, the deletion of these templates would lead many users to either manually insert nonstandard spoiler warnings (the display of which could not be disabled by those who prefer not to see such text) or simply exclude sensitive content from articles.  How would that benefit Wikipedia?  &mdash;David Levy 01:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You falsely accuse me of the argument of personal preference. In my opinion, if I could impose one ideal upon wikipedia it would be the mandatory inclusion of references for every article. -ZeroTalk 01:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "And you come across a spoiler you'd rather not see, so what...?" clearly conveys the fact that you have no contextual regard for people who wish to utilize Wikipedia in this manner. &mdash;David Levy 03:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not paticlualry in the sense of liking or disliking anything in wikipedia when it dirctly involves the running of the encyclopedia. Common internet courtesy...? This is not a common site. This is an online encyclopedia, which accepts the inclusion of large amounts of informative data to help an reader become knowledgeable on the subject. -ZeroTalk 01:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a common website, nor is it a common encyclopedia. And yet, you evidently believe that the conventions of the latter (but not the former) automatically apply.  &mdash;David Levy 03:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Leads many users to manually insert upon the articles...? Hardly. Simply a measure of merely inserting a note on the relevant policy page. -ZeroTalk 01:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If I understand the above correctly, you're suggesting that a simple policy addendum will prevent users from including spoiler warnings. No offense, but that's rather naïve.  &mdash;David Levy 03:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How does excluding the content benefit wikipedia...? Its depicts editors are not bound by the biased nature that is encouraged in their every day lives and conform to the neutral opinion of an editor wikpedia demands. It depicts we are bold and are not afraid of the output of valuble information and data to any audience who comes upon wikipedia to read about said summeries. Major plot details...? That point is so off the purpose of writing an encyclopedia, I had severe difficulty comprehending it when I originally read it. You can't dictate a spoiler or a plot twist of personal preference simply by slapping a stupid template on an article, silly. -ZeroTalk 01:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Evidently, you "had severe difficulty comprehending" much of what I wrote. I'll try this again:
 * In addition to the users who will simply insert manual spoiler warnings, those who follow your proposed rule against them will no longer feel comfortable including information that they believe to be "spoilers," so they will simply exclude such details from the articles. Again, I ask you to explain how this will benefit Wikipedia.  &mdash;David Levy 03:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In response to your last entry, David Levy, I would like to ask 1) where's the verifiable evidence that the spoiler tags benefit many people, 2) how does the definition of "encyclopedia" fail to convey that spoilers will be present, and 3) why would the site have to suffer the consequences you mentioned when a simple tweak to what Wikipedia is not could take care of the matter? For example, a single extra sentence in "Wikipedia is not censored" would cover it. Ryu Kaze 02:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. There have been many discussions on this topic, and it's patently obvious that many people desire the spoiler tags' presence. I ask you to cite verifiable evidence that eliminating the spoiler tags would benefit many people.  As I noted, users who don't wish to see them can easily disable their display.  This, of course, would not be possible if editors were to manually insert their own warnings (which undoubtedly would occur if the templates were to be deleted).
 * 2. The definition of "encyclopedia" fails to convey the spoilers' precise locations within articles. Evidently, you believe that people shouldn't read our articles unless they're willing to see spoilers.  The tags in question provide an additional service that you don't wish to provide (though I don't understand why).
 * 3. Please see Begging the question. It's unrealistic to expect users to behave in the manner that you suggest.  Even if you manage to outlaw the inclusion of spoiler warnings, you can't force people to add content that they no longer feel comfortable including (the spoilers themselves).  Furthermore, your question is based upon the disputed claim that your hypothetical scenario would be superior to the status quo.  &mdash;David Levy 03:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The assumed intepretation doesn't negate the principle. There's a perfectly good non-personal reason for the inclusion and that's because spoiling material when you're not sure whether or not to do so is a steamingly silly thing to do. And you're wrong to claim that in a different case senario, an editor would insert manual templates against an agreed policy. It's part of the "Wikipedia isn't censored" policy currently.


 * Fails to provide a service....? Writing articles is the service! I don't paticularly mind if a person reads an article with the intent to skim or what have you. Although it is somewhat ambigous, what does that have to do with the running of the encyclopedia...?


 * David, you must be aware that the claim that most of the material removed and ntroduced as unverifiable is seriously disputed in wikipedia--indeed as a matter of personal opinion I'd say that the lack references given in the above comment, however, convincingly refute that claim.


 * You seem to be arguing that all of the material has been proven, is effective and merely becuase of its wide latitude of support, it is useful. I don't recall the query of asking any user to behave in a different manner. This seems to be the problem- people are more concerned with the possibility of wikipedia not fitting in as an online community than with the encyclopedia itself. But the direct connection with the encyclopedia providing a service really isn't relevant to one of an imaginary "want". These are absoulutely dubious claims - People might wander to wikipedia not to read encyclopedia, but instead the skim about in a completely limited fashion. I've never heard such a thing or even discussion verifying this. If anything, a wiki reader is very involved in the summaries of wikipedia, as the anonymous contributor base to articles is outstanding, and in view of personal experience, quite in attention to detail.


 * "I ask you to cite verifiable evidence that eliminating the spoiler tags would benefit many people." You seem to have your facts wrong. The first portion of this argument, for instance, makes quite an assumption--for instance the spoiler's usage was proven to assist the encyclopedia, was easy to verify, and the previous common practice was the inclusion of manual headers, which I can see absolutely no edvidence of. The spoiler should not have been created, nor should it have been listed as a guieline--Dysprosia clearly hadn't done his homework or else he wouldn't have assumed it was useful.


 * The template in question revolves entirely around the removal of content, and a contributor's mindset ("reluctance") to provide plot information. Absolutely not. We don't hoard upon these articles. You're welcome to list a studious report with accumulated data if you think that is necessary, but please don't expect that a boiler plate would dictate the reading or contribution desision of editor or an reader. You're placing too much power in a silly batch of javascript. "Those who follow your proposed rule against them will no longer feel comfortable including information that they believe to be "spoilers," so they will simply exclude such details from the articles. Again, I ask you to explain how this will benefit Wikipedia." Yeah, right. Please, I beg you, read the WP:NOT policy. -ZeroTalk 09:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * When you're done battling straw men via semi-intelligible non sequiturs, feel free to actually reply to what I've written. &mdash;David Levy 10:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Or you could simply stop the argument of how a template dictate's an editor or reader's capacity of involving themselves within the encyclopedia and explain the relevance and usefulness of the template on wikipedia.


 * "If the spoiler wasn't there, editors would be much more likely to not contribute complete summeries and use custom spoiler tags." Please. -ZeroTalk 11:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There have been many discussions on this topic, and it's patently obvious that many people desire the spoiler tags' presence.


 * That has what to do with what we're discussing (their relevance and their supposed usefulness)? Ryu Kaze 21:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you actually asking me to explain why the our readers' wants are relevant? For whom do you believe we're building the encyclopedia?  If people believe that they're useful, they're useful to these people.  Everyone else can disable them.  &mdash;David Levy 10:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I ask you to cite verifiable evidence that eliminating the spoiler tags would benefit many people.


 * Again, this has what to do with what we're discussing? Who has said a thing about removing the spoiler tags benefitting someone? What that would do is make the encyclopedia more logical, given that it wouldn't be constantly reiterating that it's an encyclopedia. Ryu Kaze 21:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. If the removal of the spoiler tags won't benefit anyone, why proceed in this direction? 2. The purpose of spoiler tags is not to remind people that some of our articles contain spoilers; it's to inform them of precisely where these spoilers are located, thereby enabling them to make informed reading decisions.  &mdash;David Levy 10:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, your evasion tactics aren't working. I still want to see the verification of your claim that spoiler tags benefit so many people. They're a courtesy, yes, but where is the evidence that they're one that is so beneficial as for it to be a necessity? Ryu Kaze 21:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not evading your questions. My responses are based upon common sense, but you evidently expect some sort of scientific "evidence."  Meanwhile, you're demanding that I justify a position that I've never taken.  (I don't claim that the existence of spoiler warnings is a "necessity.")


 * For some reason, you seem to believe that Wikipedia's goal is to disseminate encyclopedic information without regard for utility. I disagree.


 * This, of course, would not be possible if editors were to manually insert their own warnings (which undoubtedly would occur if the templates were to be deleted).


 * Not if their removal was made part of "What Wikipedia is not." Ryu Kaze 21:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned to Megaman Zero, it's naïve to assume that a policy change would eliminate such a prevalent custom. (And of course, I disagree that such a course of action is desirable.)  &mdash;David Levy 10:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The definition of "encyclopedia" fails to convey the spoilers' precise locations within articles.


 * It conveys that their locations are somewhere within the articles that make up this encyclopedia. Ryu Kaze 21:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How does that assist readers in skipping past the portions of specific articles that they don't wish to read?
 * Should we also stop categorizing articles, given the fact that users can assume that the various topics are covered somewhere within the encyclopedia? &mdash;David Levy 10:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Evidently, you believe that people shouldn't read our articles unless they're willing to see spoilers.


 * If this isn't an encyclopedia, then what is it? Ryu Kaze 21:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That doesn't answer my question. (When did I claim that this isn't an encyclopedia?)  &mdash;David Levy 10:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The tags in question provide an additional service that you don't wish to provide (though I don't understand why).


 * That they provide a courtesy is well and good. However, that their presence is illogical, redundant, and a double-standard is not. It's illogical because Wikipedia is not censored. It's redundant because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's a double-standard because the "Scenes of torture ahead" template was rejected. Ryu Kaze 21:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. The "censorship" argument has been thoroughly rejected by the community. 2. The "redundancy" argument makes no sense to me, as it appears to be based upon the belief that our users' convenience is irrelevant.  3. I'm not familiar with that other template, and I'm only stating my stance regarding this one.  &mdash;David Levy 10:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see Begging the question. It's unrealistic to expect users to behave in the manner that you suggest.


 * How is it illogical to expect that 1) people would follow the policies and 2) that someone would fix the edit in the event that someone was ignoring the policies and chose to include their own spoiler warning? And what does circular reasoning have to do with that? Ryu Kaze 21:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I never claimed that no one would follow the policy, nor did I claim that no one would remove such warnings. It's reasonable to assume, however, that many people (especially newbies) would naturally attempt to include manual spoiler warnings (just as they did before the templates were created).  Again, this is a common Internet courtesy, and it's unrealistic to expect everyone to instantly leave this convention at the door.
 * Please note, however, that this is merely an observation on my part. I am not presenting it as a reason why the tags should be retained.  I'm describing a peripheral consequence of the alternative.
 * I referred to your argument as "begging the question" because it was based upon itself. &mdash;David Levy 10:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if you manage to outlaw the inclusion of spoiler warnings, you can't force people to add content that they no longer feel comfortable including (the spoilers themselves).


 * And we have reason to believe that the lack of spoiler warnings would cause people to stop putting spoilers in encyclopedia articles because...? Ryu Kaze 21:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Because people are conditioned to follow this custom, whether you (or I) like it or not. &mdash;David Levy 10:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, your question is based upon the disputed claim that your hypothetical scenario would be superior to the status quo.


 * It would be more logical, and while you've disputed that, you've not done so with anything more than potentially dubious claims. Ryu Kaze 21:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Whenever you're ready to actually discuss the subject at hand, please do so. Ryu Kaze 21:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's what I've been doing, but you choose to reject my concerns as irrelevant to the encyclopedia. Again, this is based upon your apparent belief that we should make no effort to accommodate our users.  &mdash;David Levy 10:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This matter is also being discussed via e-mail on the Wiki-en mailing list. The e-mail subject header is "Spoiler boilerplates".


 * On another matter, I believe this jest at unencyclopedia depicts just how nonsensical spoilers are -ZeroTalk 21:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That Uncyclopedia template is great. Anyway, looking at the e-mail discussion, I see it's going just about the same as every discussion of this subject has. I also see lots and lots of e-mails with no attempts at verifying the position mentioned within, but plenty of dodging the question. Ryu Kaze 22:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think its reasonable to conclude there never was a paticularly pressing reason from the outset. Not at all. Deleting these particular templates can never, ever, hurt the enyclopedia, and the resulting uproar is just so silly.


 * That unencyclopedia template gave me quite a giggle. "Aerodynamic". Indeed! -ZeroTalk 22:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think its reasonable to conclude that it's pretty much impossible to establish consensus here, and although I disagree with you, yeah you gotta love that template! WikiSlasher 08:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What were you talking about before when you said, "Those who don't can easily disable their inclusion."? WikiSlasher 07:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The following code may be added to one's personal CSS file (User:Username/monobook.css or the equivalent) to disable the display of the spoiler warning templates throughout the site:


 * 1) spoiler { display: none }


 * &mdash;David Levy 10:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not generally interested in deleting templates, only in minimising the damage that some of them do to the encyclopedia and its purposes. The templates have proven pretty easy to neutralize. You claim that its for "accomodation of new users", but I've gone to great lengths to facilitate such debate. See the hundreds of articles that I have engaged in removal of spoilers of, showing the state they were in should it be comparable to the time at creation. There is no question in my mind that the article and its quality were never contested by readers or even editors. The problem is that most of the people who rather advocate this support the social doings of external websites and the practices they follow.

You keep using this argument of "its widely accepted and for that reason it is useful". What do you believe that means? Do you seriously think that the support of a template dictates the ability of is content to assist the encyclopedia? Not so. I'm in strong support to keep Wikipedia reasonably free of censorship, practices adopted from external sitse that haven't a clue on the purpose and spirit of an encyclopedia and the like. That means that we have to establish that this isn't acceptable becuase its "a common internet courtesy" because this isn't a common site. The encyclopedia comes first. There is no objective beyond that. If people protest to the removal of spoiler tags in regards to their reading of the website, then they are obviously not here to read an encyclopedia. -ZeroTalk 14:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not generally interested in deleting templates, only in minimising the damage that some of them do to the encyclopedia and its purposes.


 * I agree that the spoiler warnings are overused, and I don't object to the removal of those not backed by consensus.


 * The templates have proven pretty easy to neutralize. You claim that its for "accomodation of new users", but I've gone to great lengths to facilitate such debate.


 * No, I never made any such comment. The spoiler warnings are for the benefit of everyone who appreciates their presence.  Everyone else can disable them.


 * See the hundreds of articles that I have engaged in removal of spoilers of, showing the state they were in should it be comparable to the time at creation.


 * You removed spoilers from articles? Why?!


 * There is no question in my mind that the article and its quality were never contested by readers or even editors. The problem is that most of the people who rather advocate this support the social doings of external websites and the practices they follow.


 * Other websites do this because people like it. People like it here too.


 * You keep using this argument of "its widely accepted and for that reason it is useful". What do you believe that means?


 * Again, I've made no such comment. (Why have you continually attributed false quotes to me?)  That's backwards; the practice is widely accepted because it's useful.


 * Do you seriously think that the support of a template dictates the ability of is content to assist the encyclopedia? Not so.


 * No. Again, that's backwards.  The template isn't useful because it's supported; it's supported because it's useful.


 * I'm in strong support to keep Wikipedia reasonably free of censorship, practices adopted from external sitse that haven't a clue on the purpose and spirit of an encyclopedia and the like.


 * Again, the "censorship" argument was resoundingly rejected by the community. I fail to see how the fact that other sites use spoiler warnings somehow renders it a bad idea for us.


 * That means that we have to establish that this isn't acceptable becuase its "a common internet courtesy" because this isn't a common site. The encyclopedia comes first. There is no objective beyond that. If people protest to the removal of spoiler tags in regards to their reading of the website, then they are obviously not here to read an encyclopedia.


 * I've seen valid examples of users who are "not here to read an encyclopedia," but this isn't one of them. In no manner does the use of spoiler warnings contradict any of Wikipedia's core goals or standards.
 * We're supposed to be building an encyclopedia that people want to use, not one that forces them to use it in the precise manner of which you personally approve. &mdash;David Levy 16:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Knock off the straw man argument. This hasn't to do with my personal opinion on the matter.


 * I'm not an picky guy. Over the time period of several months prior to this discussion, I just went down my list and essentially chose various articles I have contributed to and articles I've editted, but was previously quite ignorant on the subject matters. The process of my removals involved the experiment of how useful the templates were and just how much they would effect the editting habbits, reading and value of people, so I deleted. Of the articles, the process struck me as an obvious content for removal: it wasn't helping anything. Now I don't know what the "guideline" says about this and I don't care, if this template isn't improving the value of the encyclopedia itself and is merely a formality because various people like the premise of an idea from a social networking site, then we're being very silly. If guidelines are wrong they should be ignored until they're fixed. And that's precisely what I have done.


 * The fact that I have removed hundreds of spoilers from numerous articles and continue to do so may sound outrageous, but I don't see that as a problem to the nature of the encyclopedia. I don't mind if you want to go through the studious formalities of proving me incorrect and depicting solid edvidence of this template's usefulness in action (a few numerical reports would be sufficient). As of now, I have not seen it. -ZeroTalk 18:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. The straw man arguments are yours, I'm afraid. (You've continually invented false quotes and argued against them.)  I don't know how you can possibly claim that "this hasn't to do with [your] personal opinion on the matter."  Is it not your personal opinion that Wikipedia should not contain spoiler warnings?
 * 2. Most Wikipedians believe that spoiler warnings do improve the value of the encyclopedia. You're entitled to disagree, but you are not entitled to impose your viewpoint on the community.  Anyone can easily disable the tags' display, but you want to remove that option (thereby forcing everyone to use the site in the manner that you prefer).  I don't understand how you can deny this.
 * 3. You keep saying that you've been removing spoilers from articles. Do you actually mean that you're removing spoiler warnings?
 * 4. Your request that I "go through the studious formalities of proving [you] incorrect and depicting solid evidence of this template's usefulness in action" via the use of "numerical reports" is patently ludicrous and borderline trollish. As I've stated repeatedly, this is a simple matter of utility.  If users indicate that the spoiler warnings improve their reading/editing experience, that's reason enough to have them.  I honestly don't understand what proof you're looking for.  Regardless, you're the one proposing a major change to the status quo, so I contend that the onus is on you to establish that this would benefit Wikipedia.  Thus far, you've cited nothing other than your personal belief that the consensus is wrong.  &mdash;David Levy 18:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The community exists to produce an encyclopedia, and has no function beyond that. It cannot dictate to outlines set by external websites or "internet formalities". By edvidence, surely this must increase producive edits in mainspace. Or perhaps garner a more productive editting space...? Perhaps attract more dedicated readers...? Something...? Many people liking it doesn't have to do with the goal of building an encyclopedia.
 * How does the template improve the encylopedia...? -ZeroTalk 19:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, the community exists to produce an encyclopedia that people want to use . There's no rule that encyclopedias can't contain spoiler warnings.  (Most don't, but they also lack spoilers.)  No one is arguing that external websites should dictate our content.  The point is that our users wish to employ this type of setup here.  You're asking me to provide evidence that couldn't possibly exist (because it would require comparison to a nonexistent situation).
 * The spoiler warnings improve the encyclopedia by enhancing readers' ability to access information in the manner of their choosing. This is irrefutable, because the people have said so themselves .  They've plainly stated that they enjoy having the option of skipping past spoilers, and they've indicated that they otherwise would avoid reading entire articles.  Do you believe that these individuals are lying, or do you merely wish to punish them for disagreeing with you?  &mdash;David Levy 19:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop the silly shouting and over bolding. I'm merely attempting to improve wikipedia as are you. I really don't see a need to ruffle feathers in this debate. I'm dissapointed by the manner of that comment; I assumed we were all friends here and only were discussing a rather large issue in a debate. -ZeroTalk 19:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't "shouting." I was emphasizing the comments that you've forced me to repeat ad nauseum, in the hope that you would finally absorb them.  (I don't expect you to agree with me, but you should be able to comprehend what I've written and stop misconstruing my stance.)
 * I don't doubt that you wish to improve Wikipedia, but your idea of how to do so (in dictatorial fashion, thereby overriding consensus&mdash;one of our core principles) is flawed. &mdash;David Levy 19:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I find your answer extremely difficult to believe. Why presume a silly template would dictate weather or not a person would read text in an encyclopedia....? I believe, when you think of it, its not really sensible. If a chap comes to wikipedia and sees an article titled "plot summary" with a oh, say three pharagraphs below it, then what do you think would be in there...? Its an incredibly redundant tool and I really don't see if its even achieving its intended "purpose" to that end. If a person doesn't wish to read a spoiler, they won't. A template wouldn't assist in the matter. -ZeroTalk 19:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, so you are accusing these people of lying. Gotcha.  &mdash;David Levy 19:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * David, you contionusly refer to "these people" without citing the poll where they expressed that they think Wikipedia with spoiler warnings is better than it would be without them. You continously dodge this. Your argument boils down to this every single time:


 * They're in common use, so, therefore, they must be useful.
 * The fact that they're in common use must mean that people like them.
 * Given that the status quo doesn't display any problems, there couldn't possibly be room for improvement with regards to the site's intended purpose: being an encyclopedia.
 * A noun defined as being a body of text containing thorough dissertations on various subjects somehow doesn't convey to readers that the work is, indeed, a body of text containing thorough dissertations on various subjects.
 * People would -- for some reason -- think that a body of text containing thorough dissertations on various subjects should become less thorough in the event that spoiler warnings weren't present, and would proceed to emaciate the encyclopedia.
 * In the event that someone really did believe encyclopedia articles shouldn't be thorough dissertations and began emaciating them, the rest of the community would make no move to revert it, and, in fact, might agree with them.


 * And, of course, all of this lacks a single point of verifiability. We, however, can verify that spoiler warnings are redundant within an encyclopedia, and that has been done several times over. Ryu Kaze 22:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * David, you contionusly refer to "these people" without citing the poll where they expressed that they think Wikipedia with spoiler warnings is better than it would be without them.


 * When did I say anything about a poll? I'm referring to comments expressed in various discussions on numerous pages within the site.  (If you wish to find them, your best bet is to perform a Google search.)  If you'd like to conduct a straw poll, go right ahead.


 * You continously dodge this.
 * I've dodged nothing. I've repeatedly presented my viewpoint in a straightforward manner, and you're responded by disregarding my arguments and refuting arguments that I haven't made.  When I fail to justify a stance that you've invented and attributed to me, you claim that I'm dodging the issues.
 * Additionally, you've continually treated your personal opinions as sacrosanct truths, using them to draw circular conclusions. For example, you treat your belief that spoiler warnings are inherently unencyclopedic as fact, thereby arriving at the conclusion that my support of spoiler warnings means that I don't want this to be an encyclopedia (which couldn't be further from the truth).


 * Your argument boils down to this every single time:
 * I'll address these individually.


 * They're in common use, so, therefore, they must be useful.
 * I never, ever wrote that, and I already noted this fact in reply to Megaman Zero. Why are you fabricating these false claims?


 * The fact that they're in common use must mean that people like them.
 * Again, I've made no such claim. As I've repeated numerous times, we know that people like them because they say so .  How much clearer can I make myself?


 * Given that the status quo doesn't display any problems, there couldn't possibly be room for improvement with regards to the site's intended purpose: being an encyclopedia.
 * Yet again, you've twisted my words. It is my opinion that removing the spoiler warnings would not improve Wikipedia (and would actually harm the site), but I never claimed that this conclusion automatically stemmed from the fact that the status quo is acceptable.  On the contrary, I asked you if the spoiler warnings' removal would benefit Wikipedia, and you responded by stating that this is not a valid issue.
 * You believe that removing the spoiler warnings would be good, and I believe that it would be bad. And yet, you believe that only I am obligated to substantiate my opinion with evidence (and when I do, you dismiss it).  In your mind, your stance is automatically bolstered by the "fact" that spoiler warnings contribute nothing of encyclopedic value.  In actuality, of course, this is merely an opinion, and it's one that serves to justify itself.


 * A noun defined as being a body of text containing thorough dissertations on various subjects somehow doesn't convey to readers that the work is, indeed, a body of text containing thorough dissertations on various subjects.
 * Here's another of your favorite straw man arguments (which, of course, fails to remotely resemble anything that I've written). No one is claiming that people will otherwise be totally unaware of the fact that the articles contain spoilers.  Again, the purpose of the warnings is to demarcate specific sections, thereby providing the option of skipping them and reading the remainder of the articles' content.  Your belief that people shouldn't want to do this doesn't change the fact that many do.  (Meanwhile, those who don't can disable the messages.)


 * People would -- for some reason -- think that a body of text containing thorough dissertations on various subjects should become less thorough in the event that spoiler warnings weren't present, and would proceed to emaciate the encyclopedia.


 * Not surprisingly, I didn't write that either. I merely noted that some editors would be reluctant to add new spoilers to articles.  I know this because they've said do.


 * In the event that someone really did believe encyclopedia articles shouldn't be thorough dissertations and began emaciating them, the rest of the community would make no move to revert it, and, in fact, might agree with them.


 * And once again, you pull a claim out of thin air and attribute it to me. I never said that the community would allow content to be removed from the encyclopedia.  My point is that some of it won't be written in the first place.  Other editors may try to take up the slack, but that will only divert resources that could have gone elsewhere.


 * And, of course, all of this lacks a single point of verifiability.


 * Sure it does, if you disregard all of the community discussion (because it fails to meet the standards of the five-year, double-blind Harvard study that you evidently demand).


 * We, however, can verify that spoiler warnings are redundant within an encyclopedia, and that has been done several times over.


 * This verification is based solely upon your opinion (which contradicts consensus). Do you honestly believe that continually stating it as fact will somehow make it so?  &mdash;David Levy 00:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "For example, you treat your belief that spoiler warnings are inherently unencyclopedic as fact, thereby arriving at the conclusion that my support of spoiler warnings means that I don't want this to be an encyclopedia (which couldn't be further from the truth)."
 * Yeah, I've totally never said that. What I have implied, though, is that you're ignoring that this is an encyclopedia.
 * "I never, ever wrote that, and I already noted this fact in reply to Megaman Zero. Why are you fabricating these false claims?"
 * Constnatly reiterating that they're in common use across the internet as part of an argument that they're useful and should be kept sure sounds like you've said that.
 * "Again, I've made no such claim. As I've repeated numerous times, we know that people like them because they say so .  How much clearer can I make myself?"
 * And given that we have no poll where they've said so, where have they said so?
 * "You believe that removing the spoiler warnings would be good, and I believe that it would be bad. And yet, you believe that only I am obligated to substantiate my opinion with evidence (and when I do, you dismiss it). In your mind, your stance is automatically bolstered by the "fact" that spoiler warnings contribute nothing of encyclopedic value. In actuality, of course, this is merely an opinion, and it's one that serves to justify itself."
 * I believe that removing them would be logical, which is usually something I classify as good. As far as my opinion, no, it doesn't justify itself, because it uses the definition of "encyclopedia," not itself. My opinion is that spoiler warnings are redundant of the word "encyclopedia." Given that the definition of encyclopedia is "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge" and that this is my justification, no, I'm not using my opinion to justify my opinion. Have you been paying attention to our constant reference of the definition of the word?
 * "Here's another of your favorite straw man arguments (which, of course, fails to remotely resemble anything that I've written). No one is claiming that people will otherwise be totally unaware of the fact that the articles contain spoilers.  Again, the purpose of the warnings is to demarcate specific sections, thereby providing the option of skipping them and reading the remainder of the articles' content."
 * And what part of "comprehensive" isn't specific? Depending on what you consider a spoiler, the whole damn thing could be. While you could pick out the things that almost anyone would consider a spoiler (the ending to The Sixth Sense for example, or Luke Skywalker's parentage), if all you're offering to your readers outside of the spoiler tags is a) non-comprehensive information or b) intentionally misleading information so that you won't spoil anything, then you're not being very encyclopedic. One also has to beg the question of why people would be looking at the story and character sections of an article they don't want to read spoilers for.
 * "Not surprisingly, I didn't write that either. I merely noted that some editors would be reluctant to add new spoilers to articles. I know this because they've said do."
 * Excluding spoilers would be emaciating the encyclopedia, I'm afraid.
 * "And once again, you pull a claim out of thin air and attribute it to me. I never said that the community would allow content to be removed from the encyclopedia. My point is that some of it won't be written in the first place. Other editors may try to take up the slack, but that will only divert resources that could have gone elsewhere."
 * I apologize. You didn't say exactly that, but it seemed implied. If people don't feel comfortable adding spoilers, it's only logical to assume that this means they're going to start removing the ones that are already there from the pages they work on. Given that you were speaking as though the removal of spoiler warnings would lead to Wikipedia Doomsday, it was a short leap in logic from that other stuff to people for some reason not doing anything to stop the loss of comprehensive content.
 * "Sure it does, if you disregard all of the community discussion (because it fails to meet the standards of the five-year, double-blind Harvard study that you evidently demand)."
 * Discussion under what pretenses? Were the individuals talking about it editors assuming that the readers wanted it, or specifically readers (there are people who mainly come here to read) saying that it's what they like to see? Is there reasonable indication that the majority of users were represented?
 * "This verification is based solely upon your opinion (which contradicts consensus)."
 * Consensus has yet to be established. And, again, this verification is based on the definition of a word. Do you really think you're going to change that? Ryu Kaze 01:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'd like to add that if it can be established that the majority of users do see spoiler tags as a useful, beneficial tool, then I imagine both Zero and myself would respect their beneficial quality as outweighing their illogical nature. At least I think both of us would. I know we'd both still see them as redundant, but we'd know they aren't pointless. Ryu Kaze 01:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * For example, you treat your belief that spoiler warnings are inherently unencyclopedic as fact, thereby arriving at the conclusion that my support of spoiler warnings means that I don't want this to be an encyclopedia (which couldn't be further from the truth).


 * Yeah, I've totally never said that. What I have implied, though, is that you're ignoring that this is an encyclopedia.


 * Yes, that's what I'm referring to. You've implied that I'm deliberately ignoring the site's nature.


 * Constnatly reiterating that they're in common use across the internet as part of an argument that they're useful and should be kept sure sounds like you've said that.


 * You're combining separate statements. I noted this as a factor that leads many people to expect a similar setup here (whether this is good or bad), not as evidence that it's "useful."


 * And given that we have no poll where they've said so, where have they said so?


 * As I noted, the issue has arisen on various pages (often the talk pages of articles). You don't have to take my word for it, but I have neither the time nor inclination to hunt for these discussions.  You're welcome to do so, or you can initiate a straw poll.


 * I believe that removing them would be logical, which is usually something I classify as good. As far as my opinion, no, it doesn't justify itself, because it uses the definition of "encyclopedia," not itself. My opinion is that spoiler warnings are redundant of the word "encyclopedia." Given that the definition of encyclopedia is "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge" and that this is my justification, no, I'm not using my opinion to justify my opinion. Have you been paying attention to our constant reference of the definition of the word?


 * Yes, and I reject that argument. It's based upon the belief that spoiler warnings serve no purpose other than to warn users of the spoilers' presence in the encyclopedia.  This is flagrantly false.  Again, the tags demarcate specific sections, thereby providing the option of skipping them and reading the remainder of the articles' content.
 * Returning to an earlier analogy, one could just as easily argue that our categories are "redundant," given the fact that most readers will realize that the encyclopedia contains articles on all of these topics. Why should we do them the favor of telling them exactly where to find their desired information?  It should be obvious from the articles' titles, and they can simply search the entire encyclopedia on their own.  Right?


 * Depending on what you consider a spoiler, the whole damn thing could be.


 * The contextual definition of the word "spoiler" is well-established. I have seen the tags misapplied, just as most of our templates are occasionally misused.  The solution is to remove these specific instances, not all of them throughout the site.


 * While you could pick out the things that almost anyone would consider a spoiler (the ending to The Sixth Sense  for example, or  Luke Skywalker 's parentage), if all you're offering to your readers outside of the spoiler tags is a) non-comprehensive information or b) intentionally misleading information so that you won't spoil anything, then you're not being very encyclopedic.


 * No one said anything about including non-comprehensive information, let alone intentionally misleading information. Plenty of encyclopedic content about fictional works is spoiler-free.


 * One also has to beg the question of why people would be looking at the story and character sections of an article they don't want to read spoilers for.


 * Such sections don't necessarily contain spoilers throughout.


 * Excluding spoilers would be emaciating the encyclopedia, I'm afraid.


 * Indeed, but I never claimed that editors would be permitted to remove encyclopedic content that already exists.


 * I apologize. You didn't say exactly that, but it seemed implied. If people don't feel comfortable adding spoilers, it's only logical to assume that this means they're going to start removing the ones that are already there from the pages they work on.


 * They would want to (and some might try), but few would ever get away with this. Such removals would be quickly reverted by editors (including me) who realize that this is an encyclopedia (with or without spoiler warnings).


 * Given that you were speaking as though the removal of spoiler warnings would lead to Wikipedia Doomsday, it was a short leap in logic from that other stuff to people for some reason not doing anything to stop the loss of comprehensive content.


 * To be clear, I'm confident that Wikipedia would survive and flourish in the absence of spoiler warnings. I simply believe that it's better off with the spoiler warnings.


 * Discussion under what pretenses? Were the individuals talking about it editors assuming that the readers wanted it, or specifically readers (there are people who mainly come here to read) saying that it's what they like to see? Is there reasonable indication that the majority of users were represented?


 * The issue sometimes arises on articles' talk pages. A random person might assert that a spoiler tag has been misapplied (which sometimes is true), that a spoiler tag is missing, or that spoiler warnings are unnecessary.  Time and again, the consensus has been that spoiler warnings are a good idea.
 * It's very difficult to separate "readers" from "editors." Non-editors are far less likely to comment, but editors are readers.  Wikipedia editors adopted this practice because it's what they want to see when they read articles.


 * Consensus has yet to be established.


 * It has to my satisfaction, but it's entirely within reason for you to disagree.


 * And, again, this verification is based on the definition of a word. Do you really think you're going to change that?


 * No. I merely dispute your contention that the definition of the word "encyclopedia" precludes the inclusion of helpful notations.  Again, their main purpose is not to warn of the spoilers' presence in the encyclopedia.


 * By the way, I'd like to add that if it can be established that the majority of users do see spoiler tags as a useful, beneficial tool, then I imagine both Zero and myself would respect their beneficial quality as outweighing their illogical nature. At least I think both of us would. I know we'd both still see them as redundant, but we'd know they aren't pointless.


 * Likewise, while I believe that the spoiler warnings are logical and beneficial, I would respect a consensus to remove them. (Despite any impression to the contrary, I don't believe that this would destroy Wikipedia.)
 * Just be careful with words like "majority." Wikipedia is not a democracy, and consensus is not determined via majority voting.  Substantial minority viewpoints also count, and various compromises can be reached.  (This isn't necessarily an all-or-nothing proposition.)  &mdash;David Levy 20:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly. I think our arguments and basis of fact in this matter is very sensible and on the foundation of what an encyclopedia is, they are very redundant. David, you claim such things as, I "...assume these people are lying" and I'm .."throwing my weight about in the mind to access a dictatorship". I've no comment on your mislead claims, but I do think that the questionabe usefulness of this template surrounded by fallacies is a logical view to explain my boldness. -ZeroTalk 08:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You believe that people couldn't possibly derive utility from the spoiler warnings. If this is accurate, it means that anyone claiming to derive such utility must be lying.  What other explanation could there be?
 * When I described your methodology as "dictatorial," I meant that it was domineering. I wasn't suggesting that you're literally a dictator, nor did I write anything about "throwing [your] weight about in the mind."  If you're going to quote me (quotation marks and all), please use my actual words.  &mdash;David Levy 20:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * When I noted I removed hundreds of spoilers, yes, I was referring to the spoiler warnings. And the experiment has yeilded very good results, I think. I've found that the removal has not affected the running of wikipedia negatively, it has no foundation of dictating a person's contributions and I've found its redundancy is proven by the very premise of wikipedia itself. -ZeroTalk 08:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't comment on the wisdom of your edits, as I haven't examined the articles in question. Perhaps no one noticed your revisions.  Perhaps the spoiler warnings that you removed were inappropriate (assuming that any spoiler warnings are appropriate).  I don't know.
 * Either way, spoiler warnings are inessential, so your arguable reduction of the articles' quality had no Earth-shattering impact. (That much is certain.)  &mdash;David Levy 20:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The spoiler page says: "A spoiler is a piece of information in an article about a narrative work (such as a book, feature film, television show or video game) that may reduce one's enjoyment of it by revealing certain plot events or twists. If someone hasn't read, watched or played the material to which the warning refers, he or she might wish to do so before reading the spoiler in the article."


 * "Not all visitors will recognize the site as an encyclopedia, which should strive first to inform, spoilers or not. An article may contain analyses and background detail not available—or at least, not obvious—in the work described. Where this is the case, a spoiler notice should be made prominent as a simple courtesy."


 * Now this is obviously a false statement. On any external link from google, any gander at wikipedia, the prose "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" is written everywhere. Absolutely everywhere. The top of the articles, the right upper icon, the tabs in firfox, and the program header itself, amoung other places. When people come to wikipedia, they are aware of what we do here as far as articles. To say this makes the experience anymore enthralling is extremely questionble. One must really place the viewpoint of a person who advocates spoiler tags are suitible for a encyclopedia, weather they are truly speaking of an encyclopedia of not. -ZeroTalk 08:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You're misinterpreting the passage in question. (The wording is confusing, and I'll probably revise it.)  The point is not that vistors will fail to realize that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  It's that they'll fail to realize the extent to which we strive to include comprehensive information on spoilable topics.  Most encyclopedias don't contain spoilers, so this is not something that would automatically be expected of one.  There is, however, a widespread expectation that websites containing spoilers will include spoiler warnings.  (Again, I'm not citing this as automatic justification for their presense here.)  &mdash;David Levy 20:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I really don't think I'm misintrepreting much of anything. An encyclopedia is a comprehensive place of knowledge. It does not matter the source material or range of the subjects themselves, an encylcopedia is meant to be comprehensive. To say, "...a person wouldn't realize we don't have spoilers" (essentially saying a person doesn't know we are comprehensive) is simply false. We are one of the biggest websites on the internet. I assure you, people most certainly know what is in wikipedia when they arrive. The problem is some of these chaps may have a misplaced view of what can be introduced into wikipedia. "A widespread expectation...?" Who cares...? Those websites aren't encyclopedias. -ZeroTalk 23:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't mean that you're misinterpreting the meaning of the word "encyclopedia." I mean that you're misinterpreting the intended meaning of the passage (which is poorly worded).
 * Your belief that "people most certainly know what is in Wikipedia when they arrive" simply isn't correct. Many first-time visitors have no clue, and it takes some a while to catch on.
 * Of course, the above is barely relevant; this is not the primary justification for including spoiler warnings. &mdash;David Levy 00:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well you may have a point there. But speaking from my personal experience and the established viewpoints of other editors I am very familiar with, as a newcomer to wikipedia, I was fully aware of this fact. I recall upon my initial experience with the fabled spoiler tag, I percieved it as a nice trinket that came off as cool-looking. However, I justify the irrelevant nature of it even at that timeframe as it did not affect the reading capacity one would now claim it would. This is, most certainly, my opinion, however. -ZeroTalk 06:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I merely object to the statement of opinion as fact.  I've expressed various opinions, and I don't expect you to accept them as sacrosanct.  &mdash;David Levy 11:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Essay

 * I've not kept up with the discussion for a few days and it appears to have escalated into a flamewar. This is very ironic, as the original purpose of this discussion was simply to point out that an absolute spoiler policy is subject to heated controversy that is unlikely to breed any sort of constructive consensus. Without commenting on the usefulness or necessity of spoiler warnings on Wikipedia, I would like to humbly suggest that Spoiler warning be tagged with template:essay instead of template:style-guideline. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 11:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds like what it should be to me as well. There's certainly basis for it being an essay that expresses the opinions and ideas of some Wikipedians. There's not really a basis for it being something that the majority (slight, substantial, major or otherwise) think should be treated as gospel, and given also that it is verifiably redundant, it makes more sense as an essay. Ryu Kaze 12:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I support this document as an essay as well. - ZeroTalk 13:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to support a change to essay too. Hiding Talk 20:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. Again, the spoiler warnings are not "verifiably redundant" (unless the categories are too). This is your opinion, not a fact.
 * 2. Under no circumstance is the essay tag appropriate. The page has been presented as a guideline, so it should be assigned either style-guideline status or rejected status (depending upon the consensus).  &mdash;David Levy 20:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding point 2, this can be tagged an essay as easily as rejected, depending on consensus. We aren't slaves to process here, per WP:NOT; "Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. " If there is a consensus to tag this an essay, I would hope that consensus is respected. Hiding Talk 20:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not claiming that we can't tag the page an essay. I'm stating my opinion that this would be inappropriate.  The "essay" designation usually refers to informal opinion pieces that never undergo any attempt at ratification.  This is a formal process proposal, so it must be either accepted or rejected by the community.  If accepted, it's a guideline.  If rejected, it should be labeled accordingly.  Deeming this an "essay" would essentially dodge the issue (by indicating neither acceptance nor rejection).  &mdash;David Levy 21:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But that's why I feel it is the right tag. Because it may well be proved to be the case that support and opposition to the directions on this page are fimely balanced.  If as many people support as oppose the use of spoiler templates, then it has neither acceptance or rejection, and is thus an esay, yes? Hiding Talk 21:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Wikipedia is not a democracy.  51% support doesn't automatically elevate a proposal to guideline status, nor does 51% opposition automatically kill it.  If it's a close call, pros and cons must be carefully weighed, and compromise should be considered.  (In this case, for example, the fact that the warnings can be locally suppressed is a mitigating factor.  If support and opposition prove roughly equal, it might be fairer to ask the opponents to disable the warnings for themselves than it would be to force everyone to give them up.)
 * Regardless, we need to arrive at a clear outcome. We should either sanction spoiler warnings (with new restrictions, if need be) or prohibit them, with the page serving as a record of the decision.  Otherwise, the resultant edit wars (with both sides citing the page's lack of a definitive status) will be far worse than any problems that could arise from including or excluding spoiler warnings.
 * I want to keep the spoiler warnings, but I'd much rather abandon them completely than see thousands of articles transformed into battlegrounds. ("Revert.  It's not a guideline!"  "Revert.  It's not rejected!"  "Revert.  But it's not a guideline!"  "Revert.  But it's not rejected!")  &mdash;David Levy 22:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I respect your argument David. I don't wholly agree, the point of an essay is that it's how people want things done, but that it never gained consensus.  Most rejected proposals can just as easily be tagged essay if people still find them useful.  However, the notion of edit warring on the issue is a well made point.  So how do we square this circle of either rejecting the template or getting to a place where people can live with the guidance offered on using it?  For my own view, I think the tag should be applied rarely, that any work that's been released more than a year be exempt, and that we shouldn't b in the business of spoiling thingsd full stop.  We should only be discussing plot points that have a relevance to the meaning of the work and its impact, not using the template after one has added the plot points of the latest Batman issue released, or in some cases the reported content of a future issue.  Perhaps we need to tighten Wikipedia is not a crytall ball? Hiding Talk 11:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Essays usually contain opinions regarding fairly general concepts (such as editors' attitudes) or notions that no one has actually attempted to codify. They're to be interpreted as opinion pieces, and they can be heeded or ignored at the reader's discretion.  A good example is WP:1RR.  The encouraged behavior is not mandated by any policy or guideline, but  there's no harm in optionally following this advice.
 * The page in question, conversely, documents a widespread Wikipedia convention that should be followed, modified and followed, or abandoned in its entirety. Even if the spoiler warning genie were still in the bottle, this would be a formal process proposal (tagged proposed.
 * I agree that the tag is overused, and I support the idea of establishing stricter criteria for its insertion. I don't agree with all of your suggestions (and I would contend that Moby-Dick is as spoilable now as it was in 1851), but all of this can be discussed.  And if consensus dictates that the warnings be removed, so be it.  &mdash;David Levy 11:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, so what are your suggestions on tightening? Where does the consensus lie?  Do we just need to add a line to our disclaimer and do away completely with the tag?  If the basis of this template is that people coming here don't know what to expect, then maybe the answer is to put that in the general disclaimer? What's the problem trying to be solved?  I'm of the opinion people looking up works of fiction in areference book expect the plot to be discussed. Another idea, perhaps articles discussing works of fiction could be tagged as such at the top, noting that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: details regarding plot and impact are discussed, and this discussion may spoil enjoyment of the work if the reader is not already familar with it.  For those reasons, it may be better to avoid reading this article in its entirety without first becoming familiar with the text. Hiding Talk 12:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, we should draft specific, discussion-derived criteria regarding what constitutes a "spoiler." The popular contextual definition is fairly well established, but we should eliminate whatever ambiguity leads to misuse of the tags.  The problem, as I perceive it, is that some editors demarcate details that aren't actually spoilers.  (A murderer's identity&mdash;revealed at the end of the story&mdash;certainly qualifies as a spoiler, but the fact that the story pertains to a murder probably doesn't.)
 * The fact that some newcomers are unfamiliar with our format is a relatively minor factor. The most practical benefit (the enhanced ability to skip specific sections) applies to new and experienced users, including those who expect to find spoilers.  I don't see how it would be preferable to advise users against reading any of the article.
 * Consensus can be determined (established, affirmed, or amended, depending upon one's perspective) via continued discussion. A request for comment might be advisable.  &mdash;David Levy 13:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with the main tag then, for starters, is that it appears to direct that one use it whenever plot is discussed. This appears to contradict your belief as to what the guidance is, so there's a start for the discussion.  I'd also add that the main thrust of the arguments for this warning are that new people may not be aware of the nature of wikipedia.  Whilst that may not be your opinion, that's the general consensus of people in favour of such a warning.  The general consensus of people opposed to the warning see it as unencyclopedic.  So we either have something broad, which directs that works of fiction are discussed in a manner in which plot detail can be revealed, or we have no spolier template at all.  There doesn't appear to be a middle ground.  Every plot detail in fiction is a spoiler to someone, no matter what we might argue to the contrary.  It's disappointing to have something spoilt, but if you wish to avoid that you should avoid all discussion of the given work of fiction.  This template started out as I have described, as a broad warning at the top of an article, and has been edited until it is in its current state.  Since we agree it has gone too far, and since I can't see that any criteria on what makes a spoiler can exist, I think the spirit of the consensus is either in a broad warning at the top of all articles discussing fiction, or a line added to the disclaimer. Hiding Talk 15:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your observation regarding the template's wording is accuarate, and the possibility of modifying it should be discussed. The consensus that you describe might have existed at one time, but I believe that the common usage has evolved beyond that point.  (Again, this can be discussed.)  &mdash;David Levy 16:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This proposal was never ratified by a consensus, someone just came along and slapped the style-guideline tag on. Yelling "opinion" is rather useless when you consider that introducing spoiler tags to Wikipedia goes against all academic precedent. Since when is use of spoiler tags so utterly indisputable that it must be regarded as "fact"? ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 21:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It isn't. I really think to sum up this entire process and implemtation as encyclopediac and backed by concenus would be grossly innapropriate. This entire page's implemtation and ideals was a case of WP:BOLD.-ZeroTalk 21:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * When you say that the proposal "was never ratified by a consensus," do you mean that there wasn't a vote? That's not the only way to determine consensus.  I believe that the actions and comments of the community demonstrated consensus, but I'm entirely open to reassessing the matter.  &mdash;David Levy 22:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would think the terming of concensus in this capacity would be in reference to there was most certainly not any discussion regarding the matter. On this talkpage, not anywhere, really. Things simply moved along without rhyme or reason and people just "accepted it" without basis of why it should be accepted.
 * In 2003, the spoiler tag was implemented boldly without discussion. As we were still growing and didn't quite posess the depth we do regarding fictional works presently this was somewhat acceptable. We're past this point. It is widely known what content is placed here at wikipedia (everything) and how much depth is considered (comprehensive).
 * And David, please cease splitting your rebuttals in between the spaces of my previous comments. It is intensely irritating and, for me, sometimes renders the nearby text unreadable. -ZeroTalk23:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As was customary at the time, the spoiler warning tag was created in an act of boldness. Since that point, however, the matter most certainly has been discussed, and I believe that consensus was established.  (Again, it's entirely reasonable to disagree.)  Regardless, the fact that no formal vote was held does not preclude the possibility.
 * I don't dispute your claim that "people just 'accepted it' without basis of why it should be accepted," as I'm sure that many people did. (I've seen this happen in several instances, and it can be extraordinarily frustrating.)  Others, however, analyzed the situation and arrived at well-reasoned opinions.
 * I'm sorry that my style of reply has been bothersome for you. I've never managed to find one that everyone likes, and I'm still experimenting.  I'll be careful to avoid this particular convention when replying to you in the future. :-)  &mdash;David Levy 00:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope you'll reconsider your hasty judgement, David. Your apparent belief that there was previous discussion on the nature of the subject is misplaced. You have falsely claimed, for instance, that the numerous actions and motives of the tag were helpful and productive, yet you present no evidence to support this claim. Now, back to discussing the concensus. Have you noticed how numerous established editors on this page have uninamously expressed the view that the spoiler tags are not useful (with which the talk page is replete) and a wish to elevate the status of the project to essay ? Having to some extent diminished your propensity to declare concensus, we now need to work on that. -ZeroTalk 06:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. The fact that my opinion differs from yours doesn't render my judgement "hasty." On the contrary,  I've given this subject a great deal of consideration.
 * 2. There has been previous discussion. I've seen it myself!  Does it seem plausible to you that no one on Wikipedia ever questioned the wisdom of spoiler warnings before?
 * 3. You're entitled to disagree with my assessment, but please stop claiming that I've "present[ed] no evidence." That simply isn't true.  I've presented no evidence of the type that you demand, because it would be impossible to do so.  Your decision to reject my evidence doesn't mean that it's nonexistent.  Likewise, I reject some of your arguments, but I don't pretend that you haven't made them.
 * 4. Are you seriously suggesting that the handful of respondents to this discussion constitutes a consensus? Why to you refer to one position as unanimous (which is what I assume you meant), given the fact that it's disputed?  (Do I not count as an "established editor"?)
 * Incidentally, I read the mailing list discussion (which certainly didn't generate predominant opposition to the spoiler warnings). I was amused by the fact that you discounted the pro-spoiler warning stance of both editors who "make the unfounded assumption" that spoiler warnings are beneficial to "readers" and "newbies that just began editing the wiki," who "had not participated in Wikipedia discussion."
 * 5. At no point have I unilaterally "declare[d] consensus." I've merely expressed my opinion that consensus was established in the past.  At no point did I claim that my opinion (or the alleged consensus) was sacrosanct, and I've plainly stated that I welcome discussion on the matter.  &mdash;David Levy 11:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay. If I jumped the gun on your decalration of concensus, I apologize. As in respect to the previous discussion, I would most certianly be elated to see them so we can see the viewpoint of the "community".
 * The mailing list was laden with the dodging of queries and the essential rebutalls given to nonsennse in reagards to the practice of other websites. Additionally, many new editors at wikipedia land within the project with a "I know what's best even though I have but five article edits and none to wikipedia space" mentality. In many cases, I do not intend to take such opinions seriously.
 * It is most certianly an unfounded assumption. It just smacks of lack of supporting edvidence. It is easy to say "Oh well we think it would be useful, but the fact of this is an encyclopedia simply never arose in that decision." You're welcome to your opinion, I see no provided basis of fact.
 * You make reference of this concensus that is in strong support of the tag and can explain its usefulness. Where are these people....I do not see them. -ZeroTalk 12:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. As I've repeatedly noted, I'm not referring to any single discussion. This issue has arisen numerous times on various  talk pages.  I don't have a list handy, so feel free to disregard this claim if you believe that I'm lying.
 * 2. You've continually misconstrued the "other websites" comments. Steve Summit put it best:
 * We're not doing it simply because other websites do it, and the argument for why we're doing it is not 'because other websites do it'. What we've got here is correlation, not causation.  We do it because it's a good idea, which is the same reason they do it.  When people make the argument 'but all the other websites are doing it', all they're saying is, 'so it's not a preposterous idea'."
 * 3. You dismiss the input of experienced editors (based on the premise that they're out of touch with readers' preferences) and the input of readers (based on the premise that they're inexperienced as editors)! In other words, you dismiss the input of everyone with whom you disagree.  &mdash;David Levy 13:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am afraid that you are the one, in this instance, who disregards reasoning. Seek evidence that would convince us there is clear reasoning from this, as you have claimed several times, seriously assisting Wikipedia and its editors. It's put-up-or-shut-up time. I'm pretty sure that the only way to establish its a good reason for other websites to do it is beacause they aren't encyclopedias. Convince me that this behavior is helping Wikipedia. I'm not inquiring for previous concensus. I'm asking for an agreement now. -ZeroTalk 13:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've repeatedly explained my reasoning. Rather than merely disagreeing with me (which is entirely reasonable), you've decided that anything short of "numerical reports" is tantamount to nonexistent.  At this juncture, I neither aspire nor expect to convince you of anything.  &mdash;David Levy 13:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Prior discussion
Okay, I found this prior discussion which looks to have generated no consensus. Wikipedia talk:Warn readers about spoilers. Any other discussions that generate a consensus? It seems that this may have always been contentious. Hiding Talk 12:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Gracious. What a messy page. Its rare I witness such a mess of confusion on wikipedia. At the outset, I could scarcely tell what was being discussed. -ZeroTalk 12:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Many scattered discussions have occurred since then. You're welcome to search for them, but I wouldn't bother.  At this point, all that really matters is whether/what consensus exists now.  &mdash;David Levy 13:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So is it okay to remove the tag, since we can't locate any consensus, stick a proposal tag on it and then build that consensus? Hiding Talk 14:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I support this action. -ZeroTalk 14:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Due to the high visibility of this tag, and likely controversial nature of this proposal, I would suggest that any discussion on this matter should be brought to the attention of as wider group of editors as possible - if there is to be a discussion about this, it should be listed on the Community Portal notice board. Bob 15:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea, but the problem is we get a whose foot is the boot on? A guideline tag was added, it can just as easily be removed.  However, that way descends into an edit war.  So then we have a situation where, as you suggest, we ask the community, but the problem is, what question do we ask.  The most neutral question is "Is this a guideline?"  However, if it already has the guideline tag on it, that adds bias to the argument.  So what's the fairest way of asking the community?  Hiding Talk 15:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There are two possibilities. Either consensus was reached in the past (and this is a guideline) or consensus wasn't reached (and this isn't a guideline).  Regardless, we aren't bound by that outcome, so this issue is largely moot.  (If it is a guideline, it can be negated.  If it isn't a guideline, it can become one.)
 * Instead of asking the community to determine whether this is a guideline, we should ask them whether it should be a guideline (and if so, how it should be written and implemented). That will put us in a neutral position similar to that of a process proposal.  &mdash;David Levy 16:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't object to the removal of the style-guideline tag, as that status clearly is disputed. The standard proposed tag, however, would imply that no assertion of "guideline" status has been made (which obviously isn't true).
 * The disputedpolicy tag (presently displayed below the style-guideline tag) is the most appropriate, and I suggest that we use a customized version that explains the situation in a fair and neutral manner. &mdash;David Levy 16:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Precisely. One of the most prevelant factors in support of the tag is that many users see it as a guideline somehow established by Jimbo himself or the like. I asked users in the course of removing various tags from articles why they advocated it.
 * I never recieved an answer other than "Its a guideline". In fact, one lad (an administrator even! So much for knowing policy) thought it was a policy as old and respected as WP:NOT itself. Utterley unbelieveable. -ZeroTalk 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, such ignorance and blind acceptance are fairly common in these parts. &mdash;David Levy 16:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. That is pretty bad. Anyway, I support the notion that the question asked should be "Should this be a guideline?" as well as the implementation of a custom disputed tag. That would probably be for the best, given that this page is currently listed as a guideline already. Great work getting discussion this far, by the way, everyone. When people who have spent about 25kb arguing begin working together, good things will be accomplished. Ryu Kaze 17:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As of this post, I have removed the tag, retaining the namespace redirects. I've no idea how to implement a custom tag unless this involves the use of subst. -ZeroTalk 17:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward
So what do people think of setting up some discussion questions, and then inviting comment through cent, WP:RFC and WP:VPP? Some questions that I think might be worth asking:


 * Should the placement of spoiler messages be a guideline on Wikipedia? Is it unencyclopedic or would readers expect such warnings?
 * Where should any spoiler message go, at the top of an article, in the wikipedia disclaimer or in the relevant section?
 * What constitutes spoilage? Are there time limits?
 * Should plot details in fiction be included arbitrarily, or only where relevant to a sourced, critical discussion of the work and its impact? By this I'm having in mind that a summary of Moby Dick is relevant to an article discussing the book and its impact and place in the wider world. A summary of the details of the latest Batman issues is not as germane to an article on Batman, discussing the character's history, impact and place in the wider world.  So should plot details, or spoilers which aren't germane to an article be inserted?

Any other areas of discussion people want to open up? Hiding Talk 13:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that sums it up nicely. I really don't believe wikipedia would benefit from the additon of spoiler tags from what I've gathered from various observations. I also strongly object to the removal of spoiler content from the articles themselves. As an encyclopedia, being comprehensive is what we do. I really think the question to the community that needs to be asked is this a useful asset or merely bloatful novelty...? As an editor with a large amount of experience in mainspace, I'm inclined to suggest the latter.-ZeroTalk 22:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There are, I think, a limited number of places where spoiler warnings remain appropriate. The first question would be, what sort of material is liable to be spoiled?  Canonical novels and stories whose outcome is strongly dependent on plot twists are the obvious candidates.  There may come a time when the tale is so well known that spoiler warnings may be redundant &mdash; most of us know what the plot twist for the myth Oedipus was &mdash; but this may be a rather subjective criterion.  Other works of fiction (e.g. Madame Bovary) are not really spoiled by spoilers; the plot twists are not the chief interest in the writing.  This too is unavoidably subjective, but we just have to be comfortable with making subjective decisions.


 * A number of problems arise, though. Stubs should not carry them; stubby articles (e.g. The Murders in the Rue Morgue) are brief enough that someone who sees the warning sees the spoiler.  The warning does no good and adds clutter.  Traditionally, etiquette required that spoiler warnings be followed by blank space on message boards, to enable the person who does not want to learn the spoiler to abort reading it.  This isn't feasible here.


 * "Fixity," for want of a better word, is another problem. Episode based plot synopses of soap operas or comic books isn't really encyclopedia material, even if is plot twist dependent.  New twists are always arriving in the next episode.  This isn't really a matter for the use of the spoiler tag, as it is about the sort of content that ought to be in an encyclopedia to begin with.


 * So my opinion is that the tag and guideline remain useful, but should not be liberally used. Smerdis of Tlön 14:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think spoilers are fine in the body of an article, but they need to have some form of cloak. Some sites for instance hide the spoiler text via a button that denotes that spoiler text follows. When you click the button the text is revealed. I really think this is a critical addition and topical as we've been playing the video game Assassin's Creed III and I was reading the historical information about the real person Charles Lee... unfortunately at the end of the article is a Popular Culture entry that unexpectedly spoiled a plot element that I was no where near learning yet. It would have been nice if that could have been hidden unless I wanted to disclose it to myself.BcRIPster (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)