Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/Guideline status2

Request for comment
A discussion has taken place over the status of this page, as archived at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/Guideline status, and participants are seeking comments on the following questions, in a bid to gain consensus on this page's status and purpose. Hiding Talk 11:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Questions to consider

 * 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 as to what can be spoilt, for example would Shakespeare's plays or Moby Dick need warnings?
 * 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 we have 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?

Discussion
My opinion: --cesarb 15:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The placement of spoiler tags is established practice on Wikipedia; the guideline merely captures what's been done for a long time. I see nothing unencyclopedic about them (they are not content; they are merely metadata).
 * Of all the so-called "disclaimer templates", spoiler warnings are the only ones which have been generally accepted at Wikipedia; see No disclaimer templates.
 * The spoiler template should not be placed at the top of the article; at least the lead (intro) section should be outside it, explaining what the article is about (even if it's only "X is a fictional character in the work Y"). The warning can already be found at the disclaimers; however, the template makes it possible to mark only part of an article as a spoiler, so even the ones who do not want to be spoiled can read at least part of the article.
 * I personally believe even classical works should have spoiler tags; some people haven't read them yet, but might intend to in the future.
 * Just because it's a spoiler doesn't mean different rules apply; the standards for inclusion of information should be the same both inside and outside the spoiler-marked section.

You can see how strongly is the use of spoiler warnings supported at Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 4. I think there's no question as to the guideline status of the use of spoiler warnings. --cesarb 15:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * With the increasing use of the Internet, people have begun to expect spoiler warnings. I';ve seen it mentioned as jokes on TV, so I believe it's pretty common knowledge of such a thing. Is it unencyclopedic or would readers expect such warnings? No. The information is still there. I am liberal with the use of spoiler warnings, however, and I think that it should only cover comprehensive plot summaries that give away surprises, etc. With serialized fiction, such as comic books, spoiler warnings should cover only recent (around six months) or ongoing storylines. Spoiling is about not giving someone the chance to enjoy the work for himself; with Shakespeare, hundreds of years have passed, and that's a pretty good chance at reading the plays, but more importantly, I think it would generally be unexpected to see a spoiler on something that old. That's why I think we should loosely limit spoilers to works from either 50 or 100 years ago. Spoilers that aren't necessary or even relevent to the article should not be included. --Chris Griswold 15:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) I personally detest spoiler warnings. However they should be placed in wikipedia articles to keep people from needlessly editing articles to remove spoiler content and to keep those who dislike spoilers happy.
 * 2) The spoiler message should be used sparingly. It should either go on the effected section or, if huge chunks of the section are spoilers, it should go after the WP lead, but before the TOC.  Articles should not constantly open and close spoilers.  I, personally, like the way the French Wikipedia does spoiler warnings.
 * 3) What constitutes spoilage? It depends on the work and on the spoiler. Consideration should be given to the timeliness of the series and the depth of the spoiler. Saying that "Sailor Uranus is a comrade of Sailor Moon" is a spoiler for anyone who's not seen past a certain episode of the show, but... it's also a common fact. So, one has to differentiate between major and minor spoilers and how much time has passed since the spoiler was revealed.
 * 4) Should spoilers which aren't germane to an article be inserted? Should they? They will weasel their way in even if they are banned. Undoubtedly Batman has battled his archenemies Guarnagirl in that edition of the comic and it leads to some plot detail that could be inserted in her character profile. Guarnagirl, however, isn't notable enough to earn a solo article so editors have included her in the "Characters" section of the Batman article.  --Kunzite 02:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We are all aware that I regard these templates as very unsuitible material. In their usage, many claim that "people have come to expect spoilers", which doesn't compute because then that would establish that the insertion of the template would be redundant. One must really ask themselves if they see a header with "plot" or whatnot and there's text below it what lies within. One also has to note are our editors even attributing our readers with enough common sense to navigate a page on wikipedia, which given our general organization and interface is very acessible. To claim the spoiler, a silly template, assists in the nature of warning a reader when obvious placement of text gives one the green or red light to is entirely inapropriate.


 * As for the "strong concensus" exibited on the previous TFD, nothing ever came of it. The common views were a little broken at the time, I think, and no one came forward to address the usefulness of the template other than the poor reasoning of its time on wikipedia, which, was at any rate, not particularly a good reason. I was a newbie once, and that is how we viewed things. I've gained more experience since then and seen more of wikipdia's pattern of working. Such experience has proven the usefulness of the template has never been helpful to the encyclopedia. When I was a new editor, such tags seemed new and interesting to me, but even then I could not endorse their usefulness, ethier for the intended usage or the website.


 * As for the argument of editors removing content from articles because of spoiler tags being non-existant, I've found there to be no such instance. And if there was, such an edit would be immediately reverted as perception of valid content removal, which is not acceptable. That's similar to saying the No original research policy would ban original research and editors continue to insert it (which is true). I think any policy that bans content people don't agree upon will still be slightly contested by some. We can't really stop all who attempt it but to enforce it. "With the increasing use of the internet, people have come to expect spoiler warnings". Sure they do - on websites that don't consider themselves encyclopedias. It becomes a false attribution because it carries the presumption that we are not an encyclopedia and deliberately commit to being a fan site, movie forum or the like.


 * I'd say it's obviously incorrect to use the template about an article that is considered a classical work of fiction or any other article. The template is useful for fansites and other general purpose websites where such information is considered outlandish to some people, but it's misapplied where in an encyclopedia where making such summeries is our job and being one the largest sites on the internet, people expect spoilers and elaborate summeries, so it's a doddle to google on it. By adding such tags that contridict the meaning of the encyclopedia, we end up destroying perfectly good articles-in-progress. -ZeroTalk 22:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, Zero, in everything you said. But, sadly, as time passes people are getting so used to them on Wikipedia that more and more people believe it's how an encyclopedia article on a book or movie should look like. That warning readers about an article containing information is appropriate for an encyclopedia. It isn't. Many people argue that "the tags are useful to some readers", so we should keep the spoiler warning for that reason. I really doubt that these tags are saving many people from learning things they don't want to learn. But even if they are "useful to some", it's beside the point. Many things are useful, but we don't include them because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: We don't include dictionary definitions, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary. We don't include telephone numbers to hotels and restaurant articles because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a travel guide or phone book. We don't have how-to's or recipes because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an instruction manual. And we regularly delete long lists of external links because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a link repository. All of these things (and much more) could easily be included in many articles if "being useful" was a legit criteria for inclusion. But it isn't. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and this implies rather strict rules on how articles should be written and what they should or should not contain. Wikipedia articles should not contain spoiler warnings, because wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a movie blog or fan site.


 * But I have not very high hopes for getting rid of the silly warnings anymore. They should have been killed from the very beginning and I'm afraid it's too late now. The Germans, with a huge majority, banned the tags from all articles on their Wikipedia, but, well, they are Germans. The best we can hope for, I think, is to get consensus in banning them from a limited number of articles here. The people at WikiProject Opera, recently agreed to ban them in all opera articles. And maybe that's the way to proceed. To approach it on a WikiProject level.


 * But, of course, I'd love to get rid of them on the whole english wikipedia, and if anyone still belives in The Little Engine That Could (Warning: article contains spoiler template(!)), I'll help pushing wherever and whenever it might help to get rid of the tag. But too often I tend to get angry whenever I see the template or its "usefulness" being discussed and I try to stay out of arguing about it for the sake of my own mental well being. Shanes 06:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you'll look below, you'll see, that the tag has become so posionous and blindly accepted that users wish to implement it in the articles pertaining to the bible! That's a little sad that these useless things have gotten so out of hand and the additon of the tag to the The Little Engine That Could, a classic children's novel and encyclopedia article horrified me and drove me quite giddy. I removed it immediately. -ZeroTalk 09:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * With regards to the so-called "strong support" for the template in the discussion that cesarb linked to, I'd just like to point out that -- far from consensus -- the only thing that particular discussion truly reflects is the ability of many people to jump on a discussion that they have made no effort to really understand, and proceed to toss out support for something without any actual basis for doing so (in a venue in which support for voiced opinions is mandatory, no less). Granted, that isn't fair to claim of all the parties involved who called for "Keep." There were quite a few more who made claims that the template is "useful," and, thus, should be present, though they offered no verifiable support for this claim, nor an explanation for how the template is useful in the encyclopedia's purpose of being an encyclopedia (informative and comprehensively so).


 * But you know what? Maybe we should just discard logic. I don't know. Shanes, Zero, what do you think? Should we disregard arriving at a rational conclusion by way of analyzing this template's encyclopedic value on the basis of whether or not it has encyclopedic value? Maybe we should. While we're at it, let's expand the spoiler warning to be even more useful. If we're going to do something, we shouldn't half-ass it, right? So I propose that this (that's a link, folks) becomes the new spoiler template. And that we put it before every sentence in each article. Just to be safe. Ryu Kaze 19:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ha! -Randall Brackett 19:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Shane gives really good advice. Per the comment noting the Opera project attended this from a specific level, I have made a proposal on the talkpage of WP:CVG. -Randall Brackett 20:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler messages belong in Usenet postings, not in an encyclopedia. Moby Dick and Shakespeare don't need them. Plot details belong in articles about specific works. A "Plot" heading is sufficient: if anyone doesn't want to know the plot of a work, they should avoid its article. - Nunh-huh 18:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You forgot reality. People often (I know I do) read an article to see if the game is worth buying.  It we don't have the option of putting spoiler tags in at least on a case-by-case basis, removal of all spolier tags in all articles will likely ruin the game. Articles have to have a section on the plot, (notability and what-not,) but sometimes the paragraph(s) about the plot are simply too short and/or problematic to be put in its own section.  Note that this reasoning doesn't just apply to games, it applies to a lot of other things, too.
 * In my opinion, spoiler templates are far from deprecated. Anyone who has actually written an article knows that spoiler tags are necessary. Since all the admins who have posted here (the majority of comments actually) have forgotten the existing consensus, go read it again.  I suggest nominate spoiler (and related templates) under TfD again and see the results.  My money is on speedy keep under the snowball clause. --DavidHOzAu 05:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh please. This coming from a user that still has a welcome message on his talkpage. "Read an article to see it worth buying...?" This isn't a review site. If that's the reasoning for the template, then its even more silly. An encyclopedia is where you go to learn, gain knowwledge. If that is what a reader decides upon to come to Wikipedia, they are obviously not at the right website.


 * As for that concenus, we've already noted its sheer idiocy compounded by lack of reasoning and empty votes. No matter, I think you'll find there is a strong concensus by the community to avoid thought processes and actions that avoid the realm of review sites and the like. I've experienced many explanations of the support of the tag but none as so outlandish as that.


 * Anyone that has actually written an article...? Riveting words from an editor that has not started one article in the course of his time at wikipedia. See Zero (Mega Man), a GA-level article I wrote from almost the ground up. Not one spoiler. I've started and written many articles- RayStorm, Gate (Mega Man), Bass.EXE, Dead or Alive Ultimate are only few of the hundreds of articles I've done. No, we're going to nominate it. I'm patient. And I'm aware my felllow wikipedians are sensible people. I will go about the wiki and in this time frame I will use advocacy and simple common sense. Such explanantions tend to go farther than the hasty nomination for deleton. My money is on this is an encyclopedia and that nonsense is not going to fly.-Randall Brackett 10:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Truth be told, this is the first message I wish I hadn't posted, and I apologise for its blunt tone. I meant to post this on the CVG project talk page, (too many tabs open,) and was wondering why everyone else here was admins and not my fellow editors.  I'm sorry.
 * I think if there is consensus for removing them, I'll go along with it. However, I still think that are times are places for everything on wikipedia, and that we should shy away from saying "thou shalt strictly use no spoilers".  (IMHO, overly-strict enforcement of all rules is why deletionists have such a bad name as they don't seem to listen to reason in my experience.)  My point is that we really should let editors decide what they want to put in a particular in an article or not; we're already lecturing enough rules to them as it is.
 * P.S. The welcome message is still there because I don't see what's the big deal about removing it. I have 1434 edits on Wikipedia, I do not consider myself a newbie, and I am doing nothing wrong by improving existing articles rather than creating new ones. --DavidHOzAu 12:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my bad faith, there. I was aware of your edit count, rather I presumed the welcome message was still present becuase of your low amount of talkspace edits (11). -Randall Brackett 14:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt that Zero would say you've done anything wrong by only working on pre-existing articles, but given that part of your previous message (which you've gracefully apologized for) was "Anyone who has actually written an article..." that's probably why he said that. In my own case, I doubt I've ever started any article, but the pages I've worked on are quality, many getting to Good Article status. I haven't checked in on most of them over the last couple of months, but there are a few that I do consistently check on, such as Final Fantasy X, the article I almost completely re-wrote and got to Featured Article status.
 * Anyway, with all the work I've done -- some of which constitutes writing an article myself, given that I've completely re-written some -- I can say with complete confidence that spoiler warnings contributed nothing to them. Which is why I've removed them from three pages I put a lot of work into: Final Fantasy X, Spira (Final Fantasy X) and List of locations in Spira. With all I've done for these pages, I'd never make an edit to them unless I felt like I was improving them by way of removing unencyclopedic content or adding more quality content.
 * As far as the points you raised go, Randall's already handled all those the way I would have, so I'll say no more. Ryu Kaze 12:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've no problem with David's differing viewpoint and editting habbits on the matter of this subject. Being an encyclopedia with a wide range of editors and mindsets I think its an asset to wikipedia for us to have these. It was his comment of those who don't write articles which atonished and horrified me to no end and being an editor that has created many, was a comment that I really did not appreciate.


 * David is correct. I strongly endorse the view that wikipedia should not be dictated by process and rules. Policy is what is created to assist wikipedia, not vice versa. If we simply suscribed to the reasoning of only following policy to that end than I think wikipedia would be harmed in many ways (Such is the problem with WP:DRV) and everything just becomes a big bag rules. This however, is a different case. This is the intregity and meaning of the encyclopedia being discussed. Many user's viewpoints of an encyclopedia have been perverted by this tag. It causes one to believe an encyclopedia does not provide complete summeries. It imposes the ideal that this is how a encyclopedia should be constructed. It is an practice adopted from social and review websites. It causes some users to believe it contributes to the value of our articles. Some even think it is a foundation of this website's goal to become a great encyclopedia. It is harmful. And it must die.


 * The addition of spoiler tags isn't even attempting to be helpful. This nonsense was added to such articles such as List of current Disneyland attractions, The Legend of Zelda series weapons and items and even Romeo and Juliet (or at least it was until I removed it). I think this was intended, originally to e a helpful tool but this is no longer true. An editor's choice of wording for this template's purpose was unfortunate, for the opposite impression was conveyed. The poisonous nature of this template aside, if our editors can not even use it correctly this template should definitely not be used in article space. Incorrect formatting is just as harmful to the encyclopedia.


 * We have a strong consensus that content that does not assist in being a encyclopedia is unacceptable for Wikipedia. Editors cannot subvert that by assembling a subset of Wikipedians and implementing a inapropriate tag across a wide number of articles. Consensus involves all of us, not just a few people who persistently flaunt the reasoning of social websites into the need of the project. -Randall Brackett 14:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Randall's absolutely right about this illogical, misleading and inappropriate practice being taken to absurd proportions. As I just said in the CVG discussion of this matter:


 * "Yes, this classic children's book [ The Little Engine That Could ] had actually had been given a spoiler warning... and so had Romeo and Juliet... and Beowulf... and Citizen Kane... and Lolita... and Odyssey... and The Pit and the Pendulum... and The Divine Comedy... and The Magnificent Seven... and Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea... and The Brady Bunch... and A Midsummer Night's Dream... and Rocky... and The Breakfast Club -- for some of which their "spoilers" are their basic premise or common knowledge imbedded into our culture... and what the hell kind of spoilers can there possibly be in Mario Kart or Iron Chef?? Absolute absurdity. We're warning people that articles contain information apparently. We'd better get spoiler tags for toaster oven and blender soon. God knows if we don't, someone will think they require them."


 * Really, this whole thing has just gone too far. It's gotten out of hand and it was never appropriate for an encyclopedia. Including this one. Ryu Kaze 14:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm against spoiler warnings. Some of my reasoning:

Wikipedia is not censored &mdash; we don't warn readers about expletives or potentially shocking images in a template on every page, so what precedent exists for spoiler tags?

Wikipedia is not a GameFAQs messageboard, nor should it resemble one &mdash; On forums, a cushion of blank lines are used in conjunction with various spoiler tags to hide spoiler information. Isn't it hypocritical that we disallow the blank lines, yet allow the spoiler tags? Both are disruptive, ugly, ultimately ineffective, and unencyclopedic; the only difference between them, really, is that one is slightly less disruptive than the other. Wikipedia shouldn't attempt to be a slightly less disruptive version of everyforum.com. It should attempt to be an encyclopedia, and everything else be damned.

Reputable encyclopedias do not use spoiler tags. Wikipedia aspires to reach (or surpass) the heights of Britannica and the like. Quite simply, I don't see spoiler tags being a part of that. I believe these warnings make this ascension harder by degrading Wikipedia's image. AMHR285  ( talk )   15:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia shouldn't attempt to be a slightly less disruptive version of everyforum.com. It should attempt to be an encyclopedia, and everything else be damned."
 * Just wanted to say that I loved that, and may be adding it to my user page. Nicely said. Ryu Kaze 18:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead with adding it to my user page. It was too good not to. Ryu Kaze 22:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I realize that my two cents are just drops in the proverbial cent ocean at this point, for what it's worth since I don't see anything quite to the effect:

I don't think a spoiler is censorship, it is merely more information about the kind of information presented. In this way it is no different than a subject heading that says "background", or "plot", or "participants". It is information that applies to how the information in the article can be incorporated into the reader's understanding of the material; in this case allowing that the reading of certain information may create a conflict with the knowledge the person already does/doesn't have, for the benefit of the reader in the partaking of further knowledge.

I'm not a real Wikipedia editor, but I do use it an awful lot. And almost everytime I use it is for different reasons. Sometimes I use it to find the author of a book, or other works by an author I'm interested in. Other times I use it for background info on a book/film that I wouldn't get from reading the flap or watching the special features. Other times I just want to know what the "consensus" is on a particular book/film, and whether there are other good web pages that relate to it. Wikipedia helps me find all these things, and that's why its great. However, when I search for all this information, it is at all different stages of involvement with what I'm looking at. For instance, I'm reading the detailed information about Ubik, then link to Philip K. Dick, then link to The Man in the High Castle (wikipedia surfing is so much better than TV.) I loved Ubik, have read a number of titles by PKD, and am interested in reading High Castle. But although I would like to look at the full detail of the first, (to see if I missed any key plot details) would like to look at most of the middle, (to see if it mentions anything specific about the titles I have read and to see which I haven't read) I would only like to look at enough of the latter to see if I actually am interested in obtaining a copy, not to ruin the twist at the end (which would "spoil" the reason books have twists).

Because of this I appreciate spoiler warnings. I would hope that the anal-retentiveness of the dedicated editors continues to make wikipedia the wonderfully detailed resource that it is, rather than create untoward attention to formatting and in the process restrain wikipedia from being a diverse and communal source of information that is useful to the widest possible numbers of readers. I would say let the individual users of the articles decide whether the spoiler warning is necessary and in the right place, rather than create a universal format that then ruins the usefulness of the availability of knowledge that a free encyclopedia provides (e.g. perhaps those knowledgable in video games feel it is more necessary than those knowledgable in classic literature. Also: One example of a spoiler warning being in the wrong place is The Ninth Gate, because although it is there, I couldn't see it. However, that may be a problem with the article, as there is very little info that is not spoiler.)

PS. Because my example actually occurred to me (and the spoiler warning prevented spoiling High Castle, I'll also mention that the lack of a warning at one time failed from preventing the last third of a Thomas Hardy novel being spoilt to a friend of mine, when he visited the article simply to find the publication date.

Cheers, Adam --Adam Rothstein 11:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia with addenda
Dear sir,

I was very surprised not to find the traditional "spoiler warning" at the beginning of this article : Genesis.

Regards, ...


 * An encyclopedia tries to tell everything. An average reader only wants bits of it.

Some articles are not readable when you are not a notorious big specialist of the domain (I'm thinking of mathematics). Some plots are bare-naked and you have to exert yourself with your keyboard to avoid an unnecessary defloration.

We could oblige ourselves to do with some parts of an article what we can do with a TOC. A TOC begins with the words : Contents [hide]. Other parts might say : Plot [hide], or Very technical part [hide :-]. To me, it seems technically feasible ; but shall the mind of the average WPian, full of knowledge to be given gracefully, be inclined to restrain his production like that ? --DLL 22:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

A generally contested practice
I find it a blatent misrepresentation of the facts to falsely claim this process was given a strong support by concensus. General conflicting issues against the process of implementing spoiler tags has been present ever since the initial creation. Relevant discussion can be viewed here, here and here (note there are various discussions pertaining to this issue; I elected to choose the most relevant). The opposition to the template has been opposed regularly. How is it this has been accepted as concensus by the community? -Randall Brackett 00:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Should the placement of spoiler messages be a guideline/Is it unencyclopedic/Do readers expect it?
Anybody reading an encyclopedia article about a work of fiction would expect a summary of the plot and, therefore, the spoiler warnings are redundant. An encyclopedia article is not a review after all. JChap 02:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Where should any spoiler message go?
If spoilers are kept, there should be no set rule. Rather, editors should use their judgment on where to place them. JChap 02:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What constitutes spoilage? Are there time limits as to what can be spoilt, for example would Shakespeare's plays or Moby Dick need warnings?
The most interesting question of the lot. My first response would be, if spoilers are kept, that we put spoiler warnings in every work of fiction, so as to avoid discussions about what works are "canonical" and which are not. For example, it may be fairly obvious that we do not need a spoiler warning before "Rosebud was a sled," but what about "Mr. Orange is an undercover cop?" It all turns on whether you think everybody has (or should have) seen Reservoir Dogs. There are editors here who will insist we should not put the spoiler warning in Finnegan's Wake because only a complete Philistine would not have read that book. JChap 02:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. The spoiler warning has a place in all works of fiction.  We should not assume the reader has read every old play and book in existene. Johntex\talk 22:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * According to our policies, we don't care. We're here to give knowledge, not protect people from it. Ryu Kaze 01:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Should plot details in fiction be included arbitrarily, or only where relevant to a sourced, critical discussion of the work and its impact?
Question answers itself. Only where relevant obviously. JChap 02:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

a courtesy to readers
Spoiler tags are given as a courtesy to readers, not as censorship. It's the same reason the Main Page doesn't have a giant picture of a woman's vagina on it. This courtesy clearly out weighs any negative effect the spoiler warning would have on the article. -- Ned Scott 18:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You bring up a good point: Shouldn't Wikipedia's front page have a giant picture of a vagina on it? --Chris Griswold 20:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ned is entirely incorrect. The reason we do not have the vagina on the main page becuase the relevant article is absolutely inadequete to meet Featured Article status. Its difficult to attain a featured image for them becuase of the associated sources they are derived from. Wikiepdia is not censored. -Randall Brackett 21:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, I was talking about featured pictures, which do not require a related article. -- Ned Scott 21:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know what you were referring to. Whatever, featured image, featured picture. Same thing. I noted that in my previous comment. -Randall Brackett 22:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

taken from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Digimon Systems Update:
 * I'm very flabbergasted by this statement. What makes you presume the readers even care...? I'm certain people arrive to wikipedia to learn content, not hide from it. Although, I would be willing to hear some edvidence sustaining how this assists the encyclopedia. -Randall Brackett 20:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, for one, I'm a reader.. and I was one long before I become an editor. The typical "spoiler warning" is found all throughout the internet, to the point where readers almost expect them. I think this was pointed out on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning. I watch for it all the time, even now, when I look up quick article about something I'm watching/ about to watch/ etc. (For example, I'll wonder about basic info, such as, did this come from a manga, how many seasons did this last, was this done by the same animation studio as blah blah, etc). WikiProject Stargate even went to the point of making a "spoiler free" version of their episode lists (List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, List of Stargate SG-1 episodes without spoilers). On some articles that aren't well formatted, I sometimes won't read it at all, for fear of the spoiler tag not being properly used. -- Ned Scott 20:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, you still have not answered my question. How does the encylopedia assist the project....? I am aware it certainly cannot be helpful, as the casual reader is commonly the lot that does not expect to see an encyclopedia go aganst what an encyclopedia is supposed to do - the inclusion of elaborate content. Your interpretation seems to be something entirely different, indeed almost the opposite: that an individual who comes to wikipedia would not wish to learn and thus avoid content comparable to a movie review or blog posting. This is true, up to a point, but it isn't what Wikipedia is about.


 * There are two problems with your reasoning. I'll address each in turn.


 * Firstly you say "fear of being spoiled". This has been refuted several times both by myself and by numerous other editors, who cite if you wish that, you would not come to an encyclopedia or you would avoid the section anyway. I'm fully aware of Wikipedia's navigation tools, in this paticular instance, the table of contents. If a person truly wanted to avoid infromation, common sense is more than adequete for that purpose. Please don't play me for a fool.


 * Secondly, the expectation of spoilers is fully and adequately described in the disclaimer of wikipedia pages itself, and certainly would not apply here, even if there were no warning of this in policy. Here I'm not saying your reasoning is wrong, but that you cite wikipedia wrongly believing that it must imitate the circumstances of other websites where clearly it does not. Expectation of spoilers (and I find that perception difficult to believe) has nothing to do with wikipedia simply because of one's personal opinion and not in intrests of the encyclopedia. Sadly editors are right to say that others believe that the spoiler is commonly used on the wiki. People persist in using it to which it clearly does not apply. -Randall Brackett 21:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, now you've become downright rude. Take you for a fool? excuse me? I provided my honest response, I don't even know you. Do you always take such offense to editors who disagree with you? It doesn't matter, this crusade to remove the spoiler warning will easily fail. You clearly do not have an open mind and are not taking my comments into consideration.  You are simply on "argument mode", instead of having a valid discussion.  Spoiler warnings on Wikipedia have been used for almost 5 years now, take a look at how many articles use it [].  You guys really think you'll get support to remove it? I'm not the only one who has no problem with the tag and feels it's completely appropriate and at home here on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 21:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Spoiler tags are given as a courtesy to readers, not as censorship. It's the same reason the Main Page doesn't have a giant picture of a woman's vagina on it."
 * Care to cite a source for that? I'm fairly certain that Wikipedia's policy says that nowhere. In fact, it says exactly the opposite: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements. While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography) and provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted."
 * It's right there in black, white and blue that Wikipedia doesn't censor itself, and nowhere does it claim to make an exception for an erroneous courtesy purpose that no one can even verify it actually serves. All I ever see on the matter is "If someone was looking for...," "Someone might..." and "Just in case someone..." hypothetical situations, that are usually absurdly unlikely anyway, like the one brought up here: "People might be searching the internet for help on Insert name of game here, end up here, and find out about what happens at the ending." Putting aside just how unlikely something like that would be (check my response to it on the discussion page there), another editor responded with the logical comment that "...we can't let hypothetical situations like that determine policy."
 * So, this is a long way of me saying "We don't have a picture of a vagina on the front page because it isn't relevant, not because of some imaginary courtesy. Should the vagina article ever accumulate enough content and professionalism (which isn't to say that it isn't a well-designed page already; it's just lacking in content) to warrant Featured Article status, we very well could see a vagina on the front page, and no neutral editor would care." I'd like to remind you that neutrality is one of the fundamentals of Wikipedia and, again, point out that Wikipedia is not censored. There's nothing stopping a vagina from being on the front page of Wikipedia except the status of the vagina article itself.
 * "This courtesy clearly out weighs any negative effect the spoiler warning would have on the article."
 * Wrong. Unencyclopedic content hurts the encyclopedia's image as a serious encyclopedia along the line of the Britannica. Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, has even said that he wants Wikipedia to achieve that quality or higher and be printed. If Wikipedia is ever seen in print, do you honestly expect to see those absurd spoiler warnings? Do you see them in the Britannica? No. Why would you expect to see them here? For the ten thousandth time, this is an encyclopedia, not a blog, fansite, game help site or film review website. An encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is defined as follows: "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge."
 * "t doesn't matter, this crusade to remove the spoiler warning will easily fail. You clearly do not have an open mind and are not taking my comments into consideration."
 * Now that you're done insulting us, I'd like to point out that you're clearly the one who isn't here to have a discussion given that you're saying that this request for the betterment of Wikipedia will easily fail. I'd also like to ask how we are the closed-minded ones when we're the ones pointing out that this isn't the IMDB or GameFAQs, and that the man who founded this very place wants it to have the quality of the Britannica?
 * "You guys really think you'll get support to remove it?"
 * Have you been reading the discussions? There's plenty of people who find fault with them, and we can actually verify that they are unencyclopedic and can reasonably call into question the erroneous claims that they help the encyclopedia on some unsubstantiated courtesy level. As it stands, this concept of it being a courtesy is entirely hypothetical and uncorroborated. In most hypothetical cases presented (like the one I mentioned a little while ago), it's even downright illogical, and the chances of it proving to be some saving grace in such situations are improbable to the point of hilarity.
 * "I'm not the only one who has no problem with the tag and feels it's completely appropriate and at home here on Wikipedia."
 * When last I checked, Wikipedia was not an experiment in democracy. Consensus is reached through logical discussion in which issues are raised, points are addressed, and -- if need be -- counter-points are distributed on the basis of verifiability. As I've already said, we can easily verify that spoiler tags are unencyclopedic, that they are redundant and that they contribute nothing to Wikipedia's goal of being a quality encyclopedia. Furthemore, we can reasonably determine that any claims that they fulfill some courtesy are highly questionable.
 * Now are you ready to discuss the matter? Ryu Kaze 21:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Trying to play the "wiki is not censored" card, eh? Censorship is not including spoilers, NOT warning about them. This is not an issue of censorship. I looked all over this talk page, including the archives, and it seems this objection does not reflect consensus. I can't believe I'm having to debate one of the more useful tags found on Wikipedia. I recall having a similar debate over some of the current and future event templates, and I'll look for the archives of those discussions.  They contain many of the same points that I am trying to bring out.  We have many templates that you will NEVER see in Britannica, such as stub templates. Hell, are you ever going to see some of these fictional articles on TV shows or even on specific TV show characters in Britannica?  You really think you can even compare the two?  -- Ned Scott 22:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You have deeply confused me there. What on earth are you talking about...?


 * I agree that we should end here. We're starting to go into a flame war of sorts. I'll end by summarising Wikipedia concensus so that you may, perhaps, see that it means something more subtle than you believe. The fitting summary (taken from the policy itself) is "It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially the neutral point of view (NPOV). At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus."


 * Another view I endorse can be located on Template talk:Spoiler. "I don't believe that Wikipedia has a responsibility to shield its readers from knowledge. A book is not 'ruined' if its ending is revealed. Lay-out is not superfluous. Typography cannot be dismissed as 'nit-pick'. Wikipedia shouldn't nurture the consumerist restraint of orgasm in its readers. Arguing that spolier warnings somehow contribute to people reading more is far-fetched and ridiculous. Wikipedia is not the nanny-state protecting its readers from knowledge. Why should those who want to learn from an encyclopedia with considered typography be swept aside by a group of ignorant readers who need to be protected from knowledge. I would direct those readers to the great religious institutions set up for precisely that purpose." - Pvazz 05:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC) -Randall Brackett 22:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Does Wikipedia provide a warning for content-relevant pornographic images? Does it provide a warning for images of human torture? No. It doesn't. Because it's not censored. Censorship doesn't stop merely at the removal or exclusion of information. Regulating it to any degree outside of treating it like other information also meets the criteria for censoring it. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. We are supposed to treat content-relevant pornographic images and spoilers the same way we would treat information on the function of a toaster. Because Wikipedia is neutral. It is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia sees information, not spoiler-laden information.
 * And again comes the claim that this spoiler tag is useful, yet again you don't provide us with verifiability for this, even in the face of verified facts that it is unencyclopedic, redundant of what these articles are here for and that it contributes nothing of value to this encyclopedia's purpose.
 * By the way, there's a difference between having room for articles on tv shows and having a different philosophy of what an encyclopedia is. Wikipedia has the extra room. That doesn't it mean it's trying to redefine "encyclopedia" and how one treats relevant information (which is supposed to be in a neutral matter in which it is all viewed as one thing and one thing only: information). Ryu Kaze 22:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking of the front page, I've never seen a spoiler tag used there. Maybe no one considers them acceptable in a serious context (an encyclopedia article for example)? AMHR285   ( talk )   22:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Or because the spoiler tag is embedded into a section on the article that is not being displayed on the main page? -- Ned Scott 22:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Any extra additions (including in-line references) get removed from front page previews for aesthetic and/or formatting reasons, so that's a moot matter anyway. Ryu Kaze 23:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. That's not "on" the front page, that's in another article being linked from the front page. Let me say it this way: If the front page happens to contain a spoiler, should it not contain a spoiler warning as well?


 * It just so happens that at this very moment, the main page contains one hell of a spoiler:


 * France defeats Portugal 1-0 in the semi-finals of the 2006 FIFA World Cup.


 * To demonstrate the impossibly vast consensus that many wikipedians share regarding spoiler tags, I think you should go and add a spoiler tag to the main page. In return, I pledge to forever support spoiler warnings on Wikipedia. AMHR285   ( talk )   23:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A live event is a bit different than a spoiler in a work of fiction. Also, normal editors can't edit the main page.. If you're trying to make a point about spoiler comments not being well received by wikipedia as a whole.. then again I point you to the fact that such warnings have been used for almost 5 years now on Wikipedia, and the thousands of articles that currently contain the warning. -- Ned Scott 00:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I see no difference between the two. People expect to find news in a news section and plot analyses in a plot analyses section. You say that spoiler tags have accumulated thousands of uses over 5 years, and I agree, they have &mdash; but why? It's been asserted that most people don't bother to learn whether the tags are an official guideline or not, and I'm of the belief that their widespread use is due to this misconception (I once thought they were). That's no proof of support, just proof of ignorance. I've yet to see much in the way of logical support for them except from a handful of individuals. AMHR285   ( talk )   01:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, in all fairness, a lot of people have misconceptions about the spoiler warnings. Some have thought they were Wikipedia policy on the same level as "Wikipedia is not censored." On one humorous occasion, Randall encountered an admin who thought that. Hell, I even thought it was a strictly enforced Guideline until Randall informed me otherwise. It's actually not even in the Manual of Style's fiction guide. Ryu Kaze 00:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem on other encyclopedias
Most encyclopedias don't have articles on Stargate SG-1 or Cowboy Bebop. Not only that, but we're not a paper encyclopedia, and we're highly connected to internet culture. Has the term spoiler warning even existed for very long? Wiki is far more likely to include deep details than your average bookcase encyclopedia, let alone deal with TV show topics that are current and active, and who's articles can be edited so fast. In other words, it's not a problem in other encyclopedias. Simple saying "un-encyclopedic" doesn't seem to.. mean much here.. Wikipedia is covering a lot of new ground, and you can't really compare this to what "the other guys" are doing. The very fact that spoiler warnings are exemptions from WP:SELF should tell you something about how this whole issue is treated differently than the norm'. -- Ned Scott 21:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Given that the founder of Wikipedia compares it to "what the other guys are doing," I think it's reasonable that we do. We're here to make an encyclopedia, not redefine the word. Ryu Kaze 21:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * heh, Wiki is not paper:
 * "Although Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not bound by the same constraints as a paper encyclopedia or even most online encyclopedias. The length, depth, and breadth of articles in Wikipedia is virtually infinite. As Wikipedia grows, so will computing power, storage capacity, and bandwidth. While there is a practical limit to all these at any given time, Wikipedia is not likely to ever outgrow them.


 * Founder Jimbo Wales has stated his desire that Wikipedia should not become yet another discussion forum. But it definitely is something different from a paper encyclopedia, and Wikipedians should take advantage of that fact."
 * and


 * "Some standards of writing that apply to paper don't really apply to Wikipedia. Jimbo Wales has said that Wikipedia needs its own style standards, but these will evolve to suit its needs and abilities."


 * So much for that argument, eh? -- Ned Scott 22:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, not so much for it at all. Again, there's a difference between having the room to cover extra topics and having a different philosophy of what an encyclopedia is. Nowhere has Jimbo suggested that Wikipedia should be defined as something other than an encyclopedia, and, again, he was the one who said he wanted the place to meet the Britannica's quality and see print.
 * Stop comparing two incompatible concepts as though they're identical. Having room for extra content is not identical to redefining how an encyclopedia handles content. Ryu Kaze 22:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm still confused as to not being hindered by the limitations of paper has to do with diverging from the standards of an encylopedia.


 * We do take advantage of the fact by nature of this being a wiki. We link, provide in-line references, have templates for navigation, categories and other neat things. All these things allow the wiki a more variable means of providing its knowledge in an accessible manner as well as influencing the quality of the encyclopedia itself.


 *  "Our goal is to get to Britannica quality, or better." -- Jimbo Wales December 2005 " -Randall Brackett 22:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Because Britannica isn't going to include spoilers of the same nature, Britannica would likely not have a "spoiler warning". Also, the concept of giving a spoiler warning is something that is more known to be seen on the internet, where here it is not unusual at all. We're not familiar with seeing the usage outside of the internet, true.  However, you seem to have some invisible definition of an encyclopedia.  I'm saying it is extremely likely that this concept of spoiler warnings hasn't even been visited by most paper encyclopedias, and that's why they don't have them.  You seem to think that a lack of spoiler warnings in paper encyclopedias means that a "true" encyclopedia is barred from having them.  In fact, this seems to be the main argument here.  Wikipedia deals with the topics of fictional articles far more than any paper encyclopedia. This has nothing to do with philosophy, because we're dealing with new concepts (that is, the concept of writing about TV shows, etc, in such depth).  Especially about active TV shows and such, where information can change on a daily basis. -- Ned Scott 22:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * By the time a paper encyclopedia gets printed any TV show articles about it will hardly be seen as spoilers. Our articles, on the other hand, have live updating information about things in progress, or even before they're started. Paper encyclopedias don't have to deal with that. -- Ned Scott 22:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well that's his quote, not mine. If you disagree with his assesment of the project I suggest you discuss on User talk:Jimbo Wales.


 * Of course Britannica isn't going to include spoilers of the same nature. I believe any information of any faucet in an encyclopedia can not be considered a spoiler by merit of this being a source of knowledge. A spoiler is described as a sudden revealation or plot twist unexpected in a inapropriate location not germane to the subject. Its okay here, because that's what we do in wikipedia. Simply being an elaborative editor can not be be considered a spolier by any stretch of the imagination. -Randall Brackett 22:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with his words, because I'm not stretching them to comment on something that is beyond the original context. What is considered a spoiler or not is not being debated, what is being debated is if a warning message about the spoiler is acceptable in the articles. -- Ned Scott 23:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have some encyclopedias. They feature entries on Moby Dick, Uncle Tom's Cabin, Citizen Kane, Romeo and Juliet and a plethora of other subjects. Subjects that have been around for a while. I don't see a single spoiler warning in any of them, yet you're suggesting that professional encyclopedias "just haven't gotten around to them yet," despite the fact that they've had plenty of time to and the fact that spoiler warnings would contradict two interrelated fundamentals of encyclopedic philosophy: neutrality and no censorship. To that I have a few things to say: 1) again, Jimbo -- not us -- suggested that Wikipedia should be trying to meet Britannica's standard or surpass it; 2) professional encyclopedias have had plenty of time to concern themselves with the notion of being comprehensive despite spoilers, and can do so as readily as any internet source, given that... well, need I actually say it?; 3) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Should we go ahead and add Jimbo Wales' "Death" section to his article even though he's not dead yet? He might be someday, so why not, right?? Let's do it for Johnny Depp too while we're at it, and maybe Diane Lane. I mean, why not? Death hasn't considered them yet, but maybe it will tomorrow.
 * By the way, there's nothing invisible about the definition of "encyclopedia" that we're using. We have repeatedly referenced where we're getting our definition. Ryu Kaze 23:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Err, I think there's some confusion here. Although one could debate that information on Moby Dick could still be seen as a spoiler, I think we both agree a warning, on any site or book, would be unnecessary. I'm talking about recent / in progress/ etc shows, like Lost or Stargate Atlantis. For one, in progress works aren't even being considered for Wikipedia 1.0., let alone a printed wiki-- Ned Scott 23:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with that assesment. Warn them for what...? I mean, it already dubious if spoiler warnings are even fullfilling their purpose currently (and even if they were how does it assist the encyclopedia...?). And if someone sees a spoiler so what...? Is it going to harm them...? Not so. I would as so far as to contest that fellows come to find information not easily found anywhere else. "Fear of spoilers". Indeed! -Randall Brackett 23:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * An article for a program-in-progress is still part of the encyclopedia, isn't it? Anyway, in most cases, the most recent episode of a show isn't going to matter. Some episodes of Stargate SG-1 or Star Trek, for instance, are simply filler not relevant to the overarching plotlines, and, thus, usually not relevant enough for entry here. By the end of a season, one will have enough info to work with (provided the producers, directors, actors and everybody else on crew did their job) to detail a relevant development. As far as actual relevant info goes, I don't see summaries of every episode of a show or every issue of a comic book mattering that much, but that's a completely different discussion and I'm getting off the topic.
 * I do understand that individual installments can each be as important as every other. On a show like Lost or Survivor, every episode is as relevant as every other, but in cases like that, again, such an article is still part of the encyclopedia. Some would, perhaps, argue that an article for a program-in-progress could maybe reasonably be treated differently given that you can't really call the article "complete" yet, but I'd like to point out the obvious fact that -- as far as what information has so far been made available goes -- the article is "complete" (I put the word in quotation marks because improvements are always being made to articles, even Featured ones). The same is true of every article on a work of fiction that Wikipedia has (provided, of course, that it's being updated by some editors dedicated to it).
 * If it were logical to wait until the program was finished to call its article complete, we could be waiting years in some cases (Stargate, for instance, is still going strong). And, hell, think about comic book articles. Articles for Spider-Man and Batman would be waiting for as long as there's human beings probably. There also comes the logical questions of "Why are we even creating an article for this yet if it's not yet being treated like the rest of the encyclopedia?", "How is this not holding to a double-standard given the treatment of older articles, as Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and treat all relevant info the same?" and "At what point exactly do you call an article 'complete'? Do we even have an article that would qualify?" Ryu Kaze 23:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying articles that contain spoilers or are recent shows are "incomplete". I'm saying that when talking about current fiction, the polite thing to do on the internet is give spoiler warnings. This is a concept many (editors and readers) feel very strongly about. Britannica is just too different (in this context) for it to be used as an argument for your side.  It's an issue that Britannica hasn't come across yet, so just because they don't do it doesn't mean it's un-encyclopedic.  If the only argument for removing the spoiler warnings is that it "doesn't look good", then that's a pretty weak argument. You guys are defining what looks good based on printed encyclopedias that don't have deep attachments to the internet community.  If Britannica had some form of encyclopedia, online or not, that had as much fictional article coverage as wikipedia does, especially about recent and active works, you bet your ass they'd have spoiler warnings.
 * The concept of spoiler warnings is still a bit new in the world, since we're able to actually provide news and information and encyclopedia articles about fictional topics. It's no surprise that we don't see "spoiler warning" in many places. This does not have anything to do with being professional or not.  It in no way restricts the information covered in an article, or how well worded an article is. -- Ned Scott 00:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see someone saying that Britannica isn't the best example of encyclopedic standards as far as current media goes (does this mean you acknowledge the matter concerning older media, or are we just focusing on current media at the moment?), but that again still leaves all the other issues I've brought up concerning neutrality, censorship and treating new info the same as old, because -- on the basis of neutrality -- relevant info is simply relevant info. On these grounds alone -- Britannica aside -- the spoiler tags still qualify as unencyclopedic.
 * As I've said, censorship doesn't exclusively refer to the exclusion of information, but also its regulation in a way that differs from the treatment of "normal" information. Being that it meets that criteria, the issue of neutrality has to be considered. On that basis, spoiler tags shouldn't be used, especially in light of treating all information the same.
 * By the way, on what basis do you "bet your ass" that Britannica would use spoiler warnings? Given what an encyclopedia is, why would they care? Do you really feel like the concept of spoilers somehow qualifies for a change in the philosophy of the encyclopedia, given that it would be introducing hypocrisy, double-standards and intense redundancy to a logical, balanced, efficient system? Ryu Kaze 00:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This has already been debated
Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 4, notice the results: The result of the debate was Speedy kept per WP:SNOW

That was a pretty recent discussion, too. This isn't like the first time anyone has considered this, ether. Like I've said before, we've been using spoiler warnings for almost 5 years. Oh, found another one:

Template talk:Spoiler/Archive 2 where one editor said:

"Yes, the spoiler tag should exist. Wikipedia is not paper; the lack of spoiler warnings in Encyclopedia Britannica and the like is not an applicable precedent here. Unlike the Britannica, Wikipedia has extensive information about popular movies, video games, and fiction (i.e., entertainment). You won't find a blow-by-blow plot summary of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets in a traditional encyclopedia. There are more people reading more information about more works of entertainment. In the entertainment world, spoiler warnings are standard."

Sums it up pretty nicely. -- Ned Scott 00:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This has already been addressed
As we've said repeatedly in the last week, this "consensus" mostly featured people saying "Keep" without citing any actual reasoning, which is mandatory in those discussions. "This is a joke, right?" and "Are you crazy?" isn't reasoning. They voided their own votes by not supporting them.

As I mentioned, consensus on Wikipedia isn't a show of hands. It's discussion in which issues are raised, points are addressed, and -- if need be -- counter-points are distributed on the basis of verifiability and logic. For example, if you were trying to get an article to FA status, and only four people voted in favor while 1,000 voted against, if the four who voted in favor gave sound, verifiable reasons while those who voted against simply said "Article's stupid," "I don't like the subject" or "I don't like the editors of it," the article would reach FA status.

The closest that discussion got to any reasoning on the part of the "Keep"-ers was -- once again, and not surprsingly -- the old faithful claim that it's courteous, useful and that tons of people benefit from it. Of course, not a single individual stepped forward to corroborate this, instead thinking that hypothetical situations that may or may not apply should somehow determine Wikipedia policy. Hell, a good many Wikipedia practices only developed after the initial need for them had come and gone. We've yet to ever see an archived discussion featuring a demand for the inclusion of spoiler tags. They just showed up one day and have been freeloading ever since.

I wasn't part of that previous discussion, and I for one am not willing to just cave in when people refuse to acknowledge my verifiable evidence in favor of their hypothetical situations that they make no move to corroborate. I intend to see this matter reach its conclusion, with spoiler tags either moving out or becoming an unshakable, unquestionable aspect of Wikipedia. Given all the logical inconsistencies involved with the latter eventuality and my stubborn resolve, I don't believe the matter will end until the former has come to pass. Ryu Kaze 00:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, WP:SNOW isn't a Guideline, and I don't think it applies in this situation. If neutrality, policy and logic are considered -- which they are supposed to in the determination of what reflects consensus -- I don't see how it possibly could. Ryu Kaze 00:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So the reasons I've stated are... what? invisible? I haven't seen any evidence that shows that spoiler warnings hurt wikipedia, yet I have seen evidence to see that they've helped people (myself included). The reason people say "are you kidding" is because it's so blatantly obvious that it doesn't warrant discussion. I'm sorry we haven't spelled it out for those of you who want to remove spoiler warnings. Note the template talk archive discussion I pointed out, where they not only addressed if it was appropriate or not to have spoiler warnings, but the very spelling and appearance of the message was taken into consideration for appearing "encyclopedic".  The archives on this talk page also show that the feedback of many editors have been involved. This is somehow not consensus? So just because you are kicking and screaming, your argument should have more weight? -- Ned Scott 01:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We've gone over this and gone over it. Where's the evidence you see that they've helped people? Why haven't you shown it to us? It's not in the template talks and archives. All we have there is people clamoring that readers expect the editors to think them incompetent and incapable of reading a dictionary (or even our own article on encyclopedias), and that this template is magically useful. Apparently it's so magically beneficial that it makes people forget they ever had a problem.
 * Long story short, yes, your reasons are invisible. You've given us your reasons over and over, but where is the verifiability that we have provided you in our arguments? We've given you the definition of "encyclopedia," referred you to the Britannica (considered by most to be the standard of encyclopedic quality and style), to Jimbo Wales' statements concerning his hopes for the quality of this encyclopedia, to Wikipedia policies that the spoiler tags violate, etc. What more can we possibly provide you given that we've been provided with nothing so far?
 * By the way, why is it that many of the issues we've raised -- such as the counter-points to your original argument concerning vaginas -- haven't been addressed? You began this discussion with the argument that Wikipedia does endorse censorship, but not only was the reasoning there fallacious, but other "objectionable material" that inarguably has the greater potential for psychological scarring -- such as images of humans being tortured -- doesn't feature warnings. Hell, when that template came up, it was shot down. Is spoiling that Snape killed Dumbledore more traumatizing than seeing someone dissected alive? What an age to live in if it is. Ryu Kaze 01:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have time right this moment to address everything, but WHOA, I NEVER said censorship is endorse! DO NOT put words in my mouth or try to twist my meanings around! and the Jimbo quote I addressed, you are using it out of context. I'm so tired of people trying to use "what jimbo said" for their argument when he wasn't even talking about the same thing. Are you seriously not reading what I am posting? As for your evidence of helpfulness, a straw poll will clear that up very quickly. Did I just hear you correctly, that you are saying that the reason no one has made major objections is because every editor that was involved in the template, guideline, and applying them is because they are ignorant? -- Ned Scott 01:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh you should have plenty of time. You advocate it so strongly and therefore to support your stance on the matter you must obviously have gobsmacks of edvidence to refute our surprior arguments.


 * It is precisely as we say. If everyone was so knowledgeable about how the template could assist the project they would have said something at the TFD review. Straw poll...? See polls are evil. That's not concensus. Yes, there are a great deal of people who love the damnable trinkets. But if they cannot even defend their usage properly, then its not considered concensus. Not at all. Establishing concensus isn't by voting and attaining a large amount of support. Its coming together with your peers and concluding to a end that is sensible, agreed upon and has basis of fact. -Randall Brackett 01:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are being needlessly rude now. I had to eat dinner, if you must know, that is why I didn't have time..


 * As I CLEARLY said before, we could use a straw poll for gathering information, NOT to decide what to do.


 * I see only a handful of rude editors here pushing for the removal of spoiler warnings. How is that consensus? How are your opinions on the usefulness any more relevant than mine or others? -- Ned Scott 02:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course its meaningless. This has been adressed numerous times. Simply becuase of pack of a wikipedians get together and say "we need this template" and "its crazy to delete it" doesn't hold any relevance (see Concensus). Such concensus is only advisible when editors actually speak of the usefulness of the template in question. No editor fullfilled this task in that capacity though I conceed there was support in light of ignorance.


 * On other hand, various editors such as myself have actually attmepted to establish concenus with solid rebuttals and elaborate arguments. And its quite fruitful. I am complacent to say that the current concensus for the removal of spoilers from CVG articles is frimly behind me. I would advise you, in furthur debates to discuss the helpful nature of the template to the encyclopedia, something that you still have not answered. -Randall Brackett 01:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * To summarize, Randall and I are asking for some kind of verifiable example of how the spoiler tags benefit Wikipedia -- that you can link to as easily any of the things we have that show how they violate its policies and are downright redundant of the fact that this is an encyclopedia. If it involves a hypothetical situation along the lines of "If somebody accidentally...," "When someone accidentally" or "Just in case somebody accidentally...," then it doesn't really qualify. Ryu Kaze 01:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. I could certainly reconsider if the presumption of people, in reality "spoiling" themselves somehow affected the encycloepdia, but it doesn't. What, if they end up expanding their horizons, what are they going to do..? Sue us for being an informative source of knowledge..? -Randall Brackett 01:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * To summarize, Randall and I are asking for some kind of verifiable example of how the spoiler tags benefit Wikipedia Okay - I just did a spot survey of six people in the office where I am whom I know who use Wikipedia. I asked them the following-
 * 1) If you used Wikipedia to check on a movie you had not yet seen, would you appreciate it having a spoiler warning before plot details were reveled?
 * 2) If you used Wikipedia to check on a movie you had not yet seen, would you expect it to have a spoiler warning before plot details were revealed?
 * 3) If there were no spoiler warning, and this resulted in you accidentally finding out plot details, would you be annoyed, pleased, or neutral about this?
 * 4) If this happened, would you be more or less likely to use Wikipedia to search for movie details in future?
 * The results were: all six would appreciate spoiler warnings, 5/6 would expect them, 5/6 would be annoyed (1 neutral, none happy), and all six would be less likely to use Wikipedia for movie searches in future. These last two points are particularly important - removing spoilers would annoy readers and make them less likely to use Wikipedia. In which case, it harms Wikipedia, especially since an encyclopedia of this sort thrives on word-of-mouth goodwill for its popularity. Grutness...wha?  01:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice, straw man & argumentum ad populum in one tidy package. Here's a different way to frame your poll questions:
 * 1) Would you expect plot and/or ending details when reading an article section clearly titled "Plot synopsis"?
 * 2) If you were interested in a movie, but did not want to find out about any plot twists, would you read an article section titled "Plot synopsis"?
 * 3) If you accidentally discover plot details while reading the "Plot synopsis" section in a movie article on Wikipedia, would you be annoyed, pleased, or neutral about your decision to read an article section entitled "Plot synopsis"?
 * 4) What are you more likely to use when searching for movie details, IMDb or Wikipedia?
 * Also, I'd say that Wikipedia thrives on unintentional google-bombing and fluffy promotional articles. Lets say there was a poll whose participants said they would be more likely to go back to and recommend Wikipedia if each article was emblazoned with a really cute picture of a puppy, would that poll then dictate Wikipedia policy? (Sorry for the sarcastic tone, I just wanted to illustrate several flaws in your rhetoric) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As the 16th largest site on the internet I would consider that a misled statement. I'd say we're pretty popular!


 * "If you used Wikipedia to check on a movie you had not yet seen...?" I presume you neglected to tell your peers we have headers which commonly say "plot", "synopsis" and the like. If a normal, sensible person cannot navigate plain english in bold to find what they need in wikipedia, then there is a serious problem. -Randall Brackett 01:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In addition to the fact that you're trying to use a hypothetical situation as the basis for policy, Grutness, that's original research, and hardly something that we can say is a reliable indication of the majority. For that matter, it in no way addresses the issues regarding neutrality, censorship, or unbiased treatment of articles on old and new media. Furthermore, Wikipedia isn't a movie review site, nor does it advertise itself as one. People coming to a comprehensive, neutral, non-censored body of knowledge and expecting that it not contain spoilers that are treated the same as the film's acting roster have no one to blame but themselves, I'm sorry to say, especially if they look at the headers marked "Plot" and/or "Story" and don't expect the text below it to contain information about the plot and/or story. Come on, are we really assuming readers to be incompetent? Just because an encyclopedia's trying to inform people, that doesn't mean it should assume them to be stupid.
 * As far as the issue of word-of-mouth and this harming Wikipedia, I think this encyclopedia has gone way past the point of having to rely on word-of-mouth for people to learn about it. It's been mentioned in Time and other well-known publications. Historians, journalists and schoolteachers know it like the back of their hand. And if a few people stop thinking of Wikipedia as a place that would be devoid of comprehensive information, then them coming to recognize this encyclopedia as an encyclopedia would be bad in what way?
 * By the way, you didn't actually address on any level how the spoiler warnings contribute to the encyclopedia's purpose of being comprehensively informative on a variety of subjects, and how the lack of spoilere warnings would detract from Wikipedia's ability to do this. Why does all this keep going in circles? Ryu Kaze 01:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:OR only applies to article sources, not article and guideline disputes. A well written article can have a plot summary without any major spoilers, so the fact that a section says "plot summary" doesn't mean anything to someone trying to avoid major spoilers. -- Ned Scott 02:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Original research is related to the verifiability policy, which does matter when making an argument concerning policy. Arguments concerning articles/templates/images for deletion and matters related to policy require input that makes an attempt at supporting itself. In order for it to be supported, you kind of have to have verifiability for it.
 * Ned, now tell me if I misunderstood... because it basically sounds like what you said is "I have nothing to back up the arguments I've been making for the last 12 hours -- plural because I've changed my argument around more than once -- unlike you, the people I've been talking to, so I'm going to now try to claim that backing up what I say is unnecessary, and you should all just fall in line with it." Given that you said little else and that it's been almost two hours since you said this, I assume you said all you intended to say, and I can't see what else you could have meant by it. Really, I'm trying to see what else you could have meant by it, but after all this discussion, for you to resort to a comment like that suggests little else. Please tell me I'm reading you wrong.
 * By the way, tell me how a plot summary can be encyclopedic if it's not comprehensive. Given that this is an encyclopedia. Which is defined as a comprehensive collection of knowledge. Are you suggesting that people should assume that the paragraphs of text under "Plot summary" can be comprehensive, neutral, uncensored and -- reiterated because it's important -- comprehensive without being comprehensive...? That they should expect to look under a header of "Plot summary" and not find a summary of the plot? Are you kidding me?
 * Look, the absurdity of that argument is baffling to me. I'm just going to quote something Randall said recently: "As an encyclopedia, its our job as editors to include complete summaries." That's all I have to say. Well, and this: you suggested that Randall didn't really want to have a discussion when this started, and then you pull this? Yeah, you totally wanted to have a debate. Ryu Kaze 04:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My OR comment was directly about Grutness's comments and input and nothing else. Fucking hell man, did you take that the wrong way. Original research, such as trying to figure something out via other editors on Wikipedia. This has been done many times in order to find "most used name" for NC of article titles. -- Ned Scott 05:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You could have been more clear on what you were talking about then. In any case, the rest of what I said still stands. Great that you didn't address it. Ryu Kaze 12:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Just let me know when I need to vote.
I have tried to read the views of those I disagree with, allowing them a chance to sway me, but the discussion has devolved into snippy argument, I have no interest in reading this any longer. Should this come to a vote, I will be voting to keep the spoiler templates. Someone do me a favor and let me know if my vote is needed. --Chris Griswold 04:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Chris, no offense, but if you've read our discussions, then you know it's been mentioned on no less than three occasions that concensus is about debate, not a show of hands? It's about logic-based discussion in which views are presented, weighed, analyzed, tossed back and forth, dissected, challenged, supported, etc. What we've had so far is a whole lot of Randall and myself supporting our argument, while the closest the opposing view has come to doing so was an unverifiable, original research survey conducted by Grutness (kudos to him at least for making some effort; in his one post on this matter, he's done more than anyone else so far, so I do thank him and congratulate him for that, even if it can't have any bearing on the discussion).
 * The behavior of some parties on this issue since... well, ever since the issue's been around... has been extremely unprofessional, as it showed little to no concern for actually discussing the issue, and has never -- in any of the archives or discussions that we've gone over -- featured someone pushing for the presence of spoiler tags actually taking the time to sit down and explain how they help Wikipedia do a better job of being a comprehensive reservoir of knowledge. Now please, is it so much to ask that somebody make this effort?
 * We can verify that the presence of spoiler tags is redundant.
 * We can verify that they violate Wikipedia policy.
 * We can verify that their presence has been an example of a double-standard no one has made the effort to justify (I think it reasonable to conclude that images of human mutilation conducted willfully and intentionally by another human being are at least as unsettling to the human psyche as shouting "Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father!" outside a showing of The Empire Strikes Back in 1980 would have been).
 * We can reasonably challenge that they provide any service beneficial to this encyclopedia's purpose.
 * We can ask you to discuss this matter with us and explain to us how it does that. Now you can refuse to do this, in which case your view remains unsupported and invalidated, but why would you choose to do that if you can support it? Ryu Kaze 05:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is basically about no editors taking the time to explain their perfectly valid reasons, because most editors feel this is such an obvious issue. This situation was recently visited TWICE in the last month and both times it was rejected to remove the spoiler warnings. But a handful of editors did not feel closure on the issue, and since they didn't get an explanation spelling it out for them we are still in this little debate.
 * We can verify that the presence of spoiler tags is redundant.
 * I disagree, the General disclaimer is not adequate warning. WP:V is mentioned in policy and on every edit window, that is more redundant than the spoiler warnings.  Also, redundancy is not always a bad thing, especially about warnings.
 * We can verify that they violate Wikipedia policy.
 * No, no it's not. This is not an issue of censorship, or some quote from Jimbo taken out of context.
 * We can verify that their presence has been an example of a double-standard no one has made the effort to justify... 
 * You only assume people have made "no effort to really understand", which really isn't assuming good faith, now is it? This is basically saying "I think they're ignorant, thus I'm not going to listen to their option" with no evidence that the editors that are pro-spoiler warning were ignorant at all. Many of these editors did make long detailed explanations that were totally ignored. See the top of this very talk page for examples.
 * We can reasonably challenge that they provide any service beneficial to this encyclopedia's purpose.
 * And how many times have you been given reasonable answers? It's for the benefit of the reader, a part of common courtesy. To ignore the community as not a valid reason is insane. To say it hasn't helped anyone when you have a large list of editors who say it has helped them and they know others who it's helped is... insane.


 * Again, this is what, 4 editors here, being extremely rude and going to the point of not assuming good faith and twisting people's words around to better support their arguments. Go ahead, try to remove the tags, then you'll get people's attention, a well defined explanation, and a swift kick in the ass. -- Ned Scott 05:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh I've been removing the tags for quite awhile. I've removed lots and lots of them from hundreds of articles over the past month. I'm still fine.


 * There can be little good faith assumed here. My experience in the removal of the spoiler tags and prior discussion of the subject has proven many editors do not intend to explain their usage of the tags in a appropriate manner. When inquired, such replies were "Its policy (?)", "It will spoil the reader", "There are spoilers" which honestly doesn't tell many anything. None of those quibbles have to do with an encyclopedia.


 * I really don't believe I've misinterpreted Jimbo's quote in regards to Brinnitca. I'm inclined to think the encyclopedia is a place where knowledge is shared freely and the encyclopedia is sucessful becuase they treat their data the same and equally. I think that's what Jimbo is attempting to say. We should give our information that same freedom and care they do to reach or surpass their quality. Citing a piece or information as spoilish or unable to be read doesn't reflect that respect or care. I think we must realize that when we place information on wikipedia, its intended to assist in the learning process for that subject and that information in an encyclopedia can never harm a person because that's what any encyclopedia is suppposed to do. -Randall Brackett 12:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "This is basically about no editors taking the time to explain their perfectly valid reasons, because most editors feel this is such an obvious issue."
 * Well, it isn't. If you had perfectly valid reason, you and they and everyone else has had plenty of time to explain them many times over by now.
 * "This situation was recently visited TWICE in the last month and both times it was rejected to remove the spoiler warnings."
 * Uh... actually, no. The most recent times it was visited, we saw a successful challenge of the Guideline status (that, as far as we can see, only was present due to an act of WP:BOLD at some point in the past), and several people who challeneged the claims of usefulness regarding spoiler tags. If you're referring to the list of "Are you crazy?"s (which, again, had zero discussion value in that instance), that was in May. Still recent, yeah, but I wasn't part of that then and am wiling to make the more logical points.
 * "I disagree, the General disclaimer is not adequate warning."
 * It's kind of on every single page. Hell, the spoiler tags have never even been able to claim that. In any event, I wasn't referring to just the disclaimer. I was referring to the definition of the word "encyclopedia," which you've been ignoring for the last day.
 * "WP:V is mentioned in policy and on every edit window, that is more redundant than the spoiler warnings."
 * Verifiability is a fudamental aspect of this encyclopedia's philosophy and purpose. It's also a policy. Spoiler tags are not. For that matter, they show up under completely different circumstances and have completely different uses. An automated notice reminding editors to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia is a tad different from a manually-placed banner that reminds people that this comprehensive collection of knowledge contains information.
 * "No, no it's not. This is not an issue of censorship, or some quote from Jimbo taken out of context."
 * Why do you keep ignoring that censorship is not just about excluding information, but also about regulating it in a manner different from how "normal" information is treated? Relevant information is relevant information. It's all supposed to be treated the same. Wikipedia's an encyclopedia. It doesn't have a bias (except for where relevant, verifiable info is concerned). That's why it's neutral.
 * By the way, I really don't see how I was taking Jimbo's quote of context. Given that he said he wants Wikipedia to meet or surpass Britannica's standard, I can't see how that's ambiguous. At all. On the other hand, you did certainly take his quote about taking advantage of Wikipedia's unique situation (an obvious reference to the fact that we have more space, the ability to place in-line references and links into our articles, and the ability for anyone to edit this thing at practically anytime) out of context, turning it into "Ignore encyclopedic philosophy and standards, even in the face of me speaking of the Britannica as our role model." And then you keep jumping around with arguments like "Britannica maybe just hasn't gotten around to spoilers yet. Nevermind that they've had over one hundred years to do so" and "Verifiability is irrelevant in a discussion of policy."
 * "You only assume people have made "no effort to really understand"..."
 * I'm assuming nothing. They demonstrated by the fact that they didn't attempt to discuss the matter at all, nor acknowledged verifiable claims that they didn't like. They might as well have been "voting" on the basis of which side they thought wore nicer clothes, because they certainly never bothered to address the issues involved.
 * "And how many times have you been given reasonable answers? It's for the benefit of the reader, a part of common courtesy. To ignore the community as not a valid reason is insane."
 * Again this claim. Where's the proof that the spoiler tags are so invaluable that Wikipedia would crumble to dust without them? Where's the evidence that the readers of this encyclopedia are so incompetent that they would look at the plot section for Gladiator and express astonishment that they were being given details of the plot? Do you really think that the readers are so stupid as to need to see a notice of "Spoiler warning: plot and/or ending details follow" in order to know that they were about to read information about the damn plot? Was the "Plot" header not clear enough for them, despite its size? If their eyes are that bad or that cognitive ability that poor, then I don't think the spoiler warning is going to help much anyway.
 * Seriously, how can you not see that the spoiler tag is warning people about information? The section is entitled "Plot." The "warning" says "Plot... details follow." What. The. Hell?
 * "gain, this is what, 4 editors here, being extremely rude and going to the point of not assuming good faith and twisting people's words around to better support their arguments."
 * If you think you haven't been rude, you need to go back and read your messages. Talk about not assuming good faith... hell, you're the one who's said on more than one occasion that you think this discussion is meaningless and that what we've been talking about never had a chance to amount to anything, despite your refusal to support the opposing stance. At this point, our assumption of good faith is just a little strained. And, truly, you don't have the room to talk when it comes to claims of twisting people's words around. I didn't do that to your words. I asked you if what I was reading out of it was accurate. Go back and read it again.
 * "Go ahead, try to remove the tags, then you'll get people's attention, a well defined explanation, and a swift kick in the ass."
 * Aren't you just the picture of civility. In any event, if there is a well defined explanation, we can have it now. So how about it? If you're a concerned Wikipedian, then you care about conensus and you'll provide this reasoning you speak of. Yeah, I know that doesn't sound like an assumption of good faith, but what am I supposed to think when you constantly say stuff like this yet never make a move to offer the information you claim to have. Ryu Kaze 13:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

User input
Has anyone done a user survey on this topic? Most of this is rhetorical fluff. Has there been any formal poll to gauge the position of the end user on this topic? --05:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. We're taking it around one wikiproject at a time. I'd prefer the relevant discussion be carried out in the specific mediums rather than having a immense satuaration of views on one page. I think it becomes more and more difficult to gauge a concensus the higher amount of editors are invloved as it tends to incline people to vote, rather than discuss the matter. -Randall Brackett 12:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about editors. I'm talking about visitors to the site.  I haven't seen any hard data on their use or non use of the tag. --Kunzite 18:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia!
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, obviously, different situations may come up. An encyclopedia being printed to paper obviuously won't have articles about Final Fantasy CXII (or whatever number they're up to), or Smokey and the Bandit, but there's no reason we can't have them on Wikipedia. I really think the same applies to spoiler warnings. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but it's also much much more than any encyclopedia has been in the past, so we need to be open to the idea that we may need to break some new ground in the field.

As far as the actual spoiler warnings, I think they're a fine idea. The whole purpose of this encyclopedia should be to spread knowledge, and the warnings certainly don't prevent us from doing that. On the other hand, not having the warnings could very well discourage users from reading great works because they already know the endings. Using "Plot" as a section heading might be enough to indicate spoilers, but there are times when spoilers are made outside this section, even outside the article about the thing being spoiled. For instance, Mona Lisa contains a minor spoiler of The Da Vinci Code, as does Holy Grail, and I'm sure several others. My point is, aside from any valid reasons a person may have for reading up on a book they plan to read without wanting to know the ending or plot twists, it's perfectly possible that they will come across these spoilers in articles that they don't even realize are related, and having warnings could help them to avoid information that will ruin their reading experience. And honestly, do we really want to discourage people from reading any more than they already are?

I don't think placing a time limit on spoilers is neccessarily a good idea. While I wouldn't be surprised to not find a warning on Romeo and Juliet or Moby Dick, I still think the same reasoning applies equally well to them. Sure, they've been around for hundreds of years, but most of us haven't. I've only been around 21 years, and there's only so much reading I can do in that time.

Lastly, some people think the template itself is visually intrusive. I don't see it personally, but for those of you who do, the template has recently had a CSS class added to it, "spoiler". So if you don't want to see these warnings, all you have to do is edit your monobook.css (or whatever skin you're using) and use "visible:none", or something like that. And then you don't have to look at them. We could even make it into a bumper sticker: Don't like spolier warnings? Don't look at them.  B. Mearns * , KSC 13:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, obviously, different situations may come up."
 * The Wikipedia is not paper policy explains itself as referring to the number of topics we can cover, not encyclopedic philosophy.
 * "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but it's also much much more than any encyclopedia has been in the past, so we need to be open to the idea that we may need to break some new ground in the field."
 * That's one of the core issues at stake here: why do we need to warn people that the encyclopedia contains information? Like I was telling Ned just a moment ago, on the Gladiator page we have a section header that clearly reads "Plot" in plain english and in large text. We then have a little banner under it that warns people that information about the plot is about to be presented: "Spoiler warning: plot... details follow."
 * "On the other hand, not having the warnings could very well discourage users from reading great works because they already know the endings."
 * Continuing the issue of having a need for spoiler warnings, why is it that the Britannica, Americana and other encyclopedias have been able to talk about famous works -- classical works at that, regarded by some as defining pieces of literature from our history -- without spoiler warnings for all these years, but Wikipedia can't?
 * "Using "Plot" as a section heading might be enough to indicate spoilers, but there are times when spoilers are made outside this section, even outside the article about the thing being spoiled. For instance, Mona Lisa contains a minor spoiler of The Da Vinci Code, as does Holy Grail, and I'm sure several others."
 * In most cases, such information only appears on related subjects, and when it doesn't (and when it does), it's usually clearly indicated. The paragraph on the Mona Lisa page (personally, I don't know that I'd even call that a minor spoiler) that mentions The Da Vinci Code begins "The painting features significantly in The Da Vinci Code...." Well right there, the reader now knows that this paragraph is talking about The Da Vinci Code. In the case of the Holy Grail section on the matter, the section is even marked (in large text) "The Da Vinci Code." Readers aren't stupid. They know what they're looking at. In any event, we're not here to shield people from information or to treat relevant info differently from other relevant info. We're here to educate our fellow human beings with information that is treated impartially.
 * "And honestly, do we really want to discourage people from reading any more than they already are?"
 * I'm going to have to ask you to explain this. We're building people potentially the most comprehensive encyclopedia ever compiled by human hands, and we're doing it for free. How could we possibly be encouraging them to read less? As an editor, I honestly am baffled by such an accusation. What makes you think we're doing that?
 * "I don't think placing a time limit on spoilers is neccessarily a good idea. While I wouldn't be surprised to not find a warning on Romeo and Juliet or Moby Dick, I still think the same reasoning applies equally well to them. Sure, they've been around for hundreds of years, but most of us haven't. I've only been around 21 years, and there's only so much reading I can do in that time."
 * In those cases, we'd have to shelter people from their culture too. Romeo and Juliet ' s tale of star-crossed lovers and Ahab's self-destructive quest to kill the white wale are as ingrained into our culture as the evening news. Hell, even The Da Vinci Code is already an icon of pop culture that people from the US to Greece know the significance of.
 * "So if you don't want to see these warnings, all you have to do is edit your monobook.css (or whatever skin you're using) and use "visible:none", or something like that. And then you don't have to look at them."
 * Personally, I don't care about how they look, but even if I did, they'd still be there, regardless of whether or not I could see them. The issue at stake here is this encyclopedia's integrity and quality, and that's not something that will improve if merely I cannot see the spoiler tags. I am an editor. I'm supposed to concern myself with what the readers are seeing. Ryu Kaze 13:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Reading a spoiler doesn't necessarily ruin anything for anyone &mdash; this is an extreme over-generalization.


 * "On the other hand, not having the warnings could very well discourage users from reading great works because they already know the endings."


 * Show me the policy that turned Wikipedia into a pro-reading campaign. A more serious issue would be the readers being turned away by the hokey GameFAQs spoiler shield. AMHR285   ( talk )   15:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In reply to "Don't like spolier warnings? Don't look at them", I am sorry but I cannot help but see them. They pollute the article space for dubious reasons, they are stupidly in the edit window and then placed in the most uneeded of places. Everytime I have to improve an article or clean-up prose it is there intrusively obstructing the space of a header where empty space or informative text should be. They are too ridiculous to ignore.


 * Yes it is a extreme over-generalization. "Being spoiled" is some stupid slang, a fictional "harm" a person would take from being purged of their ignorance. Such nonsense has no place in wkipedia. If you are more concerned about ignorance then our goal to share knowledge then perhaps you need to find another project to contribute to. It is absloutley biased to say "I think this is a harmful piece of information and I think people could take offense." No information is offensive in an encyclopedia, be it wikipedia or any other. -Randall Brackett 15:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "No information is offensive in an encyclopedia." Then why are you working so hard to remove information from this encyclopedia? —CWC (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not. You seem to have misread my comment. -Randall Brackett 17:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How is trying to remove the spoiler warnings removing information? As I've said several times, spoiler warnings just reiterate what the section headers of "Plot" and "Plot summary" say. We're warning people that a section entitled "Plot" contains information on the plot? How is removing such an irrelevant banner removing information from Wikipedia? Ryu Kaze 17:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Spoiler warnings are information. They take up bits. You want to remove those bits from articles. In other words, you are advocating that we remove information from Wikipedia because you view that information as offensive, while claiming that "no information is offensive".
 * Yes, I know. You are thinking only of the information in an article that is relevant to the topic of that article. However, an on-line encyclopedia needs lots of metadata in each article — information that is not relevant to the topic, but is necessary to make the relevant information readable (eg., italicising book titles, foreign words etc), verifiable (eg., references, external links), and navigable (notably, and critically, hyperlinks to other articles). That last one is the biggy. Spoiler warnings are navigation aids, but instead of telling readers "click here for more information about X", they tell readers "skip the next part if you don't want to spoil your potential enjoyment of this novel/series/movie/game/...".
 * Keeping this information/content distinction in mind in future might make your contributions to this discussion more persuasive.
 * Cheers, CWC (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC) who is a computer geek; why do you ask?
 * Chris, that information you speak of us "removing" is already there. Three times over. "Encyclopedia," universal disclaimer and section header. You're speaking of the removal of code. Code can comprise information and convey it, but code alone is not information, particularly in an encyclopedic context. In any event, as I've said before, the spoiler tags are not navigation aids. They do not make perusing or finding information any easier.
 * I want you to read something I said to Kirill a moment ago: "The answer to how we're supposed to do that [present content to the readers] with spoiler info is by presenting it the same way we present everything else. If we don't do that, we're not being impartial with it. In this particular case, not only are we not being impartial with it and singling it out, but we are warning people against it. That is not neutral in any way! It is not our responsibility to warn people about knowledge! It is merely our duty to give them the opportunity to attain that knowledge by reading this encyclopedia. The moment we go beyond that and begin regulating the presentation of knowledge outside the standard, we have violated neutrality. ...Our purpose is the impartial presentation of knowledge. That is it. The spoiler warning goes beyond just reiterating that the articles people are reading contain information and warns them against it. The fact that we as editors are making a move to influence what people may choose to learn with a warning that the other information doesn't get is not freely and impartially presenting information."
 * That is probably as clear as I have yet offered my argument. That is the core issue at stake here. I hope you can better understand what I'm trying to express here now. Ryu Kaze 22:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, Ryu. That's very helpful. Here's my attempt at summarising your argument:
 * Wikipedia's purpose is to provide knowledge. It should not warn against any of its knowledge, nor help its readers avoid acquiring certain knowledge.
 * I'm sure this is a crude oversimplification. Please explain what I've missed. Thanks, CWC (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's actually... pretty good. Yeah.
 * By the way, if I may say so, you're the second person I've actually enjoyed arguing this matter with. Randall Brackett was the first, believe it or not, and I was of the pro-spoiler tag affiilation at the time. Ryu Kaze 22:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

So much effort
I am greatly impressed by the astonishing amount of text the anti-spoiler people have written, here and in at least one other place. The quality of their arguments ... not so good.

Whether other encyclopedias do or don't have spoilers is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not like other encyclopedias. The function of an encyclopedia is to provide comprehensive information; the presence or absence of little bits of metadata helping readers decide whether to skip parts of articles in no way hinders that function, and makes Wikipedia more useful to some readers. We're trying to create "Wikipedia, the free on-line encyclopedia that anyone can edit", not "Wikipedia, the website with lots of articles about movies, books and games that you don't want to visit until you have finished the movie, book or game in question".

Two months ago, someone tried to delete the spoiler warning template. The result was "Speedy kept per WP:SNOW", the strongest possible rejection of a deletion attempt. As User:cesarb said above, the use of spoiler warnings is long-standing policy practice. Those who advocate removal of all spoiler warnings will need some powerful arguments to win this debate. At present, all I see from them is astonishing amounts of repetitive verbosity. (If you can write a short argument against warnings, please do so and then link to it frequently.)

Cheers, CWC (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC) corrected 18:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problem with being verbose about the situation. If one decides to make a massive change across article space they had better be elaborate to clarify their reasoning. I'm inclined to think its vastly preferable to irrelevant nonsense like a lot of people voted on something, the false assumption this is a policy (Its not) or someone learning something they'd rather not know at a place they're supposed to go to learn.


 * You're welcome to your opinion on the validation of my arguments but I see you've no basis of fact to refute it. There were a significant number of votes, both which imply they thought the deletion of the template was ourageous, and of the manner of deleting it difficult to comprehend. I agree that it's a judgement call, but I follow the dictum of our concensus policy: "It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position. Nearly every editor believes that his (or her) position is reasonable; good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may also be reasonable. But Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith. With respect to good faith, no amount of emphasized assertions that one is editing according to Neutral point of view while engaging in biased editing will serve to paper over the nature of one's activities.". I still don't see what encyclopedic purpose was served by this material in this instance, since it will only be misused in an inapropriate manner in the wiki. -Randall Brackett 17:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "The quality of their arguments ... not so good."
 * Then why are ours the only ones with any verifiability behind them?
 * Oh I think you could verify "Speedy kept per WP:SNOW" and "[a]s User:cesarb said above ...", to pick just 2 examples, if you really, really tried. CWC (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As has been said countless times, that "discussion" didn't even conform to mandatory requirements. It can hardly serve as verifiability itself. Ryu Kaze 21:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Whether other encyclopedias do or don't have spoilers is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not like other encyclopedias."
 * Wikipedia isn't paper, yes, we know. The amount of space an encyclopedia has to fill has what to do with the definition of "encyclopedia" and encyclopedic philosophy?
 * Where did I mention paper?
 * Wikipedia differs from other encyclopedias in that it's electronic-based. What else could you have been referring to? There's been no suggestion that encyclopedic philosophy is different here, and given that the founder of Wikipedia said we're shooting for the Britannica's quality, it stands to reason that it doesn't. Especially sinec we have the same policies as paper encyclopedias (neutrality, no censorship, verifiability, etc.). Ryu Kaze 21:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You have repeatedly argued that WP should not have spoiler warnings because other encyclopedias don't. Well, other encyclopedias don't allow their readers to edit their articles; should WP therefore limit editing to paid staff and hired experts? (This reductio ad absurdum argument is an attempt to make my earlier point about being different from other encyclopedias in a different way.) We are not limited by precedent. We have some really nifty technology that othe encyclopedias don't. CWC (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Technology doesn't inherently change philosophy. It's supposed to make the application of philosophy more simple. Ryu Kaze 21:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "The function of an encyclopedia is to provide comprehensive information; the presence or absence of little bits of metadata helping readers decide whether to skip parts of articles in no way hinders that function, and makes Wikipedia more useful to some readers."
 * Do we have evidence that they make Wikipedia more useful to readers? Do we have evidence that a spoiler banner that uses text smaller than the header above it screaming "Plot summary" somehow conveys to readers what the header does not? If you see a header entitled "Plot," what do you think a reader expects the paragraphs under that header contain? Does seeing a notice of "Plot... details follow" convey to them what the header does not? Do we have any reason to think so? And is it actually relevant to this encyclopedia's purpose?
 * Yep, we do have evidence — but it's only anecdotal. To get anything better, I strongly suggest running a poll of some sort. If a poll shows that a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors for removing all spoiler warnings, I'll change my attitude. (BTW: "Screaming"?!) CWC (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I wouldn't even want to recognize a democratic vote, even if it supported the notion that spoiler warnings shouldn't be gone. That's not how we're supposed to do things. Ryu Kaze 21:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "We're trying to create "Wikipedia, the free on-line encyclopedia that anyone can edit", not "Wikipedia, the website with lots of articles about movies, books and games that you don't want to visit until you have finished the movie, book or game in question"."
 * There is a table of contents. There are sections clearly marked "Plot," "Story," "Plot summary" and similar such red flags. No one has to read the plot details if they don't want to, and we have been offered zero evidence that a spoiler warning conveys to them what those section headers do not. Since when did hypothetical situations dictate Wikipedia policy?
 * I agree about certain headings being implicit spoiler warnings. However, there are real situations where spoilers occur outside those headings. Here's an obvious one: Jaye Davidson. If you insist, I'll find a dozen more. CWC (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As Randall and I have said many times, we're supposed to give people information, not shield them from it. Ryu Kaze 21:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Two months ago, someone tried to delete the spoiler warning template. The Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_4 was "Speedy kept per WP:SNOW", the strongest possible rejection of a deletion attempt."
 * To anyone accusing us of not assuming good faith: this is why get frustrated. No less than half a dozen times, we've gone over this particular archive. First off, WP:SNOW is not a policy. Second, even if it were, it doesn't apply in this situation given that we have provided verifiability for our arguments, something those with the opposing view have yet to do. Third, policy is not determined based on votes. It's determined based on discussion and how well arguments are supported. Given that our arguments have support while no one has provided support for claims of the spoiler tags' beneficial presence -- neither with regards to readers or the encyclopedia's purpose -- I have to say that WP:SNOW is the last thing to cite in a situation like this given the side of the fence you're sitting on. If we were going by WP:SNOW and the standard for finding consensus, it would be a landslide in our favor at the moment.
 * I regard that TFD as an informal policy discussion. I only mentioned that the closing admin invoked WP:SNOW to indicate that he believed there was overwhelming consensus for a speedy keep. Whether WP:SNOW is a policy is irrelevant. CWC (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The pro-spoiler template argument never supported itself. I'm sorry, but I don't see how anyone can view that "discussion" as indicative of consensus. Ryu Kaze 21:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fouth, that "discussion" from May featured tons of people thinking they were voting for who their local government leaders were going to be instead of participating in a template discussion. Comments such as "Keep Are you crazy?" and "Keep This is a joke, right?" are considered invalid, voiding the "vote." The closest anyone came to trying to support spoiler tags in that "discussion" was constantly repeating what we've been hearing here: that they're useful, that they help the encyclopedia, that they benefit readers. However, just like in this discussion, no one ever stepped forward to support these claims, and, thus, the matter has gone and here is the discussion again.
 * I see nothing about local government in that discussion.
 * You completely missed my point. I was saying those people seemed to think they were voting in a democractic election instead of taking part in a debate. Ryu Kaze 21:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, these tags are useful: a person can look up a book/movie/game he/she hasn't finished with some assurance that material that would spoil his/her enjoyment is marked for easy avoidance. Therefore they do benefit some readers, and do help the encyclopedia. (That you have encountered this argument many, many times before does not invalidate it.) That the tags diminish certain other peoples' enjoyment of Wikipedia means they also harm the encyclopedia. We need to establish whether the harm outweighs the benefit and (if so) whether the margin is large enough to mandate a change in our practice. CWC (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable enough point, I suppose. Ryu Kaze 21:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "As User:cesarb said above, the use of spoiler warnings is long-standing policy."
 * It isn't a policy at all. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
 * Quite true; I should have written "practice". However, it is long-standing, is it not? My intended point stands. CWC (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but so could be any inappropriate practice until it was challenged on specific terms, no? Based on previous times in which this matter has been brought up, I believe that to have been the case here, and that's why I've not been willing to concede to what appears to be more of the same discussions from the past. Heck, we've already maintained the longest (both in terms of time and text) debate over this matter yet, with points that weren't mentioned before being brought up now.
 * "At present, all I see from them is astonishing amounts of repetitive verbosity. (If you can write a short argument against warnings, please do so and then link to it frequently.)"
 * I have done so several times:
 * 1. They are redundant of the fact that this is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is defined as "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge."
 * Which has nothing to do with whether an encyclopedia should contain spoiler warnings. In fact, I am minded to argue that spoiler warnings = more information = more encyclopedic. CWC (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Three pages saying the same thing doesn't equate to more information. It's the same information three times, with two-thirds of it being extrinsic. Ryu Kaze 21:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2. They are redundant of the content disclaimer accessible from the bottom of every page of this website that states "Wikipedia contains spoilers and content you may find objectionable."
 * Translation:
 * If we have an article about a book/movie/game/... that you are interested in but have not yet finished, do not read that article or you may well spoil your enjoyment of X. You will also need to avoid articles about the people who created X, wrote essays about X, etc. How will you know which articles to avoid? By (1) reading our article (woops!) or (2) going to some other website.
 * In other words, relying on the generic disclaimer makes Wikipedia less useful to anyone interested in popular culture (except for someone who has read all the novels / seen all the movies / watched all the TV show episodes / ...).
 * This discussion is not about the content of Wikipedia; this is about helping readers navigate Wikipedia. CWC (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How is it helping them navigate Wikipedia better? Does it make finding that information easier? That's what the encyclopedia's purpose is: to give them that information. And how does any of this change the matters of impartial treatment of relevant information?
 * 3. They are redundant of section headings entitled &;;;quot;;;;;;;;;;Plot," "Plot summary," "Story" or something similar. For an example, look at the page for the movie Gladiator. The section entitled "Plot" has immediately below it a warning that the section contains information about the plot: "Spoiler warning: plot... details follow." How does the "Plot" header not convey this given that 1) the header is in plain english, 2) the header already tells readers the same thing the banner does and 3) the header is in larger text than the spoiler banner? In other words, these spoiler tags are warning people that these encyclopedia articles contain information and that is all that they are doing.
 * I agree that having spoiler warnings in the "Plot" section of an article about a movie or book is redundant.
 * But your last sentence is (must restrain self) not convincing. All the tags do is warn people that "articles ... contain information? Actually, they warn readers that the particular sections of articles contain information that some readers will want to not read. That distinction is somewhat important in this discussion; it is rather alarming to see it being ignored. CWC (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We expect information to be in the "Plot" and "Character" sections, don't we? We expect an article about an author to include information about what he or she has written, don't we? Ryu Kaze 21:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4. They are an example of a double-standard. Templates warning people of images of humans being tortured were not allowed (even an image-free version of one particular article was deleted) on the grounds that it violated Wikipedia's no censors policy. Yet somehow the spoiler tags remain. Are we to think that telling people that Deckard might be a replicant is more psychologically scarring than showing them images of people being tortured and humiliated by other people?
 * Certainly not. Spoiler warnings are not there to avoid scarring/shocking/horrifying people; they are there to warn readers to skip parts in certain articles if they do not want to spoil their potential future experience of various books/movies/games/etc. (I hope you won't mind if I say that this strikes me as a really strange argument.) CWC (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, the matter comes back to people's quality of life. That's what spoilers are an issue for in the first place. I don't see how the matters are different. Ryu Kaze 21:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5. They violate two of Wikipedia's fundamental policies: neutrality and no censorship. Censorship is not simply the exclusion of information, but its regulation in a manner different than that of other information that is equally relevant. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. It is not supposed to see "Non-spoiler information... spoiler information... non-spoiler information... spoiler information" and then categorize it based on this. It's supposed to see relevant information and relevant information only, and treat it all impartially. It's all just information to an encyclopedia, and that's how it's supposed to be treated.
 * I'm sorry, I don't see why providing metadata within articles violates WP:NPOV. Nor does the metadata regulate sections; rather it labels sections with value-neutral tags which are quite orthogonal to the "information payload". CWC (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It singles some information out and presents it in a manner different from how it treats the surrounding information. I'm sorry, but that is non-neutral and it is censorship. Ryu Kaze 21:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why "relevant information only"? In order to be a hyperlinked encyclopdia that encourages editing, WP needs lots of information in articles which is not relevant to the topics of those articles. CWC (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6. For that matter, the spoiler tag has been misused to an outrageous extent, showing up on the pages for Romeo and Juliet, The Little Engine That Could, Moby Dick, Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Citizen Kane, Odyssey and countless other classical works, the basic premise of most of which is their so-called "spoiler information." Furthermore, in these and other cases, the information is so ingrained into our culture's common knowledge or even our very history (Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father; Rosebud is a sled; Jesus dies; the boat fucking sinks) as for it to be absurd to call it a spoiler. When spoiler warnings start showing up in Bible articles, something is terribly wrong.
 * I completely agree. So we should fix those articles. I once bought myself some sharp knives. I use them with care instead of throwing them away. CWC (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure that I get the knife analogy, but how would you propose fixing these articles? Ryu Kaze 21:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That is our argument. You can see there our verifiability for it. We have provided this information countless times and not received a single verifiable counter-point in return. Ryu Kaze 18:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologise for being so long-winded in this edit. Cheers, CWC (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's fine. Ryu Kaze 21:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ooh, lots of text ;-) For ease of reference, I'll retain the same numbering system in my response:
 * They're an organizational tool, much like section headings. Adding metadata to the text of the articles in no way changes the information contained within; this is merely an issue of how to best present the content to the reader.
 * That's just a legal requirement. Nobody actually reads the disclaimer—which is nested several links deep, incidentally—when casually browsing Wikipedia.
 * The example you so kindly provided hasn't a single one of the headings you listed.
 * They're intended for a different purpose. I can hardly imagine how seeing images of torture would make it more difficult for a reader to enjoy an outside work.  (Spoilers and the associated warnings are, in any case, a phenomenon unique to articles dealing with fiction.  It seems perfectly reasonable to assume that articles on real subjects and articles on fictional ones would have some differences in style and layout.)
 * The "no censorship" policy has never been interpreted to force a complete abandonment of editorial judgement. You might notice that our article on goatse.cx is curiously lacking in certain obvious illustrations, for example.  (What neutrality has to do with this I don't know; but if you want to play semantic games, it should be fairly easy to argue that the identification of certain elements as spoilers is a widely-held viewpoint, and must therefore be given adequate treatment in each article in question.)
 * When you speak of "our culture's common knowledge", who exactly are you presuming to speak for? There are people who have never seen any of the movies you mention; and if Wikipedia should ever get distributed—as is planned—in countries without ready access to the Internet or to the products of modern cinematography, you might discover that these people quite significantly outnumber those who are aware of these facts.
 * Incidentally, you keep referring to the "verifiability" of your arguments; I don't think that word means what you think it means. You haven't exactly been forthcoming with evidence (properly cited to reliable sources, of course) of your claims; did you mean to say "reasoning" instead? Kirill Lokshin 18:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * (Edit overlap: the following is in response to User:Randall Brackett, not the amazingly verbose User:Ryu Kaze. CWC (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC))
 * User:Randall Brackett is right about spoiler warnings not being a WP:POLICY. It was a "style guideline" until the current dispute started. I've edited my preceding comment (and fixed my link syntax error).
 * It is my experience, and my considered opinion, that many of our articles use spoiler warnings in an entirely appropriate manner. I have been very grateful for warnings when reading articles. I agree that some articles use warnings inappropriately; I say we should fix those articles instead of deprecating or deleting the template. Like many other features of Wikipedia, these warnings are a sharp tool which can turn and cut its user. Nevertheless we should not throw the tool away. Instead we should be careful using it. (Hmm. Perhaps living on a farm where there are dozens of tools that can kill a person has influenced my thinking.)
 * Cheers, CWC (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. But I don't spy the need when obviously we have TOCs and headers which already provide the same purpose. I could see them as valid back in 2003 when we were still in the process of expanding our fictional and media base but now wikipedia is a commonly visited site and its a common view that we elaborate on things. In fact, I would stress the template is overkill because people tend to view wikipedia as a place for indescriminate information and original research; they know we don't usually half-ass things. I really don't see the need for the warning when the probem of wikipedia is in the opposite direction. -Randall Brackett 19:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "They're an organizational tool, much like section headings. Adding metadata to the text of the articles in no way changes the information contained within; this is merely an issue of how to best present the content to the reader."
 * How does "Plot" fail to identify what is within its section? Warning people about information qualifies as censorship.
 * "That's just a legal requirement. Nobody actually reads the disclaimer—which is nested several links deep, incidentally—when casually browsing Wikipedia."
 * They don't read "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" either? In any event, the disclaimer is two simple clicks away, not buried in links.
 * "The example you so kindly provided hasn't a single one of the headings you listed."
 * Gladiator was the example I used. The thing about Deckard was a random example of a spoiler from off the top of my head, not part of the point brought up in #3. While on the subject, though, Blade Runner does have a spoiler tag.
 * "They're intended for a different purpose. I can hardly imagine how seeing images of torture would make it more difficult for a reader to enjoy an outside work. (Spoilers and the associated warnings are, in any case, a phenomenon unique to articles dealing with fiction. It seems perfectly reasonable to assume that articles on real subjects and articles on fictional ones would have some differences in style and layout.)"
 * You're approaching the editing of a neutral, uncensored body of info with the preconception that "This information is inherently different from this information and should be treated differently"? That's hardly neutral, nor is it recognizing that Wikipedia is not censored. That argument calls for disregarding Wikipedia policy and the philosophical integrity of what it means to be an encyclopedia.
 * Anyway, supposedly the spoiler tags prevent people from being spoiled on a work of fiction, which maintains its impact quality for them, thereby improving their quality of life. Isn't that pretty much what it's about? Supposedly. If we aren't concerned with someone's qualify of life, we sure as hell don't care if the ending of a book gets spoiled for them, right? Now, given that horrific images have actually traumatized people, I'd say, yes, we're dealing with a double-standard here.
 * "The "no censorship" policy has never been interpreted to force a complete abandonment of editorial judgement. You might notice that our article on goatse.cx is curiously lacking in certain obvious illustrations, for example. (What neutrality has to do with this I don't know; but if you want to play semantic games, it should be fairly easy to argue that the identification of certain elements as spoilers is a widely-held viewpoint, and must therefore be given adequate treatment in each article in question.)"
 * I don't see why the handling of the goatse.cx page should determine what Wikipedia's policies should be. Given what Wikipedia's policies are, the image should most certainly be on that page rather than simply linked. It's not just relevant: it's the subject matter.
 * "When you speak of "our culture's common knowledge", who exactly are you presuming to speak for? There are people who have never seen any of the movies you mention; and if Wikipedia should ever get distributed—as is planned—in countries without ready access to the Internet or to the products of modern cinematography, you might discover that these people quite significantly outnumber those who are aware of these facts."
 * Given that most of our users are North Americans (where this encyclopedia is based), I'm mostly speaking for them. In any event, yes, I'm aware that we have members from other countries and that a printed version of Wikipedia would be available outside the United States. However, if someone's living somewhere that they'll have access to a printed version, chances are pretty darn good that they'll have already had access to the concept of star-crossed lovers and how that applies to the plot of Romeo and Juliet.
 * In any event, #6 was a simple add-on to the most important aspects of the argument (to drive home the absurdity of the template's misuse), not the crux of my argument.
 * "Incidentally, you keep referring to the "verifiability" of your arguments; I don't think that word means what you think it means. You haven't exactly been forthcoming with evidence (properly cited to reliable sources, of course) of your claims; did you mean to say "reasoning" instead?"
 * Uh... given that the sources I've been linking to are this site's official policies, and given that you can actually look at a dictionary and see what an encyclopedia is, I'm not seeing what you're trying to say here. What are you looking to as a reliable source for Wikipedia policies? Something other than Wikipedia's policy pages? Evidence and verifiability go hand-in-hand. The former creates the latter. Ryu Kaze 19:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Most encyclopedias don't include fictional plot summaries at all; Wikipedia has massively redefined the term (at least as far as general usage is concerned), and cannot depend on blindly following the lead of, say, Britannica in this matter. But that's really beside the point.
 * Wikipedia's policies are, for the most part, descriptive rather than prescriptive. If spoiler tags have not been removed for violating the censorship policy, that suggests that consensus holds that they do not, in fact, violate it (or, alternately, that they form an exception to it).  Neither is editorial judgement equivalent to either censorship or lack of neutrality.  The qualification that "this information is inherently different from this information and should be treated differently" is invoked any time some text is removed from a page; would you suggest that this is a policy violation?
 * More to the point (as far as verifiability is concerned), you have failed to provide any concrete evidence for a number of key claims which underpin your argument:
 * That readers do not find these spoiler warnings useful.
 * That these tags are inappropriately applied to any substantial extent. (In other words, that the information so tagged does not constitue spoilers, either because it does not reveal plot details or because we can assume that these plot details are already common knowledge.)
 * That the use of spoiler tags is regarded as censorship—and not as editorial judgement or even mere addition of clarifying metadata—by any significant number of people (or any significant proportion of Wikipedia editors, if you prefer).
 * We have plenty of (admittedly circumstantial) evidence that spoiler tags are seen as a good and proper thing in discussions of fictional material, and very little evidence (aside from the claim that they're censorship because, well, they are!) that they're a bad thing. Kirill Lokshin 19:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I really would think that's overanalzing things. I would ask could you explain why our Table of contents and headers are not sufficent....? Where is the circumstantial evidence proving that they are required now that wkipedia is a well known place for knowledge and people are aware we elaborate on our subjects like an encyclopedia is supposed to. -Randall Brackett 19:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The circumstantial evidence is that they're ubiquitous outside of Wikipedia; people are generally lazy, so it's unlikely that such tags would have survived as long as they have if they were not found useful.
 * People may be aware that we "elaborate on our subjects like an encyclopedia is supposed to"; but, by the same token, they will have become aware that we use spoiler warnings when the subjects on which we elaborate happen to involve the plots of fictional works. A sudden change in our practices in this regard would come as a surprise to anyone used to reading our articles.  Thus, while the tags are obviously not "required", I see no problem with retaining them (for the convenience of our readers) in the absence of any concrete evidence that they're actually bad. Kirill Lokshin 20:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I spy some holes in the logic there. What does laziness have to do with spoilers....? It is easy for someone to make a template and people to go in a craze, placing it an article they think is relevant. It is easy for even the laziest editor to type " – " and "Spoilers". Having a TOC and header accomplishes the same purpose. By this, that's what I refer to by the template being redundant.


 * Wikipedia is always changing and our readers must accept that by our variable nature we are a competent knowledge source. But I think that's very sensible view, Krill. This is why in in my removal of spoiler tags, both manual and on a large scale, would be gradual and in a slow fashion, certainly not all at once.


 * I would say they are bad, but not in the blatently destructive fashion you speak of. With their integration into the society, they have falsely infringed views upon readers and editors on the encyclopedia alike. They falsely cause many to think they are a part or foundation of building a encyclopedia, they have caused many editors to forget their sense of reason and blindly accept them without a thought (recently an administrator falsely cited this process as a "Policy" and I had to correct him). They cause many to believe Wikipedia should feel obligated to suscribe to the values of social sites and review forums. They also cause the loss of simple common sense. Some tags have been used in the most outlandish of articles that did not even speak of media. This is clearly a large problem in that it depicts our editors do not know how to be editors. If a "tool" can not be used sparingly and in a manner that is helpful to the project it should be deleted.


 * I don't see any convience. This goes round to my initial query. If we didn't have headers and TOCs amoung other things then I could see the purpose. But we do, and judging from thousands of anonymous edits that are inserted every day our readers are not stupid enough to require them. They are useless. -Randall Brackett 20:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To use the above example again, Themes in Blade Runner has content that's likely to be viewed as spoilers, but no obvious indication of such in the TOC (indeed, the TOC might be a spoiler in itself). I don't think we should really ask our readers to assume that any article which discusses some fictional work has spoilers (as many don't, and many works of fiction have little that can be spoiled, in any case).
 * At the same time, I think the issue of poor use or overuse is one unrelated to the existence of the tool itself. If you were to begin your removal of the tags with those cases where you think they're most inappropriate and go from there, would you be unable to reach a point where you were satisfied that the remaining uses of the tags were used "sparingly and in a manner that is helpful to the project"?  If not, then what is the fundamental problem with the tags is that would make it appropriate to altogether ban their use?  Kirill Lokshin 20:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Most encyclopedias don't include fictional plot summaries at all; Wikipedia has massively redefined the term..."
 * Usually they summarize the plot more succintly as part of its main description and may not even have a section marked for the plot alone, but they still take a brief stab at it, because encyclopedias are supposed to shoot for being comprehensive. Paper encyclopedias, of course, have space limitations that we don't have here. I don't see how Wikipedia has redefined the concept so much as employed the freedom of additional room to expand on what's always been done.
 * "If spoiler tags have not been removed for violating the censorship policy, that suggests that consensus holds that they do not, in fact, violate it (or, alternately, that they form an exception to it)."
 * That doesn't make any sense in light of the possibility (and based on archived disputes over the matter, I'd call it a fact) that these exact arguments have not been brought up with these observations of pro-spoiler tag-ism being pointed out for what they are: lacking in evidence.
 * "The qualification that "this information is inherently different from this information and should be treated differently" is invoked any time some text is removed from a page; would you suggest that this is a policy violation?"
 * Given how many times I've used "relevant information," you know that's the assumption we're working with: that any information being discussed here is encyclopedic/relevant/significant. We're talking about how information actually included in the encyclopedia is supposed to be treated if it was deemed admittable based on its quality. Ideally, no information would even go in until it had been verified. At that point, it and all other information are supposed to be treated impartially by the encyclopedia. That's how paper encyclopedias do this, for instance.
 * For example, when there are multiple views regarding a subject, and all are equally likely based on what we know at the moment (take, for example, the debate over whether or not Pluto is a planet), all the verified information on the matter is supposed to be treated the same by the encyclopedia.
 * "More to the point (as far as verifiability is concerned), you have failed to provide any concrete evidence for a number of key claims which underpin your argument: That readers do not find these spoiler warnings useful."
 * Which has little to do with the central debate actually at hand. In any event, what we have pointed out is that there are multiple ways in which these spoiler tags are redundant, which -- even if the purpose of the spoiler tags is being fulfilled -- calls into question whether or not it is the spoiler tags themselves that are fulfilling that purpose.
 * "2. That these tags are inappropriately applied to any substantial extent. (In other words, that the information so tagged does not constitue spoilers, either because it does not reveal plot details or because we can assume that these plot details are already common knowledge.)"
 * Given the other circumstances involved, even if we can't verify the issue of pop culture, I hardly see why it matters.
 * "That the use of spoiler tags is regarded as censorship—and not as editorial judgement or even mere addition of clarifying metadata—by any significant number of people (or any significant proportion of Wikipedia editors, if you prefer)."
 * "Clarifying metadata"? What is unclear about "Plot"?? What is unclear about the content disclaimer? What is unclear about Wikipedia not being censored?
 * "A sudden change in our practices in this regard would come as a surprise to anyone used to reading our articles. Thus, while the tags are obviously not "required", I see no problem with retaining them (for the convenience of our readers) in the absence of any concrete evidence that they're actually bad."
 * A phone book listing would potentially be helpful to readers, and it wouldn't be inherently bad, but how is it encyclopedic or helping the encyclopedia be so? Hell, at least a phone book listing would definitely serve its purpose and couldn't arguably be reiterating something else that might actually be serving that purpose.
 * Spoiler tags on the other hand are one of four things indicating that these encyclopedia sections contain information (the site's name, its content disclaimer and the section headers being the others). Furthermore, they are an example of censorship. And, yes, they just are, because they meet that critera. Things tend to either be something or they aren't.
 * Now, getting back to the core fundamentals of this issue that aren't getting addressed, how is that the tags don't violate those policies when they clearly do, aren't redundant when they clearly are, and actually contribute to the encyclopedia's mission (which is still up in the air), and can that be supported? Ryu Kaze 20:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * By the same token, I could start ranting about how removing spoiler tags is censorship, because, well, it just is ;-)
 * But going back to your fundamentals:
 * Whether or not they "violate those policies" is precisely what we're discussing here. You can't very well assume your preferred outcome from the start.  (And the status quo is a powerful argument here.  Our only policy on this subject is summed up precisely as "Wikipedia is not censored"; how that is to be interpreted in any given situation is left up to the consensus of editors, which seems to have held that spoiler tags were not censorship.)
 * What are they redundant with? Not all articles have anything in the TOC that would indicate the presence of spoilers.
 * They contribute to our mission by providing additional information to readers about the articles they're viewing. That you believe this information is inappropriate is an entirely separate issue.
 * So, aside from your obvious distaste for the things, would you happen to have any evidence that these tags are evil/censorship/kill kittens/whatever? Kirill Lokshin 20:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've already pointed out how they're censorship several times. Censorship isn't solely the exclusion of information. It is also the regulation of information to where it's being treated differently, being set apart. Being warned about. We're warning people about information that is being singled out. That is censorship. Ryu Kaze 21:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weren't we talking about verifiability not long ago? I assume that you're currently collating the reliable sources needed to back up your claim of spoiler tags as censorship, and will cite them momentarily?  (This censorship, once we have rooted it out, will come as a shock to the civilized world.  Just think: tens of thousands of innocent people, hundreds of books and periodicals, thousands of websites, all caught up in a web of censorship!) Kirill Lokshin 21:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I've no opinion on the censorship idea but I don't see, as an encyclopedia, what business it is of ours to babysit people and say material is harmful. We should strive for neutrality and leave that to our organizing tools.


 * You've forgotten the headers themselves, Krill. Those are the points of interest in each article with the "harmful information". If there is a header that says plot (and this is commonly the case) I don't see the need. Stupid people don't read encyclopedias.


 * I think my thesis speaks its reasoning for itself. If you would prefer I would be glad to link to the inapropriate mindsets made in view of this template, the inconsistent manner in its usage and its uselessness. Although I think its dodging the subject to ask for evidence in our capacity when none has been provided to justify the template itself. Wikipedia is a place that holds a wide range of subjects, yes, but I don't see why that should modify the premise. An encyclopedia is still a place where one goes for information, knowledge, facts without warnings originated from review forums. I don't see why people who insist on the ideal of keeping ignorance in any capacity should have any say in the building of an encyclopedia. -Randall Brackett 21:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said before: what about articles where there isn't a "Plot" or "Story" heading? Aside from a total disregard for the readers (which is an interesting idea, but rather broader than this proposal), why shouldn't we have a little tag on, say, Keyser Soze that gently informs the curious reader that the article contains certain information which may substantially affect their ability to enjoy an artistic work?  Particularly when the vast majority of such articles doesn't contain such information?  Kirill Lokshin 21:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "I assume that you're currently collating the reliable sources needed to back up your claim of spoiler tags as censorship, and will cite them momentarily?''"
 * I've been doing so this entire time. I want you to look at something you said earlier: "They're an organizational tool, much like section headings. Adding metadata to the text of the articles in no way changes the information contained within; this is merely an issue of how to best present the content to the reader." You said "this is merely an issue of how best to present the content to the reader." The answer to how we're supposed to do that with spoiler info is by presenting it the same way we present everything else. If we don't do that, we're not being impartial with it. In this particular case, not only are we not being impartial with it and singling it out, but we are warning people against it. That is not neutral in any way! It is not our responsibility to warn people about knowledge! It is merely our duty to give them the opportunity to attain that knowledge by reading this encyclopedia. The moment we go beyond that and begin regulating the presentation of knowledge outside the standard, we have violated neutrality.
 * "As I said before: what about articles where there isn't a "Plot" or "Story" heading? Aside from a total disregard for the readers (which is an interesting idea, but rather broader than this proposal), why shouldn't we have a little tag on, say, Keyser Soze that gently informs the curious reader that the article contains certain information which may substantially affect their ability to enjoy an artistic work?"
 * Again, we're here to give people knowledge that we treat impartially, recognizing it all as equally relevant if it's here, and maintaining its equal standing, not decide what they learn by warning them against it. Our purpose is the impartial presentation of knowledge. That is it. The spoiler warning goes beyond just reiterating that the articles people are reading contain information and warns them against it. The fact that we as editors are making a move to influence what people may choose to learn with a warning that the other information doesn't get is not freely and impartially presenting information . Is that not obvious? Ryu Kaze 21:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really, no. By your reasoning, is current evil neutrality-violating keeping-people-from-knowledge censorship? Or is it—just like spoiler—additional information about the contents of an article that readers may wish to be aware of when reading it? Kirill Lokshin
 * How are those two templates even remotely comparable? One warns people against learning something, while the other actually does attempt to offer additional information. In any event, current template seems kind of pointless to me anyway given that the dates in the article should make it obvious to anyone that the event in question is a current one anyway. So while I wouldn't say the current template is a policy-violating, information-censoring tool of evil, I would call it an extrinsic operation in redundancy and irrelevance. Ryu Kaze 22:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * They're not all that different; both are not part of the article content themselves, but serve to indicate certain things about those contents to the reader. Would you be satisfied if we removed the word "warning" from spoiler and left it merely as an indication of what followed? Kirill Lokshin 22:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Krill, in response to lack of headers, that is attributed to our editors, not the content. It simply means someone has not yet used an appropriate header to organize the information (I commonly do this so direct me to articles that lack organization). I don't concur on the "may affect the ability to enjoy the work". If someone did not want to learn on a subject they would not come to an encyclopedia. Learning and expanding horizons is not "harmful". Leaving ignorance behind is not "mind-blowingly destructive". Coming to an encyclopedia and learning something you didn't originally intend to is not "warning-worthy". All information in an encyclopedia can only be positive because we are an encyclopedia.


 * If our headers are not informative enough to give readers a hint of what they shall read, then the solution is to strengthen our organization and manual of style policies, not use a silly template.-Randall Brackett 21:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not let the readers decide for themselves whether they want to learn something they didn't originally intend to? Our mission is to provide information, not shove it down readers' throats. Kirill Lokshin 22:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what I've been trying to say this entire time. Our purpose is only to provide the information to them, not to play any part in the learning process afterward or what they choose to learn. Otherwise, we're making a move to influence that learning. Allow me to say it again:
 * "The answer to how we're supposed to do that [present content to the readers] with spoiler info is by presenting it the same way we present everything else. If we don't do that, we're not being impartial with it. In this particular case, not only are we not being impartial with it and singling it out, but we are warning people against it. That is not neutral in any way! It is not our responsibility to warn people about knowledge! It is merely our duty to give them the opportunity to attain that knowledge by reading this encyclopedia. The moment we go beyond that and begin regulating the presentation of knowledge outside the standard, we have violated neutrality. ...Our purpose is the impartial presentation of knowledge. That is it. The spoiler warning goes beyond just reiterating that the articles people are reading contain information and warns them against it. The fact that we as editors are making a move to influence what people may choose to learn with a warning that the other information doesn't get is not freely and impartially presenting information."
 * That is probably as clear as I have yet offered my argument. That is the core issue at stake here. I hope you can better understand what I'm trying to express here now. Ryu Kaze 22:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What you view as influencing readers I see only as a courtesy notice to them that, hey, the surprise ending to the movie is revealed in the next paragraph, and if they don't want to find it out, they can skip it. Kirill Lokshin 22:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that's why we as editors leave our interpretations out of the articles and let the readers get the raw unfiltered info. Ryu Kaze 22:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Precisely. We provide it and organize it properly. That will be sufficient. No need for the silly boilerplates that express wether the neutral editors of an encyclopedia think (by their own bias) if it is harmful or not. -Randall Brackett 22:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Really, I think this has stopped being an issue of whether or not the information is being treated impartially/censorship is being employed, and the only thing I can see really being an issue is whether or not people think it's better to warn people/influence their learning. Personally, if we do get into that, I'd like to make it known right now that I absolutely am opposed to us standing between the readers and them thinking for themselves. Not just because I'm ethically opposed to it, but also because it's policy that we not do that. Ryu Kaze 22:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem Solved
Those who cannot tolerate spoiler warnings should use the following Cascading Style Sheets rule: .spoiler { display: none; } Any web browser which supports CSS (as almost all do) will then hide the spoiler warnings. (You will still see them in the Wikitext when editing.)

There are lots of ways of doing this, especially for Firefox users. Here is one way. It has one big disadvantage: it only works if (1) you are logged into your wikipedia account and (2) you use the "monobook" skin (which most of us do — it's the default skin). On the other hand, this method is simple to explain.


 * 1) Log in to wikipedia.
 * 2) Bring up your user page.
 * 3) Click in the "location box", which should now contain "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YourUsername".
 * 4) Press the "End" key on your keyboard.
 * 5) Type in "/monobook.css".
 * The location box should now contain "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YourUsername/monobook.css"


 * 1) Press the "Enter" key.
 * 2) Click on the link to create the page.
 * 3) Enter the line shown above.
 * 4) Save the page.
 * 5) Follow the instructions in Bypass your cache.
 * 6) Enjoy your spoiler-warning-free version of Wikipedia!

Cheers, CWC (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I have a more productive one that solves the problem to a greater extent.


 * 1) Look up a revatively simple bot on wikipedia. (look in Category:bots, I believe)
 * 2) Inquire the user in question if the bot can fullfill the purpose of navigating mainspace.. Generally, many bots can work in various capacities.
 * 3) a simple bot + Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Spoiler = no more template.
 * 4) Enjoy your spoiler-warning-free version of Wikipedia!


 * Cheers, Randall Brackett 18:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * CWC, have you been reading the discussion? Just a few comments up, we already responded to this matter. I'm just going to repeat what I said before: "The issue at stake here is this encyclopedia's integrity and quality, and that's not something that will improve if merely I cannot see the spoiler tags. I am an editor. I'm supposed to concern myself with what the readers are seeing." Ryu Kaze 18:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I was going to express things rather more strongly, Ryu. I would rather say to ChrisC that his suggestion is crass and offensive and a straw man, to the extent that it makes it hard to assume good faith.
 * The issue, Chris, is not an objection to seeing the spoiler template. It is an objection to the principle of the spoiler template.
 * I hadn't weighed into this debate earlier because I was undecided. Actually I still am. But Chris and Ned show very little sign of reading the posts made by Ryu, Randall et al, and the same is simply not true in reverse - so in spite of the fact that I'm still not sure which I actually prefer, I am left with the very strong impression that the spoiler warning is a Bad Thing. Because its opponents debate sensibly where its proponents do not. This is no way to make a decision! And yet its being forced upon me ... --JennyRad 18:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I assure you I've been reading each message, and I feel I have addressed each of their concerns, just not to their satisfaction, it seems -- Ned Scott 21:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your comments, JennyRad, and thank you for telling me that what I've been trying to say is at least coherent. After an entire day of trying to discuss the matter, I began to wonder.
 * You're right that which of us makes a verifiable argument alone is not enough to make your decision, and I wouldn't ask you to do so. For my own part, I know the verifiability of the argument I've been putting forth, while I do not know the verifiability of the opposing view. I have been told several times that this verifiability exists, yet it has not been shown to me, and on a few occasions on the basis that "It's so obvious" I should know already. Needless to say, I've not been convinced, but I have tried to maintain the open mind that maybe there is something of substance for the opposing view that really has been withheld or just not uncovered. That is why I continue to ask for it even as my belief that it exists dwindles.
 * I won't ask you to side with my view on this basis alone. You should, of course, weigh the factors and decide for yourself what you think is the most beneficial course of action, and if you should choose the other view, I will most certainly be open to any evidence you bring forth in favor of that view. Once again, I thank you for confirming for me that what I've been saying is logical. That's a big relief. XD Ryu Kaze 18:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

(Back to margin) I apologise for the heading of this section, but stand by the rest of that edit. Please (re)read it carefully before responding. CWC (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and also
Just to throw this out there, the plot summary is not the only section that may or may not contain spoilers. I don't think anyone has brought that up yet. -- Ned Scott 21:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC) (please don't place your comments about these examples inline to each section of this post) --DavidHOzAu 00:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Its not supposed to be in an article. Most competent articles should state the main theme and point of the story as well as its impact in the opening pharagraph. The elaboration should proceed to be made in the "plot", "synopsis" or what-have-you section. -Randall Brackett 21:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You want an example?
 * Consider the section Metroid: Zero Mission#Inconsistencies with Metroid.
 * This is an article that includes spoilers which are not in a plot section.
 * Consider the section The Diamond Age#Cultural relativism and the politics of The Diamond Age.
 * Here we see that the discussion of cultural relativism in the novel contains spoilers that are not in a plot section.
 * Therefore not every spoiler is a plot point, and this by extension applies to articles about other fictional people too.
 * These are only two articles in my very quick quest to find examples in sufficiently-sized articles. Note that only one example is enough to satisfy reductio ad absurdum per modus tollens.  There would of course be even more examples out there.
 * Case in point. We need to write our articles more effeciently. I also removed the spoilers from the provided examples as well. Those were entirely inapropriate. -Randall Brackett 00:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why I used a permanent link, because I strongly suspected that :someone: would remove them as soon as I pointed them out.
 * You might also want to know that data about data is not always inappropriate as has been assumed in sections above. Data about data is still data in an article, information is still information no matter what the sort of information it is, and as someone knowledgable in several structural languages I'm not going to get drawn into a trivial debate about words discussion over definitions of what qualifies as information. (By the way, you still haven't addressed the fact that not all spoilers are plot points.) --DavidHOzAu 00:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have. Repeatedly. What I've pointed out is the definition of "encyclopedia" and the universal spoiler notice that is two clicks away at any time, as well as the fact that we're supposed to be neutral and not try to influence or regulate people's absorption of Wikipedia's information in a prejudiced manner (meaning we're not supposed to treat the presentation of any relevant information differently, which warning people against knowledge is doing, I'm afraid). Until the pillars of Wikipedian philosophy have been addressed, I think all else is in the backseat. Not spoiling people isn't part of the encyclopedia's foundation, nor is it Wikipedia's concern. The encyclopedia itself says so. More than once. Ryu Kaze 01:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

While some may argue that labeling something a spoiler is a POV, so is deciding what is a major theme in a story, is it not? I think the whole "warning" thing might be turning Ryu Randall and co. off. We are labeling information, just as we label protagonists and antagonists, or any other element. The same can be said about the censorship accusation.

Redundancy is not the same thing as labeling specific parts of text as spoilers. That would be like calling the period at the end of a sentence redundant. We use it as needed. And even if it could be considered redundant, how is redundancy always a bad thing? Doesn't it depend on the context?

The fact that Wikipedia contains one big spoiler warning via the disclaimer link says something to defend spoiler warnings, does it not? If these spoiler templates should be removed, then the disclaimer spoiler message should as well, right?

I'd also like to address the whole TOC argument again. Take for example an article on a character, will that have a plot summary? Again, with our spoiler tags we can note what is a spoiler and what is not a spoiler even within an article section. Should a reader be forced to ignore entire sections when they don't need to?

And I take offense to many of the comments made that people who can't magically avoid spoilers on articles are stupid, and have no place reading wikipedia. Because I am one of those people, and I am not a stupid person, nor am I a lazy reader. We have to understand that large blocks of text can easily be "ignored" by people who are constantly reading large blocks of text. This is why we have formatting options, to make things stand out. Why is a section header in large print? to stand out. And section headers as spoiler labels are not enough, there's just too many places and headers that can contain spoilers, and it takes away from the article's usefulness to ask the reader to skip whole sections when that is not always needed. This is my experience, both as an editor and as a reader, how is this not evidence to support the usefulness of the spoiler warnings? As noted on this very talk page, I am not the only one who has had this experience and feels this way.

A point was made about how some editor fear that without a spoiler tag that editors would remove spoilers all together from an article. I think this is very much a valid concern, as I have dealt with such issues in the past when editing. I'm all for the labeling of a spoiler, but not for their exclusion.

I really don't know what got into some of your heads to make you think that spoiler warnings are the devil. It boggles the mind. -- Ned Scott 08:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Not at all. The main theme in a story is almost always universal, except in the case of rare flicks that are intended to be ambigous and therefore making it difficult to forget. It is most certainly biased to say what one editor may think constitutes a "spoiler" taken that a spoiler in the context isn't even a real word and nowhere relevant in an encyclopedia.


 * I really don't think I'm being unreasonalbe about this. I think as a fact, that when I was originally a newcomer to wikipedia and focused more on trivial crap and things that did not impact the encyclopedia it did not affect me because I had not yet matured into my posistion as an editor. I am now nearing my second year as a contributor to wikipedia and thus I am now much more knowledgeable of what the goal of encyclopedia is, be paper, java programming, or in outer space. Yes, this is a wiki and is not paper. Yes we attain many various subjects not generally outlined in other encyclopedias. But this is still an encyclopedia and it Jimbo's wish that we redifine the content that an encyclopedia can contain, not change the meaning of an encyclopedia itself. Being in paper or online doesn't affect what an encyclopedia is.


 * I really don't see the argument here. You claim such outlandish ideas as "..editors remove information becaue spoilers are not there", "People would allow their reading to be affected by a template and skip sections despite the fact they came to the encylopedia in the first place". This is absolutely the stupidest ideas I have ever witnessed in an encyclopedia. I don't see why we should allow a template to dictate our article formatting procedures. I don't see that at all. That's one of the reasons this nonsense must die. When people believe a template to contribute to the knowledgeable nature and spirit of an encyclopedia, there is a serious problem becuase that is not the point of an encyclopedia.


 * I don't think there's a problem here unless you want there to be. You have asked me whether redundancy is a bad thing and I have told you that such things reduce the encyclopedia's professional layout and depict our editors as incompetent. You're describing my stance as "mind boggling", but I think you should examine your own approach. You seem to be absolutely unwilling to accept a simple list of facts over a template derived from external sources that do not consider themselves encyclopedias. I have told you that the thought of considering this template in such information in regards to the encyclopedia lowers its importance in comparison to other commonplace subjects such as science and is thus abhorrent to me. Again you refuse to accept this. -Randall Brackett 12:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "While some may argue that labeling something a spoiler is a POV, so is deciding what is a major theme in a story, is it not?"
 * Not really. The major themes of a story are something that are obvious, often even explained by the director/producer/writer. Given that we need to have verifiability for their inclusion in the first place, chances are good that if we mention these themes, we're citing where someone involved in the production of the work said "Here's what they are." Take Final Fantasy X as an example. We didn't include a "Themes" section when we were making the page, but we easily could have. As it stands, we mention the theme in the "Development" section that the player's journey is mirrored by the lead protagonist's, but we also could have added that exploration and independence are themes of the story, as Tetsuya Nomura (the character designer for the game) said so in an issue of Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine. We could have then offered examples of how these themes were emphasised. Had we done so, we would have been able to cite a source for the information, just as we did regarding Kazushige Nojima's statement regarding the theme with the player and lead protagonist.
 * "I think the whole "warning" thing might be turning Ryu Randall and co. off."
 * It certainly isn't helping. It's a crass violation of neutrality and impartial presentation of relevant information.
 * "And even if it could be considered redundant, how is redundancy always a bad thing? Doesn't it depend on the context?"
 * Yes, you're right about that.
 * "The fact that Wikipedia contains one big spoiler warning via the disclaimer link says something to defend spoiler warnings, does it not? If these spoiler templates should be removed, then the disclaimer spoiler message should as well, right?"
 * No. Like you said, it depends on context. We'd expect to have the spoiler notice/no censorship clause in the site's Disclaimer and list of policies. Once we're into the meat of an article where all the info's supposed to be getting impartial treatment, for some of it to be singled out as "In the opinion of us, the editors who are supposed to remain impartial and not try to influence you, you may not want to read this!" is out of place and inappropriate. Allow me to explain the difference:
 * As I mentioned before, all the information's supposed to be getting impartial treatment. In other words, the standard for the treatment of information is what everything's supposed to get. A universal spoiler notice that singles no particular bit of information out is impartial. It applies to every single article and every section in each of those articles. The same is true of the censorship clause on the list of policies. No one's being singled out there and warned against, as though we're trying to shield people from a particular bit of knowledge. These spoiler tags on the other hand not only set some of the information apart, but they also warn people against reading it. That is not our place, and that is not the encyclopedic way.
 * "Take for example an article on a character, will that have a plot summary?"
 * Often they do, or at the least, they explain that specific character's significance within a plot. This is, of course, fine, even if there is no spoiler warning, as characters are an aspect of the plot to begin with. Characters are tools employed by a plot to make a story. They're the driving force of everything within one.
 * "Again, with our spoiler tags we can note what is a spoiler and what is not a spoiler even within an article section."
 * Maybe next we can decide what the readers should be having for breakfast. "A sausage biscuit?? No, no, no! That is not healthy! You should be having a bagel and a piece of fruit." It's really not a far cry when we're trying to influence their learning with impartial treatment of information within an encyclopedia just because we think it's better for them. Hell, if the info's not getting impartial treatment this isn't an encyclopedia to begin with, Ned. Neutrality is one of the fundamentals of being an encyclopedia. I don't even know what the hell to call it if we don't have that. It might as well be randomfansite.com or randommoviereviewplace.net.
 * "And I take offense to many of the comments made that people who can't magically avoid spoilers on articles are stupid, and have no place reading wikipedia."
 * Aside from the jab concerning poor cognitive ability if people weren't expecting to find plot details in sections marked "Plot," I don't think I've said anything like that, but I'll apologize if I've caused any offense in that regard. However, I do know that I've said that the employ of spoiler tags calls for assuming them to be stupid, and that's an argument I still stand by. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia, and we've got universal spoiler notices already. People can comprehend that.
 * "Why is a section header in large print? to stand out."
 * Unlike spoiler tags, those actually are a navigation tool, and have the added bonus of making things more organized. That information is still being treated impartially. All the headers do is identify where different sub-sets of information on the subject can be found and offer a means to quickly access that information, not put forth a presumptuous interpretation warning people away from the information.
 * "A point was made about how some editor fear that without a spoiler tag that editors would remove spoilers all together from an article. I think this is very much a valid concern..."
 * Provided there's more than one editor for that page, it would be reverted. It's this encyclopedia's mission to be comprehensive. Thus, it is our mission to be comprehensive. The encyclopedia itself says it doesn't care that there are spoilers here and that people should be aware that they might be looking at some when they go to an article. Wikipedian princiciples and policies would win out over someone who illogically argue that there shouldn't be spoilers without spoiler tags. We'd show them the definition of "encyclopedia" and direct them to Wikipedia's Disclaimer and policy pages. That's all that there'd be to it. Your concern on this matter is unnecessary, I assure you. Ryu Kaze 13:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not up to you to assume why a reader might come to Wikipedia, or for what depth of information they wish to seek. I use Wikipedia many times just to see how many episodes I'm to expect of a series, or where one show is in relation to a sequel. You seem to dismiss our "theoretical" uses even when it's been plainly said, those defending the spoiler warning have had those very experiences themselves.  You cannot deny their usefulness, or how readers will react, when you have readers telling you their experiences.


 * I have NEVER seen a definition of encyclopedia that even comments on "spoiler warnings" except for the one you've made up. How is that verifiable? While I haven't seen a need for a spoiler warning in the average shelf encyclopedia, that in no way makes a spoiler warning any more or less professional. It is your opinion, and in that sense I respect your opinion, but it is not fact.


 * Wikipedia is like a store. We're here for our customers, and if you don't want to serve the customers then there's no point in having a store.


 * Section headers do not always make it clear that the section may or may not contain spoilers, this has been my experience and the experience of many others who've been commenting on this debate.


 * Spoiler warnings are common place here on the internet and on Wikipedia, which might explain why you don't see then in other forms of non-internet media (yet). They are so common place here that I fail to see any significant amount of people viewing them as unprofessional or un-encyclopedic.  Rather, you have shown nothing to prove that any significant number of people would see them as unprofessional or un-encyclopedic.


 * I've been editing and reading Wikipedia for a lot longer than I've had my account, and it wasn't until this dispute that I've actually read the general disclaimer.


 * I see no evidence to show that labeling some text a "spoiler" influence the readers experience, at least to any significant extent. I can understand what you are getting at, but I see no need for concern in that respects. The impact of labeling something a spoiler has been insignificant in my reading experience, as when I don't care of something spoils, or if I've already seen it, I do not give it even a second thought. Again, we can use some form of straw poll or something if we wish to get further input on this, otherwise I see no way to "prove" either view.


 * So, to summarize, you have no "facts" or "verifiable" backing to these claims. You have opinions, which appear to be the minority.  I totally understand what you're trying to say, but this "problem" is simply not there.  Spoiler warnings, while at some place and time, could have been seen as POVish fansite-ish crap, is now common place and apart of the internet, and entertainment, culture, and can be used responsibly.  As editors, I use them because I like them as a reader, and I know many other readers find them helpful.


 * You think I haven't considered their removal all together, and that is simply incorrect. You think that no one has question these things before, and that is incorrect.  You are not asking for us to have a debate, you are asking us to either agree with you or convince you beyond a doubt about their inclusion.  While I'd feel better if you could see our point, it's simply not my job.  I've already provided a more than reasonable argument, and so have many others.  If you ask me, there is nothing anyone can say that will make you guys feel better about this.  I'm sorry you feel so uncomfortable about the spoiler tags and have gotten such a wrong idea about them, but I've got nothing more to say. Every issue you guys have brought up has been addressed, by myself or by someone else.  We're only repeating ourselves.  You don't have a strong backing, as you feel you do, and there is no major issue with this. -- Ned Scott 22:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. If you have been listening to our claims than I apologize for bad faith.


 * Ned, I think its really silly to make the claim of no ""facts" or "verifiable" backing to these claims". In my mass removals of hundreds of spoiler tags from articles I have gained proof that their removal is of no harm to the encyclopedia. I purposely executed this task on many high traffic articles and I am pleased to admit that they have been just as productive. Yes, I have opinions. But my stance on a matter isn't something I developed last night. I have been a contributor for nearly two years and have muddled about in mainspace and pages where one would describe as the heart of wikipedia. My removals and conclusion of them afterwards is clear reference of my decision to choose not to jump the gun on an issue.


 * I have facts and I, believe good sense. I really believe its a bit much to accuse me of false attributions of fact when the templates creation was never supported by any facts or study in the first place. One says "the readers need them". My removals and anonymous IP editing　observations have proven they have not. I may be something editors claim to want but not to need. I absolutely refute that claim in the fact that I'm aware wikipedia articles are too simple to navigate and I'm aware of the wide latitude of perception from internet users.


 * You say "It is not up to you to assume why a reader might come to Wikipedia, or for what depth of information they wish to seek." Well of course we do not. We are neutral editors and as such would be overstepping our boundaries in this manner. That's a reason why I think the template should go- for precisely that reason. It is none our business what people want to or do not wish to read. I think it is courteous to attempt to stop babysitting people and to instead concentrate our effort on increasing the value of the encyclopedia itself.


 * You claim there is no evidence people read of or are influenced by spoilers. Yes I agree. So why even bother with it...? Why waste our time on something that may prove dubious and lacks any bearing when that effort could be pooled into a featured article. I'm listening to your argument. But your comment, in particular the one of describing us a store catering to customers is an entirely incorrect analogy. No, we don't cater to people's whim (or at least we should not). That kind of nonsense gets wikipedia in trouble. The "customers" as you describe them, desire wikipedia to be a blogspot, a forum. They desire wikipedia to contain original research and inane trivia. Various readers demand that wikipedia focus upon the social values from Usenet and the like, which Jimbo has expressed sever distaste of. Readers think we should hold any subject, elaborate in the way they think we should. That's what we do here as such values would decrease wikipedia's value as an encyclopedia. I'm horrified at that statement, Ned, it makes me skeptical if you are thinking in the best interests of an encyclopedia or that what the rest of the review sites like to do. Wikipedia does not conform to those websites. - Randall Brackett 00:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "It is not up to you to assume why a reader might come to Wikipedia, or for what depth of information they wish to seek."
 * But it's just peachy for you to not only make hypothetical assumptions about why they may be coming, and not only just fine for you to suggest policy be based on these hypothetical scenarios, but also simply fabulous for you to treat information differently and make suggestions to influence readers simply because of your own assumptions/interpretations instead of recognizing actual policy?
 * "I have NEVER seen a definition of encyclopedia that even comments on "spoiler warnings" except for the one you've made up."
 * It's official: you've been skimming everything I've said instead of actually reading it. I never said a single thing about the definition of encyclopedia including the words "spoiler" or "warning." What I have referenced is the word "comprehensive" within the definition of "encyclopedia." This word is not ambiguous.
 * "While I haven't seen a need for a spoiler warning in the average shelf encyclopedia, that in no way makes a spoiler warning any more or less professional. It is your opinion, and in that sense I respect your opinion, but it is not fact."
 * I'm sorry, but it is fact. It's non-impartial treatment of information, which is not professional in the context of an encyclopedia. It's a fairly cut and dry matter.
 * "Wikipedia is like a store. We're here for our customers, and if you don't want to serve the customers then there's no point in having a store."
 * Wikipedia's not a store, though. It's an encyclopedia. At a store, you may make assumptions for your customers and try to influence what they purchase (hell, of course you're going to try to; you want to make money if you're running a damn store). With an encyclopedia, you don't do this. It's a contradiction of the very philosophy involved.
 * "Section headers do not always make it clear that the section may or may not contain spoilers, this has been my experience and the experience of many others who've been commenting on this debate."
 * Yet the universal spoiler notice that is two clicks away at any time does. It makes it quite clear that every single section of every single page may or may not contain spoiler warnings.
 * "Rather, you have shown nothing to prove that any significant number of people would see them as unprofessional or un-encyclopedic."
 * What part of "They violate encyclopedic philosophy" is dependent on a show of hands? Even if 10,000 people showed up to say they love spoiler tags, 10,000 can be wrong. Definitions aren't dependent on democracy. A word means what it means, encyclopedic conduct is what it is. No matter how many people want it to be otherwise.
 * "I've been editing and reading Wikipedia for a lot longer than I've had my account, and it wasn't until this dispute that I've actually read the general disclaimer."
 * That isn't Wikipedia's fault. People are supposed to be read disclaimers and policies when they begin using a site.
 * "I see no evidence to show that labeling some text a "spoiler" influence the readers experience, at least to any significant extent. I can understand what you are getting at, but I see no need for concern in that respects."
 * Ned, you're beginning to contradict yourself a little. Maybe it's just your wording. "I see no evidence that the spoiler tags actually influence readers, but myself and countless others can attest to their usefulness." Can you explain this another way, please?
 * "So, to summarize, you have no "facts" or "verifiable" backing to these claims. You have opinions, which appear to be the minority."
 * For the last time, democracy means precisely dick in discussions dependent upon logic and verifiability. And, yes, I have repeatedly linked you to verifiable backing for my argument. Wikipedia's supposed to be neutral. It's supposed to treat all relevant information the same, not single out some to warn people about for the fear of learning. Encyclopedias aren't supposed to be censored. Again, this matter is quite cut and dry.
 * "Spoiler warnings, while at some place and time, could have been seen as POVish fansite-ish crap, is now common place and apart of the internet, and entertainment, culture, and can be used responsibly."
 * Wonderful, but this isn't a fansite. It's an encyclopedia, and the fundamental philosophy of encyclopedic conduct doesn't change simply because it's electronic-based.
 * "You think that no one has question these things before, and that is incorrect."
 * Uh... no, I don't. I've already mentioned before that people have questioned them, and I said that they either caved unnecessarily or didn't make solid points. Come on, are you reading what I say?
 * "You are not asking for us to have a debate, you are asking us to either agree with you or convince you beyond a doubt about their inclusion."
 * I spent the better part of a day asking you to have a debate with me. You refused numerous times, saying you had verifiability for your arguments but that I wasn't going to see it because I should already know it. I'm still waiting for you to provide something to address the obvious violation of Wikipedia's policies.
 * The spoiler tags are an obvious violation of policy. That can't even be debated because one merely has to consider the meaning of unambiguous words to see that. You and others who have been arguing for their inclusion have not been addressing this, but instead, apparently making an argument about how their questionable usefulness -- entirely dependent on hypothetical situations instead of policies that have substance we can see and read -- outweighs anything else.
 * "Every issue you guys have brought up has been addressed, by myself or by someone else."
 * It's never been addressed. It's been side-stepped constantly with arguments such as "It's for the readers' own sake," "In the event of one of countless hypothetical situations, they might help somebody" and "It's simply categorizing information. Please ignore the part that attempts to persuade readers not to continue, despite the fact that it is a non-neutral treatment of information that calls for us editors deciding for the readers what they may or may not want to read and making a move to influence their learning process beyond the scope and intentions of Wikipedia or any encyclopedia."
 * "You don't have a strong backing, as you feel you do, and there is no major issue with this."
 * I'm sorry that you don't think the encyclopedia becoming a self-contradicting cauldron of hypocrisy isn't a big deal, but it is. If spoiler tags remain, then it simply doesn't matter if articles on Wikipedia have verifiable information or not. The system is already broken, the philosophy has been abandoned and Wikipedia is just another randomfansite.com. Ryu Kaze 00:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The irony, the irony
There seems to be some sort of edit war going on at the censorship article ... over the definition of censorship. Cheers, CWC (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like a pretty silly issue. Censorship most certainly isn't something that can only be practiced by government institutions. Anyway, I'll leave them to it. I have no interest in getting involved in that at this time. Ryu Kaze 21:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly with everything you just wrote ... especially about not getting involved &lt;grin&gt;. Best wishes, CWC (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Discretion is, indeed, the better part of valor. Best wishes to you also. Ryu Kaze 22:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat desperate plea
Please don't get rid of spoiler tags! If people want to read about things, they might be planning to read/watch/play them in the future and won't want them spoiled. I may be in the minority here, I'm not sure, but I think spoiling something is a really mean thing to do as it permanently ruins things for people. For example, I can't express how glad I was that I'd already read Harry Potter 6 before a bunch of losers came up to me in town and bellowed

"S...k...D..." (only without the ellipsis - I still think that's one of the worst spoilers around, along with Rosebud) in my face. I'm not alone, either, as plenty of people I know hate having the gags from a comedy they are about to watch explained to them beforehand. So please don't dispose of the template. It's useful and it doesn't take up much space.


 * Thanks for the input. I thought so too when I was newer to the encylopedia. I disagree with the value of the template as of late. I'd suggest you read the conversations above and share some more of your thoughts on the issues being discussed. -Randall Brackett 17:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I really don't think it's appropriate to assume that the views of a pro-spoiler-warning are that of a "newbie", especially considering how long many of us have been around. -- Ned Scott 22:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not say that. I merely said I did not disagree on their inclusion when I was newer to wikipedia. Although there is a common view by new editors who do not actually analyze the template and how it should be used by merit of a social site. -Randall Brackett 22:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "there is a common view by new editors" Care to back up that claim? You're assuming too much again. -- Ned Scott 23:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I never assume too much. See here and here. A completely off-base administrator mistaking the practice as "policy" can be seen here. More examples can be provided after I search for more diffs, if required. -Randall Brackett 23:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The admin calling it policy is the only thing I can see that remotely backs up your point. Even then, people often mistakenly write policy when they mean to say "common practice", such as Chris has noted earlier in this debate. Even if that admin was mistaken, that's not really a case of a newbie-mistake, but instead more of a general mistake, which would back up my claim that one can't judge someone's understanding of a guideline based on their newness.  In other words, your claim would suggest that older editors are less likely to make these mistakes, but you just gave me examples of an experienced editor making the mistake. Maybe that is not what you meant?


 * I don't disagree that there is probably a misconception on where the spoiler guidelines fit (are they apart of the MOS, policy, etc. I mean, WE know, but there's potential for confusion, old and new users alike.), that doesn't seem to be an argument against spoilers. However, I'm all for making it more clear that this is not policy, but a suggested style guideline. I think adding the spoiler tags is a good thing, but I don't want people adding them because they think that have to, and I think we both can agree on that.


 * And did I read one of those right, that you gave a vandalism warning to an editor who wished to include the spoiler tags? If someone disagrees with you on this issue you can not force their removal until this dispute is resolved, per WP:POINT. Forgive me if I'm wrong. -- Ned Scott 00:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, he was using an anonymous IP earlier for dubious edits without explanation or edit summaries. I noted on his/her talkpage its better to use edit summaries and discuss on talkpages as its commonly perceived as vandalism when under a anonymous veil. I didn't accuse him of vandalism, no. And please don't cite WP:POINT for that, that's not the point of the summary.


 * There is a misconception for the status of the guideline but my point was the fact its used inappropriately and in an encyclopedia seems to erase all common sense in newer readers and they presume that its a part of building a great article, a foundation of a great encyclopedia or the like. Its not and I'm sorry they get the wrong idea. Its because we have had the template for so long and many editors accepted it blindly. I really don't like it when editors think that, I'd like them to develop their own opinions. -Randall Brackett 00:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But again, you are assuming they accept it because it's been around so long. Under your logic we should clear out all guidelines every so often so we can come to those conclusions again. It's a good thing that new editors look to guidelines when they're unsure what to do, because older users will continue to debate and re-validate things, such as what we're doing now. Would you still object to a spoiler warning if a new editor decided to add one all on their own (as in, the user had not gotten the idea of adding a warning from another article)? Also, I have yet to see a massive use of inappropriate uses of the spoiler tag (maybe every so often, but hardly more than any other tag or element being misused in wikipedia.). I also fail to see your point in that it erases common sense... you are again using your opinion and making assumptions on behalf of other editors on a massive scale.


 * We can find examples of any element of Wikipedia being misused or there being a misunderstanding about it. The point of this debate is whether or not to have spoiler warnings at all. If the issue is a misunderstanding of new users, or a misuse, then I am more than happy to try to correct that. However, that in no way warrants a removal of the spoiler warning all together as a reasonable solution. -- Ned Scott 00:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

"If the reasoning you're reverting is on WP:POINT, then I'd advise you re-read WP:POINT again. I'm weary of users citing the policy and haven't a clue on what it means"
 * I'm not going to get in a revert war over that, but again you've managed to sneak in a comment suggesting that I don't have a clue on what WP:POINT means. You are not assuming good faith, and instead have gone to assume that all other editors who disagree with you are ignorant? Even if I agreed with you on this issue, I wouldn't want to group myself with such rude editors.  Please read Don't be a dick. -- Ned Scott 00:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And yes, I'm not the nicest editor either, but come on, you've been jumping at the smallest things and continue to insult the intelligence of editors as your defense. If you want your point to be heard then you need to not call all the editors using spoiler tags stupid. -- Ned Scott 00:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It was an incorrect citing of the policy. I never assume without facts. And I never disrupt wikipedia in any capcacity. I think you've made a leap of assumption yourself in that I don't plan to remove them all at once. I want to take it slowly and reasonably, like weaning a baby off the need for the sucking of a thumb. I'm confident that wikipedia will be better without it but I'm patient in my efforts.


 * I would agree that we're speaking of the issue of removing them all but I would disagree on the logic that is isn't germane to the argument. I would say if a template is already unfounded on facts and an encyclopediac basis then the situations of it being used in a wrongful manner strengthens the argument as inapropriate use of tools. Such things not already hard-coded by default into our capcity as editors can harm the encyclopedia when used improperly. -Randall Brackett 01:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit confused.. you said I cited a policy? Did you make the common mistake of calling a guideline a policy? Oh the irony! -- Ned Scott 01:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't be. I was speaking of the meta entry, not the POINT guideline. -Randall Brackett 02:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's still not a policy, it's an essay. You understand my point, though, right?  You make a small mistake of calling it a policy during a discussion. I mean, if you want to nitpick at people's words and interpret their meaning, then this would be fair game, yes? We both know what you meant, and of course I'm not going to hold it against you.  You can't assume from such a brief exchange of words that you know what someone thinks of a guideline, as you did with that admin. -- Ned Scott 03:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait, I just re-read your edit summary, you did call WP:POINT a policy: "If the reasoning you're reverting is on WP:POINT, then I'd advise you re-read WP:POINT again. I'm weary of users citing the policy and haven't a clue on what it means". Ok, not that it matters, but heh. -- Ned Scott 03:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * When you're prepared to return to the conversation at hand in a constructive manner, notify me. I do not condone trolling and personal attacks. -Randall Brackett 09:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks? You've lost me. Is this about me pointing out your typo? I only did that to show how easy it was to call a guideline a policy when one doesn't mean to call it a policy. Hardly a personal attack.. -- Ned Scott 09:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Augh! All I said was that I think the spoiler warnings are useful. You didn't need to go for each other's throats about it!  Please, stop arguing.  I am a newbie.  But hey, that said, I'll bet most Wikipedia users don't even edit, they just browse, so I'd have thought that in a matter like this it's useful to hear a newcomer's opinion.
 * Anyway, I appreciate that there may be Wikipedia policies that would appear to make the spoiler warning redundant, but let me just point out something:
 * It works
 * Some people find it helpful
 * There's no point in an encyclopaedia that isn't helpful
 * To illustrate the point I'm trying to make (which I realise that I so far haven't made clear), I'm going to tell a little story (I'm sorry). It's an analogy I think is applicable here.
 * Imagine an old house made out of solid, high-quality stone. It's a beautiful house and has a great history.  Now, some blocks fall out of one side, so the house's occupant, one Joe Bloggs, decides to temporarily repare it with some cheap bricks.
 * Shortly afterwards, the building is listed, and soon after that, Joe Bloggs retires and goes to live with his son, and the house is bought by one John Doe. John Doe sees the ugly brick work and wishes to restore the house to it's original glory, and replace the bricks with quality stone.  He sends a letter to the Planning Department, requesting permission to restore the house.  He is promptly refused, on the grounds that when the building was listed, the brick work was there, so it must remain.  John Doe tries to argue that this is ridiculous, and that it doesn't look good, and that it is clearly wrong, but is persistantly refused by the Planning Department, because the rules say that a listed building must remain as it was when it was listed.
 * The irony of that situation is that the rule about the listed buildings was probably set up for the specific purpose of preventing ugly restoration work, but is instead preserving it. Common sense goes out the window completely.
 * I think that what we have here is a similar situation. Spoiler warnings are useful.  In an encyclopaedia which anyone can edit, it's natural that spoilers will show up everywhere, and in any case, an encyclopaedia should be complete.  However, if I am a fan of a certain book or TV show, I may well look it up on line for more info before finishing it, and I know other people who would do the same.  As for the disclaimer, I was never aware of it until now, so it's not really all that useful to your casual Wikipedia user, is it?
 * So is the spoiler warning redundant? Without question, yes it is.  Is the spoiler warning useful?  Again, it most certainly is.  It's a pity how often logic is given precedence over common sense.  Please, use your common sense. RobbieG 16:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, there's nothing logical or sensical (common or otherwise) about introducing hypocrisy to this encyclopedia on the basis of hypothetical scenarios. This isn't simply a matter of redundancy: it's a matter of encyclopedic integrity. If neutrality and no censorship are set aside on the basis that some individual might benefit from it, then what reasoning is there to say that unverified information needs to be verified given that it might be right? Both are a matter of policy, but if two policies have already been ignored, what's the value in recognizing the others?
 * Wikipedia then becomes a cauldron of hypocrisy. Instead of an encyclopedia that emphasises quality, professionalism and the philosophy of what it means to make an encyclopedia, it becomes an elaborate fansite masquerading as an encyclopedia while it chips away at its own credibility with double-standards.
 * For all the claims concerning the spoiler tag's usefulness, the matter of what it means to turn this from an encyclopedia to randomfansite.com hasn't even been addressed. I'd like to quote something I said recently in another discussion, as it sums up what I've been trying to say for days now quite well:
 * "So why would hypothetical circumstances determine Wikipedia policy, or, in this case, exceptions to it? People come here for information, plain and simple. The extent to what knowledge they come to seek is beyond our purposes. We're merely to provide comprehensive information for them if they want to read to that extent. Not to assume how much they may want and take measures to affect it. ...In any event, in order to maintain encyclopedic practice, sometimes ideas must be put before people in hypothetical situations. For example, Wikipeda is not censored. We do not warn people about relevant images of pornography, sexual artwork depicting children or child-like characters or humans torturing and abusing other humans. Undeniably, some of these images would offend people. Others would be offended that we even have an article on The Da Vinci Code without slamming it and depicting it as the bane of all that is holy and correct. And others still would be offended that Wikipedia has spoilers that it treats like any other relevant information. However, encyclopedic policy must come before these hypothetical situations, or Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia. It's that simple. It's either an encyclopedia, or it's a fansite masquerading as one..."
 * This is the core issue at stake here. Ryu Kaze 16:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You've just steamrollered my argument with yours. I really don't see the mutual exclusiveness of the presence or lack of spoiler warnings and the encyclopaedic nature of Wikipedia content.  They're only spoiler warnings, for pity's sake!  They aren't hurting anyone.  I'm personally not a fan of Wikipedia's policy on censorship, but that's a different issue, because different people have different views on what constitutes offensive content.  It's pretty obvious what constitutes a spoiler - any discussion of the content of a story, other than what's advertised on the cover/sleeve/box.  If we accept that definition, there can be no separate POVs about it, which is why neutrality is less of an issue here.  RobbieG 17:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "I really don't see the mutual exclusiveness of the presence or lack of spoiler warnings and the encyclopaedic nature of Wikipedia content."
 * The reason they're mutually exclusive is because it's a warning to people about knowledge. It's a potential aversion to people absorbing this information. It's an obstacle. It's not an aid in helping people get to the information like a table of contents or a link; it's a roadblock. The encyclopedia's purpose is to provide people with the information and make it as simple to access as possible, not to warn them away from it or to stand between it and them. We're supposed to present relevant information equally, and not single any of it out to be treated or accessed differently based on our own interpretations or assumptions.
 * The universal spoiler notice you didn't know about before fulfills the requirement of standard treatment, because it offers this notice as potentially applying to every bit of information that is here, rather than jumping between readers and a specific part at the last second. That is impartial treatment. These banners are not.
 * "I'm personally not a fan of Wikipedia's policy on censorship, but that's a different issue, because different people have different views on what constitutes offensive content."
 * That being the case, I'm surprised you don't like the censorship policy more. Given that most anyone could find most anything offensive, Wikipedia not being censored means that everything can be shown so long as it's relevant information.
 * "It's pretty obvious what constitutes a spoiler - any discussion of the content of a story, other than what's advertised on the cover/sleeve/box."
 * It's also quite obvious that a comprehensive body of information on various subjects with no space limitations is going to have a summary of the contents of the fictional stories it covers. You said that spoiler tags aren't hurting anyone. What they are doing is making a mockery of encyclopedic standards that leaves Wikipedia looking unprofessional and biased. In any event, by the same token, I can simply respond to you that spoilers are not going to hurt anyone. People come looking for knowledge and they get it in the encyclopedic way.
 * "If we accept that definition, there can be no separate POVs about it, which is why neutrality is less of an issue here."
 * Spoilers are not an evil. They're simple information about a fictional work's plot/story, just like the writer's name is information about the book. Accepting that definition doesn't change Wikipedia's policies or the philosophy behind encyclopedic content. Ryu Kaze 18:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In general I think the expression of such opinions constitutes an unsuitable use of the inclusion mechanism and particularly of the Template namespace. I deleted a spoiler just a few hours ago because they happened to catch my attention and they clearly do not fall under the neutral policy outlined as such. You should feel free to describe your opinion of spoilers on talkpages if you think this will help other editors to understand your edits, but I think it would probably be better if we simply strove to avoid importing our personal opinions into Wikipedia in any form. I think the essential message I'm attempting to give here is: build the encyclopedia, shut up and let people read. Let the readers come. I'm positive no-one would leave if we slowly removed the spoiler templates. And I would ask, in a comprimise if we could experiment with this and I'm positive I would be correct. Sure they're somewhat interesting when one first arrives but upon closer inspection they are uesless. I'm in the firm belief readers can navigate wikipedia without it.-Randall Brackett 18:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, OK, your arguments do make an awful lot of sense. I won't be voting here or anything, because I'm still not one-hundred percent behind you, but I can't really argue with what you're saying, and it seems reasonable enough.   Still, that said, I would be curious to hear your opinion on the above analogy - would the Planning Department's approach to the situation above be correct?  I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just curious. RobbieG 20:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * They're just using their opinions and interpretations on policy and what they think is a professional encyclopedia. You might see their arguments a lot on this talk page, but that's only because they constantly repeat themselves. If you look at how many users there are bringing up valid and good points in favor of spoiler warnings you'll see that the anti-spoiler-warning argument and view is extremely weak.  Do fansites use spoiler warnings? yes. But so does the New York Times ! I've even seen spoiler warnings in movie reviews in my own local newspaper.  Why is this concept spreading? Because we talk more about TV shows and works of fiction than we did in the past.  This is no longer something that only fansites do, this is something common and even professional. -- Ned Scott 20:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Still, that said, I would be curious to hear your opinion on the above analogy - would the Planning Department's approach to the situation above be correct?"
 * The analogy doesn't really fit as a take on this situation in that the context is entirely different, and given that the case of removing something doesn't correlate with repairing something. However, if you want my opinion of that situation should it ever occur (and it probably has), I'd say the Planning Department should come take a look at the brickwork, see how bad it is, and then decide from there. Ryu Kaze 21:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "They're just using their opinions and interpretations on policy and what they think is a professional encyclopedia."
 * Ned, the words used in the policy pages are quite unambiguous. Shall I just start throwing out "You're just using your opinions and interpretations on policy and how it exempts spoiler warnings" every time you say something? We're not going to get anywhere if all of us resort to that.
 * "If you look at how many users there are bringing up valid and good points in favor of spoiler warnings you'll see that the anti-spoiler-warning argument and view is extremely weak."
 * "Valid and good points"? You mean a bunch of hypothetical situations that may or may not even matter to the hypothetical people involved? Our argument is only viewable as extremely weak when you disregard Wikipedia's policies and encyclopedic principles, and then use IMDb.com as your standard for how to make an encyclopedia.
 * "Do fansites use spoiler warnings? yes. But so does the New York Times ! I've even seen spoiler warnings in movie reviews in my own local newspaper."
 * And God knows the New York Times is the poster child of neutrality. That's sarcasm in case you can't tell. The New York Times is a damn newspaper, not an encyclopedia. Not only are newspaper articles often written to give interpretations of information instead of just the information itself, but if you're looking to critics columns for the standard of how to make an encyclopedia, then you misunderstand what an encyclopedia is about. I'm sorry, but a film critic's column is not the place to go to look for neutral presentations of information. Those things are opinionated to hell and back. An encyclopedia like Wikipedia, however, is the place to look. How could you even try to argue that the situations are similar? Ryu Kaze 21:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Calm down there, I was just pointing out other places where writing style is important that a spoiler tag might be used. I'm a bit confused at the whole IMDb.com thing, I haven't been there in a long time, but I don't think of them when I think of spoiler tags.  Hypothetical? There's nothing hypothetical about it, there are several users stating their real life experiences both as editors and as readers.  I do not disregard Wikipedia's policies, and the insinuation that anyone that is pro-spoiler-warning is anti policy is just deceptive and wrong.  I am an intelligent person who has honestly considered your views and points, and I do not see a direct relation to censorship or POV policy in regards to spoiler warnings.


 * The censorship accusation would only hold water if people used the warning itself as a reason not to read information, rather than their own decision to read or not to read. It's like saying, "oh I video taped a porno on this tape, didn't label it, and I gave it to grandma. If I labeled the tape, that would be censorship!"  If a reader wishes to read only some information and not other, that is their right as a reader.  Giving readers that option makes Wikipedia more useful.  People know exactly what we mean when we say "spoiler warning", they're not going to freak out over some misunderstanding and think the text is somehow dangerous.


 * The no point of view accusation isn't much better. Most, if not all, spoilers can easily be agreed on by most editors and readers. Rather, what would be a point of view is how that spoiler might affect someone's enjoyment of the text.  If we were to say "spoiler warning: if you read this you're gonna be like 'aw man'", that would be point of view.  There are some fictional works where, based on by past or current experience with similar work, I can spoil myself and still enjoy it.  But other stuff can really effect the enjoyment of a work of fiction when you know something prematurely.  Spoiler warnings don't comment on the why and how, they only comment that it is a spoiler.  I do not see the labeling of spoilers as a POV.  People might get some feedback from the editor based on how an editor writes or formats an article, such as what parts of the topic the editor chooses to focus on.  In any case, the effect spoiler warnings have, in my experience and others, is as insignificant as how something is formatted.


 * This is how I honestly feel. These are the conclusions I come to when considering both sides. Now are you guys going to insult me again because I don't agree with you, or because nothing I say will ever change your mind about this matter?  I honestly don't think there is anything that anyone can say that will satisfy those who are anti-spoiler-warning.  They have a prejudges towards them based on their experiences from fansites and the encyclopedia Britannica.  Just because we can't convince this minority we have to defend spoiler warnings every month?  I know nothing is set in stone, but I don't see any new arguments coming up from those past disputes and now. -- Ned Scott 04:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Aheh... I think the hypothetical situation he was referring to was my story about the Planning Department. Sorry if I've inadvertantly made Ned Scott's argument seem less serious, as that wasn't my intention at all.  FWIW, I do know somebody who was in that exact situation, and the Planning Department wouldn't "come take a look at the brick work, see how bad it is, and decide from there" because they were too narrow-minded to allow for negotiation.  I, on the other hand, am trying to be broad minded here, and I can see why the removal of spoiler warnings might seem attractive.  However, many of the arguments presented by Ryu Kaze make odd assumptions.  Since Ryu Kaze's arguments are reliant upon logic, it seems peculiar to concentrate on some wholey illogical matters.
 * Take censorship. As I said above, whether or not I'm fond of Wikipedia's policy on censorship is neither here nor there.  It's a separate issue.  Spoiler warnings are not censorship.  They don't make it any more difficult to obtain information.  They have certainly never bothered me.  Why should they?  It's just a courtesy thing.  People might not want plot details spoiled for them, so it's nice and helpful to give them a fair warning.  An obscur disclaimer which not everybody reads (come on - how many people do think to read the disclaimer on every website before using it?) hardly constitutes fair warning.  Whatever contempt you may have for people who don't read disclaimers, you can't deny that they are likely to be in the majority.
 * So what about NPOV? What about it, indeed?  It's not actually a part of this debate.  Of course we don't violate NPOV!  It's a given!  I'm certainly not proposing that we disregard NPOV.  However, a fair warning before every spoiler is not a violation of NPOV.  I've already said, and I'll say again, spoilers are any plot details not specified on the tin!  There can be no POVs about that.  Where we do become biased is when we start saying that some works need to be given spoiler labels and some don't.  It is possible to spoil Romeo and Juliet for people.  Therefore it makes sense to give it a spoiler warning.  I haven't a clue what happens in Moby Dick.  Give it a spoiler warning.  I've never seen Citizen Kane, and now I never will, because I can't be bothered to watch a film that's already been spoiled for me.  Spoiler warnings stop that from happening.  If we don't discriminate between which works we mark with spoiler warnings, we aren't violating NPOV. RobbieG 11:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The template is in an encyclopedia. If you feel information is spoilish or somehow harmful then why would you be anywhere near a place that gives knowledge....?


 * I'm looking at the discussion and, in all honesty, I see no problems there with removing the template. There has also been extremely productive discussion on the various projects. There is a general awareness of the serious problems posed by the spoilers that represent points of view, and the need for vigilance and care in handling them. Hiding's view below is correct. I'm not concerned why (for whatever reason) people would pursue the ideals of a social website but its not what should practiced here. The entire discussion summed up here is it is not technically possible to have a "spoiler" in an encyclopedia which bases its entire view upon the sharing of such knowledge. I wouldn't be arguing if we were a social website that didn't have stuff like policy, the focus on sharing of knowledge and the will of Jimbo to stray away from the actions of other websites like usenet. This is an encyclopedia and I think we should focus on increasing that quality than the fictional wants of a group of people who find what we base our actions around unsuitible. -Randall Brackett 11:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If I go looking for knowledge, I might only be after knowledge regarding the production of a movie, say, and not want the plot spoiled. It's therefore helpful to have a spoiler warning there so I know how much I can read before the page ruins the film for me.
 * You made a big mistake there, and that was when you used the word "fictional". There is nothing fictional about what I'm saying.  I actually find your narrow-mindedness there surprising, as up until now I believed Wikipedia to be a place of intelligent discussion.  I'm reading your arguments and I see where you're coming from.  I don't agree, and I've given reasons why not.  You just label my arguments as fiction so that you can comfortably ignore them.  I don't think that's clever or fair.  RobbieG 11:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A red herring. I describe the ideal of the fear of a person being harmed by something they didn't know as fictionous, not the argument. If you are after the production data, then why wouldn't you look in a header that says "production" are whatnot...? I could understand, here, if the people in defense of spoilers claimed there were no headers for organization (like ones that said "plot"!) then I could *possibly* spy the need. But its all too simple to type "==" and a descriptive title. This template is overkill.


 * There was a large mistake in the argument there. if people are allowing a template to dictate their capcity to read an article (how much do we know a person wants to read..?) then that entirely should not be our problem. I don't see any policy or spoken guideline where our construction of the encyclopedia caters to various readers' whim. Making a reader feel welcome is making the encyclopedia the best it can be, not bowing to a few editors who claim to use a usenet idea in the wrong area. -Randall Brackett 11:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A minor note, but I'd like to point out that I've never used usenet.
 * I could respond, but I'd just be repeating myself. I haven't seem any spoiler-tag removal from articles I normally watch, but I can tell you that if I see you removing them from those articles I'll be adding them right back. Then what? That's what I want to know, what happens when editors start to re-add the spoiler warnings?  How are we to resolve this dispute when that happens? I really want to know what you would do when editors disagree with your removal, if it has not already happened. -- Ned Scott 12:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems to me like you're implementing the argument of edit warring as a substitute for the template's usefulness. The controversial nature of the template is precisely why this should be discussed. It can assist in avoiding edit wars which clog up the article history for no good reason. And I see that is the main reason why you participate in these conversations. You know your reasoning can't convince anyone, but you think you can always rely on the fact that the template has been present for an extended period and there is some support for it.


 * If you can locate a experienced editor who honestly thinks the template is useful and can support its existance with proper rebuttals, evidence and with lack of "well a lot of people like and support it", you'll surprise me. This is somewhat of a waste of time Ned, in that the center of your comments lie within the tendency to push the ideal of a false concensus rather than addressing points raised by its presumely mad opposition. -Randall Brackett 14:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm asking an honest question because I feel this will be something we will be facing soon. Past consensus, even if you disagree with it due to a lack of explanation to please you, is in favor of spoiler warnings. But even if we were to say that there is currently no consensus, and it is something currently under debate, how would we resolve the issue of one editor wanting to use a spoiler warning and one editor wanting to remove it (on the same article)? -- Ned Scott 14:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Why all this prejudice against inexperienced users? I'd be willing to bet that most Wikipedia users aren't logged on and don't edit, and use Wikipedia only as a reference, which is after all the purpose for which encyclopaedias are intended.  In that case, shouldn't we aim to be of use to them?  Wikipedia isn't some kind of exclusive club, it's a worldwide resource for everyone's benefit.
 * Also, Randall Brackett, I'd like to apologise for my misinterpretation of your use of the term "fictional". As I now understand it, what you're actually saying is that I am arguing to prevent the violation of a need which nobody has and is therefore itself a fiction.  In which case, my only answer can be "Why the heck do you think I'm arguing at all?!?"   I'm not doing it based purely on hypothesis.  I'm not doing it out of a desire to be perverse.  I'm not just doing it for the sake of a better way to spend my time, I'm doing it because I find spoiler warnings useful, I know other people who find spoiler warnings useful, and I'm therefore requesting that you don't dispose of them.  I'm not being childish.  I'm not actually in favour of the edit warring proposed by Ned Scott (although I do think he's got a point - what will you do if the majority of users continue to use them regardless of what you say?).  I'm simply here because of what I feel is a valuable part of this encyclopaedia.  I don't appreciate being told, essentially, to b***er off and let the experienced users handle it.  Thank you for reading.  RobbieG 14:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It might sound strange to some, but merely being "useful" is not a decisive argument for inclusion in an encyclopedia. We discard many bits and types of information, even if they can be seen as useful by some, simply because they don't belong in an encyclopedia. Information should be encyclopedic to merit inclusion. In my opinion spoiler tags is not something people would expect to see in an encyclopedia, even an online one, and we should therefore not have them in our articles. Shanes 15:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is, in general, difficult to present proper arguments to someone who dismisses them out-of-hand. The same can be said for cases where there exist fundamental philosophical disagreements between the two sides of a particular debate.  Nevertheless, I am concerned that you have unfairly dismissed everyone not in agreement with you as "inexperienced"; it would seem to me that there are certainly people who have participated in that discussion to whom the label isn't quite applicable. Kirill Lokshin 16:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As noted on my thesis for WP:CVG, I have removed hundreds of spoiler tags from articles of which only a handful were contested by other editors. In these cases, I explained my reasoning and inquired that the opposing editor provide reasoning other than "..Well its been here awhile", "Um, there are spoilers" and "Its Policy". In many cases I found editors agreed with me (paticularly experienced editors) but that they felt we should respect the concensus, if possible. I agreed with this. I began discussion here as you see now to explain why I do not percieve them as apropriate and engaged in advocacy to perhaps convince my fellow editors of this. If this happens on an article, I advise each editor to adhere to 1RR with descriptive edit summeries and then hack it out on the talkpage as well as here for elaboration.


 * I think there is currently no vlaid or clear concensus on the matter, as many editors opposed the template from square one but were swept aside because the template namespace is very simple to extrude and thus stop across the wide wiki. I don't disagree that many people support them but what worries me is that many do not give any thought it before simply slapping it on an article and I find this to be of great concern. Discussion is a good thing. Edit warring is not. -Randall Brackett 14:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Hypothetical? There's nothing hypothetical about it, there are several users stating their real life experiences both as editors and as readers."
 * You missed my point, I think. It's hypothetical in that it calls for "Someone might...," "Just in case..." and "In the event that..." scenarios. It's not something based on what we can actually see and know is always present, like the policies.
 * "The censorship accusation would only hold water if people used the warning itself as a reason not to read information, rather than their own decision to read or not to read."
 * If they decided not to read it after seeing the spoiler warning that is attempting to warn them away form the information, would it then not be that the warning itself was the reason?
 * "t's like saying, "oh I video taped a porno on this tape, didn't label it, and I gave it to grandma. If I labeled the tape, that would be censorship!""
 * There's a difference between simply labeling something and censoring it. A label is not inherently an example of censorship. It can become that, however. Example: the section header "Plot." There's nothing about it that's censoring anything. It's just saying "Here's the plot information." The spoiler tag, however, takes the measure to get in the way of specific plot information, and tries warning people about knowledge. Not just the fact that it it's telling people "You might find this specific information inappropriate," but the fact that it's pushing the text down a couple of inches causes the spoiler tag to be an obstacle. That's not what an encyclopedia's about.
 * "If a reader wishes to read only some information and not other, that is their right as a reader."
 * Exactly. We're not supposed to get involved in the decision-making process.
 * "Giving readers that option makes Wikipedia more useful."
 * How does something being useful make it automatically encyclopedic? As I've mentioned before, a phone book listing for every number in the world might be useful, but is it encyclopedic? Should we automatically stick it in here? Codes for Super Nintendo and Sega Genesis games would be darn useful to gamers of these classics, but we're not GameFAQs. We're not here to make a collage of useful things. We're here to make an encyclopedia, and by its very nature, it's not going to contain every useful thing in existance, simply because some aren't relevant in this context and because some conflict with encyclopedic principles.
 * Just for the record, I've never doubted that spoiler tags are a useful tool. I've doubted a few time that they're as helpful as some people claim, that they're all that's standing between people using this encyclopedia and not using it and that their departure would be the downfall of the encyclopedia, but I'm sure there's some people they help. However, quite simply, it doesn't matter if they're useful or not. It just doesn't. That's not our concern. That's not Wikipedia's concern.
 * "The no point of view accusation isn't much better. Most, if not all, spoilers can easily be agreed on by most editors and readers. Rather, what would be a point of view is how that spoiler might affect someone's enjoyment of the text. If we were to say "spoiler warning: if you read this you're gonna be like 'aw man'", that would be point of view."
 * The use of the word "warning" itself is POV, as is the implementation of the editor's interpretation of what is a spoiler, and their subsequent act to take measures to prevent others from seeing it. As I've said so many times, we're supposed to be treating all information the same and presenting it likewise. We're not supposed to be putting obstacles between the readers and some of it, and we're definitely not supposed to be warning people not to look at some of it. The universal notice in the site's disclaimer is fine, because it's applying that to every last section of every last article. These spoiler tags do not do that, and that is the problem.
 * "This is how I honestly feel. These are the conclusions I come to when considering both sides."
 * I have to thank you for taking the time to express your feelings as you did in that message. That's probably the most straightforward manner you have yet done so, and you weren't hostile about it. However, I still disagree with you. Your opinion -- noble and courteous as it may be -- is that consideration of the reader's feelings is our top priority. However, as the fact that one of our very policies (taken from encyclopedic principle) is that we don't censor things, you're incorrect. We don' censor or warn about potentially offensive content. Anything. Including images of pornography, torture, etc, things that are not only likely to offend somebody, but are guaranteed to. We don't warn people about it. If it's relevant, it belongs, and it's just like all the other relevant information. We don't put courtesy before encyclopedic principle. That's part of what comes with being neutral. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not be the readers' best friend, nor their smiling grandpa, nor their jovial uncle. We're here to give them impartially-treated info relevant to the notable subjects covered here. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less. Our mission and purpose starts with that and it ends with that. Perhaps it seems inconsiderate or even heartless, but, well, we knew what it was about when we started working on it, and nobody's making us do it.
 * "Now are you guys going to insult me again because I don't agree with you, or because nothing I say will ever change your mind about this matter?"
 * No, I'm not going to insult you. I admire your consideration of others. It's just misplaced in this situation. This may surprise you, but I spent an entire day arguing your very viewpoint with Randall a while back. Believe me, I understand where you're coming from and I can respect that. But -- after much nashing of teeth and a few harshly exchanged words -- I realized that, despite my desire to put consideration of others first, that really isn't what an encyclopedia's about. I found myself respecting Randall a great deal and understood that he was right, even if it meant being what some would call a heartless bastard. My feelings were misplaced on the issue then, as yours are now. If being a heartless bastard is what it takes to make this encyclopedia and make it conform to the princicples associated with that concept, then by God that's what I intend to do, and I intend to make sure that it doesn't turn itself into a hypocritical mish-mash of double-standards that only enforce its policies so far as they don't offend anyone. As User:AMHR285 said, "Wikipedia shouldn't attempt to be a slightly less disruptive version of everyforum.com. It should attempt to be an encyclopedia, and everything else be damned."
 * "I honestly don't think there is anything that anyone can say that will satisfy those who are anti-spoiler-warning. They have a prejudges towards them based on their experiences from fansites and the encyclopedia Britannica."
 * This isn't about hating fansites and making love to the Britannica (I actually have been and am a member of several fansites, though I do love the Britannica). It's about preserving the integrity behind the concept of making an encyclopedia. In order to do that, you don't soften your words for the sake of political correctness or not offending somebody. You state the facts, and leave it at that.
 * "Just because we can't convince this minority we have to defend spoiler warnings every month?"
 * Until the issue is settled once and for all with nothing short of a clarification to Wikipedia's policy or disclaimer pages, yes.


 * "I think the hypothetical situation he was referring to was my story about the Planning Department. Sorry if I've inadvertantly made Ned Scott's argument seem less serious, as that wasn't my intention at all."
 * No, you didn't do anything like that, Robbie.
 * "FWIW, I do know somebody who was in that exact situation, and the Planning Department wouldn't "come take a look at the brick work, see how bad it is, and decide from there" because they were too narrow-minded to allow for negotiation."
 * That is pretty absurd, yes, though I still don't think it's a proper analogy to this situation. One of the principles behind being an encyclopedia calls for an unwavering stance of neutrality and no censorship. Planning departments and historic district committees are supposed to examine situations where changes are made to protected areas on a case-by-case basis.
 * "Spoiler warnings are not censorship. They don't make it any more difficult to obtain information."
 * They serve as both a visual and an intellectual obstacle.
 * "It's just a courtesy thing. People might not want plot details spoiled for them, so it's nice and helpful to give them a fair warning."
 * As I told Ned just now, simply because it's helpful isn't enough for it to warrant inclusion here. As far as it goes, warning people about images of naked women on the pornography page would probably be helpful, as would warning people about the image of the dumbass US soldier standing over the man he tortured to death on the Iraq Conflict page, but we don't do that because we're not concerned with it. Are we being heartless? Maybe. But we're here to make an encyclopedia, and doing that calls for putting concepts before courtesies that may potentially be helpful in certain situations.
 * "If I go looking for knowledge, I might only be after knowledge regarding the production of a movie, say, and not want the plot spoiled."
 * Then it's up to you to read that which you came for and have done with the matter. It's not up to us to make assumptions about what you and others will come to read because we're not making a body of information that caters to readers' whims. We're making a body of information that conforms to encyclopedic principles.
 * "It's therefore helpful to have a spoiler warning there so I know how much I can read before the page ruins the film for me."
 * Helpful, yes. Encyclopedic, no.
 * "hat's what I want to know, what happens when editors start to re-add the spoiler warnings? How are we to resolve this dispute when that happens?"
 * That's why I said that we shouldn't walk away from the matter until the admins or Jimbo himself has made a clarification to the policies pages of this website that either identifies spoiler warnings as an exception to no censorship (which would, of course, open a huge can of worms regarding images of pornography, torture, and lolicon) or identifies them as something that has no place in the project. When things get that far, then there won't even be a possibility for edit warring to occur over the matter.
 * "Past consensus, even if you disagree with it due to a lack of explanation to please you, is in favor of spoiler warnings."
 * I disagree with it because it wasn't consensus at all. It was a bunch of people voting and not addressing the issues related to policy. It was basically just a bunch of people either voting for what they thought was best without an argument or arguing that courtesy is more important than encyclopedic principle.
 * Again, Wikipedia should try to be one thing and one thing only: an encyclopedica. Everything else be damned. Ryu Kaze 16:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the main point here is that "disclaimer" templates are thought by some to give tacit support to those that find something morally offensive, like the Mohammed Cartoons, gay porn, scatology, or whatever. The spoiler template, compared to "censorship" templates, doesn't seem to give a moral judgement of the text. Or are you saying it is? --GunnarRene 16:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * One question that this page raises more than any other is whether there is anybody other than Ryu Kaze and Randall Brackett (fomerly Megaman Zero) who have such a problem with them. In the time I have been monitoring this thread, it is only these two names that appear contstantly. Clearly, there are numerous editors who are defending the spoiler warning, most of them making valid points, who are leaving this discussion because it just goes round in circles and their places are being taken by others with the same opinion that they should be kept. Surely you have made your opinion known and should leave it there? If others feel so strongly, they can take over your opposition to the spoiler. Bob 16:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps somebody could conense the arguments and counter-arguments of both sides? --GunnarRene 16:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "I think the main point here is that "disclaimer" templates are thought by some to give tacit support to those that find something morally offensive, like the Mohammed Cartoons, gay porn, scatology, or whatever. The spoiler template, compared to "censorship" templates, doesn't seem to give a moral judgement of the text. Or are you saying it is?"
 * The word "warning" itself implies judgement has been passed on the matter and is being reflected in the advice offered. The spoiler tags are a warning (even if they didn't have the word "warning," that's clearly what they're there to do, and this page is called &quot;Wikipedia:Spoiler warning" because that's exactly what it is doing), and we're not supposed to warn or otherwise single out information for ";;special notification." That's what's going on here.
 * "One question that this page raises more than any other is whether there is anybody other than yourself and Randall Brackett (fomerly Megaman Zero) who has such a problem with them. In the time I have been monitoring this thread, it is only your two names that constantly appear. Clearly, there are numerous editors who are defending the spoiler warning..."
 * Not that it matters in determining consensus how many people are on either side (the concepts involved are all that are relevant, not to mention that people could "vote" numerous times), but I'll humor the request (including everyone who has made at least one comment expressing favor for either side since Hiding began the latest line of discussion):
 * Pro-spoiler warnings — 8) (Ned Scott, RobbieG, Kirill Lokshin, DavidHOzAu, Bmearns, ChrisGriswold, Grutness, CesarB)
 * Anti-spoiler warnings — 7) (Randall Brackett, Ryu Kaze, Shanes, AMHR285, Anetode, JChap2007, Nunh-huh)
 * Indeterminable — 1) (Chris Chittleborough; he hasn't returned since I clarified where I was coming from, so I'm not sure what his standing was at the time he left; if I had to put him in either of the above groups, though, I'd put him in the pro-group because that is the side he argued in until he left)
 * "Surely you have made your opinion known and should leave it there? If others feel so strongly, they take over your opposition to the spoiler."
 * The matter has not yet been brought to its conclusion. Why should we stop discussing? Is your comment ("Surely you have made your opinion known...") not also true of those who we've been having this discussion with all this time?
 * "Perhaps somebody could conense the arguments and counter-arguments of both sides?"
 * Perhaps someone should, though I'm not sure if that would prevent the matter from becoming large and unreined once again or not. We need to find a means of bringing this to a conclusion once and for all. There's no reason for discussion of this matter to happen again and again. We need to get the policy makers in on this and have them clearly identify whether or not spoiler tags are to be left out or if they're an exception to the censorship policy. Ryu Kaze 17:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, who exactly are these "policy makers" you're expecting? Policy is, with few exceptions, a product of general consensus among all editors. Kirill Lokshin 17:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that. However, certain policies have been around since time immemorial and were part of the intended development of the project. When I said "policy makers," I was referring to the last three sources mentioned here. While this is probably not something they would typically want to get involved with, given that it's related to the core philosophies that they intended be in place (and given that the universal spoiler notice was added to the official disclaimers that they're directly involved with), I would think this should be something they would be best suited to decide upon. Ryu Kaze 17:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * On an additional note, I don't think anyone here ever thought this matter would be settled by anything short of a move by the higher-ups who could decide on a permanent answer, did they? Ryu Kaze 17:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Higher ups? Admins don't get "stronger arguments" for being admins, they're just editors that are trusted with admin tasks. I doubt we'll get a comment from Jimbo himself, or from the Foundation (but I would certainly welcome their input, just they're probably asked for their input on EVERYTHING). Wikipedia encourages it's users to be able to sort out disputes and expand Wikipedia's guidelines and such on their own. We should be able to resolve this here, it not then we move to some more formal discussion like an RfC or an arbitration case. There really aren't any "higher ups" on Wikipedia for these kinds of disputes. -- Ned Scott 06:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just now noticing this message from Ned. Ned, where did I say anything about admins in that message? I said people who actually do have authority. Hell, you know good and well that there are people on Wikipedia with more authority than you and I. Look at the Board, or Jimbo (who surprisingly did comment here). The Arbitration Committee gets to pass a decision on matters brought before them (which can and will be enforced), and the Board has power over the Committee. Where did you get the idea that there aren't any higher ups?
 * There are about 100 edits since I've last looked at this talk page, I'm not sure who left this message. -- Ned Scott 02:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, there is no reason for an "exception" to the censorship policy because the spoiler tags are in no way censorship. Since they don't go against policy, no "exception" is needed. Johntex\talk 23:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're totally not seeing the insertion of the editors' point of view into the articles in a deliberate attempt to influence readers' to not learn of specific information that is supposed to be presented in the same standing as the rest of the information, are you? Ryu Kaze 23:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The reader makes the choice not the editor. Are you saying we should trick readers into reading things they don't wish to read about?  Lets start changing article names around, that would really help getting readers to read something they didn't choose to read.  Also, if "Plot details" or "Plot summary" is assumed by the reader to have spoilers, and they avoid those sections because the section is labeled as "Plot details", then is no different from them avoiding a section because of a spoiler tag.  If someone doesn't read something on wikipedia, it's because they chose not to read it. The accusation that spoiler warnings have that kind of effect on the reader is absurd. -- Ned Scott 02:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Toby
Hm... I'm not sure anyone has raised this point, but this reminds of the old debate about Toby, a proposal which was pretty much laughed at by a lot users. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm reading the pages. Is the debate about censorship on wikipedia...? -Randall Brackett 01:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Essentially, yes, although there were other issues addressed. --Jtalledo (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

TFD not wholly relevant
Just a note that the recent tfd listing at Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 4 isn't wholly relevant. This discussion is seeking clarification of the guideline status of this page, and also what constitutes a spoiler. Hiding Talk 22:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this really a quality issue? Or just a stylistic one?
(Apologies for the length - ignore this post at will, but you'll hopefully find something interesting and maybe even intelligent in it, if you care to read through...) Perhaps I missed this somewhere in the debate above, but, while plenty of editors are claiming that the fact that Wikipedia should be aiming to reach EB's standards (absolutely!), I haven't seen the simple point made that it is possible to emulate quality without emulating style. The spoiler tags have effectively become part of Wikipedia's "house style" in a lot of articles - the key issue is whether this is affecting "standards", whatever they may be. I think there are basically two questions at stake:
 * Does the presence of spoiler tags have any impact upon the encyclopedic quality of Wikipedia?
 * Do spoiler tags provide a valuable service to (at least some) readers?

If the answer to the latter question is "no", then we could get rid of them here and now. Unfortunately, the only readers whose opinions we have to hand are those of editors (who make up only a small fraction of the readership). What we may validly conclude from the TfD farce is that many editors find spoiler warnings useful. Some things we can not conclude: "most" editors do (although the majority in the poll was vast, it was still a very small sample of editors), or that "most" readers do, but the fact remains that there is a substantial readership that do. If consensus is reached that the spoiler tags should be removed from all articles (at least for unregistered readers), I believe that it would be doing this group of registered readers a disservice for the templates to be removed completely. Instead they could become opt-in, again via the css or even an option in user preferences. I fail to see why this would be objectionable.

The first question is harder because it comes back to the question of "What does it mean for Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia?" That's a question that has haunted the project, from "notability" and schools, to stylistic issues. We do, however, have a core of policies that have given us a base to build our identity from: WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. The problem is that even together these do not define Wikipedia's encyclopedic identity so strongly as to resolve these other issues completely, and other language Wikipedias (especially the German Wikipedia) have assumed quite distinct identities. NOR and V have at least put a threshold on acceptable content for inclusion, and NPOV shapes the way that content is to be presented. But there has never been a clear definition of "encyclopedia" at all, other than that it should be a compendium of knowledge (and even that's not clear historically). The idea of an Encyclopedia has varied so much that claims of "that's not encyclopedic!" are pretty close to meaningless, and are often misled (so much so that one wonders whether many such claimants have ever actually read an encyclopedia article outside the tameness of Wikipedia, Encarta or the World Book).

Here are some other ideas that could help to bring Wikipedia up to Britannica's lauded standards:
 * Scrap WP:NOR. Many of Britannica's most celebrated entries, such as Bertand Russell's famous essay on the philosophical consequences of the Theory of Relativity, were blatant and brilliant original research, which added greatly to the character of the encyclopedia. We could allow user essays in the article space, but add a deletion criterion for "essays lacking originality and brilliance" so that only the best are kept.
 * Scrap WP:NPOV. Both Wikipedia and Wikinews are frequently criticized for the blandness of their articles, much of which stems from this suffocating requirement of grasping for an impossible, neutral objectivity. NPOV is certainly not traditionally encyclopedic. Many early traditions saw the function of an Encyclopedia as that of a political or even literary tract. Even in more recent conceptions, point of view may be a project aim (Catholic Encyclopedia), and in others it is a consequence of a project's perspective (Jewish Encyclopedia). Anybody strongly acquainted with EB, especially with some of its earlier editions, will be aware that its articles are often laced - even dripping - with POV. The writers are often experts who know their subject intimately, indeed are passionate about them, and while they will usually convey both sides of any controversy, their own opinion may be laid down as if it were judgement passed by the Great Arbiter of History. Hence one might find an "inferior poet", a work "devoid of architectural/literary/artistic method", "his greatest work", "her landscape paintings were inspipid/showed the extent of her unfulfilled talent", a plot "too dry and underpaced", a political vision "lacking in insight" - all without the painful qualifiers found in Wikipedia. Giving those editors qualified to do so this freer rein would return vigor and color to many of our entries. (As an aside: one of my favorite articles, Richard Francis Burton, which was well-balanced and yet still written with at least a little life - though not nearly so much as the rather fiery and excitable EB article written by one of Burton's biographers - was at one stage tagged for cleanup for "unencyclopedic language"! I hope this illustrates my point that on Wikipedia, "unencyclopedic" has become a catch-all invective, pretty much disconnected from traditional conceptions of the encyclopedia, and shouldn't be thrown about to criticize something without some accompanying substantive argument. In this debate, fortunately, I have seen strong substantive arguments raised by both sides.)
 * Scrap WP:CITE. When is the last time you saw a respectable encyclopedia full of citation footnotes or Harvard referencing? Previous "quality" encyclopedias have simply relied upon the credentials of their contributors, and the strength of their fact-checking processes. Wikipedia's entries, by contrast, look like high school essays or college dissertations.
 * Scrap WP:OWN. This shift would be necessary to make the above changes feasible. Allowing a degree of ownership of articles would be completely in line with standard encyclopedic practice and allow more individual character in Wikipedia articles.

Now, the reason that this can't ever happen is that this is wikipedia and anybody can edit - dropping our guard on WP:CITE or WP:NPOV would allow all kinds of rubbish in. But it's not so outlandish as it may sound - it sounds as if Larry Sanger's current much-heralded dreamchild will actually have aspects of these features. It is indisputable that Wikipedia's policies and editing processes lie outside traditional encyclopedic conceptions, though I suspect that many of us hope Wikipedia may evolve into a fulfilment of them. It should come as no surprise that Wikipedia's content - in scope, form and style - differs markedly from other encyclopedic efforts. This need not mean a reduction in quality.

It's also worth mentioning that Wikipedia's primary medium is online. Some stylistic conventions are more common online than on paper. It should really not be a surprise if Wikipedia draws more from these conventions than traditional, paper-based encyclopedias do. This does not, of itself, indicate a reduction in quality.

"Wikipedia should aim to be comprehensive!" - the battle-cry of the inclusionist - is something I generally agree with. "Encyclopedias aim to be comprehensive!" on the other hand is an utterly false over-generalization. Plenty of times, if you are able to find information about a film, you will discover little more than title, date of release, country of origin, who made it and starred in it, awards won and, if you are lucky, the film's genre and where it was set. If you're really lucky you might even find a plot summary. Wikipedia, on the other hand, has pretty thorough entries for a lot of individual television episodes! How these entries should be managed and presented is a key question, and there simply isn't much in the way of encyclopedic precedent. I'm not sure that comprehensiveness is a trump card in this particular debate - yes, a reader should expect a comprehensive entry (including, obviously enough, plot details) but one of the key reasons for looking at a Wikipedia entry rather than anywhere else is that our exceptional comprehensiveness often extends to sales figures, critical reaction, production details... and it's perfectly plausible that a reader might want to avoid finding information about the plot. (As a side-note, the ability to switch off spoiler warnings may appease some of the editors who hate the sight of them, but I suspect many others would be interested in the option of hiding the content between the spoiler warnings instead! Is that technically feasible?)

I appreciate also that Wikipedia is not designed as the place to come to check out whether something is worth buying (though article talk pages can sometimes be rather insightful!), but on the other hand a feature that at least a vocal section of readers want and which does not otherwise harm the quality of the article, does deserve serious contemplation. However, I can think of one way in which it may be harmful. Not all spoilers appear in the plot synopsis. On the other hand, most articles can be rewritten in a way that keeps the explicit spoilers within the "spoiler warning" section. Although our article for The Usual Suspects (which comes to mind as a film which pro-spoiler warning champions would present as the prime example of a film that needs them) is actually not that good, it still manages to restrain the spoilers in that way. Writing in this way would, however, be yet another constraint (after NPOV, V, NOR: all pertinent in film and literature articles, and, again, more limiting than what might apply in a traditional encyclopedia) on writing outside the spoiler warnings, and may produce a tendency towards oblique prose. I'm sure it could still be done well, but it does make things harder.

Since film, literature and computer games are something that Wikipedia covers in far more depth than any other encyclopedia (I think we can be confident in such a claim) it is unsurprising that this is an area where our style diverges more than usual from other encyclopedias. If there is demand for our style to fulfil a certain kind of service, and this service would not inhibit the associated articles from being "neutral and unbiased compilations of notable, verifiable facts" about that topic, then I'm not convinced it needs to be dispensed with, although if it can hinder writing, it should also be used with caution and discretion. Wikipedia should not be afraid to do things its own way, and discussion about guidelines for the use of spoiler warnings would (if consensus decides they should be kept) at least make our style more consistent. TheGrappler 18:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This looks like an essay on what an encyclopedia "is". Perhaps you could create that essay and then reference it in relation to the claims that "spoiler warnings don't belong in an encyclopedia, per definition". --GunnarRene 19:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * because this is relevant to more than the spoiler templates. As a quick response, I'd say that we need to have NPOV, VP:V, VP:SOURCE, and VP:NOR because we're the encyclopedia that anybody can edit, even anonymous contributors. We don't have a pool of trusted experts.--GunnarRene 19:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Is that technically feasible?" Yes, with a code change. But because of the way spoiler tags are applied (many forget to put in endspoiler), it would hide a lot of content. --GunnarRene 19:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "(As a side-note, the ability to switch off spoiler warnings may appease some of the editors who hate the sight of them, but I suspect many others would be interested in the option of hiding the content between the spoiler warnings instead! Is that technically feasible?)"
 * It's not the sight of the spoiler warnings that bothers me, but, rather, the effect their presence has on this encyclopedia's integrity given its policies. As for the technical feasibility of your other suggestion, that would create an even more blatant case of displacing information based on the personal judgements of editors, even furthering the extent to which the no censorship policy was being infringed upon.
 * However, your suggestion did spark in my mind a possibility that I would personally see as a reasonable, if not fair (to everyone), compromise so long as it's possible on a technical level. If it were conceivable for the default "setting" of the encyclopedia to be that spoiler tags are off, while everyone had the option of turning them on if they personally wanted to, that would be reasonable in my opinion. So long as the default version was without spoiler warnings, the integrity of the encyclopedia would be preserved, while those individuals who would apply in the hypothetical situations we've heard so much about would have the option of activating them if they felt more comfortable perusing the site that way. They would, of course, be putting their trust in the hands of the editors, but they're doing that right now anyway and I don't doubt that there's plenty of editors who would continue to feel that the spoiler tags would benefit people. In fact, I would personally add some spoiler tags to some of the articles I have worked on, including Final Fantasy X, provided that they were not visible under default settings.
 * Given their divergence from Wikipedia policy, spoiler tags should not be included in the default presentation of the site. Turning them on, however, would be providing readers with a modified version of the encyclopedia that suited their personal comforts, which must come second to the princicples involved here, as they do with images of pornography and human torture. If this measure cannot possibly be implemented, though, I'd still push for the complete removal of the tags. Does anyone that knows more about this technical stuff than I do know if it could be done? Ryu Kaze 21:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I find this statement in grappler's summary puzzling: Wikipedia should not be afraid to do things its own way.


 * We should not...? Then why are we using an idea derived from social networking sites...? The idea clearly was not developed with the unique nature of wikipedia in mind. I think, the grappler is correct, on the statement of what is and what is not encyclopediac can be debateable but the general meaning of the term hasn't changed. Its a comprehendum of knowledge unrepressed and not suitible for bias in any form. In this vien, I think wikipedia should strive to expand itself and not be withdrawn into the practices of other websites for people who think catering to those used to the rest of the net is in benefit of the encyclopedia.


 * In reply to technical hides, I think this is a very, very good idea. I am not sure how to go about this, however. On another note pertaining to this, I was speculating if we could simply post some sort of notice at the top of the each page of the wiki, embedded into the syntax (similar to the notices that appeared when we created the millionth article) and it could depict small text along the lines of "wikipedia may contain media spoilers". I think that would be sufficient. No need to clutter up the articles for this fluffly nonsense. Ethier that, or people need to start reading our disclaimers. -Randall Brackett 22:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh dear... I feel very bad for writing this, as you're clearly now being broad-minded, seeing things from both sides of the argument, and attempting a (very sensible IMHO) compromise, but I still have to ask you how the spoiler warnings are a violation of Wikipedia's policy. I'm sorry, it pains me to write this; I sound like I'm being narrow-minded now, and maybe I am, but they certainly aren't censorship and I still maintain that they don't violate NPOV.  I mean, maybe if we called this the "Spoiler notation" or even just the "Spoiler template" - would that be a more objective term?  It's just that since it's pretty much agreed what constitutes a spoiler, it surely can't be seen as a violation of NPOV.  I also don't see what difference it makes to the encyclopaedic nature of Wikipedia if the default is with or without spoiler warnings.  I'm sorry to be like this - I'm impressed with the way you're treating this issue and I think your idea would work - but I have to know.  RobbieG 22:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It becomes a definition of censorship because it carries the view that we are using our bias (and it is bias because people have different views on this subject and what constitutes a spoiler itself) to dictate what is and what is not a "spoiler" (not even a real word, its stupid slang) as well as assuming the template would be "courteous" in the dictation of what someone should and should not read. I don't know what some editors think they're playing at; this is one of the most poisonous and difficult to admiss ideals in view of neutrality I've come across on wikipedia. It is impossible to view it as neutral, simply because many people endorse it. It is not neutral, simply because it is an idea attained from websites that do not consider themselves encyclopedias and was developed to suit the bias of people in fear of knowledge. If an person is afraid of knowledge they wouldn't come to wikipedia. Our job is to share knowledge, not decide on whether this and that is unsuitible for someone might not like to read. -Randall Brackett 22:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I recognize them as censorship on the basis of them being an unstadarized regulation of information. In other words, that they target specific info for intellectual (the warning itself) and visual obstruction (the displacement of the text in question by an inch). Furthermore, their purpose is obviously that of a warning, regardless of whether or not we call them such, and that very concept is dependent on someone having passed their own judgement on the information and passed that on to the readers.
 * On that basis, Rob, can you see why they come across as a double-standard to me, especially in light of the lack of warnings before images of naked women or tortured humans?
 * Anyway, hopefully we can work toward a compromise here. There's no reason for all of this discussion if we don't find something permanent that can resolve this situation not just for us, but for everybody else who might discuss the matter in the future if there is no resolution now. And, really, I would like to see a solution that everybody is happy with. I'm glad you like my suggestion. I just hope we can actually implement it or something very similar. Ryu Kaze 22:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, I just got home from work and I'll gladly give my own comments to the day's discussion, but first, before that, spoiler is a real word. Not that it matters for this debate, but it is, in fact, a real word., , and a non-online one:  -- Ned Scott 05:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In other words, the concept of a spoiler, and spoiler warnings, did NOT come from social networking websites and usenet groups. The reason we see their use there so often is because people have lots of discussions using those forums, they got high traffic, that's all.  Trying to discredit spoiler warnings as something a fansite or usenet would do is ridiculous.  You know, people on fansites also use letters and numbers, should we stop using those too? Why is it necessary to say such flimsy statements in the anti-spoiler-warning arguments? -- Ned Scott 06:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Only just woken and crawled bleary-eyed to the keyboard. Um, yeah.  I'm still not happy with the insistance that spoilers are in conflict with policy.  As I've said before, this is very different from the issue regarding censorship, as we are not proposing to actually withold info, and neither are we passing judgement on whether or not spoilers are acceptable.  Actually, I think this issue can only be resolved once we have found a definition of "spoiler" that is widely accepted and put it on a guideline page or something.  I still like the definition of a spoiler as being "Any information about the storyline of a work not written on the cover, regardless of the age of the work or how far into it the event occurs", as I feel that is the most objective definition.  Oh, and in response to Randall Brackett's comments, (which weren't there when I was editing last night, say a different thing from what Ryu Kaze was saying, and are positioned above my comment so that it looks like Randall's the one I'm agreeing with), I would find an unobtrusive spoiler warning at the top of every page an acceptable compromise, but I still prefer the way things are done now because it's easier to read it like that.  I don't get how, by your own arguments, that would be an improvement.  It'd still be redundant, and, if anything, it would be even more likely to withold information as it might put people off reading Wikipedia altogether (you  know, like "I daren't read this article on particle physics in case it spoils the plot of Angels and Demons...").  Bear in mind that there are millions of works of fiction in the world, Wikipedia contains spoilers for hundreds, probably thousands, and as nobody can possibly have read or watched them all, it's all to easy for this site to spoil them.  The current warning appears only where we have information that has been specifically flagged as a spoiler, so that it's easy for people to navigate the site and pick and choose the bits they want to read.
 * Oh, and in response to a common argument against the use of the template above plot sections - yes, it's pretty obvious that plot sections contain spoilers, but if we have spoiler warnings floating around and people come across a section that doesn't, chances are they're just going to assume it's spoiler free and not think logically about it. RobbieG 07:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've actually read quite a few Plot summary sections that were very well written and gave a good depth of info, but didn't contain spoilers. It really depends on the nature of the spoiler and the nature of the story. Oh, something I find funny is the idea that we're warning people not to read a section by tagging it a spoiler, and at the same time readers are supposed to assume there is a spoiler based on the headers. So if the headers themselves can logically be seen as spoiler warnings.. then ... we shouldn't use headers like "plot summary" for the same reason we wouldn't want to use the template? Wouldn't the effect still be the same?  If there is no harm in a reader avoiding the "Plot summary" because it's called plot summary, then wouldn't there also be no harm in saying "this contains plot details" aka spoiler warning? In other words, if "Plot summary" has the same effect as "spoiler warning", then why isn't plot summary considered censorship or harmful?  Maybe because we've just labeling something as it is.. oh wait, that's what we're doing with the spoilers too.. labeling them... -- Ned Scott 07:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ned Scott here, although I don't think it's NPOV to talk of different natures of spoiler - they're either spoilers or they ain't! It strikes me as odd that so many people have raised an objection to spoiler warnings when there are so many other aspects of this site that fit the same criteria.  Examples?  Well, here goes...
 * "it is bias because people have different views on this subject and what constitutes a spoiler itself"
 * That's why we need to standardise our definition of 'spoiler'.
 * "not even a real word, its stupid slang"
 * It's called modern English. It's an up-to-date expression.  We have articles which use such expressions.  Off the top of my head I can think of snowclone, the title of which is itself a neologism.
 * "It is impossible to view it as neutral, simply because many people endorse it"
 * Right, so... I personally endorse the use of photographs, contents lists, headlines, the 'anyone can edit' aspect of Wikipedia, source citations, categories, and hyperlinks, as well as spoiler templates.  So, let's just bin them as well, they aren't NPOV either!
 * "It is not neutral, simply because it is an idea attained from websites that do not consider themselves encyclopedias and was developed to suit the bias of people in fear of knowledge"
 * Similar argument, similar flaws... Headlines come from newspapers and were developed to suit the bias of people with short attention spans so they can see at-a-glance every news item. Pictures come from cave art and were developed to suit the needs of bored people and practitioners of prehistoric religions (ok, so that one's a bad example).  Encyclopaedias were developed as a means of storing certain information that suited the bias of the author (often containing fairly strong political bias)
 * I mean, do you see where I'm coming from? I'm willing to compromise, but I don't see why there's any debate going on at all.  RobbieG 08:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe there isn't a POV issue as well, I was just making an example :) -- Ned Scott 08:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "I've actually read quite a few Plot summary sections that were very well written and gave a good depth of info, but didn't contain spoilers."
 * But then it's failing in its purpose. If it doesn't have spoilers, then it isn't summarizing the plot.
 * "Oh, something I find funny is the idea that we're warning people not to read a section by tagging it a spoiler, and at the same time readers are supposed to assume there is a spoiler based on the headers. So if the headers themselves can logically be seen as spoiler warnings.. then ... we shouldn't use headers like "plot summary" for the same reason we wouldn't want to use the template? Wouldn't the effect still be the same? If there is no harm in a reader avoiding the "Plot summary" because it's called plot summary, then wouldn't there also be no harm in saying "this contains plot details" aka spoiler warning? In other words, if "Plot summary&amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; has the same effect as "spoiler warning", then why isn't plot summary considered censorship or harmful?  Maybe because we've just labeling something as it is.. oh wait, that's what we're doing with the spoilers too.. labeling them..."
 * As we both know, that's not the purpose of the spoiler warning. Its purpose is not to say "This is where the plot information is." Its purpose is to say "I have decided that this section, which contains the plot information, may be potentially damaging to you, the readers, on some level, and have taken it upon myself to warn you away from it." It's a warning. The fact that personal judgement is involved there is obvious.
 * As for the other things you addressed, given that those were Randall's comments, he'd probably be better suited to respond about them than I. Ryu Kaze 15:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "But then it's failing in its purpose. If it doesn't have spoilers, then it isn't summarizing the plot."
 * I completely disagree with that statement. Spoilers are not always needed to summarize a plot. A spoiler is just information that can take away from the enjoyment of fiction if one learns of it out of context/ order with the rest of the story.  Spoilers are not always significant plot points, and even if they are, they don't always have to be spelled out in every detail in a summary. -- Ned Scott 05:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You may disagree with the statement, but it's correct, I'm afraid. A plot is the beginning-to-end framework of a story. Its overall premise, if you will. You can't summarize that without including beginning, middle and end details, with the latter two especially invariably including spoilers. Otherwise you're not exactly summarizing anything. Ryu Kaze 11:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no fundamental difference from deciding to put in a spoiler warning and deciding to title a section a certain way. In both cases, the writer has made a decision about how to present information to the reader.  Johntex\talk 21:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In one, they're deliberately trying to persuade people away from it, getting involved in what they think the reader should or shouldn't read. That's not what neutrality is about. Ryu Kaze 01:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, that is completely false. While it may be possible for an editor to have such a motive, that is just insane. If I label something a spoiler it's NOT because I want someone to not read a section. You have no backing in claiming you know why someone added the tag.  If we held some kind of poll and asked editors who use the spoiler tag about their reasons for including it, what do you think the results would be? Do you honestly think that editors are trying to choose for the reader whether or not they want to read a spoiler?  How does that even make sense?  Why the hell would someone work on an article if they didn't want people to read it?  And to top it off, you actually say that they deliberately do this. Do not speak for other people and state false accusations. -- Ned Scott 02:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ...So you expect me to believe that people including spoiler tags are not doing this to target specific information that they believe readers might not want to see, and which they then make a push to have them avoid based on their own judgement...? That runs entirely contrary to everything that's been said here on the side of pro-spoiler tags, Ned. Are we then to believe editors are putting in spoiler tags simply for the hell of it? Ryu Kaze 02:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A compromise?
Why not just have a section called "Plot details"? It avoids the stupid sounding label "Spoiler warning" (for a particularly silly example, please see Hansel and Gretel). And yet it informs readers of what they (might) need to know?--Jimbo Wales 19:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * One would think so. Really, though I understand and respect the desire Ned and others have for going the extra mile for the readers' sake, I still see the sentiments misplaced and the concept (in this context) ridiculus. But, yeah, retitling all the "Plot" or "Story" headers "Plot details" would be fine by me. Ryu Kaze 19:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What about more bizarre cases (like Keyser Soze or Norman Bates) which don't necessarily have distinct "Plot" sections (and where the presumptive spoilers are spread throughout the article)? Kirill Lokshin 19:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand that Jimbo has taken the time himself to comment on this, but I don't really find the suggestion helpful. I respect his point of view that the tag sounds stupid, but it sounds perfectly normal to me. What I don't understand is how is that any better than an editor dancing around sections to include or not include spoilers (in response to Lee Bailey's comment below). We'd still be dictating where spoilers should be, and we'd still be warning them.  All this does is make articles more restrictive in their structure and hide the word "spoiler". -- Ned Scott 05:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you mean that a spoiler warning is redundant at the top of a plot details section (it is), or that the all spoiler templates have to go? --GunnarRene 19:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How about a renaming of the template to "Plot details" (as in "Plot and/or ending details follow"), because some sections, or even just paragraphs, contain plot details, sometimes even from a different work of fiction. I would feel restricted if I had to keep all plot details in a "Plot details" section. For example, if I'm writing about the cultural influences upon a TV show, some of those influences may be manifested in plot twists and details. And many readers who look at the article to find out "Where in the chronology of Middle Earth/Babylon 5/etc. does this story belong" or "What kind of TV show is this" don't want to know the ending. (They've told us that). --GunnarRene 19:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If people are that uptight about learning plot details, they should be reading an encyclopedia!--Jimbo Wales 15:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Based on your other comments, I'm sure this was meant to be "should not be reading an encyclopedia," right? Ryu Kaze 15:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if we did away with spoiler templates, we would need some kind of policy/guideline on spoilers. Keeping them out of the summary, for example. On the other hand, a guideline that says "Don't discuss plot details except inside the "Plot details" section" seems a bit restrictive." The real conundrum is when comparing plot details from different shows. --GunnarRene 19:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * GunnarRene, this is exactly the issue I have with the spoiler template -- I don't like the thought of needing to restrict potentially spoilerish information to a certain section. I'm sure there are plenty of cases where a single word or name can constitute a spoiler -- the indentity of a killer for example -- but I'd hate to have to dance around that information in a criticism section, or anywhere else it was relevant. I'd be fine with just calling the story/plot section a plot detail section, but I suspect that wouldn't satisfy those who are looking to keep spoiler notices across all sections; on the other hand, if we just tone down the language and use the spoiler template in the same way, there's still pressure to keep plot details "inside the box" or accept a messy page with many "begins here/ends here" tags. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 19:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And that's part of the problem. Since we haven't implemented the functionality to show/hide spoilers at the click of a button, spoiler warnings look "messier" the "better" they are used (i.e. demarcating just the places where spoilers appear). One spoiler warning after the summary looks cleaner than lots of little spolier warnings in the sections, but it indicates that the whole article will spoil when only a couple of sentences or paragrahs actually spoil endings/twists. --GunnarRene 19:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I must say that the "click of a button" idea strikes me as the worst possible one. This is an encyclopedia.  If it is well written, it should not be so atomistic that one could at whim turn on and off certain sentences and still have the article be sensible.  No, a good flow demands otherwise I think. --Jimbo Wales 15:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I personally think it's ridiculus for an editor to even consider spoiler tags and am still hoping to see everyone come to the realization of just how absurd they are. Though my threshold for hoping for miracles is wearing thin. Ryu Kaze 15:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that editors have to make sure that the article makes sense to those that hide spoilers. Users would hide spoilers at their own peril, so to speak.--GunnarRene 16:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. To an extent, spoiler tags do that already, though. Actually, I'm all in favor of phasing out spoiler tags altogether, but my main concern is how. This is why I even bothered entertaining the "click of a button" idea. Spoiler tags are ubiquitous, and it cannot be underestimated how they have affected both the content and form of a great many articles. The use of spoiler tags has both served to quasi-censor perfectly appropriate content, and mask the inclusion of inappropriate content. Not to mention sloppy writing. Any significant changes to the spoiler warning is bound to cause some upheaval. I think some guideline needs to be drawn up soon laying out not only the position and its reasons, but recommended approaches for transitioning. You know, before editors start plucking spoiler tags en masse. The potential chaos this may cause could be more detrimental than any NPOV wins gained. Dancter 16:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether we even have inappropriate content isn't a call for us to make. In any event, as for how we could phase these things out, we could simply altar the state of the current template or put up a message like the one currently saying "Early registration for Wikimania 2006 is open until July 15 at 23:59 (UTC)" to say that in one month's time, the template would be removed, and that editors should take the time between now and then to ensure that the articles they work on haven't been accomodating spoiler tags to the extent that their articles don't flow properly. This situation really has a simple solution, I think. Ryu Kaze 16:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Poorly-sourced material, non-neutral bias, uncontextualized plot summaries...spoiler tags have been used to excuse these and more. As for the message idea, I hardly notice the Wikimania message, and I can guarantee there are plenty of users who notice it even less. And there are still going to be people coming up asking why, and we can't keep spinning our wheels discussing it. We're going to need something which lays it out nicely. Dancter 16:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant by "inappropriate content." I thought we were speaking in terms of relevant images of pornography, relevant spoilers and the like. "Objectionable/offensive content."
 * Anyway, you might have a point about the Wikimania-style message. Technically, that's more than we'd be required to put up, but it would ultimately be at Jimbo or the Developers' discretion as to whether a notice that size or larger was used (if one was even used at all). Personally, I think people are going to notice a message like that in a month's time, and if they don't, then goddamn. Ryu Kaze 21:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think, when we're ready to do this, the standard deprecation should be warning enough. Just a simple tdeprecated-inline tag right in each spoiler template. It may not be pretty, but it'll be impossible to miss. And do you think we're getting close to starting a revision of the text of this article? Dancter 23:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that that would be warning enough. As for your question, I honestly think we should hold off on revising anything until we've got it firmly established as to what's going to happen. Ryu Kaze 00:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Spoiler templates are less restricive than an enforced "Plot details" section though, because spoiler templates can be applied several places in the article, while there can only be one "Plot details" section. --GunnarRene 19:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no restrictions involved at all. We're here to make an encyclopedia, people. We put relevant information where it belongs and say bugger off to misplaced sentiments of courtesy that involve either lacing a page with warning tag spaghetti, or constricting certain content to little "begin/end" boxes where it's carefully locked away from the readers' open view without them first passing through a mental and visual obstacle of "Don't look here." This is supposed to apply to everything people might consider "objectionable." Ryu Kaze 21:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * All things considered, if we don't get rid of the spoiler warnings, the very best possible suggestion is what I brought up previously (Lee suggests it again below under "Hiding spoilers and warnings with code"). If it's possible to do that (create an on/off switch for spoiler tags, with the default set to "off"), that should satisfy everyone. The default version of the encyclopedia would be without spoiler tags, so there'd be no worries concerning hypocrisy, and those who wanted spoiler tags could turn them on. It's just a question of technical feasibility and everyone agreeing on it. What do you think, Gunnar? Ryu Kaze 20:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hypocrisy? You mean that editors are more likely to fully contribute if they can use spoiler templates, but would self-censor themselves if the templates were removed? --GunnarRene 20:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No. When I speak of hypocrisy I'm speaking of the double-standard of allowing spoiler warnings to be visible at all times even though Wikipedia's policies call for neutrality and no censorship, while warnings for images of pornography (or their removal) and images of human torture have been rejected on those grounds. I hardly see a difference. All of it is content that readers may find offensive or objectionable, but since Wikipedia doesn't care about it in the other two cases, it shouldn't in this one.
 * What I'm saying is that I would personally feel there was no violation of the policies -- and, thus, no hypocrisy -- if the default version of Wikipedia featured no spoiler warnings, while people had the option -- if they so chose to implement it -- of turning on warnings to view a modified version of the site. Given that they would be choosing to censor themselves, it wouldn't be a case of the editors or the encyclopedia choosing it for them. Ryu Kaze 20:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Jimbo Wales has got involved so I'm actually feeling nervous about making suggestions that might be seen as a backward step, but based on what he wrote, and GunnarRene's suggetion, I've got a question. Is there any good reason why we can't scrap the template completely and make a new one reading "The following section contains plot details" in fairly large, bold letters, without the use of colour? It would be less obtrusive and wouldn't violate NPOV, because it wouldn't be a warning as such, just a statement of the facts. The only problem I can see with that would be that it would likely be misused - people might see it as a request to remove information, or else just use it as a spoiler warning. RobbieG 20:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how the situation would be any different there than it is now. It would be the same thing all over again. In any event, I doubt Jimbo would want you feeling like you can't voice your opinion just because he's voiced his, so if you've got a suggestion speak up. Ryu Kaze 20:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, even without the technical solution, I would support that we remove the word "warning", and just have "Plot and/or ending details (spoilers) follow, and advice that this template not be used when it's blatantly obvious from the headers that the section contains spoilers, but only to a) Demarcate between non-spoiler and spoiler parts of a plot ection (i.e. to say when plot twists and endings appear) and b) to mark plot details that appear outside the plot section. --GunnarRene 20:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is certainly my preferred approach. I can't understand how anyone reading a section discussing plot would be surprised to read plot points. Hiding Talk 20:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hiding, is that agreement with just Jimbo's suggestion or Gunnar's? It's difficult to tell from your comment here and your comment on the history page.
 * Anyway, even without the word "warning," the spoiler template is still just that: a warning. It's not something that we've endorsed before (again referring to warnings about pornography or human torture), so it's certainly not something we should be endorsing now. I really think the technical suggestion of allowing the tags to be turned on from a defaul "off" position is the only compromise that everybody could live with. If the spoiler warnings remain (under that name or a sugar coated one), there will be people dissatisfied and seeing Wikipedia as a cauldron of hypocrisy and double-standards, and if they're altogether removed, there will be people disappointed because Wikipedia isn't sugar coating itself. I still think that if this compromise can't be met, the only logical solution is to remove the tags altogether, but I would prefer to see this particular compromise reached and implemented (if it's possible). Ryu Kaze 20:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the people who want all kinds of censor templates? --GunnarRene 20:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the people who want spoiler tags. Ryu Kaze 21:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I mean who are you referring to as "dissatisfied and seeing Wikipedia as a cauldron of hypocrisy and double-standards"? --GunnarRene 21:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be people like myself, who have been opposed to spoiler tags thus far on the basis of them causing Wikipedia to become that very thing. Ryu Kaze 22:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur with Jimbo's suggestion. We can always count on him to conclude with a reasonable comment on situations such as this. -Randall Brackett 21:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't Jimbo's suggestion already implemented in all fictional articles under a "synopsis" or "story" heading? &mdash; Deckill e r 21:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not quite. His suggestion pretty much indicated not warning people. Above he pretty much said that people so uptight about learning plot details shouldn't be coming to an encyclopedia. Ryu Kaze 22:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it was meant more along the lines of 'people who spill hot coffee on themselves should have been tipped off to the danger by the name'. For what it's worth, I'm completely in agreement with him. --InShaneee 01:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's probably a better way of wording it. That's what I've been saying since the beginning, really. The word "encyclopedia" alone should tip people off, mustless our content disclaimer, no censorship policy and the section headers like "Plot" and "Characters" (which contain the majority of spoilers). Ryu Kaze 02:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hiding spoilers and warnings with code
Hi. Just hopping in from the discussion at the CVG Wikiproject... reading the above, I saw it mentioned that hiding spoilers and warnings is technologically feasable with a code change. This discussion appears to have been going on a long time with a limited number of editors involved, which suggests a wider base of opinion will probably need to be assessed if any change is going to be made. May I ask, is there a reason we couldn't go to the wider community with the question of whether a system of hiding spoilers (and spoiler warnings) is worthwhile? Forgive me if I'm oversimplifying -- I haven't followed every word of this debate -- but it seems like a system which would optionally "hide" spoilers would have broad support if the default position for that setting was "off". If a consensus was gathered, we could go to the developers with a feature request. Would that solve the problem? We'd have to change the guideline for adding spoiler tags to suggest that editors hide smaller portions of information, but it seems like that could be corrected quickly. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 19:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, I just edit conflicted with Jimbo Wales... *swoon* -- Lee Bailey<i style="color:black;">(talk)</i> 19:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Forgive me if I'm oversimplifying -- I haven't followed every word of this debate -- but it seems like a system which would optionally "hide" spoilers would have broad support if the default position for that setting was "off". If a consensus was gathered, we could go to the developers with a feature request."
 * I'm beginning to think that is the best possible outcome of this situation. It should make everyone happy, I would think, while also recognizing neutrality and no censorship. If people wanted a modified version of the encyclopedia that had the editor's judgement-based spoiler tags, they would have the option of activating it. I really think we should find out how many people would be okay with this. Starting now. Ryu Kaze 20:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for kicking the discussion off; that's what I was trying to do :-) . If we can get a rough consensus here that suggests most of the editors present can deal with some version of this proposal, I believe the next move would be to solicit opinions from the Wikipedia's more technical types about what kinds of solutions are workable (ie, no-spoiler version with login, without login, from the main page, from certain articles, etc) and then attempt to hold a larger discussion about the best implementation -- allowing editors the option to vote for "no change to the present system" as well. -- Lee Bailey<i style="color:black;">(talk)</i> 22:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We won't need a different article source, and the spoiler templates would always show in the source, but for those who chose to see all spoilers without warnings, they warnings would not be displayed. Like comments. . --GunnarRene 21:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Somebody expressed confusion about hiding warnings and spoilers. Here's four combinations of hiding spoilers themselves (spoiler contents) and hiding spoiler warnings.


 * I suppose in the event that spoilers themselves are to be hidden on the "hide spoilers" version, you would need some kind of notice to readers as to where they were supposed to be. While that second suggestion is somewhat disruptive looking, it would probably serve the purpose as well as anything. It calls one's attention to where they should be, so we hopefully wouldn't have somebody thinking that the article was in painful need of editing for not making sense in how its text flowed. It looks okay to me, I guess, as do the example pictures of "hide spoilers," "show spoilers."
 * By the way, there'd need to be an explanation (the "what does this mean" kind of link Lee suggested) readily available for why there was an on/off option in the first place and a statement that spoilers would still be visibile when people were editing, even in the "hide spoilers" version. Ryu Kaze 01:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for moving this chronologically. "I suppose in the event that spoilers themselves are to be hidden on the "hide spoilers" version, you would need some kind of notice to readers as to where they were supposed to be." This kind of version should not be the default. I would accept any of the other three versions as the default, but this "hide everything" version might be preferred by some. (The very existence of a spoiler might be a partial spoiler.) If they have enabled that mode, they have made a concious choice to hide the existence of spoilers. (except for shared IPs) re disruptive: I've put "small" tags on it now, but it should not be so small as to look like (huh? there's something wrong with the article) re "what does this mean": Whenever you change the state of the spoiler tab, a small text appears on the top of the article like on redirect; alternatively, a refresh-page like when you add to your watchlist. This would be cross-referenced with the new spoiler guideline that tells you to protect all details, even in the plot section. re editing: Upon editing an article with spoilers, those that have spoilers hidden would get a warning message above the edit form (like for edit conflicts). --GunnarRene 01:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Struck last point. Spoiler tags would appear in the source anyway.--GunnarRene 01:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That looks better. Good job. Agreement by the way about the hidden spoiler text not being the default of the "hide spoilers" version. Ryu Kaze 02:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I've been meaning to "XD" at that since you said it. Congrats on that. Ryu Kaze 02:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Wow, I just edit conflicted with Jimbo Wales... *swoon*"

Please offer thoughts on this suggestion here in an attempt to establish consensus and form a compromise
Would you find it a fair and reasonable compromise for spoiler tags to remain if it could be coded that they were turned off by default? When activated, would you want the spoiler tag to simply appear, or would you hope for both the spoiler tag to appear, and for the selected "spoiler text" to be hidden in a show/hide box? (Please note that as of this time, we don't know if it's technically possible to do either of these things. If consensus can be reached in favor of these suggestions, however, we can approach the Developers and ask them to attempt implementing the feature)
 * Personally, I would be satisfied with this suggestion. I would feel that policy was being recognized if the default version of the encyclopedia featured no subjective spoiler warnings, while those who do want them would be able to turn them on in perusing a modified version of the articles. While I don't know what kind of technical and formatting concerns would present themselves in the event of a show/hide box feature being implemented for spoilers, if it's possible to establish such a tool and those who are in favor of spoiler tags would want that feature, then I would certainly support it so long as the show/hide boxes and spoiler warnings were not visible under default settings. Also, everyone would need to be able to turn the spoiler tags on or off (meaning regardless of whether they were logged in or registered). Comment retracted. Now utterly opposed on grounds given below. Ryu Kaze 20:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be satisfied providing this was something just anyone could switch on and off from the main page, not just a preferences option. I don't think we should favour registered editors over Joe Average.  RobbieG 20:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Add that an anonymous user that just happens upon a wikipedia page where there are spoilers, should be aware of the possibility to hide spoilers. It's a usability issue, and about being fair to the reader who isn't familiar with wikipedia. This could be
 * a small disclaimer text/link to the content disclaimer at the top (not at the bottom). This would also give us more cover against those who want to censor content.
 * to keep spoiler warnings on by default. Hiding the whole "spoiler text" itself by default is of course (i hope) unacceptable and hurts the integrity of the content.
 * Update: (--GunnarRene 00:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)) Or the need for a disclaimer above would be less if the mechanism itself is clear about this. Example in monobook style. Tab shown only on pages that have spoiler template in them. Setting global on/off. Spoiler protection would be guideline or policy. Extra disclaimer not needed. Perhaps a preferece pane for how the tab works.
 * Ideally, I would want to show/hide the spoiler text, but I'll settle for just seeing the spoiler warnings.
 * Agree that this should be an easily accessible control, not in preferences. --GunnarRene 21:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I could see some potential abuses of this feature, but I think the general idea should certainly be explored further. My support would depend greatly on the implementation, though. Having spoiler content in boxes could turn out very ugly. Dancter 21:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppot this, but would apreciate clarification on its execution. -Randall Brackett 21:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I know I basically just said as much, but I would support this in most implementations I can imagine. Generally, I fall on the side wanting less warning rather than more, but could deal with a small link at the top of relevant articles which would allow for accessing a spoiler free version without login; something like "spoiler-free version/what does this mean" could work for me. -- Lee Bailey<i style="color:black;">(talk)</i> 22:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Gunnar's disclaimer/spoiler link suggestion -- which Lee expanded on ("spoiler-free version/what does this mean") -- would be fine to me, I think. Keeping the spoiler warnings on by default would, of course, just give us more of the same issue we've been discussing, so that obviously isn't going to help.
 * Randall, I don't think we'd be able to get show/hide boxes implemented due to formatting issues, but the long and short of this concept is that when someone accesses Wikipedia, they'll be looking at a version with no spoiler tags, and they then have the option of enabling them. Ideally, they would have this option whether or not they are logged in. Ryu Kaze 22:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand the technical difference between hiding spoiler content and hiding spoiler tags. I'm assuming either could be done with a bit of CSS. Hiding spoiler content in one version and showing everything in another would probably have the widest support, since it would please the anti-spoiler demographic. -- Lee Bailey<i style="color:black;">(talk)</i> 22:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be for the best, but I fear we'll run into layout problems or something when expanding and collapsing the boxes. If it can't be done properly, then hiding the tags should at least be fairly simple (I hope; I honestly don't know too much about this stuff). It just seems easier in concept to hide a template than a whole lot of text. Maybe I'm wrong, though, and both can be done. We'll see, I guess. Ryu Kaze 22:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, if we do this, we're more than likely going to see more of this sort of thing, with some people wanting an option to disable pornography or other images commonly found offensive. Which is one of the reasons why I'd personally still like to see all censorship-related materials gone (including this tag), but if it's going to stay, it should at least be off the default version of the encyclopedia. We'll just have to deal with each thing as it comes. Ryu Kaze 23:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert either, but just for sake of encouraging discussion about the option, I'm willing to wager a guess: I believe it wouldn't be too involved to have a css-class assigned to text between a "spoiler" and "end-spoiler tag", which would blank or replace words and lines between the tags. Collapsing boxes would look neater, but probably would cause formatting headaches. And yes, I do agree that ideologically, it's possible that this could be used as a basis for future pro-censorship debates, but considering what happened to "Toby", I think any such resolution is unlikely to pass. "Plot information" is a lot easier to define objectively than "offensive material". -- Lee Bailey<i style="color:black;">(talk)</i> 23:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm on the fence for this one. I think that a lack of spoiler tags will display that this is not a fictional trivia site (and thus keep excess details away) and put emphasis on the fact that we're here to describe the works. Spoiler tags do show that we are fine with displaying "spoilers" in plot synopses, but at the same time, we're encouraging people to include every detail. Honestly, I think having a heading called "plot synopsis" or "story" (like most articles already have) should be warning enough....&mdash; Deckill e r 23:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It really should. I've no idea what's amiss with Jimbo's asute recomendation above. An encyclopedia is comprehensive. To say someone would be surprised or harmed by the elaboration of plot details or the like here is a blatent flasehood. Make a header and be done with it. This template is a complete waste of time. -Randall Brackett 00:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * While I whole-heartedly agree, if this is the only way we're going to get them out of the spotlight and get the focus on the encyclopedia's intended comprehensive nature (if even only a little bit), then I'm willing to entertain it despite misgivings regarding the arguments it will be used to support in the future and even if I do see it as abominable. Honestly, I really wish Jimbo and the Board would have ruled on this specific matter long ago, or would do so now, so that the matter would be clearly defined and unquestionable. And hopefully not subject to fallacious cases of double-standards being excercised. But we've got to make the best of the situation if they don't make a decision for us. They probably want Wikipedia to govern itself as much as possible. Ryu Kaze 00:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In case anyone misses it, Gunnar just edited in examples of what he was proposing earlier for the spoiler on/off switch. It looks good enough to me. It's not a neon sign, but it's not a buried link either, so that's good. Ryu Kaze 00:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but I wonder, do non-editors really look at the tabs above an article? I don't think I used to before I started editing. Alternatively, we could have a text link in or directly below the space that's currently occupied by the Wikimania advert in monobook, and possibly a bit larger... just throwing out options. -- Lee Bailey<i style="color:black;">(talk)</i> 03:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't read everyone's response to this proposal yet, but this seems like an acceptable solution to me. The tags are off by default, and can be turned on. Personally, I wouldn't want the text to be hidden, but if we have an option to turn them on then we could probably have 3 settings total: all text, no spoiler warning/ all text, spoiler warning/ no spoiler text. Informing the readers that such an option is available seems to be the only complication to me. I think the next step is to file an RfC on the suggestion and post notices to WikiProjects on fictional topics. I tip my hat to Lee Bailey, I think he just resolved the debate. -- Ned Scott 05:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually suggested this a couple days ago, but RobbieG and Lee were the only ones who noticed. XD Anyway, the 3 settings you speak of sound good enough. One would have (1) no spoiler tags and no hidden text, (2) one would have spoiler tags and no hidden text, and then one would have (3) spoiler tags and hiden text, with the default being (1), the basic modified version being (2) and then users having the option to crank it up to (3). Now we need to find out if it's possible since it looks like all of us have begun to agree. Ryu Kaze 12:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Confused that the spoilers would be on by default. Shouldn't this be an opt-in deal rather than an opt-out? Hiding Talk 12:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you mean spoiler warnings or actuall spoilers (content)?--GunnarRene 12:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The idea, Hiding, was for the spoiler tags themselves to be off by default, with the spoiler content itself visible. In other words, you'd be looking at all the content with no spoiler tags, and then would have the option of enabiling the tags or both enabling the tags and masking the content. Ryu Kaze 13:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, my speed reading was at fault then. Apologies.  Does this mean there is a growing consensus that the use of spoiler templates shouldn't be thought of as policy or guidance?  Should we then offer guidance on how to use them if people choose to, or do we, if we are unable to get the coding changes required, state that spoiler templates are not allowed? Hiding Talk 13:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, if we get such a technical solution there actually has to be a guideline or policy on its use. (To remind editors to include them. And to avoid editors making their own spoiler warnings that can't be hidden). --GunnarRene 14:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Those are good questions, really. But, yeah, there seems to be a growing concensus that, at least, each reader should choose themselves if they wanted to be censored instead of the editors mandatorily choosing for everyone. I can live with this compromise, and it seems that everyone on both sides of the debate who has expressed an opinion so far could as well. The only major question is what happens if it can't be coded. Which would mean that for the first time, an actual compromise was reached on this issue, but that we couldn't implement it. And that would leave us with the same debate that we had before, which I don't think anyone wants to go through again if it can be avoided.
 * By the way, what does everyone think of -- assuming that any of this can even be done -- the tool being designed so that additional content could be added in the future, for when people inevitably start requesting their "pornography free" and "torturous images free" versions of the encyclopedia? My own personal opinion is, of course, that people should never come here anyway if they want censored content, but since we're trying to compromise concerning the spoiler tags, the same thing would have to be done then. So should we go ahead and ask that those things be included in the mix now, or just ask that it be possible to add more things to the tool later in the event that these issues come up? And what kind of changes would this have for the tool's name and its on/off switches? I suppose instead of "hide spoilers" and "show spoilers," we could use something like "hide content" and "show content," which took you to an options page to select which kinds you would want to hide/show. Ryu Kaze 13:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not worth worrying about, imho. For one thing, code has already been written to handle the task of censoring images -- it's just that the community's never been strongly interested it using it. And technical implimentations should follow demand anyway. Apparently, Wikipedians strongly want the ability to avoid reading spoilers -- let's not make assumptions about else the community wants without evidence of a wide number of editors being interested. I mean, it's cool if that's a proposal you want to support, but it seems silly to stir things if you're not personally interested in adding this feature. -- Lee Bailey<i style="color:black;">(talk)</i> 13:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Header

 * Yikes. Um, this does open a horrible door, doesn't it.  Given the implications, I find myself opposing very strongly.  Wikipedia is not censored.  We have descended into debating Toby again. I suggest we look again at Jimbo's compromise, of detailing plot in sections which are titled in a manner which notes plot is discussed. Hiding Talk 13:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hiding is correct. I think we've diverged off path here. I suggest we look into Jimbo's very asute suggestion. -Randall Brackett 14:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That spoiler templates are redundant in "plot" sections? They are now, but if we get a technical solution as described above, then the spoiler templates would be needed in plot sections too. --GunnarRene 14:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is censored. Try editing from China for example. All other content tags can be (ab)used by shools/nations/employers/ISPs to filter content. That's what's bad about the other content templates/categories/tags/whatever, in my opinion. Such templates aren't censorship; they facilitate censorship. What entity would want to censor out spoilers for their users? --GunnarRene 14:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is censored. Try editing from China for example."
 * I'm not sure what you mean there, Gunnar. Is there some kind of block on editing this place through ISPs from China? And if there is, how does that suggest that Wikipedia itself is censored? The project itself is not. If someone unaffiliated is choosing to censor access to the site or some such thing, then that's a completely different matter and is not something Wikipedia itself necessarily endorses.
 * In any event, yes, this issue of hiding spoiler content does -- in Hiding's words -- "open a horrible door." It's a can of worms we shouldn't be opening. Ever. But I'm honestly not seeing any other possible compromise. So it comes down to this: we either compromise in a way that we are personally opposed to in order to attempt satisfying everyone while also maintaining the integrity of the project (at the same time, opening up a can of bullshit that's going to come back to bite us on the ass in the future, as people look for other ways to dodge Wikipedia's neutrality and no censorship policies), or we go back to shooting for the complete absolution of spoiler tags, a tool that is being widely supported on the grounds that it's "useful" and that this aid's attempt at providing a courtesy Wikipedia fundamentally doesn't give two shits about in the first place is more important than policies and avoiding hypocrisy.
 * Honestly, I don't think the matter will ever be settled among us alone if we don't take the compromise. The group of us here -- and even all the other editors and readers on the site put together with us -- will never agree that spoiler tags should be a policy, and it's looking to be increasingly unlikely that there will ever be acceptance of their removal. The only thing that could permanently settle the issue is if Jimbo himself decided to make a ruling on the matter that we all had to accept, and I don't think he wants to do that. But, really, if we can't implement a compromise, we're going to need some kind of arbitration, and if it comes to that, I think it best that the arbitration come from someone who would give a permanent answer that would not leave room for there to ever again be a debate on the subject here. Ryu Kaze 14:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * See Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China. My point was that content warnings/tags/ratings (like for movies) of any kind could be used to selectively filter/censor the content (along with text of course). A tool potentially used to filter parts of the pedia from other people, or to mark places where like-minded people would try to remove content piece by piece. I.e. a potential tool for censorship, not censorship in itself. The censorship debate was (AFAICT) mostly concerned with people who moved content around or wanted intrusive warning banners. These banners implicitly mark something as being "wrong" or "bad", while spoiler tags have a neutral view on what they are tagging. Where in the world is there some kind of moral standard that says reading the end of a book is wrong? And what firewalls would block spoiler content?--GunnarRene 16:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's just how you worded that, but based on what you were saying just now, it almost sounds like you're arguing against the inclusion of spoiler tags instead of for them. In any event, the spoiler warning is most certainly not a neutral tool. Its purpose is that of a warning (which means an editor has passed personal judgement that they're now passing on to the readers) to dissuade others from absorbing some information. It serves as censorship in that it is a selective measure, not something all information is receiving, and it serves as an intended obstacle both intellectually and visually (visually because of the fact that it displaces text by an inch). Ryu Kaze 16:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No. That was arguments for why it's not hypocritical to have spoiler warning templates at the same time as not allowing This is article describes lewd sexual acts or This article show graven images of Mohammed (peace be upon Him) The point being that spoiler templates don't assist any would-be censors, because who would filter out spoilers for other people?--GunnarRene 16:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently several people given that several have been in favor of spoiler tags. One or two went so far as to say it's for the reader's own good that an editor take it upon theirself to attempt warning them away from spoilers. Ryu Kaze 21:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand this line of argumentation. Perhaps I should have explained the context better or clarified some points? This point is regarding one of the distinctions between censorship of, one the one hand, potentially objectionable content and, on the other hand, spoiler tags (hidable or not). What I tried to explain was that "objectionable content" templates, while by themselves perhaps being informational (such as an XXX rating on a wikimedia picture) or potentially annoying (if they can not be hidden, which even the current spoiler tag can be) is that such "objectionable content" tags could facilitate actual censorship, filtering and blocking of content. That is why I'm asking how spoiler tags could be abused for this, if we just use them for ending details and plot twists in works of fiction. Where in the world would they set up an application firewall and block articles that contain spoiler tags? I just don't see the slippery slope here. If that argument is kept, I don't think spoiler templates can be grabbed on to by those who try to bring back "objectionable content" tags. --GunnarRene 23:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're using the assumption that censorship is just the blocking of content, which isn't necessarily correct. It can also be the unstandardized regulation of it, which is what we've currently got going on with these warnings. It's also an issue of neutrality because we've got editors deciding what's "potentially objectionable" and deciding what they feel is in the readers' best interests as they pass judgement and pass that on to the readers in an attempt to influence their learning process.
 * Where the potential for a slippery slope comes into play here is that if we take a measure to accomodate this censorship-related "categorizing," people who want similar measures taken for images of pornography or torture would have reasonable grounds to ask for them. There would truly be no grounds by which to refuse such requests since the double-standard would have already been approved. Ryu Kaze 23:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The ground (one of them) is "Your request is denied because it would facilitate automated content blocking by intermediate parties (schools, ISPs, governments etc) based on their views of what is objectionable. This is not a double standard because correctly applied spoiler tags are not useful for this kind of intermediate filtering. " --GunnarRene 00:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think you quite understand the issue here. We're not affiliated with any of those authoritative bodies you've brought up, and it's not our concern what they personally choose to do. As far as it goes, someone could do that on their home computer network if they wanted to. And, yes, they could do it with spoilers as well if they so wished. This is a case of a double-standard: making an exception for spoiler tags but not for pornography tags or torture tags or anything else someone finds objectionable. This is not only singling out information for editor-based judgements (which the spoiler tags have been doing all along), but in fact granting them priveleged treatment. And for that matter, if someone wanted to abuse this system to censor spoilers, they could, so you can't really use the argument that "No one would do that, so it doesn't matter." If someone could, they possibly would, and that's the basis of your argument for refusing other forms of tagging. It's a rather presumptuous line of reasoning that contradicts itself. Ryu Kaze 00:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Where's the contradiction? "We're not affiliated with any of those authoritative bodies you've brought up" indeed. "it's not our concern what they personally choose to do" it is if they try to censor the wiki for our users. I thought we wanted to give information to people, and not aid such censorship, and that consensus here is that we don't like that kind of blocking. "someone could do that on their home computer network if they wanted to" such as parents censoring the web for their children. Precisely. They could have made filter rules that blocked X-rated images. But would any parents block spoilers? If they wanted to keep their children from reading about fiction, they could filter on fiction category - all works of fiction belong to one of its subcategories. --GunnarRene 01:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The contradiction is in that you're making an excuse for the spoiler tags but not for any other tags when the situations would be identical. You're saying that censor tags for the others is bad because someone might abuse them, but it's okay for the spoiler tags because no one would do that anyway. Which doesn't make sense given that the issue you raise with the other one-click censors is the ability to abuse them.
 * As for what I said about it not being our concern, obviously it's not something we endorse, but even more obviously, it's not something we can do anything about either (except for never create the opportunity for it to happen, of course). Ryu Kaze 01:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to show one of the ways that spoiler tags are non-identical to censor tags. A way that I haven't seen mentioned before. The realm where potential abuse takes place is central to this argument. If editing abuse takes place, we can simply revert it with ample support in a guideline. But we can't stop the filtering, because it doesn't actually happen on Wikipedia but in the network. The point is this: Censorship templates/tags are can be mis-applied, like spoiler tags, speedy delete, NPOV template, categories or any of the other artefacts we use for navigation, style, or interaction. That doesn't mean that all those artefacts should go. Censorship templates/tags *correctly applied* facilitate abuse in the form of filtering by intermediaries. That's one way that spoiler templates and cencorship templates differ. --GunnarRene 01:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC) P.S: That's why I keep asking who would filter spoilers in the network. --GunnarRene 01:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Spoiler tags are a misused tool from inception, mustless in how they can and are applied. We were never about protecting people from information. That's opposed to what we're here to do. And for that matter, none of this even addresses the blatant neutrality and no censorship (on the basis of the unstardardized regulation of information for the purpose of obstructing it specifically) violations that have gradually been shifted into the background lately. I'm now bringing them back to the forefront. Only one person ever really responded to these issues, and their opinion was that we should be taking it into our own hands for the purpose of "the readers' own sake," something that's inherently opposed to our mission. Ryu Kaze 02:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "And for that matter, if someone wanted to abuse this system to censor spoilers, they could" if you mean "people could apply spoiler tags to non-spoilers to aid in censoring" my answer is: That would happen in editing, something other editors will counteract. As for the filtering itself, that something we don't have any control over. Using spoiler tags for anything but "ending details and plot twists in works of fiction" would not be allowed per guideline. If you mean "People could use spoiler tags to hunt for spoilers and delete the spoilers themselves from the wiki", then that would also be caught in the editorial process. Having a spoiler tag and guideline, as well as the regular content disclaimer, should help keep the (interesting and relevant) spoilers.--GunnarRene 01:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I mean abusing the same way you talked about people abusing the porn and torture censors. But, yes, what you bring up here is an issue too. Sure it would be caught, but why the hell give people the ability to do that in the first place?
 * At first, I was thinking that this compromise might be the best thing, but now, in light of all the new evils it opens us up to, I'm going to have to echo Hiding's sentiments and very strongly oppose it (*marks through initial comment above*). This could only create more problems, and it's a conflict of interest given that we're an encyclopedia. We shouldn't be looking for ways to aid in censoring information. What the hell was I thinking? Ryu Kaze 01:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And in my view that - whether or not it actually aids blocking/filtering - should be a clear standard that those "dissatisfied and seeing Wikipedia as a cauldron of hypocrisy and double-standards" and/or those who are angry that they didn't get to censor wikipedia can understand, if not agree with. In other words, it answers those who say "you won't let us censor wikipedia but you have spoiler tags, you hypocrites".--GunnarRene 17:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't answer them very well. It's still very much a case of an editor passing their own judgement on some material in an article, and then passing that on to the reader in an attempt to get them to look the other way. It's no different from deciding that a reader not seeing an image of a vagina is for their own good and attempting to warn them away from it. Good intentions or not, encyclopedias aren't based on such things: merely the neutral, uncensored presentation of subject-relevant verifiable information. Hell, the policies page itself says "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its goals go no further, and material that does not fit this goal must be moved to another Wikimedia project or removed altogether." Spoiler warnings don't make a lot of sense here given our goal of being an encyclopedia.
 * It's an out of place sentiment of courtesy, and it does make for a cauldron of hypocrisy that others can easily use to justify the masking of other "objectionable" materials. Ryu Kaze 21:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Gods, it's taken me forever to catch up on this lot and then I got an edit-conflict trying to post! My opinions: I continue to think that there should ideally be no spoiler warnings at all. (I personally haven't been to see The Mousetrap but hope to eventually, for example, so I don't visit that page. It's not difficult.) I think this for a whole host of reasons: it's a form of censorship; it's a "slippery slope" to all sorts of nasties like warnings for unpleasant images; we're here to provide information not reviews such as a potential reader might want before they try a book for example; and headings like "Plot details" should be sufficient. However, if there is no way of obtaining concensus on this, and it is possible for other people to accept (and for someone to code) spoiler-text tags that are off by default (so that the information shows loud and clear and only by active choice in some way are either spoiler warnings shown or the content itself hidden), then I would also, reluctantly, accept it. --JennyRad 15:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I do not believe that it is clear what is and is not a spoiler, any more than it is clear what is and is not an offensive image. Is it spoiling to tell someone who ends up with who in A Midsummer Night's Dream? What about the Keyser Soze example? There's an Agatha Christie novel where I can tell you absolutely that "the butler did it" without spoiling the plot. It's not cut-and-dried. --JennyRad 15:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there any chance of establishing a consensus that spoiler warnings are currently hugely overused? Perhaps it would help if there were some kind of guideline as to when a spoiler warning could be removed.

Taking the very first link on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Wikipedia%3ASpoiler_warning : Ayn_Rand, for instance, it seems very unlikely that anyone's enjoyment of Atlas Shrugged would be impaired by reading in the middle of a very long article on Ayn Rand that '... the industrialists of America go on strike and retreat to a mountainous hideaway. The American economy and its society in general slowly start to collapse. The government responds by increasing the already stifling controls on industrial concerns. ...' - but I would feel reluctant to just take it out, because someone has put it there, I can't absolutely say it's wrong, and there are no other criteria to remove it. This is probably how the warnings have proliferated so far. Amcguinn 15:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC).

Actually, there could be a competition for the stupidest spoiler warning. So far I think Triumph of the Will is just edging out Homage to Catalonia. Amcguinn 15:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say so. Older academic works seem to be the best examples of "spoiler warnings out of control". How about the worst case of spoiler spaghetti? I've only seen one truly bad case &mdash; this Final Fantasy 7 revision, which was strangely tolerated by editors for months and months. AMHR285   ( talk )   19:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be tardy on this... Clarifying the use of spoiler tags -- perhaps in a way that can also be explained in WP:FICT, is better than nothing. Still, if you ask me, the horrible door is already open. We are already marking spoilers in a way that "warns" the reader -- if we implimented any other kind of content warning this way, it would have obvious ill effects, and yet the spoiler warning continues to have broad support even when solutions like "Toby" continue to fail by a very wide margin. This leads me to believe that most Wikipedians feel there's a substantial difference between identifying plot information and deciding what may or may not be offensive to users. If no one accepted this distinction, there would be the threat of a slippery slope, but as things stand, that's probably a non-issue. -- Lee Bailey<i style="color:black;">(talk)</i> 21:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically, though, it's a very large issue, and there's going to be people who see that there is very much a double-standard at work there and they will not stop voicing themselves about it until Jimbo comes in on that too and actually get him to make a decision. We truly should not stop pushing for a permanent settlement here on this until we've got one. Seriously, I still don't think we should open that door that leads to the slippery slope. Even if I actually believed that most people believe in an imaginary distinction between relevant spoilers being offensive content and relevant images of pornography being offensive content, then I'd still think it absurd for such hypocrisy to stand, and the people who would want other "offensive content" masked would think so too.
 * Obviously we're not supposed to preach one thing and then practice another while we sugar coat it with different terms that attempt to redefine it as something different from what it most obviously is. Right now, spoilers are being censored, plain and simple, and people can try to argue that it's just another form of categorization or whatever, but I and you and probably most of the people arguing in favor of spoiler tags know that it's no different from making "Here are the naked women pictures!" templates designed to prevent people from seeing them but calling them the same thing (just another form of categorization). Ryu Kaze 22:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd draw the line where users construct a template and associated arguments in order to promote the idea that we as neutral editors have the justification is dictating what is ans what is not suitible for reading in an encyclopedia. At the very least it breaches good faith. -Randall Brackett 21:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to apologize to everyone for having suggested this compromise. It is actually the worst thing possible. Not only does it create reasonable grounds for others to begin demanding similar masks for images of pornography and torture, but it also creates the possibility of people placing spoiler tags in places where they wouldn't normally be in an attempt to mask information they personally would like to see hidden. While this would probably be caught, we should not be giving people that opportunity in the first place.

Furthermore, as an encyclopedia, we should never even think about ways to aid censorship in the first place. That's a contradiction in terms. I revert to my original stance on this issue and will remain there: spoiler tags should be gone. My apologies once again to everyone. Ryu Kaze 01:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no censorship involved in giving the reader factual information about what is coming in the article. Johntex\talk 19:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Except it's not a neutral presentation, and it's not intended to "just label" anything. It's an editor-based judgement specifically intended to keep people away from specific information the editors think they maybe shouldn't see. What's the difficulty in understanding specifically-targeted information doesn't mesh with the concept of impartiality? Oh, and fuck. Ryu Kaze 21:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Header

 * I don't even know what the hell you guys have been talking about today, but for crying out loud just stop it. Lets just turn the spoiler template message on or off, not hide any content or text. It was just an idea thrown out there on the table, don't get all over dramatic about this. And Ryu (and some others), would you stop forcing your opinion on the debate as fact. I'm getting so freaking tired of your belittling comments like "no one has addressed this" and "this is what this person meant" despite others clearly disagreeing with you. This is just insulting to others and inaccurate. Just don't comment on that, just make your own arguments and actually let people come to their own conclusions. (not only that, but incase you haven't noticed, what people see as censorship is a point of view. you are arguing your point of view, not fact). Not that any of it matters, because we're moving on from this point. A large amount of editors and readers want spoiler warnings and we now have an idea of accommodating that without forcing it on everyone all together.  So lets just forget about hiding text or content or pictures, and just turning the template message itself on or off. -- Ned Scott 02:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There was nothing forceful about that, eh?
 * Anyway, I'm not sure why you think that clearly defined words can be "interpreted." They mean what they mean. That's pretty simple. Censorship is defined as the practice of censoring, which is itself defined as examining in order to supress or delete that which is objectionable. Words mean what they mean.
 * And there was nothing belittling about what I said to Deckiller, so you need to calm down. I have no reason to say anything belittling to him. You're getting paranoid, Ned.
 * I do, however, have reason to say that no one has addressed those matters, because they're quite clear in what they are, yet they're consistently side-stepped with "I define those words differently from how everyone else does," "You're just interpreting simple words the way you want to" and "It's for the readers' own sake." If I were belittling anyone with comments like that (though I wasn't), then I'd have reason to be annoyed at this point anyway, given how long this has gone on without more than one individual acknowledging that they know it's a violation, but that they think it should happen anyway.
 * And no matter how many editors or readers want spoiler warnings, that doesn't change the definition of words either or the situation as it is. Words mean what they mean and this situation is what it is. We shouldn't be party to that on any level. and the slippery slope isn't being avoided. Technically, right now, anyone could ask for a banner to "categorize" anything, and we couldn't say no because spoilers have been allowed to have one. Of course, that didn't stop the torture warning template from being shot down thanks to the double-standards at work here. Anyone who wants to deny that this is hypocrisy at work needs to take a step back and examine it for what it is. Say you think that courtesy outweighs definitions and policies and principles if that's how you feel, but don't try hiding what's going on here behind a word like "categorizing." Ryu Kaze 13:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't mean that censorship in English means the same as in Latin "Latin cēnsor, Roman censor, from cēnsēre, to assess." We assess for relevance, notability and and other criteria all the time. As your chosen dictionaries show, the word censorship - in English - means to assess and remove or prevent publication of content that is politically, morally or otherwise objectionable. And suppression doesn't mean tagging, it means that you stop the publication pre-emptively, not just remove the objectionable content after the fact: "suppress: to keep from public knowledge: as a : to keep secret b : to stop or prohibit the publication or revelation of ". And one more thing "censor: tr. v. To examine and expurgate." "expurgate: to cleanse of something morally harmful, offensive, or erroneous; especially : to expunge objectionable parts from before publication or presentation". This seems to support my argument that "censorship templates" can only be sensibly called that because they could aid in actual censorship, not that they are censorship in themselves, and that spoiler templates/tags are not censorship. I've asked how spoiler tags could possibly assist in actual censorship, as defined by those dictionaries, and nobody has answered that yet. I've not seen anybody in this discussion advocate removing the spoilers themselves from articles, except for where they are irrelevant factoids. So are we now in agreement that spoiler tags aren't censorship, by definition?--GunnarRene 15:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No. It says exclude or suppress. Suppress can mean to exclude, but given that the wording is "or exclude," it's obviously using one of the definitions meaning "to restrain from a usual course of action," "to inhibit" or "to put down." Suppressing something doesn't require outright removal, and given that it's being used seperately from exclude in this context, it obviously doesn't mean to exclude here.
 * Presenting both an intellectual and visual obstacle to acquiring spoiler information is suppressing it. It's not excluding it, but it is suppressing it.
 * Do you now see why censorship is the unstandardized regulation of information -- intended, no less, for the very purpose of warning people away form it based on an editors' own judgement -- and why the placement of them in these articles qualifies as censorship? Ryu Kaze 15:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "to restrain from a usual course of action," "to inhibit" or "to put down." Spoiler warnings are a usual course of action for some, for others it isn't. So both allowing and disallowing spoiler warnings would be censorship then? If some people don't want to include spoiler warnings, other editors can put them in, right? Other people have argued that they feel freer to discuss plot details when there are spoiler warnings. I argue that "suppress" in this context means preventing from publication. --GunnarRene 15:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Note how the above definition of censorhip would include even the removal of "erroneous" information. So a broad interpretation of censorhip would support that removing factual errors from wikipedia is censorship, but that spoilers tags aren't censorship. And if anybody thinks that since spoiler templates have line breaks -> they push text down a couple of lines on the page -> push down means suppress = censorship, then by all means make spoiler templates inline without linebreaks. (Suppress here means holding ideas and people down, pre-emtively stopping publication, not an extra line break.) --GunnarRene 15:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't apply, Gunnar, because the assumption for policies like NPOV and no censorship is that all the information there is already verified and part of the encyclopedia's purpose. Essentially, the information isn't considered there until it has been determined to be verifiable and relevant to the purpose. The policies already say that information not contributing to the purpose shouldn't be here.
 * And you're only addressing one half of the obstacle equation (the visual aspect). The more important intellectual aspect is being side-stepped altogether. It's the combination of all factors involved in this situation -- especially the more important ones -- that contribute to it being what it truly is. You can't ignore the aspect that involves an editor passing their own judgement on the appropriate nature of verifiable information's absorption and then passing that judgement on to the reader. That's NPOV violation out the ass right there, and how it's being applied is censorship violation. Ryu Kaze 15:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Re: first paragraph: I don't agree with such a broad interpretation as I see you don't either. But removing erroneous info is still "censorship" by that broad definition, even if we refer to WP:V, WP:SOURCE, etc an "excuse". Re, second paragraph: It's not just a visual aspect. It is an existential aspect, as in does spoiler actually censor content. When it comes to "passing judgement", I've argued above that spoiler warnings aren't negative against the content, if the word "warning" could be removed. Are you contending that most editors are unable to know what a plot/ending detail is, even with support from a guideline? And that editors are unable to remove improper spoiler tags/templates, or spoiler tags/templates that cover too much of the article, again with support from such a guideline?--GunnarRene 16:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That makes absolutely no sense to me. In lamens terms, they can be considered censorship in that they are inserted by an editor who is obviously operating on their bias of what is and what is not a spoiler. Given this, said editor introduces the tag into the article based on his interpretation of what people might not like to read. In clarification, censorship is not required to deny the information and thus succeed at with-holding the information; it only needs to attempt to do so. I don't make this point as the crux of my problem with the template but I can see how it utterly attempts to bypass the neutrality and censorship policies. I follow the spirit of policy, not the letter. The spirit of the policy in this context is not attempt to insert our bias into swaying what is and what is not appropriate for people to read. It’s none of our damn business. Just build the encyclopedia. This template doesn't assist in the achieving that goal. -Randall Brackett 15:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Re: first paragraph: I don't agree with such a broad interpretation as I see you don't either. But removing erroneous info is still "censorship" by that broad definition, even if we refer to WP:V, WP:SOURCE, etc an "excuse"."
 * But that broad definition doesn't apply, so we don't have to worry about it.
 * "e, second paragraph: It's not just a visual aspect. It is an existential aspect, as in does spoiler actually censor content. When it comes to "passing judgement", I've argued above that spoiler warnings aren't negative against the content, if the word "warning" could be removed."
 * It doesn't have to paint a negative picture of the information for it to be censorship. It's a case of the editor inserting their own judgement of what they think would be in a reader's best interest to avoid reading, and that's a neturality/censorship violation right there.
 * "Are you contending that most editors are unable to know what a plot/ending detail is, even with support from a guideline?"
 * I'm not contending that, no, but labeling isn't the issue here, nor are the editors' abilities to determine what is a plot detail. For that matter, as I've mentioned before, even on the basis that this is "just labeling," then why aren't we putting out "Development warning: development details follow" tags and "Cast warning: cast list details follow" notices, or "Reception warning: critical response and fan reaction details follow" banners? If it really is just labeling and not an issue of editors passing their judgement in an attempt to persuade readers' learning "for their own sake," then that should be altogether fine, right? Ryu Kaze 16:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And, yes, some of that information does show up outside the Development, Cast and Critical Response/Reception sections, the same as plot details sometimes show up outside the Plot and Character sections. Ryu Kaze 16:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "But that broad definition doesn't apply, so we don't have to worry about it." OK. So spoiler tags/templates aren't censorship then? Because that's an even broader, if not unsupported, interpretation of the term.
 * What? I said that since the policies concerning neutrality and censorship are intended to be applied to information that meets the requirements of being part of the encyclopedia (verified information, specifically), that broad use of "censorship" doesn't apply. Ryu Kaze 17:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "why aren't we putting out "Development warning: development details follow" Because nobody has expressed that they would want that? If there's a surprise cast member in a movie, then perhaps that should be spoiler-tagged in the development section? --GunnarRene 16:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * People have expressed that they would want warning tags for pornography. People have expressed that they would want warning tags for images of torture. People have expressed that they think they should be allowed to add fancruft to articles about fictional works. But we aren't here to meet random courtesies that don't actually contribute to our goal, and in some cases, serve as the antithesis to it. Ryu Kaze 17:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Some of the reasons that spoiler tags aren't censorship are covered, at length, above. --GunnarRene 17:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

They're inaccurate, however, as they don't acknowledge the fundamental issue of the editor keeping his opinions the hell out of the learning process. Ryu Kaze 17:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And why do we have categories, headers, links, and split our content into articles instead of dumping all our content on the main page? Because we let the readers read what they want to. --GunnarRene 17:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No. We have those to make the learning process more accessible by grouping sub-sets of information together in logical ways that allow for the reader to more easily access it. Not to warn them away from information the editor personally feels would be inappropriate for someone to learn. He's supposed to keep his opinions out of the matter because it's none of his business and not part of our mission here. The spoiler tag's only purpose is to act as deterrent to learning specifically selected information on the basis of an editor's own judgement. That is contrary to our purposes here. It is, in fact, an example of exactly what we aren't here to do. Ryu Kaze 17:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Propriety doesn't enter into it. As I've said, "porn" tags serve as information, are a possible tool for censorship, and imply that the content is somehow shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Porn tags would‘t be bad if they only provided a service to readers without the potential for intermediary filtering etc. The editors I've observed using spoiler tags don't consider it wrong for people to read spoilers, neither do they consider it wrong to have spoilers in an encyclopedia. So they don't consider the information inappropriate. They just recognize that more people might be willing to read the rest of the article if spoilers are marked in some way. And not withold general information on setting, reception, from readers who don't want the twists and the ending revealed. --GunnarRene 17:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Porn tags would be bad, because their purpose would be to warn people away from information. And what we're discussing here is not whether the editor theirself necessarily finds spoilers inappropriate, but that they're taking measures for people who they think might. Which involves that editors' judgement being issued on the content and then that opinion of the content being passed on to influence the reader's learning. And it's not up to the editors to make assumptions like "More people might read this if we take it upon ourselves to decide what they might not want to see and tell them what we think they might not want to see." Nor is that even an issue we're really supposed to be concerned with here in the first place. Our mission is to build the encyclopedia. If people want to read it and learn, they then will. Ryu Kaze 18:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * To answer you clearly: We can consider that request for additional tags when somebody actually ask for them. --GunnarRene 17:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Or we can start recognizing the principles that people have been trying to dodge here for years and say "No, editor, keep your opinions to yourself. Build the encyclopedia, shut your mouth and let people read." Ryu Kaze 17:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Earlier: "labeling isn't the issue here, nor are the editors' abilities to determine what is a plot detail.&quot; So if the editors are able to give an NPOV assessment of what a plot detail is, how is that imposing ones opinion on the readers? --GunnarRene 17:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The implementation of spoiler tags is non-NPOV in conception. It involves the editor deciding what they think might be inappropriate for a reader to see, and then taking a measure to influence that. A neutral presentation would be all of the information receiving the same un-warned presentation, with nothing singled out for that kind of scrutiny, especially not under the label of "I think you might not want to see this." Ryu Kaze 18:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * By that reasoning, you might as well label writing the article as non-NPOV in conception. The writer has to decide "what they think might be inappropriate for the reader to see, and then taking a measure to influence that."  It's called editorial judgement.  We do it all the time.  We don't need any new policy about it. - Johntex\talk 19:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between not including information because it's obvious fancruft, unverifiable, non-neutral or some other such thing that prevents it from even meeting the standards of being in the encyclopedia in the first place per the very first policy mentioned, and taking specifically selected information from the pool of what is considered equal to the rest, and then treating it differently in an attempt to affect whether or not it is absorbed by readers the same way the rest of the information is. An editorial judgement is where to add the ellipses in a quoted sentence, not where to insert an attempt to prevent the readers from learning. Ryu Kaze 20:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about "obvious" decisions. We have to make plenty of non-obvious decisions all the time.  Even your statement about treating information differently does not ring true.  We have to treat information differently every time we decide it is or isn't worth going in the intro, for example. You're also confusing a fundamental point: spoiler warnings are not intended to prevent someone from learning.  They are intended to better inform the reader so the reader can make a choice. Johntex\talk 22:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous. How on earth does it accomplish what headers do not? I standfastly refute the claim these silly things assist in making choices. This is a strawman. -Randall Brackett 23:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, Johntex, there's a difference between excluding information that never met the requirements for being here anyway (or putting examples of several different aspects of a work in its article's opening section), and attempting to warn a reader away from learning information you scrutinized and specifically selected as potentially inappropriate for them. This isn't GameFAQs. This isn't IMDb. This isn't everyforum.com or randommoviesite.net. This is an encyclopedia, where people come. to. learn. If they have a misconception about what an encyclopedia's for, then it's all the better that they abandon any illusions as soon as possible. And, again, the reader makes their choice when they come here and see "encyclopedia" or the site's policies and disclaimers (or chooses not to read them, as they're supposed to). We don't sit with them and get involved in their decision-making process. It's not our place and not what we're here to. It's directly opposed to what we're here to do. Ryu Kaze 01:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Johntex. Also, I am here to guide the reader and to tell them about things I think a reader would find interesting.  I concentrate on topics and information I believe to be relevant, and many times because I find that information personally interesting or helpful.  When I provide a link in the "See also" section, I present our readers with a choice about finding out additional information. I take an active roll in the facilitation of information to the reader.  However, the content itself is written as not having a point of view.  That is what the policy is about. Saying the editor does not interact with the reader, and that the editor is supposed to not influence an article with information is totally missing the point. How we actually write our information is with out a point of view.  We can present options to the reader. We choose what information we think is relevant, we discourage fancruft.  Many of us can rewrite a section to sound more interesting and present the topic at hand, in a more relevant light to the reader. We do this all the time in basic fundamental editing. We are not god-like thought-entities who have no emotions.  But we can be editors and not inject POV in articles, even if our own POV has motivated us to write articles.  Do you understand the difference?
 * Johntex said something that really rings true: "You're also confusing a fundamental point: spoiler warnings are not intended to prevent someone from learning.". Nor has any evidence been put forth that they've prevented someone from learning based on the "influence" of the editor, only from the choice a reader makes when the reader decides what they wish to read or not. Could spoiler warnings be seen as influence? Sure, a lot of things can be seen that way.  There's a lot of people who will tell you that a woman wearing a bra is censorship (really, there are people who say that).  In a strict sense of the word, almost ANYTHING can be seen as censorship, but most of those kinds of things are not seen that way. This is the gray area of censorship, and it's just ignorant to assert such suggestions as an irrefutable fact. -- Ned Scott 03:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You can keep going on about how this is "just giving the reader a choice," but, again, they make their choice, and they do it when they get here. They do it when they see that this is an encyclopedia. When they read our disclaimers. When they see our policies. We don't sit there and try to be a part of that process. Our policies are to keep editors' personal opinions out of the articles, and inserting a spoiler tag (something that is based on an editors' opinion of whether or not the content would be appropriate for certain people to see) isn't doing that. It's a very simple concept. No matter how well-intended doing that is, it's still NPOV and cenosrship vio. Ryu Kaze 03:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So then there should be no problem giving them one more choice to make - to read on, or not to read on. Johntex\talk 19:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I hear an echo: "Except it's not a neutral presentation, and it's not intended to 'just label' anything. It's an editor-based judgement specifically intended to keep people away from specific information the editors think they maybe shouldn't see. What's the difficulty in understanding specifically-targeted information doesn't mesh with the concept of impartiality?" Oh, and damn. Ryu Kaze 21:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Line break
(Via edit conflict, yet again) When I first saw the enormous discussion going on here, I promised myself I wouldn't get into this on an ideological level, and yet here I am. I'm sorry you think the above-suggested compromise is "the worst thing possible" (although I am a lover of hyperbole). I didn't think it was perfect, but I thought it had potential. My take on it is this:
 * WP:NOT, which contains "Wikipedia is not censored" is policy. It is also vague. In the most broad sense, "censorship" can mean merely "exclusion", which is something Wikipdedia does do, obviously: we exclude recipes, video game tips, false information, and other material not suitable to our own specific encyclopedic standards. Mostly, the consensus has generally interpreted the policy to mean we do not systematically exclude information on the basis of it being politically, aesthetically, or morally offensive to readers, or out of courtesy to the subject of an article if the information about that individual is verifiable, non-original research. None of that is explictly written as part of the policy, it's simply the prevailing interpretation.
 * With regards to spoiler warnings, the prevailing interpretation appears to be that they are acceptable within the boundaries of "no censorship". Whether or not that's hypocritical is debatable, but ultimately irrelevant; Wikipedia is a body of people acting independantly within the boundaries of established rules, and the policy as it is written is nowhere near specific enough to really make a claim that spoiler warnings are prohibited by it.
 * From what I can see, if we want to enact any sort of change about the spoiler guideline, we've got two choices here. One would be to accept the vague definition of the "Wikipedia is not censored" policy and trust the community to understand the difference between the kind of soft-censorship discussed in the compromise above and other forms of censorship which may be related. That would mean just dealing with the issue at hand, and not worrying about the potential for a slippery slope. Personally, I'm alright with that, since I think most Wikipedians do consider there to be a difference between hiding a spoiler and removing, say, a "morally offensive" photograph; I assume that's why spoiler warnings persist yet Toby was quickly shot down.
 * The other option would be to go directly to the policy page and attempt to clarify the definition of "Wikipedia is not censored" in a way that satisfies the consensus. No easy task, but I don't think we're ever going to get anywhere by arguing the specific case and the underlying principle at once. For an issue this divisive (and sometimes subtle), there's too much loss of clarity. I admit my bias: I got excited when we got close to a course of action that would improve the situation, even if it seemed imperfect. One way or another, I'd just like to see this discussion go somewhere.  -- Lee Bailey<i style="color:black;">(talk)</i> 03:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well said, and I agree, I think the vast majority of editors will see a difference between "censorship" and "spoiler tagging", whether or not they're related. We need not fear a slippery slope. And as I said before (sorry about my comments earlier, but really, come on) I think we should only look at turning on or off the spoiler warning itself, and not any article content. -- Ned Scott 07:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Aw, come on people! I thought we had agreed!  I give up.  I'm staying out of this debate from now on.  If anyone ever needs to check the votes, though, I am, and remain, in favour of spoiler tags, supportive of the idea of spoiler warnings that could be switched on, and strongly against the absolute removal of spoiler tags.  Thanks.  RobbieG 09:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I'm less supportive of, but still interested in, spoiler tags that are on by default and switch-offable, and not really supportive of actually hiding spoiler content (because of technical issues and possible violation of censorship policy). I'm off to participate in some less stressful articles.  Bye.  RobbieG 09:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Take care. Happy editing. Ryu Kaze 13:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ryu, Don't be a dick. -- Ned Scott 03:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speak for yourself. I was being sincere when I said that. Goddamn. Ryu Kaze 03:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you would stop cursing, Ryu, it would be easier to assume you are not being a dick? - Johntex\talk 19:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Just for you, John, I'm going to make it a small personal mission to curse in every message I add from now on. Because apparently you're going to see cursing anyway. Even in "Take care. Happy editing." Fuck. There's a "fuck" in there if you look close. Ryu Kaze 21:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My reference to cursing was in regards to other posts you made here and on Jimbo's page regarding this subject. There really is no need for cursing in what should be a civil discourse. Johntex\talk 22:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Cursing can be used in non-hostile ways. I curse all the time, even when I'm being nice to people. It's a form of expression. Some people choose to express themselves in that way.
 * While on the subject, I don't appreciate your comments on this. I find them uncivil. And I'm not just trying to be a sarcastic ass. I really don't appreciate you attacking my form of expression. I agree that we're supposed to be civil and -- despite the frustration we've all experienced here -- have tried remaining as such with everyone involved until the most recent round of comments. I'd say I've even been downright polite with a few people I was arguing with along the way, though, yes, there was a time or two I can think of off-hand that I wasn't.
 * I want you to argue with me if you disagree with me, but I want you to attack what I'm saying and not how I'm saying it. Even if I were insulting you in every message I presented, the fact that I was doing that alone would not affect the veracity of what I was saying.
 * If you take offense at how I speak (and all of those damn forum censors have made me even conditioned to not cursing here as much as I normally would), you'd certainly do so if you knew me in-person. In any event, if you take offense at how I speak, you have my apologies, but you shouldn't be. Personally, I don't think it makes any sense to. Ryu Kaze 22:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No big deal
Spoiler tags should not be made a big deal. We do not need java script or mediawiki modifications for this. A plain simple template warning (how it is now) is more than adequate and approporate. On occasions some additional text can also be presented if applicable. -- Cat out 08:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree somewhat, but those spoiler tags are controversial because some people view them as a violation of the NPOV and not censored policies. A modification that allows people to switch on spoiler warnings only when they want them (or a similar device) is more neutral, and as such the idea is quite popular.  RobbieG 09:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not following this. I remove them and oppose them because they're stupid, redundant and have no place in an encyclopedia attempting to be professional. If one comes to wikipedia, they should not be surprised to find we elaborate on the plot. I'm still in agreement with Jimbo's suggestion above. -Randall Brackett 15:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Spoiler tags are useful and they certainly aren't a violation of NPOV. As a consumer of information, I appreciate being able to follow a link from ArticleA to ArticleB.  If ArticleB happens to be about a book or a movie or the like, I like to be able to read just a little bit about that work and then rely on the spoiler tag to not give me so much of the plot as to lessen my enjoyment if I read/watch the book/movie.  I think we should leave spoiler tags alone.  They are useful and they are not a problem. Johntex\talk 19:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We keep hearing that they "certainly aren't a violation of NPOV," but not why that is given that they are a case of editors placing their own judgement on information and then passing that judgement on to readers with the intent to influence whether or not they absorb that information. Also, the issue of them being "useful" has been addressed countless times over. There are many things that are useful, but not all of them contribute to our encyclopedic purpose, while some outright contradict it. Things aren't included here simply because they're useful. Courtesies don't come first. The mission does. Ryu Kaze 20:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Any editor writing an article has to make decisions about many things: what the reader is likely to be looking for, what is an important fact and what is not, what is a noteworthy source and what is not, what is over-simplifying and what is over-complicting. These involve using their judgement and passing that judgement onto the reader.  That is not a NPOV problem.  Aiding a spolier tag is just one more judgement the editor must make.  You can't call it a NPOV problem without calling all editor actions NPOV problems. Johntex\talk 21:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between presenting the facts as they are while sorting them into easily accessible sub-groups that logically fit together and serve only to make the information more accessible to the readers, and an attempting to influence them not to read something because you think it would be inappropriate. Ryu Kaze 22:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The mistake you are making is to equate adding the spoiler warning with trying to keep the reader from reading the information. They are not the same thing.  The tag simple gives the reader information to decide if they think it is appropriate. Johntex\talk 22:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * By making the assumption for the reader that it might not be, which is something the editor is supposed to keep their nose out of. Ryu Kaze 01:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's less than that, it simply boils down to whether there is enough consensus on Wikipedia that the use of spoiler templates should be a style guideline, or if it should be hashed out at individual articles. Hiding Talk 20:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are arguing that putting information below a spoiler warning is the equivalent of trying to hide that information, and you are also argguing that this type of information can go simply go under the "Plot and Character heading", then you are arguing that the "Plot and Character heading" is just as bad as a spoiler warning. Also, we're actually not here to compromise per say, we are here to do what is best for the encyclopedia.  If no one offers a compromise that is better than what we have today, then we shouldn't be compromising - we should keep things as they are in that case. I see nothing Yet offered here that is an improvement on letting editors add spolier warnings when the editor thinks they are needed.  Johntex\talk 22:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * John, your argument cuts both ways. Nothing you state makes a case for spoiler templates inserted into the flow of text.  As to being here to do what is best for the encyclopedia, I would hope you would recognise that that is decided by compromise.  We decide what to do for the best of the encyclopedia through consensus, which means working out where the consensual, or compromise position lays.  What we are trying to work out is whether the use of spoiler templates is something that should be asserted as common practise, or if the use of them is disputed. Hiding Talk 09:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Prevent editors from excercising persuasion of what they think it is in readers' best interest not to read within articles is definitely in the category of "what is best for the encyclopedia." And, no, the spoiler tags are not simply labeling. They're a deliberate attempt on the part of editors to influence readers not to read information that is supposed to be treated impartially (meaning that like all other relevant information, it gets presented without any suggestion of "Don't look here!"). Ryu Kaze 23:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No they are not. They are a deliberate attempt by the editor to give the reader a choice. Johntex\talk 00:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The reader has a choice when they come here and see the word "encyclopedia." Or read the site's disclaimers and policies. And if they don't do that, that is entirely their choice, and whatever follows as a result is a result of their choice. We're not supposed to get involved in their decision-making process, John. That's not our place. It's not within our authority. It's not part of this encyclopedia's purpose. We have a no censorship policy to keep the editors' noses where they belong: out of what the reader interprets and learns. Ryu Kaze 01:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The average reader who comes to a specific article has not read all our site policies ad disclaimers. That is why the most useful place for a spoiler warning is right in the article. Johntex\talk 18:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you're just saying the same thing I just responsed to here, I'll give you the same response I gave you there: "Uh... I do expect readers to read policies and site guidelines when they come to a site. It's not like this many years into the internet's existance that people aren't aware of such things or that they aren't easily accessible. In any event, if they don't read them it's their own fault. Try to understand this. We aren't here to provide random courtesies, especially those that involve sheltering people who would rather remain uneducated on something. We're here to make an encyclopedia that is informative. If people don't want that, then they shouldn't be here, plain and simple. IMDB.com and GameFAQs exists for them.
 * I'm sorry that you don't understand this, but we're not here to put courtesies and what's "useful" first. It isn't our mission. It's not even part of it. Just because placing the spoiler tags within the articles is the most useful thing doesn't mean it's the most logical, nor even the appropriate thing. We have this whole neutrality and impartial treatment of information thing in case you didn't notice." Ryu Kaze 21:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Adding the spoiler warning when it may not be needed is far better than omitting it when it is needed.  When there is a resonable doubt, add the spolier warning.  We should put that in the guideline.  It takes no trouble for the reader to just read past it if they choose.   Johntex\talk 22:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How about we at least include a line saying that when a section is called "Plot" or "Synopsis" then a spoiler warning is not needed and is considered redundant. As per Jimbo and others above. Shanes 22:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We'd have to include "Characters" in that too, as Characters are tools used by a plot to tell a story. In any event, it's still a far better alternative simply to do away with the things altogether and get back to being an encyclopedia. Ryu Kaze 23:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think such a change would be beneficial. It is quite possible to sumarize a plot without giving away a surprise ending.  Therefore, it is not reasonable to assume that our readers will expect the plot section to contain spoliers.  In the cases where it does, we should have the right to warn them. Let's not censor the ability of our editors to communicate with our readers through adding a spoiler tag! :-) Johntex\talk 00:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh no. That is complete nonsense. To say one wouldn't expect spoilers in a comprehensive section regarding the plot is completely and utterly false. Please try another strawman. No, we don't have the right to warn what someone should and should not read. You have totally missed the point of being an editor of the encyclopedia. The capacity of an editor is to build the encyclopedia, not quibble what people might not like to see. And its a hypocritical statement. We're an encyclopedia and as such will always attempt to be comprehensive in this manner. Saying we wouldn't and people would have to be warned of our content is quite false. It destroys the point of wikipedia. Jimbo has made a very good suggestion on the matter. I think we should endorse it. Randall Brackett 01:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What. The. Hell. You can't summarize something by omitting the integral parts of it! What's wrong with you? That defeats the entire purpose of not just summarizing something, but of what we are here to do. Might I refer you back to our mission of being an encyclopedia? Ryu Kaze 01:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, John, we're not here to communicate with the readers such that we sit there with them and say "Well, maybe you shouldn't read this, Sally" or "Dave, mah man, good to see you! I totally recommend this to you above everything else!" We're not here to be the readers' best friend. We're not here to do anything but build the damn encyclopedia and let people read. We keep our judgements of the information in the articles to ourselves and don't try to tell people what they shouldn't learn. Understand this concept of neutrality. It's one of Wikipedia's foundations. Ryu Kaze 01:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Spoilers are not always vital plot points. There are many movies where the viewer already knows the ending, but watches the movie for the character development and insight. Major turning points and "who died" are not always spoilers, and are not the only examples of spoilers.  Both Randall and Ryu seem to have a seriously flawed view of works of fiction and the definition of the word spoiler.  I'm sorry that the majority of movies and TV shows are formula-tic, but that does not encompass all fiction. Also, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information! Not every plot needs to be summarized in every little detail in every article.  A plot summary of a TV show does not have to tell you what happened at the end of the 10th season, just the basic ideas and concepts of what happens.  (That's why it's called a summary and not a verbatim retelling of events) It really depends on the type of fictional work.  This is true for some, but not others, but in any case, not all Plot summaries require spoilers. -- Ned Scott 03:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)-- Ned Scott 03:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ...I'll say it again, you can't summarize a plot without including the things that -- from beginning to end -- constitute it. Because those are things you are summarizing. And nobody said a thing about including every last detail. Only the important ideas and concepts. Thank you for offering your own rebuttal. Ryu Kaze 03:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And not all important ideas and concepts are spoilers. The ending is not always a spoiler, major turning points are not always a spoiler. -- Ned Scott 04:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how its relevant ethier way. Its quibbling in irrelevant matters - the crux is: how does the template improve wikipedia...? Simply because we have spoilers I don't see how that constitutes a template. -Randall Brackett 05:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then, Ned, if they aren't relevant, we won't include them. Typically, though, the ideas and concepts are presented through the story's turning points and ending. And these are also typically the things that are called "spoilers." And you're totally going off on a wild tangent that's irrelevant to this discussion.
 * The only things that are relevant are these: 1) the way the spoiler tags act as a means for editors to bypass the neutrality and no censorship polices, and 2) how do the spoiler tags actually contribute to this encyclopedia's mission? The very first policy on Wikipedia says that if something's not contributing to the mission, we're supposed to chuck it. Ryu Kaze 12:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not quite follow why there is this level of debate over something this trivial. I am not willing to read pages and pages of conversation so please summarise your arguments and counter arguments. This isn't a talk show.
 * Plot and/or ending details follow is a citable fact. Plot and/or ending details do follow the template which is a citable fact.
 * No information is being held back with the template.
 * As far as I can tell, the text does not discourage or encourage the reader.
 * I still do not see an issue, is the problem with the wording or what?
 * -- Cat out 07:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Both the wording and the purpose are its problems, really. The word "warning" alone means that the editors' judgement has been passed on the information and they are now giving this warning to the readers in an attempt to tell them that they as the editor think this information may not be appropriate for the reader to see in the readers' own eyes, and that's entirely the purpose being shot for with these things. The editors are supposed to keep their personal opinion of the info out of the article and not try influencing people one way or the other over it. Ryu Kaze 12:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Cool Cat - the spoler template just mentions a citable fact that "Plot and/or ending details follow". Nothing in the template attempts to hide informaiton from the reader.  Nothing in the template violates NPOV or other policy. There is no reason to do away with the template. Johntex\talk 19:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So, like I asked before, where's our "Development warning: Development details follow," "Cast warning: cast list details follow," "Reception warning: critic response and sales figures details follow" tags? Hm? Would they not be useful?! They'd tell people where that information is after all! You know, unlike the headers directly above them almost every time that say "Plot," "Development," "Cast" or "Reception and criticism."
 * Stop. Trying. To. Hide. Behind. The. Claim. Of. Labeling. That's not what these goddamn tags are for. They're a deliberate attempt on the part of editors to insert their judgement of what information might be inapporpriate for people to see into an article and dissuade them from viewing it. Good intentions? Maybe. Probably even. Appropriate? Hell no. Endorsed by policy? Absolutely not. We have policies specifically against such behavior, but people constantly try tinkering with terminology to get around what's so obviously been happening here for years. The template needs to go to hell, or at least somewhere else, because it sure doesn't belong here. Ryu Kaze 21:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's all calm down here and remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (and not just citing it in a debate over spoiler tags). I recommend everyone go back to editing articles for a few days before returning to this debate. Debates like these cause great editors to leave for virtually no reason, which is absolutely harmful to the encyclopedia as a whole. And while you leave this debate on the backburner, please don't go on a WP:POINT spree by objecting to FACs or RfA candidates who use (or do not use) spoiler tags. &mdash; Deckill e r 22:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Don't include spoilers"
Note by GunnarRene 00:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC): This section concerns this proposed paragraph in the guideline inserted by Stbalbach: "It is also recommend not to spoil stories unless there is a good reason for doing so. In other words, don't spoil a story as an aside, or as trivia, or to show that you know the story. In particular spoilers made outside of the article of the story in question should only be made if there is a good reason for doing so, if there is a point that can only be made by spoiling the story."

When and when not to spoil a story is a highly relevant issue related to this guideline. In fact I'm surprised no one has brought it up before. The edit notes from other edits indicate that such guidelines are not needed. I disagree. I have seen over and over people spoiling stories for no reason what so ever. Of course I revert it, but there need to be specific guidelines about when and when not to spoil a story. -- Stbalbach 21:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "When not to spoil a story"? Given that the articles for most fictional works have Plot and Character sections, and given that we're here to be comprehensive, when should we ever not be doing that? We're here to make an encyclopedia, not create a fansite that caters to people afraid of knowledge. Ryu Kaze 22:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I reverted it once; I'm not sure about the other revert. Basically, I'm concerned that a guideline telling editors to avoid including spoilers when you can will lead some to beleive they should omit relevant, useful information. If you're taking about when to use the spoiler tag that's dramatically different from saying implying information should be left out. Obviously, people shouldn't spoil stories for no reason whatsoever, but adding anything for no reason whatsoever is vandalism (inserting irrelevant nonsense). If it's relevant, it belongs in the article. Spoilers are no different from any other information in that regard. -- Lee Bailey<i style="color:black;">(talk)</i> 22:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Stbalbach: As I said in the edit summary, this is a very bad perhaps well-meaning proposal with bad consequences. As long as the spoiler is tagged/marked by a spoiler template, editors should feel free to discuss spoilers. They should only be restricted by concerns of relevancy, WP:V, WP:SOURCE and other policies. If information is irrelevant, don't include it. When it comes to relevancy, it doesn't matter whether it is a spoiler or not. Also, be aware of the three-revert rule. --GunnarRene 00:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 01:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Johntex Not as bad, but still not good, in my view. The reason we have alternative spoiler templates, is that one can mark spoilers from other subjects. --GunnarRene 00:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Example in article about work Harry Potter vs. Predator: Spoiler warning: In addition to plot and/or ending details about Harry Potter vs. Predator, such spoilers for Alien vs. Predator follow. spoiler from Alien vs. Predator


 * Oh yes, I think I agree with you here. If the spoiler is accompanied by a tag, then that would be OK even if the spoiler is spoiling something about a different article. Johntex\talk 01:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify it in the article or revert yourself then? I have two rv's on this article today. :-) --GunnarRene 01:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Done
 * I think its completely stupid and irrelevant. How does it improve the quality of the encyclopedia...? -Randall Brackett 01:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the site's policies, John, including that information is just fine even without a spoiler tag as long as it's relevant. Of course, the site's policies don't include spoiler tags anywhere and actually tell people to expect spoilers. Ryu Kaze 01:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing in site policy says it is wrong to have a spoiler tag. Johntex\talk 18:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing in site policy says "It's wrong to have banners saying 'This work of fiction sucks and you're a loser for reading about it,'" either, but it most obviously is something that we wouldn't have. If you're going to be looking for specifically worded "can"s and "cannot"s, you're going to be finding lots of loopholes. This goes back to what Randall said earlier: "I don't make this point as the crux of my problem with the template but I can see how it utterly attempts to bypass the neutrality and censorship policies. I follow the spirit of policy, not the letter. The spirit of the policy in this context is not attempt to insert our bias into swaying what is and what is not appropriate for people to read. It’s none of our damn business. Just build the encyclopedia. This template doesn't assist in the achieving that goal." But site policy does say that things that aren't contributing to the goal get dropped like a hot potato: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its goals go no further, and material that does not fit this goal must be moved to another Wikimedia project or removed altogether." There's always been plenty of talk over "courtesy" this, "courtesy" that (even in the face of our concern being to build an encyclopedia, not meet random courtesies like some Kingdom Hearts fansite), but not a whole lot of talk about how the spoiler tag conceivably fits in our purpose of building this encyclopedia (and that's not even taking into account how it attempts to dodge other policies). Ryu Kaze 18:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia strives to be useful to the reader. The tags are a form of being useful to the reader. Johntex\talk 18:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No. An encyclopedia strives to be an encyclopedia. Have you even read the policies I keep directing you to? Where does it mention that we're here to look for ways to be courteous? The very first policy says that we're here to be an encyclopedia and nothing more. Anything not contributing to that purpose is extrinsic and not can be lost, but should be. I'm not saying it. The policy is. Read it. Ryu Kaze 21:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You are getting dangerous close to being uncivil. Please don't accuse my of not having read the policies.  I have read them.  Please don't put words into my mouth.  I said "useful" I did not say "courteous".  Encyclopedias exist to be useful, I would hope that we could take that as a given and not try to wiki-lawyer about whether that is spelt out somewhere.  Are you seriously arguing we should be building an encyclopedia that is not useful? Johntex\talk 21:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that we should make an encyclopedia. That doesn't mean we're including everything useful under the sun. That doesn't mean we're putting random courtesies that come along before everything else. That means we're making an encyclopedia and discarding courtesies and "useful" things where they aren't useful to our purpose and actually contradict it. This encyclopedia is supposed to be useful, yes, and part of doing that is leaving the editors' personal opinions and attempts to "save" the readers at the door. To be useful, we have to leave out some things that would be useful in other venues. And you're not one to be talking of civility, Mr. "I'm going to use a lame and obvious excuse to call someone a dick just because I can get away with it given the context of the dialogue." I haven't been insulting you up to this point, bud, but I can start anytime you'd like to continue. How about now? I could say "That 'dangerously close to being uncivil' line is an example of hypocrisy. You know, just like having neutrality and no censorship policies, and then letting editors get away with inserting spoiler tags. Well, I guess we know why you don't care about that now, huh?" I could. I don't know, though. Should I? Let me think it over. Ryu Kaze 21:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm saying we should strive to make our encyclopedia useful. I find it hard to imagine anyone disagreeing with that. Johntex\talk 22:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well what I'm saying is that we shouldn't allow double-standards for the sake of even useful things. If we do that, then none of the other policies mean a thing and the principles we're supposed to be recognizing aren't being recognized. The place becomes a hypocritical playground masquerading as a serious encyclopedia when it's really just a glamorized fansite. I don't want that to happen, and I personally find it to hard to imagine anyone disagreeing with that.
 * By the very nature of what we're doing here, certain useful things can't be included without contradicting our mission. For that matter, again, the spoiler tags aren't actually contributing to how the encyclopedia is supposed to be useful, are they? Ryu Kaze 22:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's all calm down here and remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (and not just citing it in a debate over spoiler tags). I recommend everyone go back to editing articles for a few days before returning to this debate. Debates like these cause great editors to leave for virtually no reason, which is absolutely harmful to the encyclopedia as a whole. And while you leave this debate on the backburner, please don't go on a WP:POINT spree by objecting to FACs or RfA candidates who use (or do not use) spoiler tags. &mdash; Deckill e r 22:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I promise to calm down and try to keep the thing civil. I'll even take the painful step of apologizing: I'm sorry, John, for any offense.
 * Anyway, I don't think walking away is going to settle anything. Obviously we're all getting a little testy. Probably me especially given that I've been part of this discussion for... well, since before this particular discussion began, and this is the longest one ever over it. And that's exactly why I don't want to walk away from it now, and why I don't think we should let it lie until an official policy has been set-in-stone either allowing the spoiler tags or forbading them. We should look to settle this for one time and all, so there doesn't have to be any more discussions about it.
 * The only problem is, I honestly don't believe that those of us here will reach a compromise. I think that's pretty much impossible. Resolving this lies with a higher power than us, but I don't believe that any such higher power wants to get involved simply because we can't settle ourselves. I really wish we could, but we're all too stubborn because of what we see as more valuable concepts. Ryu Kaze 22:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I also apologize, Ryu, for any offense. I will take a deep breath and try to be very civil, as we all should be.
 * Apology accepted. Ryu Kaze 23:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean by a higher power. Most policies are creating by discussing them and eventually calling a straw poll to determine if consensus has been reached.  Are you ready to call a straw poll on the matter to see where we stand? Johntex\talk 22:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the necessity or the use in doing so. We're supposed to settle through discussion rather than voting, and though straw polls can be a useful tool in geting an idea of who's in favor of what, I think we already know in this case.
 * We're just too divided over this philosophically. Our differing value assumptions on which concepts are more important (uncompromising recognition of our mission and its foundational principles, or exceptions for courtesies or tools that -- while useful for what they're trying to do -- have fundamental conflicts with some aspects of our mission or just simply don't assist it) are unwavering it would seem. I still remain steadfast in my approach to this matter. The situation is -- in my eyes -- simple and plain as day, but that may be because of what value assumptions I'm looking to for guidance. I think we should utterly leave our own guidance and suggestions out of the readers' learning and let the facts speak for themselves. Given that you are looking elsewhere for guidance, it, perhaps, shouldn't be as surprising to me as it is that you can't see what I do. We simply aren't looking to the same places for answers on what the right thing to do is.
 * In any event, my position hasn't changed, nor has my objective, and I'm not sure what we're going to do. When I say that my objective is the same, while that, of course, involves me watching spoiler tags sink into the depths of the cyber sea, it also includes a resolution that will stand for all time and cannot be questioned. Whatever the outcome, I want finality. I want something as solid and foundational as NPOV. Something that will never have to be debated again. If you look back at the older discussions that have gone on over this, the names are different, but the arguments are similar (though I'd say they evolved a bit recently). If we don't get that 100% unquestionable answer that brings this matter to a close once and for all, then we're going to see another 400+ kb discussion of this some day (and this has been the longest discussion on the matter yet, without including the archive that was performed prior to this particular line of discussion beginning; this discussion has even been longer than many of the others put together).
 * All of this discussion should provoke a conclusion. It won't get one from us, undoubtedly, but I would like for it to have said something to those who could decide for all of us, and cause them to make a decision. I would personally accept it, whatever it is. The length of this discussion and the intensity and the fact that it -- if nothing is settled now -- will be just another stage in an ongoing discussion should provoke a response, shouldn't it? If members of the Board were to come in right now and say that they had taken the matter out of our hands and were going to decide for us something as unshakable as NPOV, then I would accept that, and I could be okay with it, because at least I would know that we got some finality out of this. That's what's needed, because our value assumptions here will not let us reach a conclusion ourselves. Ryu Kaze 23:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Guideline Status?
The page presently calls this a "disputed guideline or policy". I'm sorry I haven't had time to look through all the history of this page, but from what I have read, I can't seem to figure out if this was ever confirmed as a guideline by a consensus-building discussion. Was it? -- Lee Bailey<i style="color:black;">(talk)</i> 22:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope. -Randall Brackett 23:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Guidelines are usually not confirmed by a consensus-building discussion. They come into being as a reflection of how people are actually working. The actual practice is that spoiler warnings get used pretty much as described here. Johntex\talk 23:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * However, the main page is short on guidance as to when spoiler tags are appropriate. Mostly, it's a "how-to" once you've decided&mdash;on whatever criteria&mdash;to include them.


 * In a comment upthread, Jimbo Wales described Hansel and Gretel as "a particularly silly example." Sure enough, as soon as he pointed it out, someone edited Hansel and Gretel and took the warnings out. Then someone put them back in. Then another person took them out. Then, they went back in.


 * Jimbo can speak for himself, but I think he was suggesting that perhaps there are some stories that educated people can be presumed to know. I found an even sillier example: Three Little Pigs. The spoiler warnings there are so bizarre that I wondered if someone was joking.


 * For what it's worth, WikiProject Opera made a policy decision to remove spoiler warnings for all operas, concluding: "The use of spoiler tags before synopsis/plot summaries is regarded as unnecessary and distracting." There are other examples. For instance, Romeo and Juliet has no spoiler warnings. That seems appropriate to me, but I can hardly see the logic if Three Little Pigs is still thought to require it. Marc Shepherd 02:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The mind boggles. Hopefully people adding spoiler warnings to fairy tales like Hansel and Gretel and Three Little Pigs are just trying to be funny. I can't come up with any other explanation without using words like "ignorant beyond belief", "plain stupid" or "trolling". Another silly example is The Little Engine That Could which had a spoiler warning up until very recently as well. I've also seen people adding and defending spoiler warnings on World War II, but they were most likely joking as well. I am against all spoiler tags on Wikipedia myself, but in articles on popular culture I can at least understand that people in good faith add them, because they're used to them from other non-encyclopedia sites they visit and would like Wikipedia to treat articles the same way. Shanes 03:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think they should never be appropriate. No-one in this discussion has explained how, even if utilized in moderation, how these useless things improve the encyclopedia. Even more puzzling is how editors came to make warning readers and deciding that content might suitible as part of their capcity as editors. Our purpose as editors is to build the encyclopedia. All other quibbles derived from social ideals have no place in the workings of a proffesional encyclopedia. Why are we not simply following Jimbo's asute suggestion..? -Randall Brackett 02:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe because Jimbo's suggestion isn't very helpful? The man's not God, so wipe that brown stuff off your nose.  I'm not saying we ignore his comments, but he hardly tied up all those loose ends or provided a step-by-step guide on how to resolve this issue. -- Ned Scott 03:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think "We're an encyclopedia. Expect spoilers" would resolve things pretty summarily. It should be in the site disclaimer or something. Oh, wait... Ryu Kaze 03:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And, as made completely clear via this talk page, this cannot be so easily resolved. I'm not disagreeing with Jimbo when I say this (although, I do disagree with Jimbo*), I only mean to say that he did not say anything helpful to aid us in resolving the dispute. Jimbo has many skills, dispute resolution does not seem to be one of them. (* I disagree with his view that spoilers "sound stupid" and are seen as "unprofessional", nothing more, nothing less. ) -- Ned Scott 04:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know how he could be any less helpful about it. He neglected the outlandish semantics and centered on what he percieved as valid. Straight and to the point. One of the most effective views seen on this discussion yet, derived from his excellent simplistic view on the matter. Quite appropriate. -Randall Brackett 05:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. So, if guidelines come about by consensus -- not necessarilly as a result of a discussion -- and the "guideline" status here is disputed... is it fair to conclude the presence of a consensus to support this is disputed as well? In which case, would it be fair to hold a wider discussion on the matter now, perhaps straw-polling the wider community as a jumping off point? I know "voting is evil", but in this case, I think it would be illuminating to know if the community at large thinks these warnings are worth using, or if we're just collectively using them because we think it's a rule and don't want to edit war. -- Lee Bailey<i style="color:black;">(talk)</i> 06:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Lee, you may be coming to this late, but that's exactly what we are doing here. This page was set up to straw poll the community through asking the questions at the top of the page, and is advertised everywhere.  I don't really see that a vote will help much because we can't even agree on what we're voting on.  I think most people agree that some warning that Wikipedia contains plot detail which may spoil the work for you if you haven't read it should be placed somewhere.  No-one can agree on the how, what, where and why. The community is fairly well split on the issue.  Some people use them, some people don't. Hiding Talk 09:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But you can't expect the average reader who comes to a specific article page to have read all our site policies and disclaimers. The most useful place for a notice that an article contains spoilers is therefore within the article itself. Johntex\talk 18:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh... I do expect readers to read policies and site guidelines when they come to a site. It's not like this many years into the internet's existance that people aren't aware of such things or that they aren't easily accessible. In any event, if they don't read them it's their own fault. Try to understand this. We aren't here to provide random courtesies, especially those that involve sheltering people who would rather remain uneducated on something. We're here to make an encyclopedia that is informative. If people don't want that, then they shouldn't be here, plain and simple. IMDB.com and GameFAQs exists for them.
 * I'm sorry that you don't understand this, but we're not here to put courtesies and what's "useful" first. It isn't our mission. It's not even part of it. Just because placing the spoiler tags within the articles is the most useful thing doesn't mean it's the most logical, nor even the appropriate thing. We have this whole neutrality and impartial treatment of information thing in case you didn't notice. Ryu Kaze 21:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would expect an average reader coming to an encyclopedia to expect plot details to be discussed. The most useful thing to do is use informative section headers. Hiding Talk 19:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But the spoiler warning is more descriptive than the usual heading. I guess we could change the usual heading to be "Plot summary - contains spoilers" if you want to do away with having a template.  Johntex\talk 19:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the suggestion where we don't assume that readers are stupid and don't waste time trying to decide what we think is best for them not to see out of our information here that we're supposed to present to them free of our opinions and without any attempt to persuade them not to see. You know, the suggestion where we're an encyclopedia. Every page says we are one. We really ought to try living up to that. Ryu Kaze 21:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * John, what part of plot summary isn't informative enough that we need to add contains spoilers?   Have a look at the headers at The Usual Suspects, namely Plot details, Plot twists and Burning questions.  If they don't let people know they are about to read something they shouldn't, then I'm confused as to what will.  Spoilers sprang from communication forms where content wasn't so clearly headed, for example USENET, and I can remember similar arguments at USENET on this subject with people arguing that if the topic reads "The Usual Suspects - what an ending", then anyone reading it not expecting spoilers deserved what they got.  God forbid The Return of the Jedi was released today, it would have to be titled Warning - Title contains spoilers - The Return of the Jedi. What happens to people who don't know what the term spoiler means?  Do they have cause for complaint? Hiding Talk 19:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a question of detail. No spoilers -> "Star Wars is a space opera about a rebilion against an intergalactic empire.  Two robots provide comic relief while a young boy learns how to use a mystical force to combat the enemy" Spoilers -> "The boy's mentor is killed by the villian and then the mentor's voice guides the boy in destroying the empire's death star". Johntex\talk 20:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That isn't summarizing! You mentioned some aspects of the premise, but you didn't summarize the plot (the beginning to end(!) details of a work)! Ryu Kaze 21:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We're simply back to arguing what an encyclopedia does. This is getting circular.  Forgive me, but I'm going to retire from the debate. Hiding Talk 20:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And this is precisely the question. Are we an encyclopedia or not..? I take a comment from an editor and reproduce it all below:


 * Placing a spoiler warning smacks of a celebrity fan site and not of a serious encyclopedia. What encyclopedia you've seen has spoiler warnings? If we want Wikipedia to be treated seriously as an encylopedia and not as some sort of movie or book database, then we should get rid of spoiler warnings altogether.


 * Additionally, there's no argument how the template has been proven as useful to the encyclopedia. As editors it is our concern to think only of the encyclopedia and its value, negelecting "netiquette" and other social quibbles every single time. I've seen no policy or inclination from Jimbo that anything away from the diverging of the encyclopedia is relevant, or even any of our concern. -Randall Brackett 19:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There are people here arguing that the spoiler templates are providing value to the encyclopedia and its readers. You may choose to disagree with those arguments, but please don't be dismissive of those opinions. Johntex\talk 19:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And why not? The encyclopedia itself is. Have you read the policies? We're here to make an encyclopedia. What doesn't aid that purpose isn't supposed to be here. Especially when it contradicts the purpose.
 * As said many times before, a phone book listing of every number in the world might be useful, but that doesn't mean it has a place here. Being useful doesn't mean it's contributing to our mission. Ryu Kaze 21:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I ask you again to stop asking me if I have read the policies. I have read them, and I have told you I have read them. Johntex\talk 22:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What arguments...? Enlighten me. Being this a source of knowledge, an encyclopdia, I presumed that the value we give to our readers is that of improving the encyclopedia itself, not playing games of what we believe might be useful in the terms of restricitng knowledge. This is a place where one goes to learn about a variety of subjects, not experience 'what happens'.


 * For the new Wikipedia reader, it undermines the image of the encyclopedia by making professionally-written articles look like some kind of amateur internet site. For the regular reader, it's irritating and tiresome. As a bare minimum avoid the word "spoiler" which is internet culture, not general use.


 * No where in wikipedia policy or our dedication as editors does it endorse we have a duty to shelter what content we think inapropriate for some as part of building the encyclopedia. If people wish to learn in little bites and chunks whilst being treated with baby gloves I would direct them to social sites and religious institutions specifically for that purpose. -Randall Brackett 19:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * One arugement is that they are useful to the reader and they do nothing to improperly dissuade the reader from reading past them, should the reader choose to do so. Johntex\talk 20:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's rich. "They don't dissuade the reader from reading past them if the reader chooses to keep reading." No kidding?! I couldn't have figured that out if you hadn't told me. Just like I bet all those readers couldn't figure out that encyclopedia articles about fictional works contain information about their plots, even though we're supposed to be making comprehensive articles. (Spoiler warning) These last two sentences have been completely full of sarcasm, by the way.
 * That's a very poor argument. "Our attempt to prevent people from reading something doesn't actually prevent them from reading it if they choose not to heed our attempt to stop them." Wonderful defense! Ryu Kaze 21:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Considering that I don't except your straw man arguement that somehow a label is an attempt to prevent someone from reading something, it is hard to appreciate your analogy. Also, I think it would be better to trim down the sarcasm and the statements like "Oh, that's rich".  It might allow a better discussion of the issue. Johntex\talk 22:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A straw man argument would be acting as though you're arguing something other than what you actually are and then attacking that instead of what you're actually arguing. I'm not doing that. You are arguing that this is just another form of labeling or categorization. Anyway, a label alone is not an attempt to prevent someone from reading something. In fact, we use lots of labels here, but we use the to point people to specific bodies of information so that they can more easily access it. Spoiler tags don't do this. They were created for the purpose of trying to get people not to look at something based on the editor's own opinions and assumptions about what might be inappropriate for readers to see amongst the verifiable information present that is all supposed to be treated impartially. That's not labeling. That's not categorization. That's censorship. You know that's what the tag's purpose is. It's a banner of ignorance to prevent people from looking at specific things. That's all it ever was, and no matter how good the intentions are, they are misplaced here.
 * And, yes, I agree with your sentiments concerning sarcasm. I was a little pissed off at the time of writing... well, all of my most recent messages. It involved how you had made a comment that came off as less-than-civil to me. But, yeah, I agree with the sarcasm sentiment and will try reining it in. Ryu Kaze 22:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'll be more careful with comments that might be misinterpreted as well. I just didn't appreciate your cursing.  Thanks, Johntex\talk 22:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Welcome. Ryu Kaze 22:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * On the topic of straw men, let me be clear. I am not making a straw man argument.  It is my belief that spoler tags are a useful label and they are not a form of censorship in any way.  I appreciate that you disagree with me, but please don't call my serious argument a straw man. Johntex\talk 22:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't calling your argument a straw man, John. In this particular context, my argument would have had to be the straw man argument if anyone's was. I wasn't trying to build up a straw man argument to attack in place of yours, though. Ryu Kaze 22:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Is anyone prepared to argue that spoiler warnings are actively harmful? The most complaint we get is that they are not encyclopediac.  The complaints that they try to keep information from people are hardly convincing -- no one is prevented from reading as much or as little as they want.   Removing something that some people find useful requires a stronger argument that it isn't useful for you.  Goldfritha 00:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently some people are. For one, it's been asserted that the spoiler warnings look stupid and thus hurt wikipedia's image by making it look like an amatuer review site, etc. Can either side really prove or disprove this as fact? I don't think so, as such a thing can only really be someone's opinion in the end. That line of debate hasn't really gotten us anywhere either, which is why I think everyone's better off staying away from arguing over whether or not they're harmful or helpful in the context of the readership (it's either, ok?). As for not being encyclopediac, well... movie encyclopedias don't even use them, so what does that say? AMHR285   ( talk )   02:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I also think it's worth pointing out that Wikipedia policy doesn't say something has to be harmful to qualify for removal. It simply says "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its goals go no further, and material that does not fit this goal must be moved to another Wikimedia project or removed altogether." It also says "Let the facts speak for themselves." The spoilers know what they are. Ryu Kaze 02:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Unequivocally yes I assert that they are harmful in a number of says. They cause confusion (people thinking they're policy; people not knowing where they apply, etc.), including confusion about what Wikipedia is for (c.f. the editor Ned mentions below who thinks it's appropriate to try to avoid mentioning spoilers!); they look unprofessional and peculiar. But most importantly, and this has been almost entirely ignored in this debate they are highly subjective. You cannot define what is and what is not a spoiler. Therefore it comes down to editorial judgement. Which is manky. --JennyRad 14:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)