Talk:Halo: Combat Evolved

Archives

---

• 1: October 2003 — October 2006

Halo Bad reception

Halo did not go down with the on-line comic penny arcade, they lampooned it for being repetitive.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2001/11/28

It's not really notable enough for an external link. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 23:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Halo2sucks.com

I will be adding a link to that site since it is a pro-halo 1 site. - Shady Joe

Don't you dare add that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.30.166 (talk • contribs)

What could be done is adding a critisizm section in Halo 2, and write some inferiorities from H2 that were not present in Halo CE. It's not that I don't think the same- I completely agree that Halo 2 sucked-, but I do not see anything to justify putting it on the Combat Evolved page. 216.237.235.137 20:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I can add that to the Halo 2 page if it isnt there yet -- MLG Cheehwawa

Grenade accidents

I just added a sentence about accidently hitting the grenade button at crucial times, which could affect gameplay, since it can hurt you and others.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdgcfcf (talk • contribs)

Umm...Isn't this obvious? bibliomaniac15 Review? 03:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it is... Don't think it's necessary.--SUIT^42! 03:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You can accidently hit grenade buttons at crucial and non-crucial times in almost any game. Completely ilrelevent to halo.--Can Not 23:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, I do it all the time in Call of Duty 3. Chronolegion 13:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I stuck the 'protected' thing on the page for the duration, if someone thinks it should be removed, by all means do so. I'm just getting annoyed on having to revert vandalism on five articles in my watchlist over and over... and over and over. David Fuchs 01:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Only admins can protect pages.--SUIT⁴² 01:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well aware of that. I put in the request. In the past on other pages tho, that's actually detered vandals. 01:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't put the tag on if it's not actually protected, because the associated maintenance category then becomes confusing. I actually see a couple of good-faith IP edits (though one was original research) in the last day or so, and it's not as if the article is being continually pummelled (unlike some other video game articles, which get a dozen reverts of bad-faith edits a day), so I'm not inclined to protect yet. I do have this page watchlisted, so I'll continue to monitor it. Or you can request protection at WP:RFPP if it keeps up. — TKD::Talk 01:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• The amount of vandalism this article receives on a daily basis is ridiculous. This page should probably be protected, in order to discourage the constant vandalism for at least a little while. JimmyBlackwing 19:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• The amount of vandalism this article receives on a daily basis is ridiculous. This page should probably be protected, in order to discourage the constant vandalism for at least a little while. JimmyBlackwing 19:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed: I'm with David Fuchs on this one; it seems that just about every time I check my watchlist, I've got to revert some edit on this article. It's not as if the article is new or covers a newly-occuring subject; most relevant information is already here, and protecting it wouldn't hurt the usefulness of the article. Even if it's later removed, maybe it will have some (small) permanent impact on the number of vandals. PaladinWhite 23:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed: Just had a request I made for semi-protection denied this week 'level of activity not high enough to justify', etc...just becasue some articles get more activity is no reason to deny protection to a consistent target, semi-protection is completely jutified.PreciousRoi 13:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Multiple Endings

This game is listed under the category "Computer and video games with multiple endings". Are endings different for other difficulty levels? Chronolegion 20:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat... if you beat it on Legendary, you get a non-canon extra movie at the end... David Fuchs 22:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd call that a multiple-ending scenario. I'd call that more of an easter egg, or something along those lines. The plot still ends the same way on Legendary as any other difficulty, it just shows a clip of the Seargent and an Elite fighting, seeing the Pillar of Autumn about to self-destruct, then hugging in imminent doom. After that it still cuts to Master Chief and Cortana escaping in the craft discussing the outcome.

How could there not be another black man in the marines in space? The "black" ai in the truth and reconsilation wasn't sergeant, obviously as he was killed by sword ellites AND in the book the name was different. If bungie says it is him, it didn't have to be canon did it?

Sergeant Avery wasn't killed by sword elites, he reappears in Halo 2. bibliomaniac15 03:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understood me. The Model of Sergeant Avery was used on possibly 5 occasions, 3 of them that are actually him. One which wasn't him was in the rescue of Captain Keyes, one in the intro of the game, and the other this ending. His Model was used both in the book and game, only being named in the book for the rescue of captain keyes.

Ringworld

Ok somebody is pissing me off. I have been trying to add something about Ringworld by Larry Niven and for some reason people keep reverting it. Considering how much both the world in the book and the world in halo have in common it is hard for me to understand why people keep deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.123.18 (talk • contribs)

Who says that there's a connection? Analysis of this sort needs to have been pointed out in a reliable source, or it's original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. — TKD::Talk 04:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As per above, the list of possible influences on the main page for the Halo series was deleted, because original research is not allowed. Please respect that Wikipedia does not allow this and turn it into an edit war. Not to mention your grammar is somewhat... lacking. David Fuchs 20:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yawn...jealous Halo fanboys anyone? Can't admit their precious game is anything less than purely original? 192.154.65.1 00:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if the material weren't removed in order to satisfy Wikipedia policies of verifiability and no original research, I don't see how a fictional universe that includes such overtly referential names as the Covenant, Truth and Reconciliation, the Flood, the Ark, MJOLNIR, and Spartan could possibly be seen as "purely original". — TKD::Talk 03:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

....well by that thinking line nothing in the world is original anymore

When was the last time you've seen or read a space opera that was truly original. Sure, each one has its own touches and backstories, but many of the themes and terms are the same, mainly borrowing from the "classics" like Star Trek and Star Wars. Besides, Covenant and Forerunner names could merely be the "best fit" terms in English. As far as the name "Spartan", that is described in the first novel as an homage to the Battle of Thermopylae. Got nothing on MJOLNIR, as I am not well-versed in Norse mythology. Chronolegion 14:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

MIJOLNIR was Thor's Hammer, I believe... But none of the names are that all that relevant. Ultimately what makes it relevant is the science and theory. Its not 'original research', its just factual, Niven presented the model of the ringworld first, he INVENTED it. period. Now you could make the point (and this very point is made in Niven's wiki) that Halo has more in common with the Orbitals of Iain M. Banks, but Niven still originated the concept. If the grammar was less that perfect then correct it, but don't deprive Wiki users of relevant information for the sake of grammar or pedantry.PreciousRoi 10:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Vandalism? I think someone edited the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.62.186 (talk • contribs)

Been reverted already. — TKD::Talk 01:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

More Vandalism

I think this article should be protected. What's the point of degrading this game? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SatsukiMikata (talk • contribs)

We only protect or semi-protect articles as a last resort, generally. In my opnion, the activity on this article isn't that high compared to some other targets. Many vandalism sprees are the result of a single user, and, when that happens, it's better to warn/block that user than to protect the article. — TKD::Talk 01:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Glitches

Anyone else think that the glitches are interesting enough to warrant mention? Like how, on PC, you can get outside the barrier around the map "Death Island". Maybe a new section could be started to mention them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.170.154 (talk • contribs)

Glitches exist in nearly all games. A section on them would constitute trivia unless third-party reliable sources (forums and blogs generally don't count) were cited to show the relevance/notability of those glitches. — TKD::Talk 01:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In multiplayer, the heads of the players using the voice chat bob around. Is that a glitch or was it intentional? --76.21.54.178 01:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It would seem to me like it was intentional. If I were to take a guess here, I'd say that they bob their heads to let other people know who's talking. 68.57.97.152 03:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

spoilers

I think my edit to this article proves that people have to be more careful about spoiler warnings. Just recently did I finnaly put a spoiler warning on the biggest plot twist in the game. Schizel

Huh? You haven't edited this article recently. — TKD::Talk 16:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I did it like 2 weeks ago. I brought this up in case anyone thought a random spoiler warning was vandalism, after seeing how much there was on this page. Zombieninja101

Oh. Very few would consider a spoiler warning "vandalism"; they're provided by a standard template. However, there are certain editors strongly opposed to the use of spoiler warnings, the rationale being that one should expect to find spoilers in an encyclopedia article, particularly in sections entitled "Plot" or "Synopsis". I personally don't have a strong stance, so I tend to just respect the consensus of everyone else on the page. — TKD::Talk 04:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it was under "allies and enemies", the reason being that level 4 - my favorite - would have sucked had I known about the flood Zombieninja101

• Please stop removing the spoiler warnings under "Allies and enemies". For someone unfamiliar with Halo, revealing the Flood may ruin the game's biggest plot twist. As there is no hint for newcomers to the series that there will be spoilers in a section detailing enemies, {{spoiler}} tags are perfectly fine, per Wikipedia:Spoiler. JimmyBlackwing 22:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed, while spoiler warnings are not specifically recommended or discouraged, and it is more or less stated that editors may choose, those choices must be made with respect to consensus. As the spoiler warning is here, and there is considerable existence to it being removed, anyone wishing to remove it should discuss here first.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Halo engine

Perhaps this info simply isn't out there, but there's no mention of the graphics, physics, and AI technology used in Halo. Vranak

I know absolutely nothing about the engine, besides that it was used in Stubbs the Zombie as well. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / contribs) 22:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Valve and id Software talk freely about their tech, I guess Bungie keeps things hush-hush. Vranak

Maintenance work: Article too big; split proposal

I would propose the spliting of the Reception section into a new section. This article is already very big and I think it would be quite useful and practical to split this section off, leaving in the main article a {{ main|article }} or similar tag. Perhaps the Novelization section could combine into this new article; giving the article a more general content; a sort of Halo in popular culture, o something similar. I would leave you guys to decide. What would be desirable would be to split a few sections off and make this article a little bit more manageble. See Wikipedia:Article size Francisco Valverde 16:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Halo is a large subject, and as such requires a large article to fully cover it. Many quality featured articles are even bigger than this one (see Final Fantasy VII). Also, splitting a vital section like Reception into another article would cripple this article's comprehensiveness, which is something required from featured articles. Finally, an article dedicated solely to Halo's reception, or Halo in popular culture, would quickly be deleted or merged as non-notable. JimmyBlackwing 19:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with the above. Besides, every FA video game article has the following sections: Story, Gameplay, Development and Reception. Those are the most basic elements of any quality article about a game.DreamingLady 07:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Multiplayer

This setup was revolutionary for a console game, but was often deemed impractical.

OK, I'm kind of a newb here so I paused before I deleted this comment and source entirely. "Often deemed impractical"? The given source being a single games review site (currently offline) I'm not even really sure if this is useful information at all. Seems to me like its just secondhand POV. Unless someone can give a sound reason not to otherwise I'll prolly end up doing it eventually, especially if the sourced site remains offline indefinitely.PreciousRoi 13:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is definitely an important piece of information, but it could use a little rewriting and a few more sources. Many reviewers found this setup impractical, and the reference was meant to solidify that fact. Now that the link is broken, I'm going to need to find some more sources. But thanks for giving us the heads-up before you changed it. JimmyBlackwing 18:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• is it really? I'm not so sure, it definitly needs to be reworded. The criticism in the GameSpot article you linked to seems kinda baseless. "But the cost and setup required to play Halo in this way simply make it impractical for most game players." referring to the four copies of the game, Xbox consoles, controllers, and displays neccessary for 16 players...but thats completely spurious logic, assuming that one person would be responsible from providing all that is neccessary. Is making people aware that some game reviewers made, what in hindsight appears to be a baseless criticism important information? I'm not convinced. A little later in the article it brings up the issue of the large maps, this criticism is at least valid, but unrelated the the 'impracticality' described.PreciousRoi 07:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Whether GameSpot's observation lacks logic or not isn't up for us to decide. Multiple notable sources deemed the LAN-only multiplayer impractical, and as a result it's covered in the article. If need be, I'll continue to add more references until you're satisfied. JimmyBlackwing 21:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• I say it lacks logic, although as said that's not for us to decide and it should remain in the article. Although it does need to be reworded. Zombieninja101
• I just don't see the point of including it. But if you're bound and determined it MUST stay, it needs to be moved to the Reception section and reworded.PreciousRoi 13:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• It would be impossible for the sentence to remain in context if it was moved to Reception. We'd practically have to merge Multiplayer into Reception to give it context. Also, this isn't the only part of the article with critical reception outside of the designated section—see Allies and enemies, and Audio. Spreading it out like this keeps the Reception section from becoming bloated with redundant information. As to rewording the sentence, it looks fine to me with the addition of "by critics". What did you have in mind? JimmyBlackwing 18:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• And I'm still not convinced it needs to remain at all. How 'often' was it 'deemed' impractical? What about it was considered so impractical? As it is the statement is already taken out of context, its a single portion of a whole game review. The setup was revolutionary for a console game. Fine, solid. Someones impressions of it belongs under Reception. I refute that you'd have to merge Multiplayer into Reception to give the statement context. What kind of context does it need? Some critics found the multiplayer setup impractical. There. Stick that under impressions and you're done. Better still cut the whole thing and 'unbloat' the article a bit by removing some unneccessary information.PreciousRoi 11:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

ambiguity

There was a phrase under "gameplay" that was quite ambiguous about assassinating an enemy without alerting someone's allies. I'm to lazy to correct it, so I thought it ought to be on the talk page LIMEY 20:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Attempted to clarify.PreciousRoi 13:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

102 references?!

Geez people, the references section is almost as long as the article! Remember: you only need references for items that are likely to be controversial, not ever single statement in the article! Maury 20:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, citations are required for every piece of information taken from another source. As the entire article was written from gathered information, the number of references naturally must be high. JimmyBlackwing 20:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Umm, nothing about that statement is true. Feel free to peruse Wikipedia:Citing sources. Are you seriously suggesting we need a reference for The player can move around and look up, down, or to either side.?! It would need a reference only if it weren't true. References for what weapons are in the game was six sentences long and has a reference for every one! Just quote the manual once, if you must. Then they follow that with a four-sentance section on grenades with another four references?! Come on. This continues through the entire article. Maury 20:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Every statement should be sourced, to ensure that it is not original research. Nowhere does it say that there is such a thing as "too many references". This article was almost unanimously supported when it was nominated for featuring, and the amount of references has only gone down since then. If you have a bone to pick with articles using over 100 references, then Final Fantasy VII would be the place to go before Halo. This is particularly because I purposefully emulated the design of that article with this one. JimmyBlackwing 20:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

How is stating that a FPS game allows you to look up and down is OR? Do you honestly think people would go "hmm, I don't believe THAT, I'm going to check the references!". It's like saying "the sun will rise tomorrow" is OR if not sources. It sounds to me like I'll have to do it myself, but that's fine. Maury 21:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There are many first-person shooters which do not allow the player to look up or down. The statement example you gave would be both original research and speculation, and would need to be sourced to ensure that it was a verifiable claim. Also, making a change when it is contested is bad Wikipedia form, which I will be forced to revert. JimmyBlackwing 21:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As a five-year veteran, admin, and author of something on the order of 1000 new articles, I am well aware of what is and is not RVable. Combing refs and removing them in favor of see-alsos is not an RVable edit, and doing so would be in violation of good form. Your comment on what constitutes OR is simply incorrect, as can be seen in Wikipedia:No original research; "novel narrative or historical interpretation." That you can look up or down in Halo simply doesn't fall into this category in any possible stretch of the imagination. Maury 21:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Unless it's cited, it is not verified. You are proposing that a featured article should not be as fully verified as possible. Any information lacking a source may be removed at any time, per WP:V. Sources need to be cited:

"

• To improve the overall credibility and authoritative character of Wikipedia.
• To credit a source for providing useful information and to avoid claims of plagiarism.
• To show that your edit is not original research.
• To ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor.
• To help users find additional reliable information on the topic.
• To reduce the likelihood of editorial disputes, or to resolve any that arise."

• No Wikipedia policy backs up the removal of perfectly reliable citations. JimmyBlackwing 21:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

is the opinion of a lone pessimistic reviewer really that important? I don't think so. So i deleted it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.116.161.170 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Reversion

Hi - was scrolling through recent changes, and noticed an addition of the word "shithole" under Gameplay. Thinking this couldn't be correct, I reverted it. If I'm wrong, please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page --Fritzpoll 23:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warning

I'm not sure I see the compelling justification for a spoiler warning here - this game has been out for years. Phil Sandifer 19:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please explain where in Wikipedia:Spoiler it is said that an old(er) topic may not use spoiler warnings? It doesn't. The enemy type detailed in that section is the game's major plot twist, so no one who had yet to play the game--or have it "spoiled" for them--would know the section contains a spoiler; no one who hadn't played the game would be able to tell that the section title "Allies and enemies" was, in itself, a warning of spoilers. Whether the game's story "common knowledge" or not is not for you, or anyone on Wikipedia, to decide. JimmyBlackwing 19:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

But surely the Flood aren't really that big a twist at this point... they're well-known and have appeared in subsequent games. I'm not sure this spoiler warning hides anything. So again - what's the compelling justification? Phil Sandifer 23:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to assume that an "allies and enemies" section will detail all friends and foes one will encounter in a game, and that this detail will contain information that one doesn't know about prior to reading the article. So what need exists for an extra warning, which is rather intrusive, adversely affects the flow of the text, and arguably places a disproportionate weight on a relatively insignicant fact? --Tony Sidaway 00:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. 'Sides, it doesn't detail really any details about the Flood - like them and the ring's purpose- that are the de facto spoilers. It's just a general overview. David Fuchs 01:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Saying that they exist is spoiler enough. Also, Tony, in the context of Halo's story, this is about as far from "insigificant" as possible. In most games, the revelation of what enemies will be encountered is not a spoiler. However, in Halo, the Flood represent a large plot element that only comes into play several levels in. And Phil, you have again failed to bring a reasonable argument to the table--someone for whom this would be a spoiler obviously wouldn't have any idea about what the later games included. There are always people who won't know the story of a fictional work, even in reference to literature dating back hundreds of years. Time changes nothing in reference to spoiler warning use. JimmyBlackwing 01:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Suppose I, knowing about The Flood from this article, now try to play Halo. Could you explain how this knowledge would hamper my ability to play the game? --Tony Sidaway 02:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"Play" Halo? No, it wouldn't hamper your ability to play it, but since when does a spoiler relate to playing? For that matter, how would knowing every major twist in, say, Harry Potter hamper someone's reading of it? Or what about watching a movie or TV series where you already know the "big twist(s)", like The Sixth Sense or The Sopranos? Enjoyment of a work is the factor to discuss, not what you do to experience it the first place. So, with that in mind, yes--knowing about the Flood would be detrimental to a person's enjoyment of the game. JimmyBlackwing 04:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I know about the Flood, which sounds really cool, and you say I'll enjoy the game less? Could you explain this? Won't I be enjoying it all the more knowing that the game is rather more exciting than I thought at first? --Tony Sidaway 05:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Spoiler states that "knowledge of the spoiler would substantially diminish many readers' or viewers' enjoyment of the work", so I'm working with the materials given to me, but to get on with this: no. The revelation of the Flood relies on the shock of not knowing, and many "suspenseful" scenes lead up to it. It's a lot like "Snape kills Dumbledore", in that it completely removes the secret of the plot's most significant twist. I mean, seriously, knowing that Dumbledore dies doesn't make the book "more exciting" because you know it isn't going to be "another ho-hum year at Hogwarts"--it just makes it a tedious wait until it inevitably happens. Another example would be the revelations at the ending of Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater, which knowing about beforehand would almost remove the enjoyment of playing the game, as it is so cutscene and plot-heavy. In reference to the spoiler altering a player's enjoyment of the gameplay, Wikipedia's definition of a "spoiler" invariably refers to a plot element, rendering comment on how it affects the rest of the game's elements unnecessary and almost impossible. JimmyBlackwing 06:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The spoiler tag is redundant. If this article is properly written, it has to give away plot details. There is no other choice for an encyclopedia article about a video game. — Carl (CBM · talk) 06:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like more of an argument to take up with the people at Wikipedia:Spoiler. A spoiler tag can't be considered redundant unless it violates the guidelines listed there, and the one you brought up isn't one of them. JimmyBlackwing 06:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

W:SPOILER makes it clear that spoiler tags should not be used unless there is a specific reason that goes beyond merely discussing plot details. There is no such reason apparent here and you haven't raised one. Several others (4?) have pointed out that the tag isn't necessary. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've given specific reasons. It isn't my fault I'm getting ganged up on by the anti-spoiler patrol who insist that none of them are valid. JimmyBlackwing 17:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you've misread the guideline. Nowhere in the guideline is it asserted that "knowledge of the spoiler would substantially diminish many readers' or viewers' enjoyment of the work". It says that a spoiler tag may be used if this is the case. You have to show that this is the case. In our articles on Harry Potter, moreover, you will find a full description of all the plot of every work, without any spoiler tags.

There are millions of fans of Harry Potter the world around. Most of them have read the book of the Half Blood Prince, and so they know the how and the why. But they'll be going to see the film when it's completed and released. Why, if as you seem to claim here the story has already been spoiled by their having read the novel? --Tony Sidaway 08:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I was pointing that out because it says "enjoyment" and not "ability to experience", or whatever. You misunderstood me. In the case of Harry Potter, the story elements remain in sections where they will obviously be present ("Plot"). In this case, a story element is revealed outside of a specially named section. As for Harry Potter fans going to see the movie, that is a weak argument. There are dozens of reasons, including "I want to see how badly they screwed it up", "I want to see what kind of atmosphere they gave the movie", "I want to see how well they portray the characters from the book", "I like watching movies more than reading books", "I saw the last one, so I want to see another"... the list could go on almost forever. I have already given the reasons why the Flood spoiler diminishes the player's enjoyment of the work, and yet you remove the spoiler tags because several people who apparently haven't even read the guideline come in demanding the removal of spoiler tags, all for completely different reasons. One guy says that an old work can't use them, while another says all spoiler tags should be removed from video game articles. I'm adding them back until this discussion is finished. JimmyBlackwing 17:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You have not given reasons why this article needs spoiler tags. Spoiler tags are not for every article on a fictional subject - there needs to be some special reason to include them here beyond the mere fact that this article discusses the details of the game, which is what the article is supposed to do after all. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've given the "special reason"--the details are revealed in a section where they will not obviously be to the casual reader. This isn't a "spoiler warnings on a section titled Plot" type deal. JimmyBlackwing 00:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(←) The section is "Allies and enemies". Of course this has to discuss plot details, since the plot is what makes allies and enemies. Any section that can reasonably be expected to contain spoilers doesn't need a spoiler tag - this includes character lists, plot summaries, and anything else where the only source of information is the plot. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Allies and enemies", in probably 95% of first-person shooter articles, would not contain spoilers--major examples include games like the Half-Life series, the Doom series, GoldenEye 007 and the Quake series. No reasonable person could be expected to assume that this article is one of the 5% that would have spoilers in such a section, particularly considering that it is a subsection of gameplay. That brings the number closer to 95% of all videogame-related articles; gameplay, by definition, has nothing to do with the plot. Sure, some gameplay sections have plot details in them, but they are few and far between. Also, the section has more sources of information than the plot, as shown by the final paragraph--AI-related elements. If I must, I'll just rename it to something more fitting, since I always found it to be a clunky and misleading title. JimmyBlackwing 01:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The Allies and Enemies section is a spoiler by nature, no matter what article it's in. The reader who looks at it had better expect to be spoiled, why else would you read up on the allies and enemies of the game? That's why spoiler tags are redundant and inappropriate in sections like this. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

But there is no "Allies and enemies" section in this article. JimmyBlackwing 06:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well that's Carl, Phil, David and Tony for no spoiler tag, and Jimmy for spoiler tag. So why does the spoiler tag keep getting replaced? It seems pretty clear to me that there is no consensus for it. --Tony Sidaway 04:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Give me a day or two and I'll have this place crawling with people supporting the spoiler tags. A few people--who have never edited this article before--suddenly taking interest means nothing. We can call in reinforcements forever and it won't make a difference, because as soon as one side starts reaching a consensus, the other will call in more editors. If that's what you want to happen, then fine. It's what goes on at Wikipedia:Spoiler, so why not here? JimmyBlackwing 06:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that you appear to be advocating edit warring. --Tony Sidaway 06:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring and explosively large discussions are two very different things. JimmyBlackwing 06:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

True. We can live with discussions. --Tony Sidaway 07:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Votes don't count. Halo is one of the finest examples of a videogame with a decent plot element; indeed this is one of the reasons mentioned in the article for its great success. If significant plot elements are discussed (and they are - Jimmy's point about the Flood being a big revelation after a suspenseful lead-up is relevant), I believe a tag is perfectly justified. --Yeti Hunter 08:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you that votes don't count. But why is this article so different? We don't even currently have a spoiler tag on the Fantastic Four sequel, although it's barely three weeks since release. This could change, obviously, subject to consensus, but generally it seems that "plot elements are discussed here" is not enough argument to support a spoiler tag.

One thing that I keep having to come back to is that the knowledge of the Flood in some way spoils the game. Yet Jimmy himself acknowledged that, for instance in the case of the Harry Potter films, knowledge of the plot and indeed the ending doesn't spoil the films for the many fans. So there seems to be inconsistency here. In what way does knowledge of the plot harm enjoyment? --Tony Sidaway 09:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I am typical of most players, but knowing about the Flood didn't hamper my enjoyment of Halo back when I first played it. I actually liked it more, because I was creeping through the swamp looking at the all the clues, and was actually much more aware of whats going on. By the by, this discussion has been offered as "evidence" of sorts of at a Cabal request- I felt I kinda had to add myself to the involved parties even though I haven't been actively removing many because of this. Read it all at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-27 Spoiler. David Fuchs 14:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like another unfortunate editor has fallen into the 'compelling reason' web. Don't waste time trying to appease the whims of the anti-spoiler brigade. Compelling reason means whatever they want it to, in practice it means 'never'. It would be better to argue directly on Wikipedia Talk:Spoiler to get the guideline overturned.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I see that once again the same old anti-spoiler hooligans have shown up again to blast the spoiler tags, and then berate the editors who have tracked and contributed to the article. What's intriguing to me is that these same editors have, on other pages, acknowledged the compromises when an editor makes compelling arguments for keeping a spoiler warning. Jimmy has done that here, but his argument is ignored. A consensus? More like a shout-down match, very ugly to behold. ... Further, I notice that most of those removing the spoiler tag had NOT shown up on this article's History page UNTIL they started removing the tag. This is clearly edit warring, and malicious editing to prove a point. WHICH if you're familiar with guidelines and policies, is very sternly discouraged. Wikilawyering aside, jumping into a page you'd not otherwise be interested in, and berating the editors who actively contribute to them, is poisonous to the Wiki Community. Go find other hobbies, anti-spoiler punks. Your antics are not amusing or in the best interests of WP. Leave the spoiler here. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 21:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Other editors have identified my comment above as a personal attack on other editors, and as "poisoning" the discussion. Neither were my intention. Jimmy invited me to review the discussion and the issue, and contributed my views if I had any. I simply looked at the History of the article, and it appeared to me that newcomers to the page were removing the tag (as the only contribution) and then arguing against its reinstatement with those who appeared to have older, more frequent contributions to this page. I'm sorry if someone's feelings were hurt here. My only intention was to voice support for those with more involvement with this article and their views. If the consensus of long-time contributors is that the spoiler warning is no longer needed, fine. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 12:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• • I find it puzzling that both you and Nydas are complaining of disruption. As far as I can tell, we were having a perfectly useful discussion about spoilers and their use on this page, and then several people blew in and decided to declare the entire discussion bankrupt and completely derail any efforts to try to come to an agreement. Phil Sandifer 22:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As nobody has actually justified out why the spoiler tag is needed here beyond the fact that the Flood are an opponent discussed in a section clearly about the opponents, I am going to remove the tag again. This article is supposed to be a spoiler, that's the point of an encyclopedia article - to discuss the relevant plot details, gameplay, and critical reception. There is no need to warn about things that are supposed to be there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No article is "meant to be a spoiler", and no reasonable user could expect the largest plot element in a game to be revealed in such a fashion. Also, I note that your reasoning doesn't comply with what is spelled out in Wikipedia:Spoiler; by your logic, no article should have a spoiler warning. If every article on Wikipedia is meant to be a "spoiler", then we might as well delete the {{spoiler}} template. Strangely, this hasn't happened, and a guideline has sprung up to support limited use of the tag. How, then, is your reasoning justified? JimmyBlackwing 06:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles about fictional topics are expected to contain spoilers in various places. There is consensus that in truly extraordinary circumstances a spoiler tag may be used, but otherwise they should be avoided. In particular, anyone reading this article who reads the section on gameplay is expecting learn about... the gameplay. I have yet to see why this article is different than any other random game article. So, like most of them, it doesn't need a spoiler tag.

Also, based on your edit summary, you seem to feel that if you don't find a response quickly enough you are entitled to insert the tag again, which isn't correct - until the tag is justified and there is consensus to include it, it shouldn't be here. That's the point of the spoiler guideline - that only when there is consensus that a particular spoiler is different enough to deserve a tag should a tag be used. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an extraordinary circumstance. Readers are learning about plot elements in the gameplay section. Very few, if any, other game-related articles contain plot elements in their gameplay sections, hence the need for a warning. JimmyBlackwing 22:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What else would the gameplay section talk about except the plot of the game as it's played? The spoiler warning in question is in a section titled "Combatants", which is somewhat mistitled since it is meant to describe the enemies the character faces. It seems natural that in order to discuss the enemies in the game it's necessary to divulge some plot information, and the section title is clear enough there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The section details enemies, allies and AI; "Combatants" is not misleading. Also, the gameplay of most games is not connected to its plot in any relevant way. The same goes for enemies--the story of most games is disconnected from what enemies are faced. No reasonable reader can be expected to assume that the game's largest plot twist is revealed by the existence of a certain type of enemy. JimmyBlackwing 23:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If the plot twist is the existence of the enemy, then the reader had better expect to learn it when they read a list of the enemies in the game. If someone doesn't want to learn about all the enemies, they would avoid reading a list of them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The existence of the Flood is detailed in the plot section. They just happen to be necessary for inclusion outside of it, which is why a warning is required--no one who had not played the game/had the plot twist revealed to them would expect it. No one could be expected to expect it. A spoiler warning is completely justified. JimmyBlackwing 01:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(←) What would someone reading a list of the player's enemies expect to find? — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

An extremely detailed game guide, just like what most "enemy lists" are on this site. In this case, they would be surprised that the section not only details AI and allied NPCs, but large plot elements, all in a concise manner. JimmyBlackwing 05:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JimmyBlackwing here. It is not normal for an explanation about enemies to reveal major plot spoilers for a video game, so this is an exceptional circumstance. Philip Reuben 20:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Can either of you explain to me exactly what is the "plot element" you're talking about? — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In Halo, until half way through the game the only enemies you encounter are the Covenant as you race to figure out how to use the ringworld as a weapon. However Cortana suddenly mutters about how the Covenant released something, and now they're afraid... you travel to this swamp to find your captain, but you find crazed allies, lots of blood, dripping goo... the Flood are revealed at the height of the level, and subsequently you learn the real reason the rings were created were to starve the Flood by killing all sentient life in the galaxy. David Fuchs 23:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Which of those plot elements is actually in the section that has a spoiler warning? As far as I can tell, the only spoiler there is that the Flood exists, and some basic info about that. I don't see what information that's actually in that section is so unusual that it needs to be tagged. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

(can't keep up with the colons, so starting anew) That's my reasoning for not having the warning. To me, the Flood existing is an integral part of the plot, but the true nature of Halo is the true "spoiler" or turn or whatever you want to call it. The info in the allies and enemies section is basic enough. David Fuchs 00:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

They're both spoilers. Players do not find out about the Flood until level 6, in a 10 level game, and they are intended to be a surprise. It even says so further down the article:

"This version of the game featured Halo-specific fauna, which were later dropped because of design difficulties and the creatures' "detract[ion] from the surprise, drama and impact of the Flood."[58]"

If the developers themselves specifically tailored the game towards this surprise, then there is hardly any case against it: saying that they exist is a spoiler. Further, it not only mentions them, it goes into fine details about them. Before you bring up their mentioning later in the article, I must note that, besides being named, no details are revealed--it doesn't even say what a "Flood" is. JimmyBlackwing 09:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any fine details there that would not be expected in a general description of the character. The question is not whether there are any plot details at all - of course there are some, since all information about characters in the game comes from the plot. The question is whether the information could reasonably be expected where it sits. Not every spoiler needs a spoiler tag. The entire content about the Flood is this:

A secondary enemy is The Flood, a parasitic alien life form that appears in three main variants.[26] Infection Forms, the true form of the Flood, are fragile, but often travel in swarms. Combat Forms result from humans and Covenant Elites who are infested by Infection Forms, and have hideously deformed bodies. Bloated Carrier Forms serve as incubators for new Infection Forms. When wounded or near a potential victim, they explode suicidally to damage other nearby life forms and to release their spores.

Please explain what in those sentences is so different from every other character in every other game that this one needs a spoiler tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It couldn't be reasonably expected, as it is a plot twist revealed 60% of the way through the game. The description tells us exactly what the Flood are: small, parasitic alien life forms that travel in large groups, and happen to be capable of "infesting" other life forms. It isn't like describing the Zerg from StarCraft--players know exactly what those are just by reading the manual. This is like telling readers that Bruce Willis is dead in the header. The twist is that there is a life form besides humans and Covenant forces on the apparently-barren Halo. A further twist is that they "infest" other life forms. Both of these things are revealed 60% of the way through the game, and both of these things are revealed in "Combatants". No one who had played 50% or less of the game would know that this section contained anything more than information about the Covenant or human soldiers. JimmyBlackwing 20:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This is vital plot information that cannot be expected or deduced to be there beforehand. I know of no other work of this kind that keeps completely mum about an entire side.
Furthermore, please don't use the spoiler tags' scarcity as an argument for destroying the rest. You know that they were removed en masse with no thought given to the effects, and that there's been no time at all to put any back with the rules forced on them. Should we have to restore thousands of tags simultaneously to prove the validity of any of them? --Kizor 23:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

J: Nobody who hasn't see the ending of a movie knows the ending, but we routinely describe the ending of a movie in a plot section without a spoiler tag, because plot sections are meant to include the whole plot. A section on enemies is meant to describe all the enemies, no matter how far into the game they appear. It isn't that a player of the game reasonably expects it - it's that a reader of the article expects that a section on nemies iwll discuss enemies. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's supposed to describe all of the enemies, but it isn't like spoiler tags remove information--they just give the reader a heads-up. If they want to play the game sometime in the future, then they will probably choose not to read. If they don't, or have already played the game, they will probably choose to read it. As Kizor said, though, it is extremely uncommon for a work of this kind to make no mention of a side for most of the game. A reader will expect descriptions of enemies, yes, not descriptions of enemies that reveal the largest twist in the game's plot. The section is called "Combatants", after all, and not "Plot". JimmyBlackwing 02:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the section is called combatants, it's our job to list all the (major) combatants. The tag is just redundant, as it would be in a plot section. I don't see how anyone can read a section on enemies and not expect to read about all the major enemies. The point of us being encyclopedic is that we cover all the important information. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Except the existence of an enemy force usually isn't the plot twist of the whole game. In this case it is. --MichaelLinnear 04:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

(←) It's not in any way novel to have a new enemy appear in the middle of a game. Not even a first person shooter - there are always new enemies that appear in the middle to end of the game to make the difficulty increase. The question isn't whether this is a plot detail, it's why it would be so unexpected to warrant a spoiler tag. The fact that the Flood is a combatant and is listed in a section on combatants means that the reader is expecting to learn about it, along with all the other combatants, when he or she reads that section. The mere fact that it is a spoiler doesn't mean it needs a spoiler tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Every spoiler tag covers a spoiler, and the sole reason for this is "because it's a spoiler". This is the only reason for the tag's existence: it gives readers a heads-up that a spoiler is on the way. Again, by your logic, there shouldn't be any spoiler tags, on any articles. Your reasoning is not supported by WP:SPOIL. JimmyBlackwing 05:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER makes it clear spoilers are only used in rare occasions where either the location of the spoiler is unexpected (not an issue here) or the spoiler is somehow different than similar spoilers in similar articles (not an issue here). The mere fact that a detail is a spoiler does not warrant a spoiler tag - that's the point of the whol WP:SPOILER guideline. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to read the guideline again. That's not what it says. JimmyBlackwing 05:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh? "In Wikipedia articles, for purposes of style and clarity, the use of spoiler alerts is minimized, though they are acceptable as an exception to our general guideline, no disclaimers in articles, when there is consensus for their inclusion." Note the word "minimized". Also, "Spoiler warnings should not be used when they can be replaced by more accurate heading information." — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Note the word "consensus", which is clearly against you. 3 people have agreed with me, without my request, in the last 2 days. You have not had any support during that time. That isn't counting the others who have arrived. I'm not going to turn this into a "consensus war", because that's Tony's game, but I thought I should point it out. Anyway, yes, use is minimized, but this is minimal use. Also, this spoiler could not be replaced by more accurate heading information--the heading is as clear as possible, and it still cannot warn users of the imminent spoiler. This is an exception to the rule: no one could expect it, because very few works have their entire plots based on a single, easily-revealed element. The spoiler is both different and unexpected, if you insist on using your criteria. JimmyBlackwing 06:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The header already in place warns the reader about the spoiler - it says the section is on combatants, and the only information you are claiming is a spoiler is the identity of one of the combatants. — Carl (CBM · talk) 06:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is the plot twist of the game, and the focus of the latter half of it. --MichaelLinnear 06:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The appearance of new enemies which you describe as "not in any way novel" is an upgrade in the opposing force. That's common. A scene that turns the entire situation on its head isn't. --Kizor 07:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain that in more detail? How is the appearance of the Flood any different than a new enemy appearing in the middle of another game? Of course if the new enemy is different than old ones the gameplay will feel different, but it's still just a new enemy to challenge the player. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The number of articles that current include spoiler tags is seven (out of 1,869,580). I fail to see how the use of a spoiler tag on this one of those seven pages violates the "minimized" clause, especially when several people are arguing for its inclusion and have provided clear justification. Philip Reuben 16:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The 'minimized' clause is prejudicial to discussion and should be scrapped. It just encourages judgements like 'well, we've got more than ten today, so we can't have another one'.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

haha Wow guys. Just: Wow. This argument is almost as long as the article itself! I can't believe I've missed so much of it. So, a few things. first:

"Allies and enemies", in probably 95% of first-person shooter articles, would not contain spoilers--major examples include games like the Half-Life series, the Doom series, GoldenEye 007 and the Quake series. -jimmyblackwing

I've looked at these articles, and the "allies and enemies" sections of them are typically within the plot summary, not in the gameplay section. It's not as if Halo's section on combatants is anything like that in [[1]]. In fact, in my opinion, this section we have currently is entirely spoilers, not only the flood but also the covenant, the humans, and the AI. the Humans and AI is a spoiler for the book, and the Covenant is a spoiler for halo 2.

The section details enemies, allies and AI; "Combatants" is not misleading. Also, the gameplay of most games is not connected to its plot in any relevant way. The same goes for enemies--the story of most games is disconnected from what enemies are faced. No reasonable reader can be expected to assume that the game's largest plot twist is revealed by the existence of a certain type of enemy. JimmyBlackwing 23:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you have never played (or heard of) a character-driven plot before. there are many games where knowing the characters means you know the plot; for instance: final fantasy seven. Learning that Cloud was not actually a SOLDIER but was in fact a wash out who was brainwashed is one of the major parts of the game, but that is merely character description, innit? And there are also games that have gameplay-driven plots, like Fable or GTA3?

Anyway, I feel that this whole section is spoilers and should be treated as such as depends on the WP:SPOILER guidelines, whatever they may be, if it stays in this article, which I advise it doesn't. I think it should be integrated into the plot section. The only thing that should be said in a "combatants" section is combat statistics.--Rebent 17:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I continue to have a major problem with this spoiler tag, simply because I do not believe the Flood to be a spoiler at this point - the first Halo paperback was named after them, and they're very prominantly mentioned in the marketing blurb for Halo 3, which is very high profile. Though this may have been a revelation six years ago, the cat has gotten out of the bag pretty thoroughly at this point such that one cannot reasonably expect to remain unspoiled. Phil Sandifer 20:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The spoiler guideline has no mention of "common knowledge" or "timed spoiler tags". The game is 6 years old, anyway--it's brand new compared to most topics covered on Wikipedia. Plus, the game's story is only known in the US, and even then, only among gamers. Using the "common knowledge" argument just doesn't work here; for example, you can't reasonably expect a foreign gamer, who has just recently moved to the US, to know about Halo's plot, or perhaps even Halo in general. It doesn't work, even if we assume that your argument is based on a guideline, which it isn't. JimmyBlackwing 20:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The exact text of the guideline does not trump the use of actual thought, which I encourage you to apply to this subject. It's idiotic to tag something that is common knowledge among those interested in the subject and widely disseminated through mainstream sources without a spoiler tag. No guideline should ever be read as demanding application without reference to basic sense and thoughtfulness. This spoiler tag is idiotic, and your defenses of it as "technically allowed" only make it seem more so. I am removing it. Please consider that, at this point, its reinsertion would be a disruptive attempt to make a point. Phil Sandifer 20:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a general purpose encyclopedia, not a fansite. Your definition of 'common knowledge' is very far from a neutral worldview. Instead of insults and threats, you should accept the fact that the anti-spoiler brigade does not and should not have sole right to declare what is a 'permissable' spoiler tag.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Per WP:SPOIL, talk page consensus dictates whether the inclusion of a spoiler is correct; in this case, talk page consensus is clearly for its inclusion. The threats and personal attacks of a single user aren't going to change a guideline, no matter how hard they may complain about it. JimmyBlackwing 22:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not a fansite. And if the information were the slightest bit obscure, I could see how there might be a case here. But we're talking about something that has been in the description of Halo 3, one of the most anticipated and promoted games in memory, and is in the title of a book that is findable in any bookstore. This is not something on the level of fansite - this is something that is unavoidable if you are doing even the slightest amount of looking into the series. While it is (obviously) true that no group of people have the "sole right" to declare anything on Wikipedia, it is also the case that no group of people have the right to be disruptively idiotic in the pursuit of their agendas, which is demonstrably what is going on here. The argument that this merits a spoiler warning is simply and plainly moronic and disruptive. Whether it is being made, at this point, out of malice or stupidity I do not know, but in either case, it is wholly rejectable no matter how many warm bodies are rallied to its support. Phil Sandifer 22:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from making thinly veiled personal attacks while on Wikipedia, as they do not help you make a point, and only serve to poison the well of discussion.

You helped write WP:SPOIL, and just because it now says something you, personally, don't agree with, you claim to be right over the "ignorant, stupid and disruptive masses" who disagree with you. This is obviously not the case, per every guideline on Wikipedia. Further, you basically just threatened anyone who reverts you. Combined, we have blatant violation of several policies, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and Wikipedia:Civility. JimmyBlackwing 22:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I did help write WP:SPOIL. And like any guideline I support, my belief is that it provides guidance on how to use good reason, not a paint-by-numbers guide to writing an encyclopedia. I am not disrupting Wikiedia to prove a point, violating the nature of consensus, or making personal attacks. Your argument is stupid. I could avoid stating this, but it is very much applicable to the current discussion. Phil Sandifer 23:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines exist to give guidance, not to give paint-by-numbers instructions; yes. However, they also don't exist to be disregarded completely, as you have here. Besides that, it would be great if you stopped tossing insults around, as it only gives you the appearance of an angry mastodon, which--as your other discussions have shown--you clearly are not. JimmyBlackwing 23:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. And Phil, please remember to assume good faith, I don't think anyone here is trying to be disruptive, they just want the best for the article. Hargle 23:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith. But as one summary of the policy goes, never assume malice when stupidity will suffice. Phil Sandifer 00:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And two more policies tell us not to personally attack other users, and to be civil at all times. Whether you assume stupidity or not, it isn't your place to state it. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to re-add the spoiler tags. They were removed with little more reason than "your arguments are all wrong" and "you'd better not re-add them". If you want them gone, that's perfectly fine, but you're going to have to argue it over on this talk page just like everyone else. I think they belong, as have the majority of commenters thus far. You may not, but that doesn't give you the right to fire off a few threats and insults, and then go remove the tags. JimmyBlackwing 00:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

NPA is not, and never has been a blanket license for stupidity to go unremarked on. The argument for adding these tags is thoughtless wikilawyering at its worst. And they are being added despite a lack of consensus, which the very guideline you're so religiously citing demands. As I said - adding these tags is, at this point, a naked violation of WP:POINT. I should note, also, I am in no way assuming that you are an idiot in general. You seem intelligent and sensible. Even sensible, intelligent people come up with stupid reasons for things. This is such a time. Phil Sandifer 00:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to get out of WP:NPA by stating that the person is not an idiot in general, just 'stupid' on this subject is very much against the spirit of the policy.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wiki-lawyering to get around the spirit of WP:NPA, and still sneak in some barbed comments? You ought to be ashamed of yourself. --MichaelLinnear 20:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

BOTH OF YOU need to stop, take a few deep breaths, and regain some composure. - David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Lack of consensus for reinsertion

I don't see any consensus for the insertion of the spoiler tag. JimmyBlackwing has made an effort to justify it, but several people have pointed out that this plot detail is both common in games of this sort and expected where it is encountered in the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

By "consensus", we are referring to more people agreeing to one argument than another, correct? This is, after all, what a "consensus" entails. In this case, it is easily noted that you and Phil are the only ones left from the first (and only) wave of disapproval, while many users have come and supported my reasoning, while giving their own. JimmyBlackwing 00:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that's called "democracy." Consensus generally requires more than a 50% vote. Phil Sandifer 00:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A consensus is a "majority of opinion", which is what we're seeing here. Assuming we're counting all the people who have given their opinions on the matter thus far, we have:

• User:Tony Sidaway (against)
• User:JimmyBlackwing (for)
• User:Phil Sandifer (against)
• User:David Fuchs (against)
• User:Davidbspalding (for)
• User:CBM (against)
• User:Yeti Hunter (for)
• User:Philipreuben (for)
• User:Kizor (for)
• User:MichaelLinnear (for)
• User:Rebent (unclear)
• User:Hargle (unclear)
• User:Nydas (unclear)

Clearly, there is a consensus here for the inclusion of a tag. If you want this to be reduced to a straw poll where we go and find as many supporters as possible to argue our respective sides, we can do that, too. JimmyBlackwing 00:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I must have misread WP:CONSENSUS. It taught me that counting the number of contributors won't show consensus, and neither will a straw poll. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does say that. However, the word "consensus"--and the Wikipedia guideline referring to it--mean that a majority holds an opinion, as is the case here. The Wikipedia guideline says "60%", and 60% exists for the inclusion of a spoiler tag. JimmyBlackwing 00:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got the idea that consensus on WP means majority, but it simply isn't correct. In the end, consensus for an edit on WP means that it isn't reverted. It has nothing to do with counting opinions on each side. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think you should read the guideline again. Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus vs. supermajority states: "the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision, with the more critical processes tending to have higher thresholds." While it doesn't specifically state it, this appears to be relevant to all large debates, and not just "Requests for Adminship, Articles for Deletion or Requested Moves". After all, it applies to WP:FAC, but that isn't listed there. Considering this, it's perfectly fine to assume that this refers to things like what's happening now. On the other hand, nowhere in the policy's page can your reason be found. Even if we assume that my reasoning above is a bit iffy, you still cannot deny that the consensus is far more in favor of their inclusion. JimmyBlackwing 01:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

We aren't looking for supermajority, though, we're looking for consensus, as described in the very first paragraph of WP:CONSENSUS. The part about supremajority is just barely applicable to AFD, and not at all applicable for issues of content. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy, you quoted out of context. ;) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Formal decision making based on vote counting is not how wikipedia works (see Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy) and simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. When polling is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus.

Nevertheless, some mediators of often-used Wikipedia-space processes have placed importance on the proportion of concurring editors reaching a particular level. This issue is controversial, and there is no consensus about having numerical guidelines. That said, the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision, with the more critical processes tending to have higher thresholds.

— WP:CONSENSUS, (emphasis added)

There isn't consensus for adding the tag. If there were then we'd have added the tag and would no longer be arguing about it. --Tony Sidaway 23:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So we're back to the veto again.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no tag, so there shouldn't be a tag. There shouldn't be a tag, so there is no tag. This is certainly consistent with what you said on Talk:Spoiler about removals being self-justifying. --Kizor 12:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Carl and Tony seems to be under some illusion that adding a tag requires consensus but removing it does not. You can't remove a tag and then say "there's no consensus for reinserting it" when the status quo had the tag remaining in place, especially since a clear majority of those participating in the discussion are in favour of the tag.

It's situations like this that highlight the inherent bias in the implementation of the spoiler tag guideline: If the anti-tag group's interpretation of the guideline and consensus policy is to be believed, there is simply no way to gain consensus for a tag in a situation like this, because they can always argue that this consensus isn't quite good enough. There are currently five articles with spoiler tags. Is that a reasonable situation given that the wider spoiler tag issue has no clear consensus either way? Philip Reuben 13:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is consensus that sections such as "plot" don't need spoiler tags; that issue hasn't been discussed or challenged at WP:SPOILER for a long time. The reason such sections don't need spoiler tags is that they must contain plot info in order to have content. This section is no different. Imagine a "character" listing for a soap opera. It would have a great deal of plot information - who is really the child of whom, etc. - but there would be no way to write such a section without that information, so a spoiler tag wouldn't be needed. The main arguments made about this article have been that a spoiler tag is needed because there are plot details, or that this game is somehow different than every other first person shooter. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody reasonably expects the main plot twist of a video game's story to be revealed in the "enemies" section. That's the argument, and I think it's an entirely reasonable one. Philip Reuben 15:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)