Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Spoilers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This discussion, which petered out on November 24, 2009, was inconclusive. No consensus was reached on any proposals to change current practice with regard to spoilers on Wikipedia. --TS 07:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

SPOILER ALERT disclaimers

My suggestion is to install a functionallity that displays a "SPOILER ALERT" note on pages that might contain spoilers.

For example, the "The Office" page on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_office gives cast distribution for UK and US versions of the show, per season. There, in Season 6, it points out that the manager's function in the US version is shared between Michael Scott, and Jim Halpert - clearly a spoiler for those who haven't watched the Season 6 episodes yet. I am sure this example is by its logic widely valid for much of Wikipedia's content.

I thank you for taking time to go through this suggestion, and I hope it will be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.162.33.13 (talk • contribs)

See WP:SPOILER.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 12:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There was such a feature, and it was discussed and removed MBelgrano (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

More specifically, WP:NODISCLAIMERS. There's even a specific User Warning template for adding such disclaimers, {{Uw-spoiler}}. --King Öomie 14:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have lots of time to kill, Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive index may be a fun read :) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to take a vacation day to get through all that. Holy crap. --King Öomie 16:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are "spoilers" anyways? How can you objectively identify a "spoiler"? How can you tell when the "spoiler" is no longer a "spoiler"? The problem with so-called "spoilers" is that some individuals will view anything beyond the series existence to be a spoiler. There is far too much interpretation involved. Besides, people needs to grow up and understand that if they read plot details, which are almost always clearly defined on Wikipedia, then they are "spoiling" themselves. If you read the summary of an episode that you have not seen, then it's your own fault for getting "spoiled". —Farix (t | c) 12:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

"people needs to grow up and understand" -- I participated somewhat in the spoiler debate, and this notion was repeated often throughout. It's an unreasonable request. It's demanding that our audience bow to us instead of us to their needs. Most comprehensive movie listing sites, review sites, etc. with movie plot descriptions don't include spoilers, or include them but hide them, or don't hide them but show a warning. There's no reason to demand that when people then go to just our website, they should suddenly expect something different. I agree though that the logistics of implementing an objective system are tough to crunch. Wikipedia's decentralized editing makes it nearly impossible, as anyone can say that anything is a spoiler, and there is really no objective evidence either way. I've thought about a general disclaimer though, perhaps included in all articles that describe a story work, to inform visitors who would reasonably not be aware of our rules, to expect spoilers in all such articles. Equazcion (talk) 14:02, 7 Nov 2009 (UTC)

We have that, linked on every WP page. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That's included on all pages, with no special differentiating mark on articles that describe stories. The link to the general disclaimer is mostly ignored anyway. Due to the nature of plot descriptions in general on the web, Wikipedia's special rules regarding them should stand out. As strange as it sounds, people know by now to necessarily expect objectionable material in websites, but not necessarily full disclosure of movie plots. That may yet come as a surprise to many people. Equazcion (talk) 14:38, 7 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Including an mbox at the top of most articles which contain plot outlines seems to be a reasonable compromise, to me. We clutter up all sorts of pages with stickers telling our readers about editorial issues, I don't see why something that could actually be pertinent to a reader would be objectionable.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that templates for editorial issues should be temporary - they're removed when the problem is fixed. A spoiler warning template would be permanent. Mr.Z-man 21:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

{{spoiler}}. What a lot of drama that stirred up when 4 or so individuals AWBed them out of existence. When people started talking about the actual use of T:spoiler, they came to the (imo right) conclusion that these are encyclopedia articles, and encyclopedia articles (Britannica, Encarta, etc) don't warn users when they search for an article that there will be spoilers in the article they are reading. --Izno (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Everyone always uses that "their supposed to be temporary" excuse but, come on already... Technically that is true, but there are hundreds (probably thousands) of articles with various tags from 2007 and earlier. The "their only temporary" thing is a good thought but reality is sort of biting it in the butt.

@Izno: I don't think anyone really disagrees with that, but have you actually read Equazions replies above? It doesn't seem that you have, based on this response.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, first, if no one really disagrees with that... As for Equazion's note, I discounted the arguments. What is customary on the Internet doesn't need to hold to us, and I see little reason why it should. From a usability perspective, this is a poor argument, but I make it just the same. WP is bound only to the WMF's rules and our own. One of the arguments used for the deprecation of T:Spoiler was that if one of the headings in the article says "Plot", it's implicit that there will be spoilers. If you don't want to read them, read around them (the Table of Contents is useful here). You can still read articles which are fictional in nature without reading about the plot. And as I said before, we should hold ourselves to the standard other encyclopedias have... and that standard disallows the inclusion of "spoiler" notices.
Besides, I have this sneaking suspicion people have gotten used to finding spoilers in the text. --Izno (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The cleanup tags that were added in 2007 can be removed at any time once the issue is fixed. A spoiler tag, unless we create some policy disallowing spoilers, will never be removed. Lasting an arbitrarily long time is not the same thing as being permanent. Mr.Z-man 22:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

6 on one hand, half a dozen on the other. I understand completely the distinction that you're drawing, but it effectively means nothing. On a purely intellectual level this argument is strong, but it quickly looses it's strength when held up to the (current) reality.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 00:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No, long-lasting is not the same as permanent. They are 2 totally different things, they are not simply 2 different descriptions of the same concept. With a very few exceptions, templates like you're proposing document a problem with the article. Containing spoilers is not a problem or an issue that needs to be resolved. Mr.Z-man 00:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me try this again: I understand what you're saying, and technically you're correct of course. The problem is that the fact that your technically correct effectively has 0 impact. I understand that the argument that you're making here is persuasive to you and several (many?) others who agree with you, but what I'm attempting to communicate to you is the reason why it is not persuasive to those who are not already persuaded by it.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Re Izno: "What is customary on the Internet doesn't need to hold to us...WP is bound only to the WMF's rules and our own." -- Of course it doesn't need to. But being bound by something is the last reason any changes occur on Wikipedia. We make changes when we feel they may be more intuitive to users, not necessarily because of some perceived obligation (generally). I'm not sure where this sneaking suspicion you have comes from, nor what it has to do with WP:OR. Regardless, whether or not you want to put forth the pedantic argument that people ought to expect certain things from this site, for whatever reason, this should take a back seat to what most people actually do expect. It's not our job to shake an index finger at them and tell them they should have known better. If you instead just want to say that permanent notices on certain articles would be an eyesore, I would say that's something that could be dealt with. The possibilities for the type of appearance such notices might have are virtually infinite, and I think a compromise could be reached that satisifies everyone, if we can come to an agreement on the general need for some such notice. Equazcion (talk) 23:00, 7 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Given the amount of previous discussion on this topic, I think you're severely underestimating the amount of effort it will take to reach any sort of agreement. Mr.Z-man 00:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The previous discussions regarded spoiler alerts on specific sections of content, to be determined by editors; which I'm conceding is not feasible. I'm hoping that an across-the-board generalized warning on applicable articles will be more widely acceptable, since that wouldn't invite the infinite contention over content that was a major practical argument against spoiler notices in previous discussions. Equazcion (talk) 00:21, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

The current WP:Spoiler guideline states:

Wikipedia no longer carries spoiler warnings, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers.

You're essentially proposing a reversal of this, which is one of the key parts of the guideline. Mr.Z-man 00:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm proposing a reversal to that. Equazcion (talk) 00:41, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I like the formatting a lot, although I simply don't think this is clear enough. People will quite likely miss reading the spoiler alert because it's right justified on the same line as the heading. Like supermarket shopping (how people skip looking at the end of isle shelves), people's eyes will skip over this. IMHO, it needs to be written below the heading, with the same, left justification. --Rebroad (talk) 11:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

To allay worries that this would look like a permanent maintenance tag, here's a crude mockup of the type of warning I envision. I'm not sure if there would need to be a software tweak or if it could be accomplished in a template, but this is just one idea. Equazcion (talk) 00:51, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

This is just as bad, as that means we'll have spoilers on pages like Romeo & Juliet, Dante's Inferno, and Canterbury Tales, since these all have narrative, and, because the way this reasoning works, if even one person considers revealing of a narrative of spoiler, it has to be marked. And those these examples beg the answer "well, obviously more contemporary works need spoilers", when do we draw the line? What about works published in the last 2 centuries, like Sherlock Holmes, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, To Kill a Mockingbird, etc. ??

People that come to Wikipedia and complain about spoilers are using Wikipedia for the wrong purpose. We are, by nature of a tertiary source, need to cover every aspect of a topic in detail, and that includes the plot. If someone is coming here to find out if their favorite actor is in a movie, that's not our job, that's IMDB. If they want reviews, Rotten Tomatoes. Etc. --MASEM (t) 01:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Not if even one person... I was thinking more along the lines of placing the warning across the board in every article that describes a story. Again, the reality of the situation should dominate over our ideal wish that people understand what we are before they get here. Equazcion (talk) 01:56, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

That's what I meant: you really thing that we look professional having spoiler warnings on an article like Romeo & Juliet? --MASEM (t) 02:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we started not looking professional when we declared that this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Wikipedia is a quirky place, and this would be another quirk. I think it's worth the trade-off of having a spoiler warning on Romeo and Juliet if it means being able to place one on Usual Suspects, Memento, and Fight Club to avoid really ruining someone's potential experience with a work of cinema or literature. Equazcion (talk) 02:16, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is a quirky place, and this would be another quirk." So adding spoiler notices is a quirk? I'm pretty sure you used the instance earlier that "everybody does it". Make up your mind please. --Izno (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No, spoiler notices aren't quirky. A spoiler notice on Romeo & Juliet would be. Wikipedia is unique in that in order to avoid constant arguing over which stories deserve the warning, we'd have to put it on all of them; hence the quirk. This is in the interest of accomplishing the same practical goal as other sites do with selective spoiler warnings, which is to avoid ruining the story for the unsuspecting reader. Equazcion (talk) 02:32, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I have a question regarding WP:NODISCLAIMERS, since it was brought up in this discussion and it seems to be the main idea behind why we cant have spoiler warnings. Has anyone thought about cleaning up the language on it? The lead is written like one person sat down and wrote an essay, not what I am used to seeing in some of the more "famous" guidelines like RS. Was there really as big a consensus regarding its wording as we are led to believe in this thread here (and actually the way the guideline is written it already does not instill confidence that it has the consensus of the Community-at-large behind it, very wishy-washy terms).Camelbinky (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you F-ing kidding me? "They are using Wikipedia for the wrong purpose"? Wikipedia is used in whatever manner our readers need it to function, not in the manner we say it is to be used for. Do you really think that readers shouldnt come here to find out what movie an actor on tv played in? In the last three weeks as new shows have premiered and I couldnt remember "where do I know that actress from?" (like the blonde lady in the V miniseries), I came to Wikipedia and looked up the show and the cast list. Did I misuse Wikipedia? Really?Camelbinky (talk) 01:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

WP is defined by the people that edit it (that's why we're at this policy page, right?) with the encouragement that readers convert themselves to editors to influence the work. But, on the other aspect: there is no reason we cannot be there to answer "where do I know that actress from?", but we cannot, by virtue of being a complete work, be there to answer "where do I know that actress from without learning any other details of other roles that she may be in?" --MASEM (t) 02:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I thought I've been writting articles in order to make this the fullest and most complete source of information for our readers. Thank you for letting me know that our real purpose and goal is to write articles that convert readers into editors. I'm suppose to be a recruiter through my writting. When did Wikipedia become a cult? I didnt get a robe, and I dont know the chant.Camelbinky (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you are spinning my words. We, those editors that participate in building articles and working out content and other policies and guidelines are the community that works to improve WP. Any reader is free to join - anonymous or not - if they feel they have something to contribute or believe that WP can be improved by doing something differently (such as this discussion right here). Those readers that become editors (which we all were at some point) is the only way we get feedback and work other viewpoints into consensus. If we just went off what any reader wants to see in WP - including those that do not participate in building it - we'd decide our content based on page views, and our guidelines and policies would be drastically different; notability would likely not exist and there would be much weaker requirements for things like reliable sources and article quality. At the end of the day, it is those people that choose to participate in this discussions that guide what WP should and should not contain (that's why it's a wiki, and we aren't driven by page views), barring any from-above requirements from the Foundations. --MASEM (t) 04:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually oppose any type of "spoiler warning" on Wikipeda. For one, I personally believe that there are no such things as spoilers to begin with. And if someone doesn't want to know the plot of something, they shouldn't be reading things labeled "Plot", episode summaries, or character descriptions. Spoiler warnings are a product of the knee-jerk paranoia that has equated any and all plot details as "spoiler". Wikipedia should not surcome to this senseless paranoia that has been embraced by the rest of the "Internet" because it may offend the occasional reader. We have a very specific "no disclaimer in articles" policy in affect across Wikipedia. But this proposal effectively puts a disclaimer on all articles that contains any form of narrative fiction. Why are plot details more deserving of article disclaimers instead of offensive images, offensive content, potential liable content on biographies, medical articles, and articles on controversial topics? —Farix (t | c) 03:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The reality of readers' expectations should trump the admittedly dominant ideal among long-established Wikipedians that everyone should come to Wikipedia already understanding full well what it is and what its standards are. This is a fantasy, and one we shouldn't be imposing on everyone else. The "If they didn't expect this, they shouldn't have read this" argument is pedantic for the sake of pedantic. You may consider plot summaries to be full plot synopses, but on most sites this is not the case, and people therefore don't expect it. Distasteful content is expected on most of the web by now, and libel is something that's flat-out not allowed here so we shouldn't really be warning people to expect it. Spoiler content is something that readers both reasonably don't expect with no warning, and it is our very policy to include in articles in all cases. Equazcion (talk) 03:37, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I think most readers of Wikipedia know by now that articles contain spoilers and have come to expert them. The fact that many other websites have indulge in this paranoia doesn't mean that Wikipedia should. In fact, Wikipedia shouldn't. If you indulge in the paranoia on this one area, then you have no bases to refusing indulging in the paranoia of other areas. So you still haven't explained why an in-article spoiler disclaimer is more important than other potential disclaimers. —Farix (t | c) 03:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Readers who have read Wikipedia articles containing plot summaries may expect it, but people who are new to Wikipedia or haven't read such articles before won't. I have explained why it's especially important: Spoiler content, based on its treatment elsewhere on the web, is not something people expect to happen upon without some warning; and it is our very policy to include all available spoiler content in every applicable article with no warning. If it's our policy to do the opposite of what the average reader expects of a website, I think we ought to offer an especially visible warning regarding it. Equazcion (talk) 03:56, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

How content is treated elsewhere on the web is not the concern of Wikipedia, nor should it be. And again, I do think that there are very few people who don't understand that Wikipedia contains full plot details and don't contain any form of warning about them. Disclaimers warning about comprehensive plot details are silly after all, and its time for this paranoia over them come to an end. —Farix (t | c) 04:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

How content is treated elsewhere should be our concern in a secondary way, because of the way it influences people's general expectations. Calling the idea "silly" is just not something I can argue with, as it's no argument at all. I could say your opposition to the idea is "silly" too, so where has that gotten us. Equazcion (talk) 04:10, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I also firmly oppose any kind of spoiler warnings or disclaimers being added to any article. If you look up an ENCYCLOPEDIC article about a topic and somehow do not believe it will contain the entire plot, rather than a teaser, that's your own issue. Live and learn. There are no spoiler warnings in any encyclopedia that I've ever seen, and adding it here would be extremely silly, IMHO. We are not a review site (and there are some that do spoil works), we are not a database site like IMDB, and we are not a book catalog. We are an encyclopedia. It is common sense to expect full plots. Further, if we start doing this disclaimer where does it end? Do we add disclaimers to every controversial type topic to warn people it may upset or bother then? Shall we hide all images with disclaimers that they may be disturbing to some viewers? Of course not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There are also no articles about cats with fraudulent diplomas in any other encyclopedia; nor even articles on every movie ever made. We call Wikipedia an encyclopedia but it's nevertheless something unique. Moreover the very fact that we call it an encyclopedia rather than a forum may make people especially expectant to not see spoilers, since other official-sounding sources like newspapers and review sites don't show them. I'm of the opinion that we should be tailoring our standards based on what readers, rather than we the established editors, would rather find most useful, instead of saying "tough luck, this is how we do it". Equazcion (talk) 05:12, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Thus far, you seem to be alone in this view that readers don't expect spoilers. Can you actually point to evidence that shows this to be true? I work almost entirely in fictional articles, and only a very very small percentage of edits attempted to remove or indicate spoilers were in the article, and I can count on one hand the number of talk page discussions where a new editor asked about the spoilers. Versus 100s of thousands of page views. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone who sees a problem will attempt to remove it, nor even realize they have the ability to so much as comment on it. I think many of us established users operate under certain false assumptions about what the average Joe stumbling across a Wikipedia article in google results knows about Wikipedia. Most of my family and friends had no idea they could edit Wikipedia articles until I told them they could, and they still don't fully comprehend the concept enough to even try, though they read its articles often. They don't even realize there's a community behind it all that discusses article content. I don't have any evidence, and I don't really think gathering it would be easy; we do have a policy against spoiler warnings, so when anyone so much as sees mention of that, for instance in response to another user's complaint, they won't comment themselves. Yes I do seem to be alone in this particular discussion, so far, however past spoiler debates have been rather divided in the community; I think once this discussion gets more eyes it will hopefully attract more support. Equazcion (talk) 05:28, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Equazcion is certainly not alone in thinking the current status quo is inadequate or that many readers don't expect spoilers.Lambanog (talk) 04:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

A notice that says "Warning!: If you read this article to which you have navigated, you may find information about said subject."? If I want to read up on the latest Dan Brown novel--despite the implausibility of the scenario--if I go to an encyclopedia to read about it, I should expect ... wait for it ... information about it. Conversely, if I don't want to read information about it beforehand I wouldn't search for said article. {{spoiler}} warnings to tell readers that the encyclopedia (Wikipedia) has information about the topic for which they've searched seem pointless and wasteful. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

To repeat, most websites and thereby readers don't expect said information to contain spoilers if no warning is given. Of course information on the subject is expected, but "information" on a book or movie, when referring to websites that generally provide said information, tend to do it in a way that doesn't disclose plot surprises and endings that are critical its its enjoyment. Equazcion (talk) 06:01, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I've never had this experience, so I have no basis for comparison. If I'm looking for information about Perry Mason, I expect it to be comprehensive; if it's not, or if information has been redacted, that resource is worthless to my expectations. Conversely, I recently searched the tubes for when the next Star Trek: Myriad Universes book is coming out; I expected my search results to return with all information available (to include plot "spoilers"), and somehow managed to find what I was looking for (Shattered Light, Summer 2010) without spoiling myself as to its projected content. My experiences drive my input; if I'm looking for information, I expect to find it without having been editorialized, redacted, or quarantined for my "protection". FWIW. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 06:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

We're not talking about censoring or altering anything, only adding a warning; as most sites already do. Equazcion (talk) 06:21, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

It just seems pointless (to me) to warn readers of an encyclopedia that they may accidentally read about what they've just looked up. I don't suppose I've made it clear above, but to clarify my reasoning and points, I've never encountered a "spoiler warning"--with the exception of earlier Wikipedia--in my fifteen years online. I suppose that's why I find it jarring and unnecessary in the first place, but especially so in an encyclopedia. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 06:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Show me other websites that give complete plot synopses of movies with no warning, then. There aren't many, to my knowledge. IMDb is the most obvious example. Movie review sites and newspaper writeups don't give spoilers at all, so there's no need for a warning. Equazcion (talk) 06:39, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

If the only reason for adding these disclaimers to articles is "other sites do it", then it's makes for a very poor argument. Even though it is common for other sites to included unverifiable information, original research, and non-neutral points of view, Wikipedia has policies prohibiting such content from being included here. Also, adding a disclaimer to every page containing any form of plot detail is utterly useless and defeats the purpose of the disclaimer in the first place. All you are basically saying is that an article contains plot details, which for any article that does contain plot should be self-evident either by the article topic or it's lead sentence. —Farix (t | c) 06:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not the only reason, that's an oversimplification. I've brought the fact that most other sites do it to make my primary point, regarding what most people expect. Equazcion (talk) 06:54, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

In a nutshell, your argument is that because many sites use such disclaimers, people expect the disclaimers everywhere. Of course that is a false expectation on their part as there are many sites that don't use such disclaimers either. And you have yet to provided a good argument as to why plot disclaimers are more important than other disclaimers for controversial or potentially offensive content on Wikipedia. The thing about disclaimers about plot details is a form of paranoia. Not because those actually reading plot information actually care about "be spoiled", but because they are afraid others will "be spoiled" if the disclaimers aren't present. —Farix (t | c) 15:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Other sites do it because it is makes sense and treats readers with courtesy and respect. If you are against showing respect and courtesy to the reader you should cite a greater principle. What principle do you cite? Lambanog (talk) 04:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, honestly, I get most of my media-related information (TV shows, films, etc.) from Wikipedia nowadays, so I don't troll around looking for other sources usually. Memory Alpha does immediately come to mind though; every episode, film, character, planet, and character biography is rife with spoilers without any warning as to their presence. Their only concession is that since only what's on screen is Star Trek canon, plot information cannot be included until the airing--not to prevent spoilers, but to only include aired canon. If I think of any more, I'll amend my comment here. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 06:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ¶ I've been editing non-fictional parts of Wikipedia for 18 months and my edit-count (which presumably includes talk-page chatter, MoS debates, user-page experiments and Ref. Desk contributions) exceeds 5,000. But I didn't know that most Wikipedia articles about stories include spoilers, which is indeed contrary to what one sees elsewhere on the Web, in newspapers and magazines, or even in every encyclopedia. And Wikipedia's an organism that will grow into a more-than-encyclopedic form that no one can predict, so if people want to use it as an alternative directory, why not serve them? (I don't like geographical articles cluttered up with every school and restaurant; but there's no reason in my opinion that such lists couldn't find some space here.) My own preferred solution (as if this issue had no history) would be fold up plots in a template if this could be done reasonably aesthetically. I might like to know more about Coriolanus or Timon of Athens, which I've never seen or read, without knowing their dénouements the first time I read or see Act I. So I don't think it's silly to put an alert on Romeo and Juliet (or West Side Story); there's a first time for everyone, and we have some very young readers. For me the two issues are (1) finding an alert that doesn't look too jarring, inconspicuous or tacky, and (2) (since I don't want to cramp other editors' style) where to put one when a whole discussion necessarily includes the plot's end versus where the end only comes up in a single section like "plot". A third, minor, point is some alternative wording to "spoiler alert", which is well-understood in a broad, but still-limited, universe. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia must present information in the manner in which its sources present it. This is the core of the NPOV policy correct? Estreme example meant in humor- Mike is an asshole (by the New York Times, Fox News, LA Times, Washington Post, several biographies); so Wikipedia must write "Mike is an asshole" with appropriate references. So why cant we take that idea of "present in manner in which the sources present it" and actually check our references and see how the sources we are using are presenting this very information. IF the majority of our sources seem to be using warnings on this information, then yes we have an obligation to continue that process. We do similar with our photos, we have to use tags on them as they GFDL and other restrictions that may apply; why not a similar idea in this case? I think it is a sensible step in this discussion. Anyone willing to do the legwork and do a check of a good crosssection of sources from various media articles? As for WP:NODISCLAIMERS- I mentioned before its crappily written and really we shouldnt be dismissing this proposal based on it; any guideline that tries so hard to convince you it is right has a problem and this one looks like it was written by a paranoid individual who thought any minute someone might try to change the wording, plus it pretty much discourages you at the bottom from ever being bold on it, another sign the writer was paranoid about others disagreeing, not many policies outright tell you not to be bold.Camelbinky (talk) 06:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Your line of reasoning has merit but in the case of plot summaries, they basically all come from the primary source -- a viewing of the movie or reading of the book. Other sections like analyses etc. come from third-party sources, or should, but plot summaries, for the most part, don't. Equazcion (talk) 06:49, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Books, films, etc. do not come with spoiler warnings. Plots come from there, so we are presenting it as they do. Now if you mean other sources, then the majority of them to NOT use warnings, they simply don't include "spoiler" information at all, when it comes to reviews of fictional works. So by your reasoning, we should remove plots all together, which of course is not a valid option. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Collectonian above and vote for complete information, with reader discretion assumed. The argument that 'it might spoil the fun' is not valid because the reader doesn't need to access Wikipedia before the work itself. If there is a book to read, for example, then the reader has the choice to read the book first and not be worried about spoilers!  REINCARNUT  (I'm over here) - You gotta do what you gotta do. 06:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not necessarily one or the other -- read the the Wikipedia article or watch the movie. People read up on things like books and movies first in order to get some idea of what they're about, for instance to decide if they want to see/buy/read it; hence other sites' descriptions that don't include spoilers. Equazcion (talk) 07:04, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. But then we will have to define 'some idea'. Wikipedia articles on films have an information box for the basic information. Then there are sections with descriptions or notes about different aspects of these films, including cast, production notes, etc. These sections include plot. So apart from advising reader discretion, I don't see a way to include AND not include. The onus has to be on the reader. My two cents.  REINCARNUT  (I'm over here) - You gotta do what you gotta do. 07:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is a warning to be placed on every page that has a plot description, with no decision required regarding content. See the image above. Equazcion (talk) 07:17, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I did take note of the image earlier. But again, like someone else has argued here, anything could be a spoiler. Sometimes, just knowing who is in the cast can be a spoiler. Sometimes a line about where the film is set can be a spoiler. I do not subscribe to an argument that a reader has to be safeguarded against content. For argument's sake, if the article were on history and specifically about a war. Wouldn't it be a 'spoiler' to say who lost or won? As with all Wikipedia content, I say that reader discretion should be assumed. Perhaps then, the way to deal with this is to have a bottom disclaimer to appear on ALL content on Wikipedia, something to the effect that any page may contain spoilers?  REINCARNUT  (I'm over here) - You gotta do what you gotta do. 07:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's an unreasonable jump, from creative works to history and sports, to assume that if people don't expect spoilers in one that they also wouldn't in the other. This proposal is only regarding said creative works, as no one has ever suggested otherwise. If someone should at some point complain about spoilers in history articles, we can deal with that then, but I don't see it happening. Equazcion (talk) 07:34, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Agreed about the unreasonable jump - I did say it was for argument's sake. My point still is that Wikipedia, as I see it, only offers to provide information. The reader has be bear the onus of choice of what he/she reads. I do not agree that Wikipedia should influence the reader to read one part or other (unbiased POV?). So, why should there be disclaimers specifically for fiction? Are they equally available/suggested for other content? There are graphic images, for example, on Wikipedia which may be considered unsuitable for public display. The are discussions on several controversial subjects that include information that may be considered unsuitable for 'general audiences'. While I partially agree with the 'so far so good' approach of "if someone should... we can deal with that then", I am of the view that we should be able to preempt such requests to make a stable(r) system. A precedent only creates more instances of the same, or similar, requests. The 'consensus' argument also illustrates my point. There will be people quoting prior consensus to revert to it, just as there will be people quoting consensus as a reason to change! My vote remains for no spoiler warnings :-)  REINCARNUT  (I'm over here) - You gotta do what you gotta do. 08:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, some people DO consider sports to be spoilers. Certainly, when the Olympics are time delayed, newscasters will often tell people to turn their heads or use mute if they want to be surprised by the broadcast that night. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support consensus No disclaimers. Wikipedia's purposes, first and foremost, is to inform-not coddle or protect some fragile psyches from spoilers. I've never understood the hyper-sensitivity to spoilers. If a person is foolish enough to read the plot section of a film and have it "spoiled", they're not going to be seriously harmed or scarred for life. On the contrary, they still learned something even if it is to be careful reading Wikipedia. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • What if the average person does exhibit expectations you've deemed to be foolish? Would you still call it foolish? I don't thik we should be acting that superior. Equazcion (talk) 06:52, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible to assume what expectations do or do not have. Wikipedia is in the business of being an encyclopedia and providing information. That is it. We are not in the omniscience business of assuming whether or not our readers feelings would be hurt if they read the plot line of a movie they haven't seen yet. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 11:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, we don't try to please readers at all costs; I'm sure many would find how-to, censored, dictionary and other non-encyclopedic content helpful/useful/etc, but we still exclude that content because our first and foremost loyalty is to that of being an encyclopedia. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The question of how to be an encyclopedia is constantly being debated. "We are not in the omniscience business" -- You're doing the same, in predicting what people would expect of an encyclopedia. I'm simply predicting something different, so we disagree. Neither of us is acting on any more hard evidence than the other. Equazcion (talk) 20:20, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

My "predictions", if you wish to call it that, are based on simply what an encyclopedia is--a source of information. Your predictions deal with the realm of feelings-i.e., that people's feelings are hurt if they read a plot description. Your entire argument is based on predicting people's feelings which is a far cry from the simple assumption that people know what an encyclopedia is. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The debate about spoilers is not about content as much as it is about format, style, and presentation. I'm sure people will object IF EVERYTHING WAS IN ALL CAPS TOO. Aren't people objecting in that case also doing so based on feelings as you would seem to define it? Lambanog (talk) 04:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

spoiler warnings break 1

Wouldnt using the information straight from a movie or book to write a synopsis in Wikipedia regarding the plot be using a primary source, if it hasnt been put in a secondary source then we shouldnt have a "plot section" at all. That would solve the entire problem. Oh, and I'd like to point out about this "consensus says no disclaimers" as Agne states- when WP:NODISCLAIMERS became a guideline in 2005 it specifically stated that spoiler disclaimers were the exception. That exception was put in there in like the third edit by the actual writer of the essay on his/her namespace, and most importantly it got promoted to guideline with that exception. So consensus at one point said it was fine. I'd like to know more about this "consensus" that got rid of it. Was it only two or three editors? Too many people here are saying "that its consensus" and going with it just because "its always been that way". Well it hasnt. Perhaps people shouldnt fear change and realize this is a wiki and things change, status quo sucks.Camelbinky (talk) 06:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith that Agne27 didn't mean to taint the pool by suggesting the consensus is and always was a certain way, but that he was stating instead his agreement to the last established consensus shown in policy. Primary sources are actually allowed to be used, carefully, in Wikipedia articles. See WP:Primary source. Equazcion (talk) 07:07, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

You can review the two rather large RFC's that occured in 2006 to remove spoilers warnings here and here. It certainly was done with more than just a handful of editors, and probably one of the few obvious cases of where large-scsale consensus worked to decide the outcome. --MASEM (t) 07:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"don't use" on "Plot", "Plot summary" and "Synopses" passed 48 to 35. There have been questions raised afterwards about whether or not this actually "worked" to establish "consensus". Equazcion (talk) 07:15, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Masem for finding those for me, I will enjoy reading editor's reasons for removing them, perhaps they will change my mind. I agree, Eq, that primary sources are useful, I guess I was being a bit POINTY, but really in alot of these articles its pretty much like you are reading the screen play itself its overly detailed and many, especially in the area of cultish tv shows like Futurama they get close to (and often cross the line) into OR when they bring in things like "in episode 2 Xis implied to have happened in y's past but in episode 5 person y mentions the she was in the Congo at that same time!" If no secondary source has found it necessary or informational or notable enough to do synopsis of the plot of X show or Y movie or Z book, should we? And if there are (which there definitely would be easily found reliable synopsis plots of classics and other important books, movies) then we should present the information as the source does, and most are not including "spoilers" in my experience, and if they do have a spoiler then we should present it as the source does (with or without a spoiler warning, whatever the source does). So, yes, I am saying that plot sections are unnecessary trivia.Camelbinky (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between a valid, reliable plot summary and OR. People adding OR is not going to change with a spoiler warning, instead the OR should be removed. Removing plot is just not going to happen. You can not reasonably have an article on a fictional work without the context of its plot. Just because other sites or sources do not give the entire plot does not mean Wikipedia should be limited to only giving a teaser. The work itself is a valid source for its own plot, when properly done. And no, they are not "easily found' for most notable works, except for the handful of classics and works discussed in an academic setting. Plot summaries are not trivia, obviously, they are a core part of any fictional topic. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have actually put forth this argument before, Camelbinky. It would indeed solve the problem if we would abdicate control to secondary sources over which plot details are necessary to include. It would have the bonus effect of cleaning up plot summaries that inevitably grow with fandom detailing. And, it would also solve the Romeo & Juliet problem; classic stories would have their endings spelled out in many secondary sources, so they could be included. This is definitely something worth considering, IMO. Equazcion (talk) 07:49, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

You are never going to convince the significant number of editors that get involved on fiction articles to not include plot - they're already discontent at strong-arm notability enforcers for having to restrain coverage of fiction (whether they are right or wrong). A plot of the work is part of the work's complete coverage, something that we need to provide. Telling that they can't discuss plot in the context of avoiding spoilers will be completely ignored. --MASEM (t) 12:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I never said they wouldn't be able to include plot, just perhaps not plot derived from primary sources. It wouldn't only be a matter of avoiding spoilers, but keeping plot sections up to a standard of quality. Relying on users to just watch a movie and describe it isn't all that encyclopedic in my mind. It seems incongruous with our standards for other material. Equazcion (talk) 19:24, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

If the secondary source, by itself, is not encyclopedic in nature as Wikipedia is intended to be, then the content is not an 'exact match'. If, for example, a plot for a movie published on such a secondary source does not contain anything about its ending, then it is an inherently incomplete plot description! A movie logically has an end and a plot should include it.  REINCARNUT  (I'm over here) - You gotta do what you gotta do. 08:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a one good argument for the inclusion of spoiler warnings of some sort: People get spoiled on Wikipedia countless times every day. The question is, should we do something about it? I'm the proud owner of a very sharp knife. Should I put a sticker on it reading "Don't stab yourself."? You may be thinking now that this is not an accurate comparasion, because it should be obvious to any intelligent being that they shouldn't stab or otherwise hurt themselves with knifes, but little children do just that every day. You may also think that it's not an accurate comparasion, because it's not obvious that Wikipedia articles will contain spoilers, but it's explicitly stated in the subtitle of every article: "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". Yes, that is a spoiler warning. If a reader doesn't know that an encyclopedia is a "comprehensive reference work" and can't be bothered to look the word up in a dictionary, then that reader is proceeding to read an article the nature of which they don't know. It is a risk they are taking. It is a risk they choose to take. If such a reader gets spoiled, then I'd say they didn't care enough about not getting spoiled in the first place. As for disallowing plot sections that are purely referenced to the primary sources, that is an issue worth discussing, but not here. If you think that primary sources aren't good enough, start a discussion about it, don't just use it as an excuse to get rid of spoilers. Goodraise 16:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There's never been an encyclopedia that reported on every movie and book ever made, along with everything else under the sun. People's interpretations of how an encyclopedia ought to do that are original, since this is an unprecedented tool. The claim that people should expect a complete plot synopses, just because that's the conclusion we've come to in deeming encyclopedic coverage for movies, is unreasonable. No one else does this, and there's no reason anyone else should expect it. Knives are not unprecedented; There are lots of knives out there and everyone knows what they do. As far as primary-referenced plot sections, what you call an "excuse" I call a possible solution to the problem, so I don't see any reason to discontinue discussion of it here. Equazcion (talk) 19:24, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

A solution to which problem? You either don't want primary sources to be used, because that would make Wikipedia, at least partially, a secondary source, in which case this is the wrong place to discuss it, or you don't want spoiler content and are using the primary sources as, yes, an excuse to get rid of it. As for Wikipedia being unprecedented, you're of course right. Wikipedia is unprecedented, but only to some degree. There's been encyclopedia's out there long before there was even internet and what they all had in common was that they were comprehensive reference works. A reader who comes to our articles has absolutely no reason to believe that we would exclude the ending or important plot twists from our encyclopedic coverage unless they are not aware what an encyclopedia is, in which case it is their own fault. If you really don't want to get spoiled, be careful what to read. Goodraise 20:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Not using primary sources for plot summaries would solve a host of problems, one of which is the question of spoilers. There have been encyclopedias before, but not that included movie plots. You might think expecting full synopses should be everyone's expectation; but that's just your opinion, and there's been no past evidence to back it up. In fact if anything, evidence is to the contrary. Even the "Internet Movie Database" doesn't post spoilers in plain view, and warns of spoilers on every link that may lead to them. Along with all the other official-sounding information sources on movies, none handle movies like we do. If there is a precedent, it doesn't back up your position. Equazcion (talk) 20:14, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

What other problems would not using primary sources solve? How is "the question of spoilers" a problem? As far as I can tell, Britannica has almost no articles about individual works (books, films, plays, etc.) at all. That makes it rather easy for them to exclude plot details. I looked on their website and the only one I could find were Beowulf and Romeo and Juliet, both of which include the plot. Mr.Z-man 20:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Plots can be described infinitely. If a picture is worth a thousand words, a movie is worth some number that should only be expressed in scientific notation. We have no real proof of how much or little to say about a movie's plot, and leave it instead up to our editors. This leads to problems, some of which I've described above (fandom influence), but it can be summed up as a quality issue. As Camelbinky put it, plot summaries can almost read like OR. You never know what the hell will be there, we just make it up, as we don't rely on the filtering of a secondary source to tell us which details are worthy of inclusion. This seems contrary to other facets of our article-writing process. The existence of this debate stems from the very fact that encyclopedias don't normally include material like this. What do people expect of encyclopedia articles on contemporary movies? Can we reasonably assume they must expect the same as an article on Romeo & Juliet? It's not a clear-cut decision. Equazcion (talk) 21:00, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

What research is your conclusions based on? As I noted, Britannica has almost no articles about individual works, and in the ones they do, they include "spoilers." Normal encyclopedias may only give a couple paragraphs to things that we give multiple pages. This is where WP:NOTPAPER applies. We don't have the limitations of traditional encyclopedias. Plot summaries can be OR, but so can everything else, even content sourced to reliable secondary sources. Shall we just delete the whole project then? If something is of poor quality we fix it, we don't delete it. Mr.Z-man 21:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that other encyclopedias don't include articles of this type is the reason that I don't consider them as applicable evidence. If this isn't a paper encyclopedia, then we shouldn't be comparing ourselves to one in order to make content determinations. This too is "where WP:NOTPAPER applies". On a more subjective level, everyone knows how Romeo & Juliet ends, and everyone expects everyone else to know how it ends. It's studied in high schools and is a part of history. Contemporary movies aren't. Equazcion (talk) 22:01, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I seem to have missed alot over night and this morning! Well, I believe it was Masem who pointed out that there might not be secondary sources of plot for notable things like more modern books and movies. There are reviewers from newspapers and I see no reason why they couldnt use the primary source of the back of movie dvd/vcr covers, or book covers that do plot summaries without giving out spoilers. This solves the problem of too much detail, possible OR, fandom, and spoilers. Using the movie or the book itself for a detailed minute-by-minute storyline really is ridiculous the more I think about it. "PLOT" does not mean the entire storyline, it means a "synopsis" and "overview" of the IDEA of what goes on; it doesnt mean EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS. If those who work on these things are having a hard time understanding and accepting this proposed change then perhaps they have a COI and we need to ignore them and come up with a solution that doesnt take their views into consideration and instead worries about what is best for the encyclopedia as a whole and our readers; not the interests of those that happen to work on these articles. The articles exist for our readers, not for editors and they would do well to remember that.Camelbinky (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

@Equazcion: You're right. There is no reason for a reader of a general encyclopedia to expect a full plot summary. A reader unfamiliar with Wikipedia has no means to judge whether we consider such detailed coverage as comprehensive or over-comprehensive. However, a reader, who knows that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and knows that an encyclopedia is a comprehensive reference work, has also no reason to be surprised if a Wikipedia article includes so much information. As for evidence, I haven't said anything that would require evidence. From the very beginning, I've admitted that many readers find more information in our articles than they actually want and what I have shown in my initial post is that it's their own fault. As for not using primary sources for plot summaries solving the issue of spoilers, that wouldn't be solving it, merely sidestepping it. Lets say that The Empire Strikes Back premiered yesterday and today a critic writes that he was very surprised that Vader was Luke's father. In this case, would you agree that it is alright to mention their relation in an article without a spoiler tag? I doubt it. Goodraise 21:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You're saying two contradictory things. If you agree that "There is no reason for a reader of a general encyclopedia to expect a full plot summary", then I don't see how you can then reasonably say that if they get it without expecting it that "it's their own fault". It being their own fault is what you haven't really backed up. Equazcion (talk) 22:01, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I cant speak for Eq, but as for me I agree that it would be ok to not have a spoiler tag in the example that Goodraise gives. If anyone had read my posts I've made it clear that we should stick to the sources, like we do in every other type of article; why should movies/books be different just because those that work on them are fanatical (sometimes)? If a critic ruins it first, then yes we can ruin it; if no secondary source can be found for something, then dont write it; if the secondary source used has a spoiler warning or "hides" the information then we should have a spoiler warning. Do as the source does should be the "rule". Does anyone have a real problem with following that? I mean we do that for every other article.Camelbinky (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

@Equazcion: It's not contradictory. To illustrate this, lets reduce the amount of coverage of a topic to a percentage with 100% being everything there is to know about that topic. While one reader may expect 50% and another 60%, there is no reason what so ever for any reader to expect that something that is part of the 100% not to be in the article. The only ones who may expect that any part of the 100% be selectively kept from them are those who don't know that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore strives to be a comprehensive reference work and the only ones in that group of readers are those who ignored the warning at the top of the article. If you don't heed a warning that's placed in plain sight, then the consequences are your own fault. Goodraise 22:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

But if a reader of an encyclopdia should expect 100% of the information available on a topic, then how can there be "no reason for a reader of a general encyclopedia to expect a full plot summary"? Equazcion (talk) 22:33, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I've tried to illustrate. While such readers have no reason to expect that there is a detailed plot summary, they also don't have a reason to expect that there isn't. What they expect is irrelevant. They are aware that they are reading something that strives to be a comprehensive reference work and therefore won't be surprised to find whatever knowledge the article may offer about its subject. Goodraise 10:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

And PS, in your Empire Strikes Back example, I agree that we would have no choice but to include details available through secondary sources, even if we subjectively consider them spoilers. Equazcion (talk) 22:34, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

spoiler warnings break 2

And people will complan about this. There is an example of a major TV show where one of its key actors will be leaving this season. This fact has been announced in the mainstream press to the point that if you search on that actor's name, you cannot help but to learn this. Yet, we had people claiming this information was a spoiler. That's the thurst of this: there is no objective line for what is and what isn't a spoiler. Tag everything, including old stuff, and we look stupid; limit coverage to secondary sources, and we aren't comprehenisve *and* still will have complaints. The only rational solution is to write the encyclopedia without concerns of what is and isn't a spoiler (beyond the limited case of explaining what "spoilers" are), and carry a general disclaimer that information is provided to be comprehensive and thus will include everything there is to say about contemporary works. --MASEM (t) 22:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so concerned with looking stupid. I think we already look stupid by spelling out entire plots, often based on the whims of fans. No other professional work does anything like this. There will be complaints no matter what, but there is an objective solution, more objective than allowing editors to decide for themselves what to include. Relying on secondary sources is the most objective solution. What appears in secondary sources is already our standard for objectivity elsewhere. Equazcion (talk) 22:53, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

This is a completely unworkable solution as it creates a double standard. If you are going to prohibit the use of primary sources for one subject area of Wikipedia, then you must prohibit the use of primary sources for all subject areas, that requires a fundamentally change to WP:V and WP:NOR. I don't see why we can't use the primary sources on fictional topics while being able to use primary sources for other topic areas. This exemplifies the type of knee-jerk paranoia over plot details that I have previously mentioned above. —Farix (t | c) 23:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It does seem to be a logistical problem, but this is just a preliminary idea, and I don't have the details worked out. Perhaps our rules for use of primary sources could be simply tightened up across the board. I'm optimistic that we could do so in a manner that allows their general use to back up facts, but not to allow editors to describe the primary source itself in detail. Equazcion (talk) 23:10, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

If you are planning to propose restricting the use of primary sources in general, then I expect that you are going to encounter as much, if not more resistance then you have over reestablishing plot disclaimers into Wikipedia. Especially when it becomes known that the point of restricting the use of primary sources is to deal with the non-existent "spoiler issue" and will be used as a back-channel way to censor plot information form articles. —Farix (t | c) 02:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well that's not the only point, but yes I would expect resistance to any proposed change to long-standing and far-reaching policies. Equazcion (talk) 02:50, 9 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Goodraise, answer my freakin question, why cant we just do as the secondary sources have and nothing more? If you cant find a secondary source then what is the point in having the information? Please take time to answer my post, I see no reason why that cant be a perfectly good compromise between you and Equazcion. We follow what the secondary sources have in every other article, this type of article is no different.Camelbinky (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines on the use of primary sources should not be decided on the basis of shortening plot summaries, or avoiding spoilers. There are many important reasons to use primary sources that have nothing to do with fiction. One valid reason to present all the information in a primary source (but in our own words) is to provide a free replacement for an expensive primary source. --Jc3s5h (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if people understood the difference between a plot summary and a retelling of the plot. Blueboar (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> I just want to draw attention to Masem's comment at the beginning of the section because I think it is the most astute observation made so far in this entire thread. The issue of plot details, spoilers and comprehensiveness is a classic "damn if you do, damn if you don't" scenario. If we spend all our time trying to predict people's feelings about what is and isn't a spoiler or how they are going to react to certain things, then we are going to have precious little time to actually work on the encyclopedia itself. As Masem noted "The only rational solution is to write the encyclopedia without concerns of what is and isn't a spoiler (beyond the limited case of explaining what "spoilers" are), and carry a general disclaimer...." I agree. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that we agree more then we disagree, here. I can agree with the gist of your statement and those of Masem, it's the conclusion that you're drawing to oppose this proposal where we disagree. I support adding a specific little warning to all articles with plot details for what seems to be almost the exact same reasons that you're stating opposition. We shouldn't try to "predict people's feelings", which is the perfect reason to simple include the message.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Technically, we already "tag" everything that there may be spoilers, that's the general disclaimer. But let's take the idea that I think you're talking about a tag at the top of the page or the like. Ignoring the issue of tagging very old, fundamentally academic fictional works, there's a major slippery slopes that starts if you insist that, since we can't tell what is a spoiler or not, that this leads down:

• Maybe there's a notable biography or autobiography out there that goes into intimate details that are not widely known (but verified). Now, while there would be no "plot summary", there should and likely would be a brief summary of the narrative approach used in the work. We would like have to tag these with spoilers since anything not readily known about a person could be treated in that manner. This can be taken to apply to any book with some narrative, fiction or not, meaning that we may be requiring spoiler tags on The Bible or the like.
• Sporting events or articles covering current seasons would certainly need them, because maybe there are people that record a lot of games to watch at a later time (travel, work, whatever reason) and don't want to know the winner until they view it. Better spoiler that as well.

There are probably more cases to consider. The point is, because what is a spoiler and what types of works spoilers can apply to is so vague, you start tagging every page to have that. Gee, we're back where we started: the general disclaimer that covers this.

I also want to point out the truth of the statement "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me", as is applies to spoilers. A person that wanders on WP and is hit with a spoiler, whther intentionally or carelessness, so not be making that same mistake twice unless they cannot see the follow of trying to avoid spoilers on a comprehensive encyclopedic work. --MASEM (t) 07:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The slippery slope you describe is pretty unlikely in my mind. I don't think anyone has ever suggested adding spoiler warnings to sports or biographical articles. Remember, the argument for spoiler warnings is largely based on their treatment elsewhere on the web, and what people consequently come to expect. No one expects spoiler warnings on sports or biography, because no other publications are worried over those things. As for "fool me once", just because someone sees a spoiler once doesn't necessarily mean they will infer that it's Wikipedia's policy to always include them with no warning. There are lots of other explanations that could spring to a person's mind in that situation. And, even if that were so, why not try to avoid that first unpleasant occurrence anyway? Equazcion (talk) 07:46, 9 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Equazcion completely, in that the slippery slope argument that you're making is unconvincing. It seems to be more of a straw man argument designed to score points rather then a legitimate view of a slippery slope. Regardless, since it was brought up I wanted to mention that I don't find the existence of the general disclaimer to be an answer to this issue. The general disclaimer serves a (very) important function, but it's hardly designed with spoilers as the primary issue which it is addressing. I understand that it generally covers us (as editors) and Wikipedia for the vast majority of issues, which is it's primary function, but what we're discussing here is of a slightly different character. The point to spoiler warnings is to provide a service to the readers (in the form of making them immediately aware), which is a completely different function then the general disclaimer.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

But what Masem is referring to has happened in the past. Back when the original plot disclaimers was still in use, there were disclaimers on a bunch of non-fictional article including articles dealing with biblical figures and events, myths, ancient fairy tales, several scientific concepts, mathematical puzzles, and even biographies, such as Sir Francis Bacon. —Farix (t | c) 12:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

So in that case we do what is generally done when tags are added to articles that don't require them -- we remove them. There's a fairly clear line between fiction and everything else. I wouldn't have any particular problem with leaving a spoiler warning on ancient fairy tales though, as those are indeed fiction, as the point of this solution is to have an across-the-board implementation without subjective standards. Equazcion (talk) 12:21, 9 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Since no one is listening to me, I'll just repeat myself because I like to type. In every other case regarding notability we always have relied on the standard of- if no secondary sources have ever seen fit to write about it, it isnt notable. The same standard must apply to plot summaries (and per Blueboar's comment, I do believe the intent has always been that they are summaries and not the retelling of the plot; which would be needlessly over-detailed). So if no secondary source has ever talked about the plot summary of a book, movie et al then you cant write about the plot based soley on the primary source itself. If those that work on those types of articles have a problem with us finally enforcing on them the standards that the rest of us have to live with on our geography, settlement, biography, etc articles then too bad for them. Yes it might be a fight, but we arent expecting from them harder limits or new limits, we are simply enforcing what has always been for the rest of us. To make it easier for them we can write an exception- if no secondary source is available then you can use the primary source of the book cover jacket or the dvd/tape cover (which of course wouldnt have spoilers). This solves the problem of classics as they are already covered by secondary sources (even ANCIENT classics, such as the Gilgamesh Epic, which is the oldest story written) and you wouldnt need a spoiler warning on ANYTHING, since spoilers would only exist if they had already been spoiled on a secondary source (and therefore we must assume they arent spoilers for the majority of readers anymore).Camelbinky (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the same standard does not apply to plot summaries. The plot summary itself is not notable, the work is notable and the plot summary is a part of that work. You cannot claim that become no secondary sources discuss a work's contents that those contents must be left out of an article leaving nothing but the rest of the article. There IS no topic without the plot itself - it is the work. The plot is sourced to a reliable source - the primary source. It has nothing to do with trying to force some fake standard on anything. Wikipedia allows the use of primary sources. Consensus has LONG agreed that the primary source can be used to provide a concise plot summary. This latest attempt to get rid of spoilers by removing plot summaries it blatantly transparent and purely ridiculous. And the exception makes it even clearer that all you want is to remove spoilers. The book jacket is okay, but not the book? At least attempt to try to find a realistic or feasible excuse for removing spoilers please. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

To all of those that used my name and personally attacked me (and yes it was a gang attack on me) by saying things like "Camelbinky needs to read x" and worse like- "Camelbinky doesnt understand our policies". You crossed the line and called me ignorant. You can have your own opinion on policies, and I can have mine, what you cant do is tell me I dont know the policies. I've worked on them for over 3-4 years, dont tell me I dont know them or I have to read anything. My views are equally valid to yours. There is no right way, and it sure as hell aint yours. Our policies are whatever they are interpreted as being, they arent spelled out laws that are there for all time with no interpretation needed. I have personally had things removed from articles because they werent notable, notability applies to more than just the topic, that is how things are enforced in the real Wikipedia editing world, you may have a different interpretation in "bureaucratic Wikipedia-world" but all that matters is how things are actually done at the articles, maybe you should edit more often. I'll be waiting for the apologies to come in on my talk page from those that pretty much said I was ignorant; if your going to complain that my complaint was too harsh or rude or (gag) "uncivil", dont come to my talk page because it isnt for you to complain that I stuck up for myself and threw back at you the same uncivil behavior you gave me. If you cant take it, then dont dish it out first. You stick to your opinion in a discussion and defending it, not in attacking ME telling me what I need to do or how stupid I am. There is no right way with policies, we each can have our own interpretation regarding them, there is no "I am right and you are wrong, so read the policy". If you thought this was uncivil, look at your own posts with neutral eyes.Camelbinky (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler Warnings--Break 3

I have too much of a headache to read through all of the above. Just wanted to say that initially, I was pro-spoiler warnings, but logically, I now see the cons. First and foremost, what you can get from a film article, you can get from IMDb minus a plot revelation on the primary page. So, if you're looking up a cast member, just go there instead where you won't be spoiled. Otherwise, you come to Wikipedia for the plot or the critical response, among other things you won't find at IMDb.

I basically just think it should be common sense that when you're on the page of a film, you should naturally expect there to be spoilers. The best way to avoid it? Use the contents box, click on the section you need to see (awards, critics, box office, controversy, etc.), and avoid scrolling up. Usually, the plot section is padded with a list of cast members underneath it, so it helps to avoid reading the last line of a plot description. If we were to include a spoiler template above this section, then editors would add them to production or wherever else the tiniest spoiler existed.

All one really needs to do is prevent spoilers from being in the intro paragraph. For example, the famed "celebrity comedy cameo" was in the Zombieland intro (I was pissed, but I'll probably love the film anyway), and that's unacceptable, in my opinion. It's unnecessary to mention minor, yet crucial, details such as that in the most eye-catching section. So, as long as editors avoid that and keep any major plot points out of the introduction, it should be kosher.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 04:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to notability primary sources have never been acceptable as a show of notability. Yes, you need to show notability for the inclusion of a plot summary separate from that of "its the book itself". If the plot summary is not notable as you yourself say, the it shouldnt be there at all. I want these films, books, etc, to have the same standard of inclusion and notability as the rest of us have to deal with, I was being nice by giving that exception of using the book cover etc. You want me to be "transparent" and consistent then? Ok, no exception, if the plot summary isnt covered anywhere then you cant have one, if no secondary source covers an aspect of your book, movie, etc then it isnt notable and you cant have it; remove it, and that goes for the entire article as well. Your favorite tv show is not inherently notable if it isnt covered by a secondary source. Get rid of the whole lot of these articles. Is that better? I dont have an "agenda" about spoilers, I have an agenda about knocking down a group of editors who get special treatment. I cant get away with this crap on the history and geography articles I love to work on.Camelbinky (talk) 04:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, bull. Individual of sections do not need to meet notability, and no you do not need to show notability to include it. Films, books, etc do have the same standard of inclusion. They must be notable. If notable, part of their article includes a summary of the work itself. This is plan common-freakin sense. Your agenda is purely about removing spoilers, noting more. I do not see you trying to remove all primary sources from biographies or any other work. You are specifically and explicitly attacking the plot SECTION of articles, not the notability of the article themselves and not primary source usage. You have made it clear you are attacking them purely because you want to remove spoilers, nothing more. Shall we also examine your history/geography articles and make you prove the actual notability of every section of every article, and remove them if they do not have notability? There is no special treatment of fictional articles, and turning it from articles to a perceived "knock down a group of editors" only further invalidates your case. And funny, you claim you don't "get away with it" on articles, yet I see you have created wholly unsourced articles, while several defending fictional articles here have crafted FA and GA level articles on those topics, with a proper plot summary in each. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I was one who favored spoilers four years ago. But we are more of an encyclopedia without them. And the subjectivity needed to determine what constitutes a spoiler is inherently POV. Unschool 06:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian is right. From WP:N itself (bolding is mine) - "This page in a nutshell: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." It clearly and unquestionably states notability applies to creating a stand-alone article; not a section.陣内_Jinnai 06:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that is the most contrived bit of non-logic that I've seen for a while. The notability of a work of fiction, be it in print or on film, is what it is. That it is notable is covered by secondary sources, else the article doesn't remain. There is absolutely no valid reason to claim that the actual plot of the work of fiction would also need to be established separately as notable. Nonsense. If the work is notable, then the plot, by extension, is also notable, otherwise we'd only need two or three pages to cover all published books and recorded films and television programs: Book: "pieces of printed paper about something bound inside a cover that can be read" and Film/TV program: "A section of exposed film or videotape about something that can be viewed". The notability of the work covers the work itself, including the plot and theme. Otherwise there is no article about a work. Let's refrain from getting too extreme. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky, you really need to go back and read WP:NOTE, especially the party titled "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content". Using primary sources to derive a plot summary is not a double standard. On the other hand, requiring only third-party sources to derive a plot summary is a double standard. Again, this is all part of the knee-jerk "spoiler" paranoia were people are willing to create such illogical double standards over such a non-issue. —Farix (t | c) 12:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the idea of adding another disclaimer to any article that may contain spoilers. Sarilox (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC) I think we're better without spoilers, and I think Camelbinky needs a better grasp of our policies on what we are not, on verifiability and on original research; as well as the guidance on notability, since currently the user is mangling them all rather badly. Hiding T 13:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Now the plot should be removed just to be "in accordance" with secondary sources, but truly only for the purpose of avoiding spoilers? There was even a discussion recently for a plot-specific template for articles which consists only of plot, and now this should be removed to avoid spoilers?. Honestly, I don't get why people are so obsessed with spoilers. If you don't want them, avoid Wikipedia altogether, don't try to change it to suit your needs. What's next? We shouldn't include "pseudosciences" because they might influence the people in some way of thinking? We should only include information which is "politically correct"? I oppose to either a specific tag for spoilers or to limit the content from having them. This is not a fan or entertainment site. Jfgslo (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As I previously mentioned, it's a form of paranoia that causes people to act irrationally. Even if the issue itself is either extremely trivial or non-existent. The 2007 spoiler debate ended several double standards relating to WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, as well as WP:NODISCLAIMERS. The only justifications that proponents of plot disclaimers could point to were "other sites use them" and "readers expect them", which aren't justifications at all. —Farix (t | c) 14:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The plot of a work of fiction is an integral and defining part of such work of fiction, and deserve a section, unless there's a strong reason to justify otherwise. Once the notability of the work itself is pointed, that's enough.

After all, there's no original research in desacribing a plot: it has been published, and anyone can take the work of fiction and verify it. There can problems of synthesis (describing the plot in a manner that brings novel explanations or conclussions), but not in the writing itself of the plot. MBelgrano (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Break 4 - No bright line test

On the assumption that plot summaries aren't going anywhere (really, they aren't, that's a dead end knowing what it's like to work on WP:FICT and WP:PLOT): I think at the end of the day, the issue on spoiler warnings comes down to what pages they would be placed on. The problem is, because what is considered a spoiler is vague, any bright line, objective requirement on where to put spoiler warnings is going to leave information that others may consider spoilers out and "unprotected", thus irating those. Then they will come to complain, and we'll have to move that line again, adding more under it that needs to be spoiled. And then the process will repeat: people will come and complain wondering why something else wasn't covered. I'm sure at some point we'll find articles that are impossible to have spoilers, but what's in the spoilered set will include a lot more than just fiction.

Now, as suggested, if we stay our ground and refuse to budge once we set a line, so that some people will remain upset that we refuse to allow spoilers on some articles, then we're being hypocritical, because we are readding these to prevent people from becoming upset. We can't just say, "Well, this will avoid spoilers for 90% of our readers". Either we aim for all readers to be spoiler protected (* recognizing there are stubborn people that assume every factoid is a spoiler, which it will be impossible for us to meet), or we aim for none. Aiming for none is a much more realistic goal than aiming for all.

Again, we have the general disclaimer. We need to assume our readers have enough common sense that if they went to a recent movie article here on WP and were spoiled, they would likely have the same experience if they went to another recent movie article and thus can choice to go there or not. This avoids any issues with having to guess what is and isn't a spoiler and protecting them appropriately. It's the easiest answer to any other solution. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If the ultimate goal of the disclaimer proponents is that we don't upset people, then we also need to throw out our policies on censorship and pretty much everything else listed on WP:NOT. Add to that the other content policies WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR because someone is going to get upset when when these policies are enforced as well. —Farix (t | c) 15:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

To boil it all down. People is going to be upset regardless of what we do about so-called "spoilers". So just like every other topic, instead of worrying about people become upset, we should focus on what is best for Wikipedia as an encyclopedic resource. And in that view, there isn't any reason to include plot disclaimers or exclude certain plot details. —Farix (t | c) 18:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Non sequiturs all around. What are editors for if not to address disagreements on content? What is Wikipedia supposed to be if not a useful reference? Wikipedia seeks to improve itself. Fatalism is not an argument and is contrary to Wikipedia's claimed ethos. Lambanog (talk) 05:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Conflating multiple issues?

There seems to be a lot of objections (and support) to this based on secondary effects/issues... is it accurate to say that the real objection to "spoiler warnings" has to do with misuse/over-tagging? Is it also accurate to say that some supporters may be motivated by a desire to limit content, rather then simply warn about it's comprehensiveness?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but my feelings are twofold. If spoilers are to be included, I think a warning would be a good idea. The question of limiting content is in terms of keeping only quality information in articles. If secondary sources are to be required for plot summaries, which I think would achieve the quality standard, I think that would in turn subvert the need for warnings, since spoilers don't generally appear in reliable secondary sources. Equazcion (talk) 05:31, 9 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Fine if you can tell me what a spoiler is. In 50 First Dates the ending to The Sixth Sense is a plot point, so the film 50 First Dates is a spoiler for the Sixth Sense, the DVD doesn't contain a spoiler warning for those who haven't seen it. By this definition a spoiler lasts 5 years. The Mousetrap ends with the cast asking the audience not to reveal the ending, so do we keep an 80 year old play's ending secret? Darrenhusted (talk) 10:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Again the proposal is to add a spoiler warning to all pages that contain plot summaries, so as to avoid the very conundrum of subjectively judging spoilers from non-spoilers. Equazcion (talk) 20:56, 10 Nov 2009 (UTC)

We just got rid of one excessive reader warning, please let's not (re)create another one. Garion96 (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I'd say we would need to decide whether or not it is indeed excessive. But out of curiosity which reader warning are you referring to that was gotten rid of? Equazcion (talk) 21:51, 10 Nov 2009 (UTC)

It already has been decided, {{spoiler}} was deleted. Regarding other reader warnings, you should know that one. :) See Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Garion96 (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Aside from WP:Consensus can change, this is not a proposal to bring back the same spoiler templates. This is a new proposal that attempts to eliminate the major issues that plagued previous handling of spoiler warnings. As for future templates, yes I am familiar with that :) But I obviously think spoiler warnings would be far less useless than those. Equazcion (talk) 22:25, 10 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Don't add spoiler tags, or require more than primary sources for plots. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

How about this: Everytime a standardized heading like Synopsis is used it automatically comes with a link or reference to WP:Spoilers. That solves the objective criterion of determining when spoilers text is used or not used. Lambanog (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a terrible idea to start adding useless tags or warnings to articles. Why would a spoiler would need to be warned about anyway? It's better for users to avoid looking for plots if they don't want them. It would be similar to tagging articles which talk about politics because they may offend susceptibilities. Warnings are needed when there is a problem with the information, such as if it is biased, original research, lacks sources, too short, etc. Spoilers, on the other hand, have nothing to do with the quality of the information and, as such, I'm against adding tags of that nature. There is nothing inherently wrong with spoilers to being with. Jfgslo (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings are not useless. If they had no utility they wouldn't have so many supporters. Supposedly Wikipedia's goal is to become more and more the perfect reference. How does Wikipedia benefit by ticking off readers with spoilers that they could easily have been warned about? Allowing such spoilers without the courtesy of warning makes Wikipedia an unsuitable reference for some people. That should be avoided where it does not conflict with other Wikipedia principles and ideals. Lambanog (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because a lot people are uneasy with number 13, doesn't mean that we should avoid using it. I'm under the impression that this is a similar thing. Some people are afraid of being spoiled. But, how are we supposed to know when a spoiler is a spoiler and when it's not? How does Wikipedia benefit from pleasing every single irrational bit of fear? If we start with spoilers, then what about Muslim people uncomfortable with no warnings about articles speaking about Muhammad? What about warnings for articles that speak of atheist people to avoid offending religious people? Where do we draw a line in order to please readers and be a "perfect" reference? Do serious academic sources warn about their contents? Wikipedia cannot be pleasing everyone at every desire they want. I suppose the so called "spoilers warnings" might have some use in an entertainment website. But this is a reference site, not an entertainment resource. It's expected that some readers will get ticked off, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia should become more like an entertainment website. Jfgslo (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with fear or superstition. Let's keep the ideological hyperbole to a minimum, please.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Not counting trying to "please" some readers or trying to avoid ticking some of them off, what other reason is there to add spoilers warnings? Jfgslo (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That's enough reason on its own. But since you insist, it offers otherwise indifferent readers the same choice which they might appreciate as well. It gives an indication that it is a plot driven work where plot developments are of material impact to the experience the work provides. It also gives the impression of Wikipedia being a reader friendly place that is not about petty legalistic bureaucracy to further a particular notion of what is proper or what is truth. It is a stance that supports the vision of institutional culture implied by Wikipedia's adherence to boldness over rules. Lambanog (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

In other words, it doesn't help to improve the quality of the content, only to the superficial presentation of it. It's only to make Wikipedia look "good" in the eyes of some. I don't think that's a good reason to add this kind of tag to an encyclopedia that aims to be a serious reference. And no, trying to "please" some readers is never reason enough. There will always be people who are dissatisfied with something. Jfgslo (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hide-able plot sections?

If some readers don't want to stumble across important plot points when looking up other details about a fictional work, why can't we include a way to easily hide plot sections on articles, such as a "Hide" javascript link in the table of contents and by the Plot section heading? It could be set as default to show for each article, but a particular user could have a setting to auto-hide plot sections. Fences&Windows 20:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As I was reading through the discussion, this is what struck me. If you really, really want to avoid spoilers then there is a possibility to opt out. That said it will be difficult to avoid everything, as it might also be discussed in the reception section perhaps. Possibly you could have a hidden spoiler tag that would only work if people enabled it that would make the section hide itself. It all seems tricky and I am unsure how much help it would be, as the discussion seems to be that those who know Wikipedia would expect there to be spoilers so it is the random visitor poppping in from Googling about something we should be worried about and they'd presumably be the ones less likely to be logged in and opting for a spoilers. It is a bit difficult trying to second guess this kind of thing but if people think this might be useful then I suppose it is an option. (Emperor (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC))

Hiding any article text is a bad thing, as it implies the content is not that important to the article (and thus should be on another page), and unfortunately it is impossible to expand content before a page is printed, meaning that the CD and printed page versions will lack this section unless it is unhidden.

That said, there is the possibly of a CSS driven solution that would be to wrap all sections in a uniquely named "div" class. A user that is worried about spoilers would be able to customize their CSS worksheets to hide text from that div class (and possibly then to provide the code to do that). However, this needs to be "opt-in" for all the reasons above; an IP will not be able to access these settings and thus would need to see the whole thing. --MASEM (t) 20:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Dislike the idea. Besides being a technical nightmare, and no article text should be hidden by default which makes it useless for the random IP readers. We do not hide any other controversial material, nor should a plot, which is far less controversial than certain images in the various sexual topics. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Waste of time. The audience that we're talking about helping here are people who either don't know that they could use gadgets to help themselves (for those few who actually log in), or in the vast majority of cases do not have access to gadgets (IP Users). It's nice to see at least some consideration being given, though! :)
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 20:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hideable text has almost always been considered a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED policy, and that is unlikely to change just over plot details. We shouldn't be creating double standards with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines just to elevate the feelings of a small group of readers. And even with such a system, there is going to be someone upset about certain plot details regardless of what you do. So instead of worrying about people's feelings, we should focus on what is best for Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. —Farix (t | c) 20:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you refrain from further use of "paranoia" and "feelings" based hyperbole, please? You're not elevating the conversation here at all. Thanks.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

So long as proponents of plot disclaimers keep claiming that the disclaimers are needed so as to not offend other people, I'm going to keep calling it paranoia and pointing out the double standards. —Farix (t | c) 21:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to second that (Ohms Law's comment). Most of Wikipedia's various evolutions could be described as attempts to cater to people's "feelings", and almost any proposed change could be dismissed as such, with the right wording. Equazcion (talk) 21:18, 10 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Well your entire arguement so far has been based on people's feel instead of what is appropriate for an encyclopedia. So of course you want your opposition to stop pointing out the most obvious flaw in your position. —Farix (t | c) 21:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

People's feelings regarding what is appropriate for an encyclopedia. People's feelings could be referenced as part of the motivation behind the general disclaimer, the civility policy, BITE, a host of other behavioral guidelines, BLP, etc. Catering to people's feelings is just another way of saying we care about readers and what they expect from an encyclopedia. I don't see anything wrong with that. Paranoia is an ever more ambiguous dismissal, and also covers those policies along with, especially, the general disclaimer. These dismissive classifications aren't helpful. "of course you want your opposition to stop pointing out the most obvious flaw in your position" -- No, I wouldn't have a problem with people pointing out flaws, and haven't asked anyone else to stop making particular arguments above, if you'll look through this discussions. I respect my opposition and have addressed their points, as many of them are valid concerns. This one is merely dismissive of the issue. If you genuinely feel this to be a non-issue, there's no reason to keep saying it, as it doesn't contribute constructively to the discussion. We already know how you feel. Equazcion (talk) 21:42, 10 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Plot isn't always neatly contained within a section titled "plot." A good article on a work of fiction will deconstruct the plot, both summarizing it as a whole and discussing it as it relates to conception, casting, production, critical response, and influence on other works, not to mention summarizing the whole subject in the lede. So hiding text wouldn't work, even if it were not a bad idea for other reasons. postdlf (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternate solution

Here's a thought: instead of doing anything new, why not simply move the link to the general disclaimer into a more prominent position? Everyone seems to think that the GD is acceptable, and that it's the answer to this problem, so let's stick with that.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The general disclaimer is basically useless for any purpose except Wikipedia's legal self-protection. How many web-page disclaimers, terms of service, privacy policies, etc., do you read? Far fewer than the web pages you visit. And we're talking about something quite specific, not legal advice, medical advice, libel or offensive language.—— Shakescene (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but at least the existence of the general disclaimer seems to have everyone's support. It's used as an excuse to do nothing else in the spoiler warning direction, at least.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 00:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The general disclaimer isn't the most relevant Wikipedia message. What should be made more prominent is WP:Spoilers which supposedly reflects Wikipedia preferred practice. Hyperlink to it from a standardized use of Synopsis. Problem solved. Lambanog (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, but I'm trying to come up with a compromise solution here. Since those who are against a spoiler warning in any form are constantly pointing to the General Disclaimer I don't see any reason why they woudl be against making it more prominent. That it doesn't completely satisfy our own concerns seems to indicate that this is probably a good compromise, as well.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to add a "spoiler" check box to the readers' preferences that does NOT require the wiki pages themselves to be altered? For instance if in my personal preferences I click on "hide plots" and any section containing the word "plot" or "synopsis" in the header of a work of fiction (film, book, comic etc) becomes the same color as the background when I view the pages (I would have to highlight the section to become visible. It would be a crappy spoiler filter at best with lots of loopholes, but it would not require changing ANY page, just adding a viewing preference check box. People who don't care about spoiler warning need never see the warnings, people who are spoiler phobic have something to filter their content so they don't read the dreaded spoiler. You could even make the filter self-programmable, the user just enters words he thinks might lead to spoilers like "if there is the words XXX or YYY header, hide the text by making it the color of the background, or clickable, or whatever. Mathewignash (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that would be technically practical. Besides, completely hiding plot sections isn't the goal, at least as far as I'm concerned, and would be "the other extreme", so to speak. I don't think anyone wants articles on fictional works to be completely devoid of plot information. Also, a major motivation behind this is unregistered users, and only registered users would have access to the preferences section that would contain a checkbox. Equazcion (talk) 01:05, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: If entire plot sections were hidden dynamically, ie. in a way in which they could be easily un-hidden, there would still be the problem that if people want to see any plot information at all, they would then risk reading spoilers. Articles on fictional works become sort of useless if you don't look at any plot information. Equazcion (talk) 01:08, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2:)I don't advocate cramping or distorting other discussions within an article to hide the plot or think that once such incidental (and unavoidable) spoilers are present, there's any feasible or attractive way of hiding them. That's a risk one takes in reading all criticism. But specific plot sections or paragraphs that do give the conclusions could be hidden by default in a collapsed and openable box, while "User Preferences" (for the small minority of readers who do register as editors) could be set to "Open all spoiler boxes" or "Do not hide plots." —— Shakescene (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Since ALL PLOT is a potential spoiler, I can't see any way to hid it besides all or nothing, and letting the reader uncover it line by line. I don't see how you can expect a writer to decide what is a "spoiler" and what isn't to another reader. Therefor EVERYTHING in a plot is a spoiler, and EVERYTHING can be hidden from someone who complains they don't want to be spoiled. The only other alternative would be to simply have a checkbox that says "hide spoilers" and if the reader activated it all of Wikipedia diapppears from their screen, and they don't have to worry about being spoiled. However, if someone wants to make an example of how they think spoilers shoudl be labeled, I suggest taking an existing Wikipedia film or book article, and make a copy of it on their talk page, editing it into a spoiler-protected version, and let us see it, as I have no idea what you consider a spoiler. Mathewignash (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"The only other alternative would be to simply have a checkbox that says "hide spoilers" and if the reader activated it all of Wikipedia diapppears from their screen, and they don't have to worry about being spoiled." That was a very humorous statement and actually made me laugh out loud. Well done :) I'm not suggesting hiding certain spoiler content, aside from the primary source proposal further up, which is a slightly different bag. I'm merely proposing a warning on all pages that contain fictional plot descriptions. The very purpose of this proposal is to provide a warning while avoiding the subjectivity of selecting spoiler content. Equazcion (talk) 01:43, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)

You beat me to posting that suggestion, but I still wrote the userscript: User:Anomie/hidespoilers.js. Anomie⚔ 02:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

A yet more alternate solution

Do nothing. Wikipedia has spoilers, encyclopedia articles will describe their subject as comprehensively as the source material allows. Ignore whining from upset fans who read articles and discover snape killed dumbledore, the chick from the crying game is a dude or bruce willis is dead. We aren't a fan site. We aren't imdb. We are a fucking encyclopedia. Protonk (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd start with that whole bolding !vote thing, but that would stifle discussion, because I know that's where this suggestion would go... :/ --Izno (talk) 04:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

We do have our share of sexual content, but I wouldn't go as far as to call us a fucking encyclopedia. Okay bad joke. Anyway, your opinion seems clear on what an encyclopedia article on a contemporary movie should be, but I might disagree, and the lack of precedent does make this a matter of opinion. "Ignore the whining people who express a concern I don't share"? I suppose that might be a valid position. Equazcion (talk) 04:30, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Having seen the size of this discussion, it rather looks like people are disagreeing with rather than ignoring your point of view. Pseudomonas_(talk) 16:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Many people are disagreeing, yes. But when someone says they're instead ignoring it, that probably means they're ignoring it. Equazcion (talk) 16:11, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)

It's not just POV. Whenever we do a survey (e.g. the recent usability project's survey), we find that a big reason folks go to wikipedia is the lack of contrivance and flashy things on our pages. Each article at worst has a bunch of content tags (that more non-editors ignore anyway), but there is no gaudy warning, rollover bar for spoilers or anything else. We present text and images in an attempt to inform and contextualize. That's our job. Protonk (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to dismiss a survey of which I never took the time to read, but Protonk, as an editor I respect and has in the past given us much insightful thoughtful comments, wouldnt you agree the the actual number 1 reason that an average non-editor comes to a particular Wikipedia page is by way of Google (or other search engine of choice)? Since Google in particular ranks according to hitcount Wikipedia articles get to be the number one slot due to the fact that they are visted so often during editing and not by people actually using them, which of course makes their hit-count go up. (I actually have gotten Tech Valley up in Google ranking just by going to it several times a day, I've literally watched it go up several slots in one day, and the reason I do several short edits instead of one big one). So if I search on Google for X movie that just came out, and as most people, go to one of the first several links (which is most likely going to be the Wikipedia article), then I'm not making a concious decision that "Hmmm, Wikipedia might have spoilers, lets go to IMDb instead". People are idiots, I think some in this discussion are giving people too much credit saying "if they didnt want spoilers they shouldve gone elsewhere". People are morons.Camelbinky (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that arguing ppl come to wikipedia because we are highly ranked on google is both true and tautological. Its what I call the wal-mart effect. Wal-mart can charge the prices they do and attract the customers they do becuase so many people shop at wal-mart, but that does a poor job of explaining why wal-mart has so many customers. :) I'm not suggesting that the only reason people come here is the lack of flashiness (to pick a word out of the air), but that it is an important reason. Protonk (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I was never in favor of anything flashy or dynamic. Just a static warning -- a few words on the top of the screen. Much less obtrusive than those maintenance tags that you say readers ignore. Equazcion (talk) 02:06, 12 Nov 2009 (UTC)

And apart from my objection voiced above, I am actually against a static warning like that. I could be convinced that for most articles on a fictional work, "spoilers" should be kept from the lede, but that needs to be an editorial decision, not something that flows outward from a policy discussion. Protonk (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand that, but you haven't backed up that position except to point out issues with the more flashy solutions, which don't apply to my proposal. Equazcion (talk) 02:31, 12 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, given that I haven't actually advanced that position. I have enough confidence that this will flounder without more strenuous opposition on my part. Protonk (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Equazcion (talk) 02:49, 12 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I've got very mixed views on spoiler warnings. On the one hand, we want to serve our readers and it seems pretty clear that our readers greatly prefer them. On the other hand, it isn't clear to me how a spoiler warning is substantially different from a warning that an article contains pictures of Muhammad or the Bab or the Bahaullah. We'd put that down as unacceptable. Are we more willing to listen to one group over the other for any neutral reason? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly the reason that I suggested simply making the existing General Disclaimer more prominent. That could be done simply by moving it from the bottom of the page to the top, or the sidebar, for example.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ohm, would it be possible for you to show or at least describe a possible acceptable move for the disclaimer? And I would suggest using a link to the content disclaimer rather than the general disclaimer as the content one specifically mentions spoilers.Camelbinky (talk) 06:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure! one obvious solution would be to use the mockup already shown above but replacing that message with a simple link to the disclaimer. Another seemingly obvious solution would be to move it to the Toolbox section of the sidebar.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Per the WP:Spoiler guideline- "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information — articles on a work of fiction should primarily describe it from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance." So, my question is for those who think spoiler sections based solely on the primary source is acceptable- how is that serving an encyclopedic purpose without being "indiscriminate information"? How does using just the primary source for the plot "describe it from a real-world perspective" or discusses its "reception" or its "impact and significance"? By using just the primary source for the plot you arent addressing any of those things IMHO as you are regurgitating what the book/movie simply says. This is a real question, I'm not trying to be difficult, I really dont understand. I also dont understand how if there are no secondary sources regarding the plot of a book/movie- how is the book/movie even notable? If it is notable and there are secondary sources regarding the book/movie I assume they also cover the plot (and which if they have spoilers ok, have them included without a warning). A book/movie isnt notable just because it exists right?Camelbinky (talk) 06:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Because in a perfect article, real-world details are supposed to also be present in other sections. If you list production details and other things, then it won't make sense because the reader won't know the context. If you list why a writer chose to have a certain plot twist, the reader won't understand if the plot is not there. Personally, I find this whole thing utterly ridiculous. There is no such thing as a "spoiler-free" summary, as a mere sentence summing up the plot could spoil it for someone. You have to use common sense here. If a user doesn't want to know what happens in a story, then why would they read through paragraphs explaining the plot? It makes no sense. Ωphois 12:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support the addition of spoiler warnings. This issue has not died and is continually revived. Contrary to what is claimed there is no consensus on it. Some people have argued that a principle of complete information says that there should be no warning. Completely false. Complete information requires the presence of spoiler warnings. The reader has more information not less when he/she knows he/she might be spoiled or not. For an article about a new release, a spoiler warning is simple common sense. If the main issue against the warning is that they are open to abuse and kept longer than necessary then a compromise might be that such warnings can only be in effect for a set amount of time from date of publication or release although I think it should be left to editor discretion. The spoiler guidelines are taking an absolutist stand when instead they can be modified to better address instances of abuse. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It is significantly different from traditional encyclopedias. A realistic look at how it is used belies the claim that people should know they are going to be spoiled by reading a Wikipedia article. Lambanog (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oh man, this discussion still hasn't died out ? I vote for the current status quo. To quote joshua: "it isn't clear to me how a spoiler warning is substantially different from a warning that an article contains pictures of Muhammad or the Bab or the Bahaullah. We'd put that down as unacceptable. Are we more willing to listen to one group over the other for any neutral reason" —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Supposedly WP:NODISCLAIMERS cites several reasons but their applicability to inline text like "(The following may contain spoilers)" is vague.
  1. Redundant with the Disclaimer link at the end of every page. (spoiler text is not a disclaimer of fault)
  2. Wikipedia is not censored. (spoiler text does not censor but warns the user she might want to censor herself)
  3. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a how-to guide. (I don't see the relevance)
  4. Hard to define which articles should have a disclaimer (it is difficult to define an "adult content" article, for instance, given that it varies dramatically by culture). Allowing some disclaimers would generate a significant overhead of disputes surrounding where to draw the line, drawing editors' time from more productive tasks. (this is a reason to improve the guidelines and not simply ban spoiler text altogether)
  5. The lack of the disclaimer on certain pages as opposed to others might open Wikipedia to lawsuits. (spoiler text is not a disclaimer of fault)
  6. By the time you see them, it's too late — the article has already been loaded. (spoiler text can serve as punctuation and give an opportunity for one's eyes to stop running on)
  7. They take up enormous amounts of page space when used in banner form. (inline spoiler text does not take up that much page space)

— Lambanog (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Support The Status Quo. The headers "Plot", "Setting", "Character" and/or any equivalent are enough spoiler warnings already. — Blue。 23:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No they are not since there is no indication as to their use and conventions differ from place to place. Another work around solution is to allow a link to WP:Spoilers from the header or standardize usage of Synopsis for example and allow it to be hyperlinked in the header. A person can reasonably ask "What is Wikipedia policy regarding spoilers?" or "What does Wikipedia mean by 'Synopsis'?" or even more generally "What is a 'synopsis'?" and under current guidelines editors are restricted from giving this information. WP:Better prohibits linking in the header. Why not reverse this policy or make an exception for this case? Or how about allowing the use of a footnote to link to WP:Spoiler? With Wikipedia being wikified in so many ways it is absurd that such obvious information is not allowed to be presented to the reader. It is perfectly reasonable for a reader to come in and assume that such link to a policy be prominent if there were spoilers seeing that everything else is hyperlinked and that its absence means care was taken to not mention spoilers. The current policy defies common sense. WP:Bold should trump both WP:Better and WP:Spoiler in this regard. Lambanog (talk) 03:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I just want to point out that placing links into headers is an WP:ACCESS issue. It makes it difficult, and occasionally nearly impossible, to link to. Worse, I'm almost certain that there are cases of older browsers which won't display them properly (as in, they won't display the header at all). So, avoiding links in section headers is not only a style choice (although I happen to think that it's terrible style to link headers as well, that's really a secondary issue).
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. Still we are smart and creative people right? How about standardizing the practice of having "Synopsis:" as the first thing underneath a Plot Summary/Synopsis heading and having it hyperlinked to WP:Spoilers? Does that violate WP guidelines in any way? The main problem I see is that Wikipedia policy is unclear and not immediately accessible at the time one reaches a plot description. Lambanog (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Placing the link underneath the header is actually the recommended solution. My only concern in this sort of situation is aesthetic, in that putting that sort of link under every "Plot" or "Synopsis" heading would create...clutter.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It's the recommended solution? I don't see it stated in the WP:Spoilers article. If it is the recommended solution it should be stated there. Maybe you should cite the reference that describes the recommended procedure. Afterward can I go in and edit the WP:Spoiler guideline to include it? Lambanog (talk) 05:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Placing the link under the header is the recommended solution to fix instances where editors erroneously place links into header text (because there should never be anything other then plain text in a header). This has nothing to do with spoilers, and I only mentioned it here because you brought up linking headers.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose the current proposal. "Spoilers" cannot be viewed objectively - after all, a plot detail can be unknown to some yet known to others - and in all the debating concerning spoiler templates, the community has failed to reach consensus on not just whether to implement them, but the very definition of a spoiler. This is not just due to a mere case of equal contest, but because the community failed to constructively reach a decision as the discussion degenerated into a series of insults and weightless arguments, and this is precisely why the TfD on the old templates resulted in deletion; by that stage no consensus could possibly have been achieved through discussion alone. It is best from a community standpoint that the matter be dropped because, judging from the current discussion, the end result will most likely be the same. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Spoiler warnings were removed by a series of massive rule abuses that Wikipedia could not handle. You've accidentally put your finger on one of them. Yes, there was failure to reach consensus. There was failure to reach consensus for removing them in the first place. Normally lack of consensus means we keep the status quo--we wouldn't delete them. Instead people deleted tens of thousands using automated tools, creating a new status quo. There was still lack of consensus, but now lack of consensus meant nobody could change it back. (Other abuses included the fact that the tools were only supposed to be used when there was no controversy.)

They also changed it in steps: For instance, first they altered the spoiler warning text to be useless. They later deleted it on the grounds that it was useless.

I would also point out:

-- Romeo and Juliet shouldn't need a spoiler since Shakespeare gives away the ending at the start himself.

-- Just because we cannot do something perfectly doesn't mean we shouldn't try. I would suggest spoilers on specific spoiling areas when there's someone to pay enough attention to the article to figure it out, and general spoiler warnings only when there isn't.

-- The idea that you can't objectively identify a spoiler is meaningless. You can't objectively identify a lot of things. A spoiler warning is meta-information about an article; we no more need to objectively identify spoilers than we need to objectively identify "this article reads like a news release", "this article describes a current event", etc.

Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Except, as had been pointed out many times, those things are temporary. A current event won't always be current (and I believe that's been depricated too), and a 'reads like a news release' is something that needs FIXING. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't buy that this is a big problem. Many things can be objectively defined. Does the section use a plot heading? Yes or no? Is it 6 months since the release date? Yes or no? Good guidelines can go along way to solving the problem. Unfortunately it has become standard to talk about the issue in terms of take it or leave it absolutes instead of finding a workable compromise solution. Lambanog (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance templates serve as a notice to editors and are only temporary. I'm not sure occasional visitors even look at them. I'm not sure they'd look at spoiler warnings either, which only contributes to their perceived uselessness. Wikipedia's an encyclopedia. It's supposed to be objective, and subjective content warnings simply do not belong. Reach Out to the Truth 05:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Protonk's blunt, but accurate wording. This is an encyclopedia, not a review site, and it is not on the onus of editors nor Wikipedia to protect readers from themselves. If spoilers are to be hidden or tagged, then all potentially "upsetting" content would need to go the same way, in which case might as well just hide the entire encyclopedia because everyone can find something that upset them, with little effort, in almost any article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Protonk's solution. Keep the status quo. Protonk and Collectonian pretty much nailed it. Also, spoilers are one of the most subjective things that only exist as a "harmful" thing in the mind of some. In other subjective matters, a consensus can easily be reached where there is a potential harm in the information presented (it's biased, it's recent news, etc.) Spoilers, on the other hand, do not represent a potential harm for the information. Quite the contrary. A plot that includes all relevant details helps to understand the message and mindset of the author. Why would a plot have to be warned about? Jfgslo (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I suspect you're being disingenuous, but I'll answer anyway: because part of the impact of a work of art is in receiving it as the creator intended. In the case of narrative works, knowing a plot twist ahead of time reduces the impact of that twist in most cases, preventing the consumer from ever (amnesiacs aside) experiencing the work as intended. In the case of a work of great cultural significance, this can even be actively detrimental, rather than just annoying. Powers ^T 19:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Which in itself is unimportant, since Wikipedia is not the work of art itself, it merely reports about the work of art and its impact. An precisely because of that, all the more reason to include a plot which includes the so called "spoilers", since impact is one of the fundamental factors to include works of fiction in the Wikipedia. If people don't want to be "spoiled" then that they should avoid looking for information. There are other resources which cover only the technical data and reviews for their needs. Jfgslo (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Certainly, which is why we should make an effort to let them know that we are not that resource. Powers ^T 21:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
        • If people are looking for information in an encyclopedia, that's reason enough to suppose that it is not the type of resource which "hides" information. I don't think that such an understanding is achieved by putting unnecessary tags on articles, because tags are meant to indicate a possible problematic situation with the information in an article, and a well-written plot is not a problematic situation. It would be better to put that kind of indication in the front-page or in a left-menu link to the Wikipedia basic guidelines. I'm sure spoilers aren't the only misunderstood concept. I think that Wikipedia should not be adding tags for every possible uncomfortable situation that may offend some people. That's like treating users as if they were little kids. Jfgslo (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
          • But it is problematic, as evidenced by the very discussion we're having. Powers ^T 23:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
            • Jfgslo, our readers should be treated as if they were little kids, because our readers are a cross-section of the general population of the English-speaking world and that general population as a whole is stupid; and actually our readers are probably a whole standard deviation below that of the general population as we arent used by serious academics. Our readers dont think of Wikipedia as the equavelant of Encyclopedia Brittanica or a reputable encyclopedia at all (lets face it, we have a bad reputation for factual accuracy, ask any professor, I've never met or heard of one that allowed Wikipedia as a source and have even heard some discourage using it as a way to FIND sources). As I pointed out before, our readers find us by doing a Google search, they are lazy, they click the first few sites that come up (which is almost always a Wikipedia article) and start reading. They dont use what little common sense they have. All Wikipedia "rules" concerning helping the average reader should abide by one overriding principle- people are morons, give no good faith they know anything at all. They most definitely do not understand Wikipedia's way of doing things, and you shouldnt have to read our policies or content disclaimers before reading Wikipedia (how many websites do you go to and click on a disclaimers link first, especially one at the bottom of the page?)Camelbinky (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
              • I know that some teachers aren't fond of Wikipedia, but I also know about scientists who actually recommend Wikipedia as a source for general knowledge, particularly in science-based articles. I think that Wikipedia is at least close to Britannica in some aspects. This is supported by a 2005 study published by Nature and the recent effort of Britannica to have an online version which works in a similar way. And Wikipedia is trying to be at least as accurate as Britannica. Certainly, most featured articles, like Charles Darwin article, are excellent sources of knowledge. Adding these tags doesn't help with the task of making Wikipedia a serious and respected resource like Britannica. I understand that a large number of people think of Wikipedia as something more closely related to entertainment than to knowledge, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia should follow the standards of entertainment websites. That would only pave the way to other kind of problems, as it has been pointed out previously by others. Just because someone ignores some law, doesn't make him innocent when he breaks it. If people are lazy, that's their problem and decision. Wikipedia seeks to create a summary of all human knowledge, not to please people who choose to behave in a lazy way (I normally go to the general disclaimers first, whenever possible or at least I'm ready to expect the unexpected if I do not bother to do that.) Jfgslo (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
                • Do you realize that linking to the Content Disclaimer is opposed? A reader can arrive at a Plot section and be left with no clue as to whether it may have spoilers or if not. How about they want to know? What are they supposed to do? If a spoiler tag is not allowed fine but then allow something else that does not have the same issues. How about add a link to the policy? What's wrong with that? It is opposed on the grounds it would link to a page on a different namespace! The problem with the way this entire issue is discussed is that no one opposing tags is trying to address the underlying problem and come up with a compromise solution. All of you who say it's not Wikipedia's job to please people are patently violating WP:NEWCOMER. It IS Wikipedia's job to accomodate newcomers as much as possible. If certain things conflict with other core principles that does not mean efforts to accomodate should be abandoned. I have not heard a solution from you. This attitude that is being adopted on Wikipedia if it persists is going to hollow it out eventually. Lambanog (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
                  • Why would a reader assume that a plot doesn't have spoilers? A plot by itself is a spoiler. This is one of the reasons why a spoiler tag or warning is useless and counterproductive. Almost anything from a work of fiction could be a potential spoiler. WP:NEWCOMER is not about changing the content to suit people's needs but to treat friendly new contributors when they edit something. I don't think a solution can be made by making a compromise, because "spoilers" are not a problem by themselves. They are not misinformation. They don't need to be "fixed" in any way. Jfgslo (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
                    • Why should a reader assume that there will be spoilers? A plot by itself can be written in such a way to minimize spoilers. It is common practice in other internet references to provide warnings or at least some guidance as to the site's policy. In the absence of such common sense guidelines at the point where they are most required the reader is left in doubt. There is no reason this should be tolerated and the reader not given timely guidance especially at a point where it can be anticipated they will be looking for it. Furthermore hyperlinks on Wikipedia are so common that a reader could justifiably reason that if there was a danger, a hyperlink could be provided to spell it out. Links can be provided on so many trivialities but a link that can save the reader from potentially much anger and grief cannot?
                    • You are being very narrow in your interpretation of WP:NEWCOMER. It is quite obvious that the policy is there to help new people to the site to adjust. Your view that it should only apply to new editors is dubious. Your attitude dismissing new readers for not knowing policy is the equivalent to one dismissing new editors for not knowing policy. WP:NEWCOMER is there precisely so that newcomers will feel welcome. Reasonable accomodation is policy. You're not supposed to scare new people away or punish them for their ignorance but are supposed to give them leeway, opportunity, and support so that they can educate themselves about the site. Lambanog (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
                      • Even if minimized, a plot is still a spoiler, whether it omits some details or not. It will always "spoil" something for someone. "Since many websites have spoiler warnings, Wikipedia should follow them". Using that argument is almost making a logical fallacy in itself, appeal to the people. And furthermore, why are spoilers so special that people need be saved from them? What about articles which have some criticism about some idea or belief? If we added a warning then we could also save readers from potential anger and grief. That, however, is not the purpose of Wikipedia.
                      • WP:NEWCOMER is an specific guideline for behavior, not something open to a loose interpretation, and there is nothing there about other people than editors, much less about editing content in a certain way. You are implying that it says something other than what it actually says. When an editor does not know the policy and edit some article with some mistakes, we correct his mistakes and politely indicate him what was the problem, always assuming that a new editor is doing that in good faith. That is WP:NEWCOMER. And it is not a policy, but a guideline. As such, it is on the same level as WP:Spoiler, which makes it clear that section headings, such as "Plot", implies the presence of spoilers. And WP:NDA also makes it clear that tags as "spoilers warnings" are not acceptable in Wikipedia. Jfgslo (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
              • Do you know any professor who allows ANY encyclopedia to be used as a source? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
    • That sounds exactly like some of the arguments in the recent brouhaha over including certain images in the Rorschach test article. In that case, consensus went against them. Anomie⚔ 15:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a few questions I don't see answered above:

1. Why are spoilers so special that we need a warning "This article/section may contain spoilers", but we don't need "This article/section may contain profanity", "This article/section may contain sexually explicit images", "This article/section may contain disturbing text or images", "This article/section may contain images of Mohammed", and so on? Or, ignoring the potential legal liability of missing some (or "replacing" legal with "social liability"), "This article/section should not be used as medical or legal advice"? In other words, why couldn't anyone concerned about any of those others come back and use your exact same arguments to push their brand of warnings on the encyclopedia? Or is it just that you think WP:NDA should be abolished (in which case, you should really start a separate discussion focused on that issue)?
2. Some have suggested that "instead of" spoiler warnings, each appropriate section should somehow link to WP:SPOILER. How, exactly, would that link not itself be a spoiler warning?
3. To counter the criticism that the definition of "spoiler" is too vague to be usable, some have suggested choosing an arbitrary definition and enshrining that in a policy or guideline. Why is your particular definition of "spoiler" the only valid one? For example, someone somewhere mentioned only items within six months should be considered spoilers. But six months from when? First release? First release in some particular country or countries? General rather than limited market availability? Release on DVD? Does the release of a film based on a book mean the book should be re-spoilered, or the film shouldn't be spoilered for anything in the book? Or the same for a remake of an old work? Or if a book/film is based on true events, should our article(s) on the true events be spoilered? And why not five months, or seven months, or a year, or five years? Or forever, which is part of the ridiculousness that lead to the backlash that ended the spoiler exception to WP:NDA in the first place?

All in all, about the only "warning" that would make sense to me would be to put a discrete link to Wikipedia:Content disclaimer or another appropriate page in MediaWiki:Sidebar, if consensus really is that the existing link in the page footer is sufficient. Anomie⚔ 15:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

1. They can be anticipated and dealt with in a manner that does not compromise other Wikipedia values.
2. You are arguing per WP:JUSTA. Please give a more detailed rationale. What kind of problem are you specifically concerned about? Then a more appropriate response can be given. However, if you want a general critique I would say WP:NEWCOMER (make newcomers feel welcome so that they may be encouraged to use and even contribute to the site) or WP:LINK (provide links to useful information) take precedence over WP:SPOILER or at least limit its application. As it is, I would argue WP:SPOILER is commonly being cited in an absolutist and inappropriate way. It is a far less important guideline than the other two I've mentioned.
3. Regarding "arbitrariness", I note you are not questioning the Plot heading part. As for whether a time limit is right and if so how long it should be or from when it should be applied—that can be viewed as a community consensus matter. The point is these suggestions are making an attempt to solve an issue and improve the site. These efforts should not be discarded out of hand just because the acceptability of some details need to be ironed out. I see no reason why an all-or-nothing approach must be taken. This is a perennial issue that comes up. If there is consensus, it is not an overwhelming one. Also it is not clear how far consensus goes when it concerns issues that infringe on policy.

Personally I think a link to WP:SPOILERS makes more sense just below a Plot heading. Something I've tried to advocate but has been opposed for reasons that remain unclear is something like the following:

Plot summary

xxx

Synopsis:

yyy

Can someone tell me what they find objectionable with that and if it is enough of an objection to overcome WP:NEWCOMER? — Lambanog (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if English is not your first language, but you have completely failed to actually answer any of my questions.

1. Your "answer" to my question #1 is a complete non sequitur. Please try again.
2. You have missed the point in question #2 completely: you were effectively claiming above that instead of spoiler warnings, you would include a spoiler warning in an ever-so-slightly different way. If you want to admit that your proposal is really just yet-another type of spoiler warning, that's sufficient. If you don't, you have again ignored the actual question.
3. At least here you make an attempt to answer the question. In this reply, you are apparently advocating an approach of "let's allow people to start plastering spoiler warnings all over the place, and decide on just what a spoiler is later". This was tried in the past, and is exactly what lead to the removal of spoiler warnings the first time. I have no idea why you think I would object to having a "Plot" heading to identify the section containing a summary of the work's plot, or why you think that is relevant to the question of why an arbitrary definition of "spoilers" should be chosen. I appreciate that you see an issue here and think your solution would improve the site, but you seem to think that people here are seeing the same issue and ignoring it. I, for one, don't see any "issue" here in the first place beyond a few people thinking Wikipedia is something other than an encyclopedia.

As for your current harping on WP:NEWCOMER, I think you need to go and actually read that guideline, and also realize it is a guideline and not a policy. It says absolutely nothing even remotely approaching the issue of spoilers (or content in general), it is all about individual Wikipedian behavior. WP:NEWCOMER would apply to the manner in which we revert a newbie who decides to add a spoiler warning, not to whether we include spoilers in the first place.

I find your suggestion objectionable because it introduces arbitrary bolded text that breaks the flow of the article, includes a self-reference, and is an easter egg link. Also, it is either advocating writing two slightly-different plot summaries or introducing redundant text (what is under the "Plot" header is obviously a synopsis, so tagging it as such is redundant). Since WP:NEWCOMER has absolutely no application to the matter, your question regarding "overcoming" it is nonsensical. Anomie⚔ 13:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my poor English, but I could swear you're taking on a patronizing tone with me and are using non sequitur inaccurately.

1. Just because doctors are having a difficult time treating the cancer does not mean they should not try to treat the skin rash. Similarly just because certain subjects might be more seriously problematic does not mean other similar problems should go unaddressed.
2. Define spoiler warning. At what point does a warning not become objectionable? Is an invisible warning still objectionable? Why? Please provide a rationale as per my previous request.
3. Standardize it's use in such a context then it won't be arbitrary anymore. A "few" people creating a perennial issue? Trying to solve the problem rather than just dismissing it stands a better shot of making it go away. As for WP:SELF it explicitly states there are cases where it can be ignored and to use common sense. I would say this use qualifies. Even then there is a way to circumvent this obstacle if necessary, but please justify first by providing a rationale explanation why there is even a need to do so. WP:EGG it seems is the same as WP:LINK. It can be argued in favor of my proposal more strongly than against it. WP:NEWCOMER you say is about behavior. I'd say it also seeks to apply to the attitude that should be taken by those at Wikipedia towards newcomers. Saying it is their own fault if readers are ignorant of Wikipedia's policies seems to go against the guideline: "You yourself violate Wikipedia's guidelines and policies when you attack a new user for ignorance of them." Lambanog (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Just trying to assume good faith, rather than assuming you were being intentionally obtuse.

1. It was a non sequitur because I asked how spoilers are more important several other things, and you replied that some unspecified 'they' can be dealt with in some unspecified manner that conflicts with some unspecified Wikipedia values but not others. Since nothing you said had any referent in the original question, "it does not follow" (or, in Latin, non sequitur).
   Your medical analogy makes an underlying assumption that the lack of spoiler warnings is something to be fixed, which makes it a misleading comparison as that assumption is certainly not a given here.
2. A spoiler warning is something that interrupts the normal flow in some manner to say "There might be spoilers here". It becomes unobjectionable when the consequences of including the warning outweigh the consequences of not being aware of the warned-of condition; in this case, the consequences of not warning are just annoyance on the part of people who don't realize a comprehensive reference work is going to be comprehensive, while the consequences of warning include breaking the flow of the article and giving a useful precedent to other groups desiring a warning for their pet peeves. An "invisible" warning has not actually been proposed yet, but such a thing would not actually warn the reader of anything and would therefore be absolutely useless and a waste of whatever wikitext were necessary to place it.
3. Yes, trying to solve a problem is better than ignoring it. But you still have not grasped the fact that many here see no real problem to begin with (besides people continuing to harp on the non-issue), and thus "doing something" is unnecessary. Yes, we can ignore guidelines (and even policies, sometimes) if doing so would improve the encyclopedia, but others do not agree that what you think is "common sense" is actually sense (much less common). You are also continuing to insist on completely misinterpreting guidelines: for example, in what possible manner is wikilinking the word "synopsis" to WP:SPOILER not an easter egg link?

Since you cannot seem to make a rational argument here, I see no further point in continuing to discuss it with you. I'd be glad to continue the conversation if you can prove me wrong. Anomie⚔ 17:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In regards to 1. and 3. to take some extreme examples I'm sure many White Americans in the 18th century saw no problem with Blacks being slaves and many Germans probably looked the other way when Jews were mistreated in Nazi Germany. How many used your argument "many here see no real problem to begin with"? By the way you'll have to define what you mean by easter egg link, neither the word easter or egg appear in the article WP:EGG.

As for point 2. a hyperlink seems to do the trick.

Thank you for taking the time to converse with me on the subject. It was edifying and illustrative. I have a far better feel of what has been preventing progress on this topic now. — Lambanog (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comparing "seeing no problem with spoilers" to "looking the other way when Jews were mistreated"? And Godwin's law strikes again! Garion96 (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Wow that's a whole load of text to wade through, and yet the same points remain. To add spoiler tags violates WP:CENSORED, no one can say when a spoiler expires (spoiler alert apart from Horatio, they all die at the end of Hamlet, I've saved you four hours) or when it doesn't and embedded title links like this one violate WP:EGG. So what is left but to support the status quo and say "no" to spoiler warnings. And, (spoiler alert!) both Romeo and Juliet die at the end. Darrenhusted (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The shocking irony is that spoiler warnings add content. It's the other way around: those seeking the removal of spoiler warnings are the ones that can more properly be accused of censoring! Lambanog (talk) 05:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A spoiler warning isn't content. It's metacontent. There's a HUGE difference. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well you'll have to explain the significant difference in this case. It can be argued that the information is something a reader would not only want to have on hand but something they would actively seek. If specific instances and criteria that can be described objectively are formulated, please justify your rationale for withholding such content from them. Lambanog (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Meta-content is content about the article or the contents of the article instead of the about the article's subject. All meta-content, such as the article issue tags, are meant to be temporary by nature. Disclaimers would fall within the realm of meta-content. But on top of that, we do have a guideline that clearly states that we should not include disclaimers into articles. And we shouldn't be creating double standards with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines just to address something that is a non-issue. —Farix (t | c) 13:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed WP:NODISCLAIMERS in an earlier response above. Moreover, a hyperlink is not a disclaimer. A hyperlink doesn't seem to disavow or deny responsibility for anything so calling it a disclaimer seems inaccurate. Please explain how any of the reasons given on WP:NODISCLAIMERS applies to the hyperlinked Synopsis solution that I propose above? Lambanog (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Because the intent of the hyperlink is to create a disclaimer about the existence of plot details in the section. After all, we don't have links directly to the three core content policies, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, on every article. Instead, when an editor violates a policy or guideline, we correct or tag the violation and inform the editor of the policy or guideline that was violated.
2. Placing "Synopsis" under a section heading titled "Plot", "Plot summary", or "Plot synopsis" is completely redundant and looks ridicules.
3. As other have pointed out above, it creates an easter egg where a link take the reader place they wouldn't expect. If I see synopsis linked, I would expect it to take me to Synopsis, or for disambiguation purposes Summary. Having it to go WP:SPOILER, which has nothing to do with the term "Synopsis", is completely unexpected.
4. WP:OVERLINK actually discourages using wikilinks for common terms unless it is helpful to the understanding of the article or its context. Synopsis and Summary are both common terms and linking to them wouldn't create any additional understanding of the subject that they are linked from.
5. Such an WP:EGG would create a self reference to Wikipedia. Something that should be avoiding. Cleanup and other meta-templates are given a pass because they are meant to be temporary. But you are proposing something that is semi-permanent.
6. We must also think about the print version of the article. Would it make sense to see the term "Synopsis", "Summary", or any variation thereof randomly thrown in the middle of a section for no apparent reason which is already titled "Plot", "Plot summary", or "Plot synopsis"? In the print version, the hyperlink no longer exists and the back alley attempt at a plot disclaimer will no longer work and would seem ridicules. —Farix (t | c) 12:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

1. The intent of the hyperlink is to provide relevant information the reader might be interested in much like any other hyperlink. No disavowal or denial of responsibility need be read into the provision of such information. The fact that it is optional suggests as much. That it is only used in selective cases is because it isn't relevant information in every case.
2. Incorrect. Although dictionaries commonly define plot summary and synopsis as the same, it has become practice in certain places to make a distinction between the two. The Internet Movie Database for example uses the two terms differently. I've heard that writers when submitting their work in some cases are asked to provide a summary and synopsis and that again they aren't the same.
3. Because of the above certain readers will want to know the exact way the term synopsis is being used in the context and thus justifying the link. A reader may want the answer to the question "What does synopsis on Wikipedia mean?" There may even be people who don't know what a synopsis is or have forgotten. It conforms to the reasons WP:EGG gives as items that should be linked to.
4. Self-references to Wikipedia may be discouraged but they are not forbidden. The guideline explicitly states to use common sense in the matter of its use. Is there a better article to refer to? If there is then I have no problem referring to that instead but as things currently stand WP:SPOILERS probably presents clearest the information someone clicking on the link is looking for. Hyperlinks are meant to be permanent because they are constantly useful and germane as in the case I propose.
5. As I said above the two can be interpreted differently. People knowledgeable about the two meanings will be able to get the difference even without the hyperlink and may be guided accordingly. Lambanog (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

1. The hyperlink provides not such any relevant information. It is nothing more then a backalley disclaimer.
2. It is completely redundant. "Summary" and "synopsis" are synonyms and are interchangeable with each other. One doesn't need to use both terms to "drive home the point" that the section contains plot details.
3. If a reader doesn't know the meanings of basic terms, such as "summary" or "synopsis", then they have a very basic literacy problem which isn't going to be solved by adding a disclaimer or an WP:EGG like hyperlink. Besides, WP:EGGs should be avoided with the exception of disambiguation. And this WP:EGG has nothing to do with disambiguation.
4. Self-references should be avoided. The only times it makes sense to have a self-reference is in relation to article cleanup tags or other temporary tags, such as {{stub}}, {{expand}}, or {{inuse}}.
5. Your answer is another non sequitur and didn't even address the point about print. —Farix (t | c) 15:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Farix, can the brief description often found on the back cover of a book be called a summary? — Lambanog (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that question is relevant to plot summaries on Wikipedia. But I would actually call them teasers or a preview instead of actual summaries. —Farix (t | c) 18:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd argue some people might reasonably think of them as summaries. Usually when there is the possiblity of misinterpretation or miscommunication the remedy is to clarify. But you are saying Wikipedia shouldn't. Why is it Wikipedia, that bills itself as an encyclopedia that seeks to enlighten, should choose the opaque path? Lambanog (talk) 06:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that someone who reads a plot summary on Wikipedia is going to confuse it with a preview that is on the back of a book or DVD. After all, the two do serve entirely different purposes. And frankly, there isn't anything to misinterpret or miscommunicate when using a heading of "Plot summary" or "Plot synopsis". If a reader doesn't understand the meaning of those terms, then they have some very rudimentary compressions problems that won't be fix by any amount of "clarification." It also doesn't justify creating double standards with multiple Wikipedia polices and guidelines in a hopeless attempt to appease a few readers concerns over a non-issue like "spoilers." —Farix (t | c) 17:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Your presumption that a reader who would like a fuller explanation of a "plot summary" heading would not be helped with further clarification is without basis and an opinion that goes against WP:NEWCOMER at that. Your contempt for readers is something that does not help Wikipedia. Lambanog (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NEWCOMER is limited to the treatment of new contributors. It does not, in any way, affect article content. There is no need to further explain what a section with a heading of "Plot summary" is about. If a reader doesn't have the rudimentary comprehensions skills to understand what a plot summary is, then they have other problems to worry about instead of reading plot details. A problem that isn't going to be fixed by a hyperlink, which already creates several double standards with other policies and guidelines. —Farix (t | c) 21:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I will say it again: spoiler warnings were removed in the first place by abusing the idea of keeping the status quo. The status quo was to have them and there was no consensus to remove them. People removed them without consensus--the trick being that that changed the status quo and therefore they could argue that the new "status quo" prevented it from being changed back. Which is what's being argued here. The "status quo" that you think we should keep is an artificial one, made by changing another status quo without consensus, and abusing "keep the status quo" to keep it from being changed back. Ken Arromdee (talk) 02:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Break due to length since last one

Since the above section was at 46 kb I thought it wise to make another break. We've done alot of discussing and old voices have left, new ones have joined, and we still are walking in circles. Equazcion brought this whole topic up and I think he may have totally left. To get to what Darrenhusted said I see no reason those examples he gives can even be called "spoilers" for the reason they are covered in depth at many different secondary sources. Plots should be kept to what is said at secondary source. If a secondary source does not mention it, dont put it in, there is no legitimate reason to use the primary source of the book/movie as a source for a plot section. If you cant find a secondary source for a plot section then the movie/book your making an article for shouldnt exist! At the VPP someone said you cant use court documents for what the accused said because "if it hasnt been covered in a secondary source then that piece of information is not notable for the article", so I am not the only one who says notability applies to information and not to an article itself, as implied by others (those others were wrong). This solves the problem of "spoilers", "spoiler tags", and this entire discussion if enough people will get on board with this very reasonable compromise. The only people who might object are those who work on these articles, and they have a COI that makes them ignorable if they cant object on more than saying "then what can we write about?". Secondary source or your article shouldnt exist damn it! WP:SPOILERS seems to suggest that my "compromise" of using on secondary sources instead of the book/movie itself has long been the standard- When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information — articles on a work of fiction should primarily describe it from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance.Camelbinky (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

We are "walking in circles" because some people continue to try to find excuses to remove some arbitrary claim of "spoilers" or tag them for no reason. Your "compromise" because it isn't one, its a blatant attempt to remove spoilers by completely discarding community consensus and Wikipedia guidelines and policies and twisting others. The community has already decided, primary sources have legitimate purposes, including the sourcing of the plots of works of fiction. They do NOT require secondary sources for writing the plot section of an article. Secondary sources are required to establish notability of the ARTICLE, not the plot. An appropriate summary of the plot of a work of fiction is necessary to discuss it in an encyclopedic fashion. Go rip every last plot element from Romeo and Juliet, 300, and Fight Club, and see if any of the articles make sense anymore. And your claiming that anyone who works on fictional articles has a COI is such BS it isn't worth even disputing. That is reality and that is per Wikipedia's policies as actually written, not your warped rewording and twisting of them. Short answer is get over it - you will never be successful in removing plots from articles, nor will these repeated attempts at removing so called "spoilers" or hiding them ever achieve consensus. The old voices haven't left, they are just ignoring a pointless discussion. And this Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Books/movies seems like an inappropriate attempt to end run around this entire discussion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That discussion is in order to get my proposal separated from the existing one about spoilers because you keep confusing them because you want to be able to have books/movies about anything and everything and not use secondary sources. As I pointed out there are other unrelated discussions in which others have said you do need secondary sources to show notability of specific information for inclusion. Your opinion regarding notability is in the minority, saying I am in the minority doesnt make it true. And watch your language about calling my opinions and thoughts "warped" and saying I'm inappropriate. Last time I'm warning you. Just because I spoke against you at AN/I doesnt mean you can say what you want. Talk about the issues, do not talk about me, that is against policies since you want to quote policies. Personal attacks will not be tolerated, I expect your next post to not single me out; talk about the topic and issues or dont talk.Camelbinky (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, your pointless point in ANI was just that an no one paid it any mind. You repeatedly claim anyone who posts disputing you is making personal attacks and you've now made at least two threats telling people to shut up if they can't agree. Nice. I am not confusing anything, you are the only one here who seems to be confusing the issue of "spoilers" with article notability (which are two entirely different things). Saying that I want to be able to have "have books/movies about anything and everything" (presuming you actually meant articles about) is beyond laughable. I'd imagine more than enough folks would tell you the opposite considering I am considered a "deletionist". I don't want articles about unnotable fictional works, and I have a pretty damn high standard for what is notable. If the work is notable, however, having a proper plot summary that includes ALL major points is relevant to the article. And FYI, I'll say what I like, thanks. You don't get to order people to not talk, and nothing I said was a personal attack. I will talk about YOU because YOU are the one putting forth this idea, and the only one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Plots don't need a secondary source for the actual plot section, some elements may need a secondary source outside of the plot section. So far despite the length no one has defined when a spoiler stops being a spoiler, which is why I quoted Shakespeare plots, to which it is said "well everyone knows about those", which is not true, some people have not read any Shakespeare, today at this very second someone will be reading Hamlet for the first time, if you met that person and told them the ending then that would spoil the play for them. Wikipedia cannot operate on the presumption that no one has seen, read, or knows nothing about every book, film and play ever made. The default position should be to assume that if someone read a section of a book/film/play labelled "plot" that the section will contain the full plot, and that will be true on the day of release or ten years from now. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This proposal was shot full of holes the last time. We should not be creating double standards relating to the use of primary sources just to avoid something that is a non-issue to begin with. And your attempts to interpreted WP:NOTE in order to limit article content even contradicts what WP:NOTE states. "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people. Instead, various content policies govern article content, with the amount of coverage given to topics within articles decided by its appropriate weight." Also, It's ridiculous to dismiss the views of editors who regularly work on articles about fictional subject just because you disagree with them. The claim of a conflict of interest is absurd on its face. And it's laughable for you to claim that the editors who disagree with your proposal and point out its flaws are personally attacking you, while in the same vain, you engage in an ad hominem attack on Collectonian. —Farix (t | c) 13:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Look, just bring back the spoilers, ok?

I just read the Wilde (film) article, and was annoyed to find I was reading parts that were spoiling the plot of the film. This is despite reading within the "Plot synopsis" section. It simply wasn't clear enough from the words "Plot synopsis" in big letters for me to realise that the plot synopsis was going to go into so much detail as to spoil the plot. I'd normally expect a plot synopsis not to give away so much as to spoil the plot. Therefore, I would argue that if it goes into so much detail that it will spoil the plot, this should be made very clear in the article prior to this content. Either at the top of the article, or clearly below the "Plot synopsis" heading. I can see the absence of spoiler warnings being far more "harmful" than the presence of them. (I see no harm in their presence at all). --Rebroad (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything else you don't like on here that you want us to get rid of? And how can a film released over a decade ago about a man who lived a hundred years ago expect to be free of spoilers? What didn't you know about Oscar Wilde? That he was gay, that he went to prison, that he was a writer, that he was Irish? Really? The plot is the plot is the plot, what else did you expect to be in the section labelled "plot", a recipe for soup? Darrenhusted (talk) 12:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking a recipe for dip myself. As has been said, the problem is that User:Rebroad is simply doing it wrong. The question is why they were looking in an encyclopaedia entry about the film. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I've read though the plot section and didn't see anything that would even remotely "ruin the enjoyment of the film". This is the problem with the so-called spoilers. The definition is wildly subjective and left to the personal opinion or interpretation. And just like anuses, everyone has an opinion on what is and is not a "spoiler" and they're all... —Farix (t | c) 13:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

They're all what? Go ahead, tell us without violating WP:CIVIL. Ken Arromdee (talk) 02:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, here's an official call to close this down. Everyone involved is making exactly the same arguments they started with (almost three weeks ago now), so this is going exactly nowhere (except "more angry"). --King Öomie 18:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.