Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Square Enix/Style advice

Game articles section order
The section order for Games articles as prescribed by the WikiProject Final Fantasy complies with Manual of Style (writing about fiction) except for the story section. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), the story (plot) section should be last. Is it okay to change this in the WikiProject Final Fantasy manual of style? Jecowa 10:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see that in the article; nevertheless, it is not important whatsoever, because numerous articles have been promoted using our section order. It's fine how it is. &mdash; Deckill e r 18:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning
Why can't FF articles include a minimum of one spoiler warning? It may seem redundant if you contributed to the article or read it for the sake of editing. However, if you are a new FF Wiki reader, you do not know how the article was written. Furthermore, you do *not* know if plot, character, and story sections were written to have spoilers in them. Let's start thinking of people other than those with the intent to edit. They could very well forget that a specific section could have spoilers. These articles are ultimately written and maintained for them, right? I'd hope so. It only makes sense to include warnings where appropriate throughout the FF Wikis. This includes and could very well be limited to Plot, Characters, and Story sections. User918 18:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Their warning is already present in the headings. If one is going to Wikipedia to look up a video game they intend to play, it is their own fault if they think they won't be spoiled after going into a section entitled "plot synopsis". We don't need unprofessional tags telling them what is already said in the headings. This idea has already been overdiscussed, and this wikiproject has agreed not to use them. &mdash; Deckiller 20:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Read below for my take on this issue (including some point that I think should be discussed about the articles and the excessiveness that the plot details go into). I discuss this in firm detail how I think about this. I don't think this is overly discussed. It's being highly discussed because no one is caring to seek common ground, which is a shame. Darkpower 12:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You as the majority of editors certainly have the right to ignore guidelines, but it is, to put it simply, arrogant to assume everyone knows that FF articles on Wikipedia are filled with spoilers. People do not know how the article was written upon first reading unless they had something to do with its creation. And what do you say to first time Wiki users who aren't familiar with typical plot synopsis? It's a weak argument to assume that just because a few people try to edit in spoiler tags implies that no one really cares. I doubt every single person who visits Wikipedia has the desire to edit, even if they find something wrong. Wikipedia entries for FF games are always near the top of Google search lists; it wouldn't be that high if people didn't visit them. You do not know if someone is clicking on the article link with the intent to see if they can edit anything worthy into it, if they want clarification on story/character/plot stuff, if they want to learn about gameplay, or if they are new to the series and trying to get some general information. Because we do not know exactly why every user is visiting these articles, wouldn't it be ideal to keep the spoiler tags in? If it's one thing we DO know, it's that there's bound to be people who view these articles that are either new to a specific installment in the series, or the series as a whole.

Another argument that I feel has little ground to stand on (and only does because so many people apparently follow it for no sensible reason) is that using spoiler tags is somehow censorship. This is absurd. It is not censorship. Spoiler tags are simply markers that say "don't read this if you want the game spoiled, you've been warned." Editors do not have to cut back on anything. The tags are independent of the context of the article. That's the whole point of having a spoiler tag; the editors can make the article say whatever they want and do not have to worry about concerns of making it spoiler-sensitive BECAUSE there is a warning that is INDEPENDENT of the text itself. Indeed, if you wanted to read ahead knowing you would be getting the game spoiled for you anyway, you could; no one can stop you from doing so. That's your *choice*, and because you have that choice, the idea of spoiler warnings somehow being equal to censorship is already proven to be wrong.

You choose to not follow Wiki's guidelines, and that's fine, but you are in the minority and for a *reason*. The idea that this somehow takes away from the article, censoring it, is negated by the massive number of other articles covering plots/characters/story for things varying from video games to television shows to books that use spoiler warnings. The notion that spoiler tags are equal to censorship is quite frankly laughable. It is also just as laughable that these are "unprofessional". There's nothing unprofessional about being cautious. I strongly encourage that spoiler tags are made necessary in all Final Fantasy articles. Think about people who may get the game spoiled for them and not what satisfies YOU. After all, who'd you write this for? Yourselves, or people seeking information about the games? Spoiler tags should be included because you simply do not know who will be coming across these articles and for what reason(s). Common sense, guys. User918 20:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll bring the argument down to your level: it doesn't matter if the game is "spoiled" for people. I've yet to see one reason from you that says why the reader should somehow be aware that the game may be "spoiled" for them. This is an encyclopedia, a resource for information. Readers don't have to know that they're going to learn, because frankly, if they don't understand the concept of an encyclopedia and don't realize the game will be spoiled, then that's their own fault. --Teggles 06:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Poor attitude, poor argument. "Down to my level", please. Just forget about the spoiler system for everything, eh? Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia by any means, it expands upon topics you'd likely never see in any other encyclopedia. Furthermore, why does Wikipedia, which defines itself as an online encyclopedia, encourage the use of spoiler warnings for various topics? They wouldn't be there if it was decided that spoiler warnings are not appropriate in any way for an online encyclopedia. To suggest that I'm somehow below you in my understanding of how a spoiler warning should play a role in these articles is a juvenile insult at best. User918 15:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's all about consensus. The spoiler warning concept was challenged, and it was generally agreed that usage should be determined by Wikiprojects - especially since it's a guideline, not a policy. The fact that this WikiProject has generated several featured articles has helped people respect this viewpoint. Like grammar styles developed by prestegious colleges. &mdash; Deckiller 15:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a guideline, not a policy - I know. But that certainly would imply that Wikipedia articles can have spoiler warnings and still be regarded as something of the quality one expects out of an encyclopedia article. I'm not looking to derail this WP, but I strongly disagree with the anti-spoiler warning policy. I personally see nothing degrading to the quality of these articles by using them. Hopefully as time goes on, there will be enough support to bring them back in. If anyone else agrees that spoiler warnings should be used, please do not hesitate to contribute to this particular discussion. User918 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The only argument for having them I could rescue from there is "Wikipedia has a wider range of topics than other encyclopedias" and "Wikipedia has a guideline to use spoiler warnings". The former doesn't make any sense, and the latter is countered by the consensus made on this project. It's clear there is no reason readers should have to be warned of spoilers, regardless of their awareness. Note that I wasn't suggesting you have little understanding of the role of spoiler warnings. By "your level" I mean to attack the other person's argument instead of supporting my own. --Teggles 18:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It does seem like, though, that the "Plot and setting" sections of the articles have the sections which only summarize the main point of the story and the characters. Then with the story, you just go all out and say everything that ever happens in the story. In other words, it may not be clear to the reader that the story section is beginning because the word "Story", in which all of the actual spoilers are contained, is not as clear as the heading for "Plot and setting". It also seems as though you're doing this to spite the reader. It is an "encyclopedia", but official encyclopedias never do go into a story of anything into detail (at least no encyclopedias I'm familiar with). Plus, by "plot", what is the reader expecting: a background of the game's story and some of the elements included within the main story, or a full blown account of every single little thing that ever happens in the story? I recently read the Final Fantasy X story section for the first time since I came here last (which was about a few months ago), and I can see that some of the major issues that warranted this discussion were, in fact, removed (like any of the subplots, which should never be included anyway). However, it is still a pretty detailed account of a LOT that goes on in the story from beginning to the end, and some of these summaries drag on, which is a violation of lengths (Wiki has a template for when a plot summary goes into too much detail and drags on and on, making it too long in comparison with the other sections of the same article). I think, basically, the issue is no spoiler warnings are allowed in articles that might contain unnecessary spoilers to begin with, not just the spoilers by themselves. Finally, the current games that have been released (the upcoming FF XIII, for example) fall under the "current works" deal (Spoiler notices are more likely to be appropriate in newer works than in older works.), so a real controversy is bound to happen with the newest entries into the franchise.


 * What I would suggest is a common ground and provide a brief synopsis into what the main story is. For example, the instruction booklet for each game provides a firm story background (which I think should be what the "story section" is, anyway). One could then provide additional detail into what the story deals with (i.e.: social commentary, as seen in FFX). I have seen that there is a separate "Final Fantasy Wikipedia" that uses the Media Wiki system but is linked through the main project page somewhere. The detailed plot summaries could go there if desired with no fear of backlash.


 * I think some of the attitude by the people that are against the spoiler tags are at times unnecessary, as well. Though many of the attitudes have improved, there is no seek of a serious debate about the issue (which is a hot button one in this project and deserves to be debated with some respect with both sides being considered), but rather a demand for those that do not agree with the rule to agree anyway (in other words, talking as though they are "above" the etiquette rules of Wiki) with no desire to consider any other reasoning, viewpoint, or suggestion (how many times has the encyclopedia argument been used and debated about this? Seems like it's the "goto" argument). I am not saying that the project owners don't have valid arguments, but it seems as if no one else's opinion on this issues is taken seriously. To be fair, some of the people that complain about the lack of the spoiler tags are not as mature as they should be, either, and that takes away from the people who would like to have a serious debate about this issue. (This is starting to sound like the debate over the Iraq war the way I'm putting it).


 * Wiki's system about spoilers (only using a tag to denote such) needs improvement, and I may bring it up on the tag's discussion page about a better system for the spoiler issue that all pages on Wikipedia can comply with (the current "guidelines" are somewhat vague).


 * I would say, put the detailed plot on the FF Wiki site, and put a short summary of the main plot up to a certain point without giving away TOO much would be acceptable. Again, I think this is a hot button issue about a tag that may or may not be necessary on pages that could have too much information and go into too much detail anyway, with the rude attitudes being shown by both sides not helping. Darkpower 12:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)