Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for comment | Wikipedia policies and guidelines

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Irishrichy (talk | contribs) at 12:35, 28 May 2007 (→Poll 1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler

Although it's continuing, the debate here is largely redundant because the former spoiler proposal is now an established Wikipedia guideline. Please join the discussion of the details of this guideline (which like any guideline is subject to organic modification) at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler. --Tony Sidaway 22:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion as that process is expressly not designed for discussing changes to guidelines. This move allows for comments already made and any emerging consensus to be preserved as part of an active discussion.
Discussion of spoiler guideline: Wikipedia talk:Spoiler
Spoiler guideline: Wikipedia:Spoiler
This talk page is automatically archived by Miszabot. Any sections older than 72 hours will be automatically archived to the archives. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archived MfD and TfD discussions

These preceded taking the issue here and have been moved their their own subpages for archival purposes and to reduce the load time for those participating in the active discussion (they are also listed in the archive box above):

MfD for Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning
TfD for Template:Spoiler

We need a spoiler

Sorry if my opinion seems bland, but I think a spoiler warning is necessary. I know this is an encyclopedia, but I believe in the "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" philosophy. I'm happy with the process, so I don't want to have the spoiler template ditched. - User:Blakegripling_ph

Hear, hear. Sure, the process does have its flaws, but in my experience it's preferable to alternatives. RobbieG 12:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree. Templates also grab attetion while reading through an article, and someone might not realise that what he/she is reding is a spoiler. It is also a proven fact that some people are complete morons and can't put 2 and 2 together. Proof: [1]. It's from a popular TV show in Australia. The spoiler template should remain even if the heading says summary, background, etc., etc..--Iamcon 11:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straw polls

I think that it is time for a couple of straw polls to see at least where we are in the consensus building process. I'm only going to poll for three issues that I think we can easily come to a consensus on. --Farix (Talk) 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, and please add a (hopefully brief and well thought out) comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.

Poll 1

Should spoiler warnings be placed on articles about historical and classical works of fiction?

Use spoiler tags
  1. Yes, in fact put spoilers in another page inentirely with a Big Warning link to reduce crying
  2. Yes, if (i) said work relies for its impact on a surprise (ii) the surprise is not common knowledge (iii) work is still read for pleasure by a significant number of people (example: Sherlock Holmes mysteries). PaddyLeahy 21:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes, if needed. One man's classic in another man's new discovery. Most shakespeare plays remain undiscovered by 97% of Americans. Smatprt 01:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes per above, let's not be ethnocentric. It is an international encyclopedia after all. Brisvegas 01:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes, imposing a time limit on spoiler tags doesn't make any sense. — The Storm Surfer 13:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. While the intent here is fine, the definition is excessively vague. Is classical Homer? Heliodorus? George Eliot? Edith Wharton? James Branch Cabell? J.R.R.Tolkien? Robert A. Heinlein? I think the intent is the first three but not the last three, but who can tell? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yes per arguments above, and per comments by User:Kizor on my talk page. G1ggy! 00:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yes. That definition is entirely too vague, and from what Smartptr and Brisv say, there's no reason to assume that the majority or even a significant part of our readership is aware of the plots of such works. (Incidentally, said comments were not an argument, just a simple correction of a misunderstood term.) --Kizor 00:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yes per PaddyLeahy. I also agree with Brisv's argument because it might be common knowledge in the United States that Professor Plum did it in the billiard room with the revolver, it might not be as common for people in other parts of the world to know that. Q0 01:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Yes, but. I think it should be a judgement call on each article or class of works. What we are talking about is a courtesy to readers.--agr 15:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Yes, spoiler tags are one of the many things that make Wikipedia better than a printed encyclopedia Possecomitatus 17:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Quadzilla99 21:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Yes. Why the heck not? Abeg92contribs 01:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Yes, in principle - let editors decide on a case-by-case basis.—greenrd 01:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Yes, but don't forget the Bible.--Steven X 10:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Yes. Can you explain when something IS or ISN'T a classic work of fiction? Opinions are going to vary greatly on the definition of a "classic," so it's safer to err on the side of caution. Not everyone knows how something like "The Caine Mutiny" ends, even if it's a common piece of school cirriculum. --Bishop2 14:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Yes. Just because someone looks something up in an encyclopedia doesn't mean they want to know EVERYTHING about it. of course, this is really only important when it comes to spoilers. Also, a line cannot easily be drawn between classics and the common. Finally, not regarding the most famous fiction as fiction is discriminatory against readers less experienced in literature etc. Arguments concerning "insulting readers" are trivial in comparison. Urukagina 04:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Yes, but. I think it should be a judgement call. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Yes, as long as they are used for current works of fiction in the same way. Let's not make assumptions about which works readers will/won't be familiar with, please. Of course, I'm not counting myths and religious texts, but that's because they are presented as history, not fiction, not because I'm assuming that readers will already have read them. RobbieG 12:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your "of course" exception for religious texts violates WP:NPOV. Kusma (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but Xenu is fiction no matter how many people claim it to be a religious text. There are definitely more reasons to put a spoiler tag on Xenu (you're not supposed to know what it's about, after all) than on Romeo and Juliet (where the author gives the ending away in the first couple pages). Kusma (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Yes I think it helps people, and what does it take to skip one template to continue reading. BeckyAnne(talk) 20:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Yes Marcus Taylor 20:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Yes if plot and/or ending details follow. I'm glad I never saw spoilers for Bleak House for instance. Jheald 22:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Yes - • The Giant Puffin • 10:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Yes. Spoiler warning shouldn't depend on genre. Samohyl Jan 13:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Yes, sometimes I come to wikipedia to see if a premise of a book is worth reading. If there is a spoiler about something, wikipedia serves contrary to the purpose. However, the tags shouldn't be used in self sections which would obviously contain spoilers. --Rayc 21:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Yes, as I don't see how they would be any different from modern works. If they have a complex plot, spoiler warnings will be needed to warn readers. Blackjack48  ♠ ♣ 22:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Yes, spoiler tags should be used on all works of ficiton.--Iamcon 11:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Yes. Do not discriminate people on the basis of what they have read or not. --Akral 22:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Yes. The idea of removing it from such works would make the tacit asumption that such works would be known by everybody and/or of no interest, as a work of fiction in itself, by current people. Perón 01:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Yes. I don't see how adding spoilers could do any harm to anyone. I can see how not having them, could annoy a lot of people.--Richy 12:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use spoiler tags
  1. Farix (Talk) 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 21:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. danielfolsom 21:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Spoilers should be limited to the synopsis section anyway, and it is obvious that that section will reveal the plot. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 22:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -- Ned Scott 00:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 01:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Dlong 01:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Regards, High on a tree 02:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Embarrassing and unprofessional. --Stormie 04:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I don't really go for the "unprofessional" line of thinking; I just find them redundant, too difficult to adequately use with hard and fast rules because we need a bit of violation of OR and NPOV to use them, and I find it compelling that hardly any other encyclopaedia (online or offline) uses them - indicating that encyclopaedia readers generally do know enough when to avoid reading an article which may have spoilers. Johnleemk | Talk 06:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. No. Spoiler tags are an embarrassment to the encyclopedia under any circumstances. Informing about the content of works is what we do. Sandstein 07:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. No, the placement of a spoiler tag on Iliad would be ridiculous. Garion96 (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Absolutely not, this is ridiculous. --Cyde Weys 14:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Definitely not. The structured division of the article should be more than enough to indicate where potentially "spoiler"-ific material is located. Coverage of historical works is one aspect where we can approach the quality of a printed encyclopedia, and placing spoiler tags is counter to that idea. We're not in the business of babysitting our readership. --Darkbane talk 14:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Redundant tag --Bren talk 12:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. My reasons have already been discussed above — « hippi ippi » 13:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Not necessary. Jussen 22:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. It makes no sense for an encyclopedia to forewarn someone that they might find out something they didn't already know. ++ Arx Fortis 23:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. No. People read history articles to know about what happened, not to be shied away be a "spoiler". G1ggy! 00:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Changed to yes per comments from User:Kizor on my talk page.[reply]
  20. Hooray, Straw polls! Great when you want to ignore everything anyone's said and focus on sheer numbers! --PresN 05:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Absolutely not. Whatever may be said about contemporary works, this one is a no brainer. Are we an encyclopedia, or are we pulp? Unschool 08:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. No. This is a no-brainer. These works are discussed in traditional encyclopedias, in books and novels, in popular culture... There is simply no justification for putting spoiler tags on them. --Aquillion 14:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. No. --cj | talk 03:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Spoilers are unencyclopedic. Paul August ☎ 05:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. No, spoilers warnings are silly and would never appear in any work that takes itself seriously as a scholarly source of information. Also, it is a self-reference, which is always discouraged when possible. nadav (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. No. An encyclopedia doesn't warn its readers against learning from it. Shanes 06:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So basically, anything that could potentially be a spoiler - be it in the plot section or a character list section, should not be marked a spoiler based on the assumption that the reader will be reading said section knowing that it contains spoillers. The plot section you may have a point about, but nothing you've said can show that a character list willl obviously have spoilers in it, and you cannot show that the readers will know which lists do have them and which do not. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. No. A spoiler only prevents a user from reading the article, which is against our goal of a true encyclopedia. We're not a box full of surprises. Sr13 08:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Having people go into a character list not expecting spoilers and running into spoilers is exactly what a box full of surprises is. A spoiler PREVENTS people from gaining unwanted information. So if Wikipedia is not a box full of surprises, then you agree that spoilers should remain, as they assist it in not being a box full of surprises. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your point? Again, the tags aren't encyclopedic at all. Usually, the reader would want be presumably "spoiled" anyway if they look up an article on a movie or book. Sr13 06:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Absolutely not. In the standard disclaimer, we warn people that articles may contain spoilers. In most articles about fiction, we use the title "Plot summary", indicating that the section to follow is, amazingly enough, a summary of the plot. Those things are encyclopedic enough, "spoiler warnings" are for film-review sites and the like, not a general purpose encyclopedia. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this remotely relevant? Am I to understand that a character list is obviously going to have spoilers? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. No. Completely silly IMO - the purpose of spoilers I feel is more to protect future works than to protect ones that are well known. If someone is reading an article about a Shakespeare work and hasn't yet read the work, they're probably here to be "spoiled" anyway. Orderinchaos 15:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Encyclopedia. -- Jeandré, 2007-05-23t20:23z
  31. No. Not encyclopedic. - Rjm656s 20:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  32. Absolutely not. — Deckiller 01:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. No, slightly ridiculous. Axem Titanium 23:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. No. They are profoundly unencyclopedic and frankly embarrassing to the project. Articles should not require a warning that INFORMATION IS CONTAINED WITHIN. Ford MF 08:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. No. Spoilers are unnecessary in an encyclopedia, and too many tags for no good reason make pages unattractive and unprofessional online. -- Newbyguesses 08:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it really doesn't. They are presented as historical texts. That's how they were always intended to be read - as non-fiction. There are plenty of non-fiction books that are innaccurate or contain mistakes, but that doesn't mean they are "works of fiction". In the same way, even if you don't believe in a religion, you shouldn't classify their texts as "fiction". "Wrong", maybe, but not "fiction". To treat them as fiction not only violates WP:NPOV, but is also, therefore, innaccurate. RobbieG 13:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Not at all. Childish. Marskell 15:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Don't use spoiler tags. Wikipedia is not censored. There's no reason spoiler templates should not fall under Wikipedia's policy on no disclaimers. ~ UBeR 16:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. No spolier warnings They look childish and are typically redundat, appearing under a section heading like == Plot ==. This is the case with current featured article. —Gaff ταλκ 18:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. No they insult the reader.--345Kai 23:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. No, because of what everyone else said. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 16:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. No, I am reading an encyclopedia. I am coming here for knowledge. --DizFreak talk Contributions 20:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. No. I can only think of one time when I ruined something plot-wise (Myst IV actually, still haven't beaten it), and that was entirely my fault. Spoiler warnings are contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and needlessly complicate article building. --Edwin Herdman 22:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. No. Per ... Just NO. Anchoress 08:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. No As encyclopedia entries, wikipedia articles present information, in this case plot summaries and literary analysis. Users know and recognize this; there is no reason to insult them with a "spoiler warning" tag. Such a tag also makes the article look unprofessional. Wikipedia does not offer book or film reviews where such a warning might be necessary. No pages on books, films, poems, short stories, etc. should have this tag. Distinguishing between "historical" or "classical" works and "modern" works is highly dubious - there is no agreement on that kind of categorization. Awadewit Talk 13:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. No --Aude (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. No Cacycle 23:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. No does anyone expect to read an encyclopedia article about a work of fiction without finding out some plot details that may, in someone's tender little world, "spoil" a surprise? C'mon, we're an encyclopedia not an entertainment guide. Carlossuarez46 23:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. No per Awadewit et al. –Outriggr § 05:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other
  1. Maybe. "Historical" comes closest to the correct distinction, but a better idea is that (as someone suggested in the 'yes' section), a work which is read for pleasure by a good chunk of the readers needs a spoiler warning. This is almost historical, but not *quite* the same; older works like Sherlock Holmes stories may require spoiler warnings when some newer ones don't. It also gets fuzzy when you come to cases like Shakespeare. (Something like Romeo and Juliet, though, should be covered by another rule: you don't need a spoiler warning when most people who read the article can be expected to already know the spoiler.) Ken Arromdee 15:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody ever said that writing good Wikipedia articles is easy. But that's not a reason to completely get rid of all spoiler tags for anything more than 2 months old (or a year, or whatever). Ken Arromdee 16:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I am in general against spoiler tags, except in certain instances determined on a case by case basis by consensus. Trying to impose genre criteria is going the wrong way. --mordicai. 20:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poll 2

Should spoiler warnings be placed on articles about fairy tales?


Use spoiler tags
  1. Can't think of any where they would be needed, but decision should be made case-by-case, not by category. PaddyLeahy 21:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree with PaddyLeahy completely. Stop trying to own every page and let the various page editors decide. NEW fairy tales are written every day.Smatprt 01:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes, at editor's discretion, per Smatprt. G1ggy! 00:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes: As long as only a summary of the fairy tale is given, there should be a spoiler warning, but I do think it can be omitted if the whole fairy tale is explained in full detail. Q0 05:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes: This is actually a funny question. I take it that fairy tale is a story for children. Why should it be treated differently than stories for adults? And, there are many fairy tales one would read even as an adult, such as Tolkien fairy tales. Samohyl Jan 13:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes, but only if the tale does have such thing as "spoilers". If the synopsis does not reveal anything that would spoil the tale, then no. Perón 01:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use spoiler tags
  1. Farix (Talk) 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 21:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. danielfolsom 21:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 22:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -- Ned Scott 00:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 01:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Dlong 01:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Agree not to use sweeping categories for fairy tales, but if someone is researching a fairy tale there's a higher probability they already know the outcome, so spoiler warnings may not be necessary in all cases. Brisvegas 01:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Regards, High on a tree 02:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Even more embarrassing, although unintentionally hilarious. --Stormie 04:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. See my reasoning earlier for the first poll. Johnleemk | Talk 06:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. See my reasoning under poll 1 above. Sandstein 07:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. No, expect to find the ending when you look up the article about Snow White Garion96 (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Seems kind of obvious that an article about a fairy tale would contain spoilers about it, so the tag is superfluous and ugly. --Cyde Weys 14:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Even more pointless than spoilers on historical articles. If reader doesn't want to know the plot/ending, he shouldn't read the plot section. --Darkbane talk 14:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. No. It's very unlikely anyone old enough to read Wikipedia would be reading fairy tales for pleasure and care about not knowing the ending in advance, even assuming that they didn't already know it simply because our culture is already full of references to them. Ken Arromdee 15:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. No. Just no. J'onn J'onzz 12:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. My reasons have already been discussed above — « hippi ippi » 13:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Nope. Jussen 22:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. No. --PresN 05:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. No, for criminy's sake. Unschool 08:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. No. Absurd suggestion. Fairy tales aren't about surprise twist endings. --Aquillion 15:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. No. ++ Arx Fortis 16:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. No. --cj | talk 03:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Spoilers are unencyclopedic. Paul August ☎ 05:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. No, spoilers warnings are silly and would never appear in any work that takes itself seriously as a scholarly source of information. Also, it is a self-reference, which is always discouraged when possible. nadav (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. No. An encyclopedia doesn't warn its readers against learning from it. Shanes 06:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. No, per my reason above.Sr13 08:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. No spoiler tags. See above. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Absolutely not. Laughable. — Deckiller 01:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. No- not intended to have plot details withheld for effect, too intergral part of culture. Urukagina 04:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Also quite ridiculous. Axem Titanium 23:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. No way. Ford MF 08:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Absolutely not. ~ UBeR 16:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. No. Encyclopedia say what? Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 16:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. No. Fairy tales, popular ballads (in the folkloristic meaning), and nursery rhymes in general evoke another kind of interest than the "Sherlock Holmes resolution" does. Much is based on recognition and repetition. Why do you think a small child often wants to hear the same fairy tale again and again? JoergenB 19:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. No, not only is this an encyclopedia and I come here seeking knowledge but should we have multiple spoiler tags for the different endings of fairy tales that have changed through the years? --DizFreak talk Contributions 20:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. No, no spoiler tags whatsoever for my reasons given above. --Edwin Herdman 22:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Obviously Not. Anchoress 08:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. No No spoiler tags should be used at all in wikipedia because they violate the spirit of an encyclopedia and insult the reader (see vote in poll 1). Awadewit Talk 13:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. No --Aude (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. No Cacycle 23:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. No does anyone expect to read an encyclopedia article about a work of fiction without finding out some plot details that may, in someone's tender little world, "spoil" a surprise? And, if you wanted to remain ignorantly bliss about the end of some fairy tale before reading it, quick log off, read the bloody book, then come back. Carlossuarez46 23:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other
  1. I am in general against spoiler tags, except in certain instances determined on a case by case basis by consensus. Trying to impose genre criteria is going the wrong way. --mordicai. 20:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poll 3

Should spoiler warnings be placed in sections titled "Plot", "Plot summary", "Synopses", or any variation thereof?

Use spoiler tags
  1. Yes, if relevant. Non-crufty discussion of plots can and often should avoid spoilers, therefore, spoiler warnings should be used if necessary. PaddyLeahy 21:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes, if relevant or likely to ruin the story for anyone (not just experts in the subject, but the rest of us)Smatprt 01:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Of course, since not all plot summaries necessarily contain the ending. Brisvegas 01:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sure, it's only one or two lines after all. — The Storm Surfer 13:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Depends on the situation; a synopsis that goes into detail on the plot twists is probably plotcruft anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes. As I've pointed out, plot sections should contain spoiler tags for a consistent user interface. The fact that everyone already knows that a plot section probably contains spoilers is irrelevant. Please don't just count votes on this when many of the people voting "no" don't even address this point. (Besides, a plot section doesn't *always* contain spoilers in the sense of twists.) Ken Arromdee 15:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. It depends if it goes into detail on endings or deaths or betrayals or the like. Typically, in my opinion, the plot section should only go into the basics of what the work is about.J'onn J'onzz 12:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. My Comment is below... --Armanalp 15:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yes, per Ken Arromdee's comments concerning use, and The Storm Surfer's comments. What's the big deal, anyway? G1ggy! 00:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Yes. Showing that there are spoilers in the plot section is not their only function. If they end afterward, they signify that the rest of the article is spoiler-free (until the next spoiler tag - we don't need to cram all spoilers under one, because we're under no obligation to only use one.) If they extend to other sections, they signify that those too must be avoided. Kizor 00:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Yes - People might not think about the fact that a "Plot" section might contain spoilers until after it is too late. Even though it might seem obvious, it is only human nature to make mistakes. A spoiler warning helps to avoid the mistakes. I don't think that simply titling a section "Plot" is automatically going to trigger the reader to immediately conclude that the section might contain spoilers. If sections titled "Plot" or "Synopsis" were going to be renamed "Spoilers" or "Plot spoilers" then I would consider spoiler warnings to be irrelavent. Q0 01:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Yes, where appropriate. Not everyone will realize that outcomes may be revealed. Particualrly in cases where suprise, a "twist ending" or unexpected developents are important features of the work, spoiler warnigns may well be approerpite. Also, as mentioned above, a spoiler warning allows for an end-spoiler tag. Decisions should be made on an article-by-aricle basis about whether such tags are approperite, by the involved eidtirs, with discussion on the tallk page, if needed. DES (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Yes, This is just a courtesy to readers. --agr 15:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Yes, but in the case of shows with a teaser, the spoiler warning should preferably go after the line about the teaser. That way one can read that line, see the spoiler warning and say, "I don't remember seeing the episode where Kirk and Spock were merged into one being at the beginning, so I'm not going to read any further" or "I remember that episode, I'll read on." Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Yes, this is a courtesy as Arnold said. Tayquan hollaMy work 00:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Yes, when the works are reasonably recent, and the 'spoilable' portions are still likely to be new to a large amount of people. By now, no one should be surprised by a shakespeare or dickens twist, but would be surprised by the events of Deathly Hallows for probably two to three months after it is released. There's a limit, because famous twists pervade culture, but for each work, it's different, and the application should be considered in talk page first. ThuranX 01:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Yes--Steven X 10:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Yes. A recent study showed that 70% of the visits to Wikipedia come directly from search engines. These visitors are not necessarily looking for an encyclopedia article and certainly aren't reading the warning buried on the disclaimer page. The words "Plot", "Plot summary", and "Synopses" do not necessarily tell an average non-Wikipedian that we are about to spill the beans and spoil the movie or book. -- DS1953 talk 23:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Yes. I think DS1953 pretty much summed up one of the best reasons for this. --Bishop2 14:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Yes. or something similar. Sections on Plot specifically without spoilers need to be distinguished. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Yes. Save reason as first poll, what does it take to skip one little template to continue reading. BeckyAnne(talk) 20:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Yes —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 14:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Yes Marcus Taylor 20:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Yes per all the reasons above, plus I think having spoiler tags encourages editors to write more complete plot summaries. Jheald 22:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Yes People don't want the plot revealed if they are just browsing the article - • The Giant Puffin • 10:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Yes "Plot" doesn't imply that the end will be revealed. Samohyl Jan 14:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Yes spoilers are found in these sections so they should be noted. Blackjack48  ♠ ♣ 23:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. I absolutely agree. Templates also grab attetion while reading through an article, and someone might not realise that what he/she is reding is a spoiler. It is also a proven fact that some people are complete morons and can't put 2 and 2 together. Proof: [2]. It's from a popular TV show in Australia. --Iamcon 11:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Yes Plot can be with or without spoilers. --Akral 22:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Yes. We should not make asumptions about wich purpose a reader is seeking when reading an article, or whenever something is "obvious" or not for someone else. Perón 01:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use spoiler tags
  1. Patently redundant and crufty Farix (Talk) 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 21:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. danielfolsom 21:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Extraordinarily redundant. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 22:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -- Ned Scott 00:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. emphatic 'no' here. It's called plot summary for a reason. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 01:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Dlong 01:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Besides, it is a real insult to readers to treat them as if they were stupid enough to be surprised by information about the plot in a section titled "Plot". Regards, High on a tree 02:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Completely redundant. --Stormie 04:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. See my reasoning earlier. The natural caveat, of course, is that WP:IAR exists so this rule can and should be violated if necessary - on a case-by-case basis. I would prefer an option like "Treat them like fair use images; never use spoiler warnings unless you really really really have to", but I'm a bit lazy to make a new option and this option works just as well for me thanks to IAR. Johnleemk | Talk 06:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. See my reasoning under poll 1 above. Sandstein 07:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Same reasoning as before, if you go to a article, be prepared to get all the information. Garion96 (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Redundant and ugly. If you're smart enough to read English, you can figure out that, if you don't want to be spoiled, you might not want to read the section header labeled "Plot summary". --Cyde Weys 14:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. If a reader does not realize that a section about plot will contain plot details, then we need to ask them to leave the Internet on account of being fucking stupid. I don't think such readers exist in any significant quantity =) --Darkbane talk 14:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. My reasons have already been discussed above — « hippi ippi » 13:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Nope, the only reason that happens now is when Wikipedia: Spoiler_warnings is cited. We'll need to change this on relevant project pages. Jussen 22:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Simply, no. ++ Arx Fortis 23:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Plot details? In my plot section? It's more likely than you think! --PresN 05:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. You know, if we were writing for this project, I might consider it. But to include spoiler tags in Wikipedia is to proclaim every reader of Wikipedia to be a moron. Unschool 08:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. No. Plot sections clearly, by their nature, contain the complete plot of the subject, which should also be summarized by a few sentences in the article's lead section. --Aquillion 15:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. No. --cj | talk 03:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Spoilers are unencyclopedic. Paul August ☎ 05:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. No, spoilers warnings are silly and would never appear in any work that takes itself seriously as a scholarly source of information. Also, it is a self-reference, which is always discouraged when possible. nadav (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. No. An encyclopedia doesn't warn its readers against learning from it. Shanes 06:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. No, per my reason above.Sr13 08:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Anyone too stupid to figure out that the "Plot summary" section contains (hold your breath here) a summary of the plot probably can't comprehend what they're reading anyway. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Encyclopedia. -- Jeandré, 2007-05-23t20:26z
  28. No, not encyclopedic. -- Rjm656s 20:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  29. Absolutely not, due to the numerous thoughtful comments made. — Deckiller 01:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I believe the header is sufficient in denoting spoilers without an intrusive warning. Axem Titanium 23:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Aside from the fact that this is an encyclopedia, and it should be a given that surprise-compromising information just might be encountered in an article about a book, movie, whatever, "Plot" section should be clear enough to warn off even the slow ones. Ford MF 08:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Should ==Encyclopedia article== be placed at the top of intros? C'mon. Marskell 15:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Don't use spoiler tags. Wikipedia is not censored. There's no reason spoiler templates should not fall under Wikipedia's policy on no disclaimers. ~ UBeR 16:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Don't use spoiler tags in summary & plot sections. --mordicai. 20:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. No don't be silly --345Kai 23:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. No. Encyclopedia=encyclopedia. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 16:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Not in general. Exceptionally, there may be a reason to mark a specific subsection of a long plot section of a film or a modern novel of fiction. In general, our readers ought to expect that a plot description should be expected to contain some description of the plot, and no warning of this being a fact should be necessary. JoergenB 19:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. No This is an encylopedia and should read like one. I expect to find information on the entire movie when I come here. Spoilers in summary and plot is hand-holding --DizFreak talk Contributions 20:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. No, unless it is reasonable that someone would not expect spoilers in a section, the tag is not needed.--Rayc 22:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. No, no spoiler tags whatsoever for my reasons given above --Edwin Herdman 22:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Generally speaking, No. Perhaps amend that to never. If people don't want to know whether or not Harry Potter survives book seven, they should avoid net locations likely to contain plot synopses. Anchoress 08:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. No Placing spoiler tags in the "plot summary" section is an insult to the reader. A plot summary is going to contain details of the story - it is going to "spoil" it. To add a tag makes wikipedia look unprofessional as well as condescending. No proper analysis of a text can be done without referring to the plot, anyway, so arguing that the tag should be restricted to the "plot summary" section is ridiculous. I'm not sure what kind of pages they are envisioning because I cannot imagine a fully-formed page that did not refer to the plot and the themes throughout. Awadewit Talk 13:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. No spoiler tags not needed. --Aude (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. No, but it might be a good idea to keep the plot under such standardized headings. Cacycle 23:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. No does anyone expect to read an encyclopedia article about a work of fiction without finding out some plot details that may, in someone's tender little world, "spoil" a surprise? And, if you wanted to remain ignorantly bliss about these, quick: log off, read the bloody book, then come back. Carlossuarez46 23:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion.

Spoiler tags violate the Wikipedia policy on disclaimers - and they're redundant. Think about it - if you didn't want to know about a movie (including the plot line) then would you look it up in a paper encyclopedia? No - because a paper encyclopedia would obviously have the ending. Same goes for an online encyclopedia. If they want to know some specific detail, use google, but Wikipedia (and any other encyclopedia) isn't for that. Encyclopedias are for giving out facts about a subject, no disclaimer neccesary.danielfolsom 21:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In general, I see no reason to use spoiler tags. True spoilers should only be in the synopsis/plot section, and it would be redundant to have such a tag there in the first place. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 22:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. Take a "Themes" section. The reader cannot know whether or not such a section has spoilers, and to what extent. A philosophical work about the exploration of space would have this premise on the back cover, and coverage of its themes could be spoilerless. I bought a scifi book on the basis of a rightly non-spoiling theme section this week. For a work about identity that throws in a last-minute twist that turns the entire premise on its head (such as Fight Club), any coverage of themes and subtext, not for "Synopsis", would have to deal with spoilers. Or take "Reception" - if, say, a particularily gory scene is fundamental to the splash caused by a horror movie, it has to be covered under reception, but other works have spoilerless versions of such sections. --Kizor 22:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, perhaps in certain contexts where there needs to be a spoiler in another section, the warning might be merited. But in general, spoiler warnings are meant, for example, to stop the reader from discovering that a certain wizard has killed another certain wizard in the latest Harry Potter, and that simply should not be stated in any section other than the synopsis section. If you find an example of an article that truly merits a spoiler section outside of the synopsis section (where it is redundant anyway), I would like to see it. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 22:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally! I was beginning to fear that we would never have an opportunity to discuss this! --87.189.99.112

While I'm not totally against the idea of spoiler warnings, cutting their usage way back seems like a good idea. In the very least I think it's been shown that we don't need such warnings in classical works, or in clearly marked sections. -- Ned Scott 00:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exatcly. People can't complain if they read the synopsis; what do they expect, hidden spoilers? David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 01:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I find a number of arguments against spoiler warnings ridiculous (including the idea that it's okay to spoil fairy tales or classical works because "everybody knows the ending"), I think overall spoiler tags do more harm than good. They force us to structure the article around the tags - people are encouraged to put anything spoilerish between {{spoiler}} and {{endspoiler}} regardless of whether the information would be better off in another section - and I think confining spoilers to just a synopsis section would be just as bad an idea for the same reason. When this is happening, we basically give up writing and comprehensiveness for the sake of avoiding spoilers - an excessive concession that hardly any other encyclopaedia makes (which indicates readers of encyclopaedias do have enough smarts to generally avoid spoiler articles). Johnleemk | Talk 06:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not totally against the idea of plot summaries, cutting their useage way back seems like a good idea. Many editors think that spoiler tags are redundant because they think that the main purpose of articles about works of fiction is to recite the plot. They are wrong. They need to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and take careful note. To me, plot summaries are the least useful parts of such articles; I'm usually looking (vainly) for comments about critical reaction etc. PaddyLeahy 10:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are mischararacterizing here. I'm not aware of any editors who think spoiler tags around Plot sections are redundant "because they think that the main purpose of articles about works of fiction is to recite the plot". Indeed I have seen several users who advocate removing spoiler tags from Plot sections concede that one useful purpose they serve is to draw attention to what is often excessively over-detailed recitation of the plot! Spoiler tags around Plot sections are redundant simply because it is obvious that if the section is labelled "Plot", it will talk about the plot. No more, no less, and certainly no claim that reciting the plot is the primary focus of an article. --Stormie 11:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a mischaracterization, but more of a reminder for us to be mindful of WP:WAF, just in case we weren't, I think. -- Ned Scott 11:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this section of the discussion. The majority of controversial spoilers seem to be in cases of extensive plot summaries, whic h are against wikipedia policies anyways, (WP isnt' a substitute.) but given that the best articles about works of fiction seem to involve write-ups of the controversies, themes, and reaction, it is inevitable that a truly quality write-up may reveal a major plot twist. Take 6th Sense for example(yes, i'ma give away the seekrit): If the article were to discuss M Night Shyamalan's religious views on the afterlife and how he expresses it through the nature of the twist in the film, it would be quite difficult to do so without mentioning that the main character is himself an unaware ghost. But to eliminate the section to aboid the spoiler would be foolish, and to not include the warning might ruin the surprise for readers who could instead come back after viewing and then read it, reflecting on the themes. A spoiler warning for someone reseraching the film might be a 'flag' to let them consider their approach to their research. Instead of removing the tags, we should instead begin to review them, tough as it may be, and publicize the results to make further discussions on individual pages easier to have. ThuranX 02:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the polls! By now, hundreds of spoiler tags have been removed from prominent articles. There has been very little opposition and those who have opposed are overwhelmed by those who support. It's done, there is consensus for the current guideline: spoiler tags are to be used only where a strong case can be made that the quality of the article is improved by their presence. That is, hardly ever. --Tony Sidaway 15:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In part because two of the loudest opposers have been off being blocked as a result of the unilateral nonconsentual muttermutter change, and there was no way to infer the presence of this debate from the removal of those spoiler tags... --Kizor 17:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Ken Arromdee
  • plot sections should contain spoiler tags for a consistent user interface.
    Consistent with what?
  • The fact that everyone already knows that a plot section probably contains spoilers is irrelevant.
    So you admit that everyone knows, or should know, that a plot section would contain spoilers. But the fact everyone knows and thus renders a spoiler warning redundant is irrelevant? How is avoiding or reducing redundancy irrelevant? This seems more of an, "the facts inconveniently counters my argument, so I'm going to declare the fact irrelevant," line of reasoning.
  • Please don't just count votes on this when many of the people voting "no" don't even address this point.
    This is a straw poll to see if there is a rough consensus among editors. If not, the discussion will continue. But if the overwhelming majority is taking one side of the issue over the other, then the straw poll indicates that a consensus has been reached.
  • (Besides, a plot section doesn't *always* contain spoilers in the sense of twists.)
    But people still put spoilers warnings even when any aspect of the plot is discussed. --Farix (Talk) 16:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I'm simplifying a bit. Most plot sections contain things that some people might call a spoiler. Whether those people are justified, or whether this is close enough to "all" that it should be treated that way, is a separate argument. I don't want to attach a disclaimer to every sentence, so while discussing this I write as if all plot sections contain spoilers even though I know very well that that can be contested.
The argument about the user interface is that it's better for a reader to be able to avoid spoilers by avoiding anything after spoiler tags. If spoiler tags are left out of plot sections, then the user has to avoid spoilers in a more complicated way: by avoiding spoiler tags and plot sections, and anything else whose title indicates that it may contain spoilers. Now, he certainly *can* do this, since he can read the word "plot". But it's bad user interface design to make him do so. Just like the calendar that labels every day of the week even when the user already can deduce the day, we should label every spoiler even when the user can figure out that there's a spoiler there. Ken Arromdee 16:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is 20-15 consensus? Tayquan hollaMy work 00:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was asked above how spoilers are harmful. In my opinion there are two major ways:

  • They perpetuate the idea that wikipedia is unprofessional. No professional discussions of literature employ "spoiler warnings" nor do any other reference works.
  • They insult the reader/user. We do not want to alienate users.

Also, I would like to reinforce that spoiler warnings cannot be isolated to the "plot" section of an article. A well-written article reveals elements of the plot in its discussion of the "themes" as well. This is at it should be; a "themes" discussion that does not illustrate where in the plot the themes happen is a poor discussion indeed. Thus, I would expect that the entire article would "spoil" the work for someone who has not read it. If it does not, it is not well-written and not comprehensive. Awadewit Talk 14:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straw polls 2

There are some arguments that are surfacing repeatedly. We should examine them in detail and see where we now are on the consensus-building process. --Kizor 22:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, and please add a (hopefully brief and well thought out) comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.

Straw poll 4

Are spoiler warnings condescending or insulting to readers?

Yes
No
  1. Kizor 22:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Q0 01:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. agr 03:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. DES (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ed ¿Cómo estás? 03:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --- RockMFR 04:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ThuranX 01:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. BeckyAnne(talk) 20:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Fanra 00:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. • The Giant Puffin • 10:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Samohyl Jan 14:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Rayc 22:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. --Akral 22:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This poll is insulting and condescending to readers
  1. Aquillion 04:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Q0 05:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Speaking comically, of course. Edwin Herdman 22:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The results of this poll are irrelevant
  1. And why would it matter that some readers would feel insulted about reading a warning about what follows could "spoil" some surprise? Regardless of how they may affect readers, spoiler warnings are unencyclopedic, and why do we have them when we don't have other warnings about things that would likely upset people more: like articles about wars, crime, personal injury, etc. have some facts that people may find disturbing, that some articles have "bad words" that some people may find upsetting, that some articles have NPOVs that may be upsetting to those with a set point of view that bears no tollerance of others', that some pictures show "private parts" that would make the sensitive blush, etc., etc. We're an encyclopedia, not the two-thumbs up folks; we are trying to convey information not hide it while trying to get readers to go see the flick, read the book, see the "film at 11", etc. Carlossuarez46 23:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's vote on NPOV!
  1. David Gerard 12:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC) - don't be silly of course not.[reply]
I and some others have mentioned before what you come across as when you consider attempts at serious discussion your frivolous playthings. --Kizor 13:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion

Enough with the straw polls. Of course they're condescending. Putting a notice saying "warning, you might learn something you didn't know" in an encyclopedia is condescension. It might be justifiable as many disclaimers are justifiable, but I'm not seeing any justifications here that merit messing our articles up. --Tony Sidaway 22:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many people who say that they aren't. Let's sit this one out and see if either of us is surprised, shall we? It's not like it can do harm. --Kizor 23:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spoilers are different from other information in Wikipedia because spoilers are information that some readers would rather not know. I agree with Kizor that the warnings can't do harm. Although it might seem obvious to some that "plot" sections contain plot details, others might not find it obvious. I suspect that without spoiler warnings, many people will read plot sections without thinking about the fact that they might contain spoilers. They might think to themselves, "I guess I should have known it would have spoilers in it since it is titled 'plot'" but I still think we should be considerate of readers like that and give them a fair warning when it can help them. Also, when people read things, they generally don't have to think about whether or not they would regret continuing to read. Since it is an unusual circumstance for readers to be in a situation where it can be harmful for them to continue to read, I think it is only considerate and fair to give the reader a "heads up" in cases where the reader might rather not know the information that follows. Therefore, I think spoiler warnings should be used. Spoiler warnings are potenially very helpful and I really don't see how they would get in the way of anything. Q0 01:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what kind of consensus is this straw poll suppose to measure? On what point in the guideline is this straw poll suppose to help settle? As far as I can tell, this straw poll measures nothing and does not attempt to settle anything. So it's worthless. --Farix (Talk) 00:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is supposed to measure the consensus on the subject of this straw poll. There have been arguments both for and against this, and a consensus on one side or the other will tell what the prevailing opinion is and help settle the subject. --Kizor 00:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't vote truth. Axem Titanium 03:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can vote to discover the prevailing conception of it. Maybe the phrasing should've been "Should ... be considered". My philosophy courses are urging me to engage you in a massive debate about our ability to know the truth at all. --Kizor 04:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, users should know that a "plot summary" is going to contain spoilers. I see no reason to dumb down this part of wikipedia. "Plot" is not an esoteric concept. We can fairly expect that users will know what to expect in a plot summary. There is no reason to treat only this subset of wikipedia readers (those reading literature and film articles) as idiots. Awadewit Talk 14:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said this before, and I'm going to say this again. Wikipedia is a "special" encyclopedia in which nobody expects to see spoilers about movies, books, or films, simply because most of the popular encyclopedias that people use simply don't have such articles. My grade school library offered one encyclopedia, and that was World Book. Now the World Book encyclopedias don't go into detail regarding plot summaries, do they? When readers step into the realm of Wikipedia, especially if they're new, they don't expect to find all of this information. Therefore, spoilers are not insulting to readers.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 03:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please see Uncle G's position. There are many more encyclopedias besides Britannica and World Book which cover fictional topics with more depth which don't include spoiler warnings either. Wikipedia is not "special" in that way because other encyclopedias exist which cover such topics. New readers are not stupid or ignorant like you believe they are. They have knowledge of what should appear in an encyclopedia. Why is it so difficult to trust the readers to avoid the "Plot" section without a spoiler warning? Axem Titanium 03:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think readers are stupid or ignorant but I do think that they are not always fully alert, are not always paying full attention, and make mistakes. The spoiler warning explains the reader that they need to pay attention. Q0 05:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Word up on that. Do you pay full attention to everything when you casually browse? Further, and in my opinion much more importantly, Axem, you're ignoring the fact that sections other than "plot" can have spoilers, sections that the non-stupid, non-ignorant reader cannot be expected to recognize by section title. --Kizor 09:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all: We are not just discussing spoiler warnings in film articles, but also in articles on bible texts, Child ballads, and nursery rhymes, just to mention a few.
I am used to reading long texts, trying to assimilate the ideas and also to follow the build-up of argumentation. I often prefer academic literature to sloppy protagonistic popular accounts of an issue I want to know more about. I prefer a long sentence. Many times more. Compared to illogical, cut up stuff. In short, I am over 50 years old, and a senior staff member at our university.
I personally find it immensely irritating with spoiler warnings. I do not read a "plot" section if I do not want to know the plot (and when it comes to works of fiction I'm planning to read or view I often don't). However, when I do read, I want to be able to read uninterruptedly and in concentration. These immensely stupid (my very own POV) warnings are a hindrance for my enjoyment of my reading.
I've noticed that many younger people have other attitudes. (I sometimes suspect that television adapted to frequent breaks for commersials is one cause of this change. There seems to be an idea that you must come to the point within a minute, or else the audience loses interest. However, this may be a bit prejudiced.) Even Ph. D. students writing theses too often seem to have a tendency to throw together words in a conglomerate in order to convey a meaning. instead of taking the effort to structurate them into coherent and logical arguments. (Now I am exaggerating, but just a little.)
Did you follow my arguments up to this point, or have you lost both the thread and interest? I would like to conjecture, that if you did follow it, you are more likely to be disliking spoiler warnings, than if you didn't.
Conclusion. The reason this issue is so heated and evokes so stong emotions may be that it mirrors a truely generational and cultural split. If so, both points of view are legitime. A true answer might be to develop more flexible software.
Wouldn't it be rather nice, if there was an adjustment possible, by means of which all spoiler warnings either appear, or turn invisible?JoergenB 19:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interesting idea. It would allow users to customize their wikipedia experience even further. How difficult would that be? (I might mention that such a suggestion seems more likely to come from someone of today's youthful, selfish generation (as it has recently been characterized by sociologists) rather than from yourself. How do you account for that? A joke.) Awadewit Talk 14:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments.

"Use this template sparingly. It should not be used in sections that are clearly marked with a heading (such as "Plot" or "Ending") that already indicates that information about the plot or the ending might follow."
  1. That's not necesarily true. A reader who comes across a section reading "plot" might read through it, interpreting the use of the phrases "plot" or "synopsis," etc. to mean a brief synopsis describing no further elements than what would be presented in promotional elements for a book/film/concept album/etc. Such readers would be incredibly angry that such a section would not be prefaced by a warning, and this is why these templates should be included in all articles, regardless of the idea that "sections that are clearly marked with a [plot] heading [....] already indicates that information about the plot or the ending might follow."
  2. It was suggested by another user that a person who had not already known the details of the story might not read a Wikipedia article. Not true. I have tried to read about many films that I have had interest in seeing, and I dislike seeing details of the story before I have had a chance to see the film - this is especially true of documentaries, which make the mistake of revealing the ending such as of Friday the 13th. Though I already knew the ending of Night of the Living Dead, it irritated me whenever I saw material (including books on the film) that revealed the ending - which would no longer be shocking if a person views the film having read the ending or seen a clip of it in a horror documentary.
  3. Many of the articles that have had spoiler tags removed from them are obscure works that may not have been widely digested - if a person who has never seen a somewhat obscure film, for example, is directed to an article on that film that discusses the production, it would be important to include spoiler tags. Then again, if the same circumstances are presented with a work that is widely known, but that a person reading the article does not know the details of that work, it is also important not to divulge such details as what is the meaning of Charles Foster Kane's dying word, "Rosebud". (Ibaranoff24 15:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Also, the argument that "real [printed] encyclopedias don't have spoiler warnings" is moot — printed encyclopedias also do not have plot summaries. Printed encyclopedias also do not focus on about 50% of all fictional material that is featured on this website, excepting works of great importance (the writings of William Shakespeare and Charles Dickens, the film Citizen Kane, etc.) - Wikipedia is not like a "real" (printed) encyclopedia. It's of a different breed altogether. If we start discussing whether or not spoiler warnings are necessary, should we also delete every single article that is not featured in any current printed encyclopedia? I'm pretty sure that no printed encyclopedia would carry information on a video game no matter what its impact on any culture may be. (Ibaranoff24 16:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
When the reader sees a wall of text scrolling down for five+ paragraphs, I don't think s/he will think it's a "brief synopsis describing no further elements than what would be presented in promotional elements for a book/film/concept album/etc." — Deckiller 16:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but you don't have to write that much to spoil the plot of any story - just take a look at the Joe's Garage article. That's the entire story in a few short sentences. If a person has not heard the album already, the story would be ruined for him if there were no spoiler warnings. (Ibaranoff24 16:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
In that case, though, the summary is clearly divided into each act, so it can be assumed that it outlines the entire story. Zappa rules. — Deckiller 16:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and they are specialized proprietary encyclopaedias such as Science Fiction: The Illustrated Encyclopaedia (ISBN 0751302023)in which it can be expected spoilers for the various books,films etc are going to be given to cover the subject and which people have shown they are already interested in the subject enough to buy the specialized encyclopaedia .Garda40 20:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the Britannica doesn't have separate articles on either All you Zombies or The Murder of Roger Ackroyd or discuss their plots; it doesn't mention one of them at all, and the other by title, as making the author famous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion

I think like many online forums do it would be an idea for wikipedia to introduce some form of hide/show code, so those wishing to view an article, and not prepared to put up with spoilers cont have to scroll through a whole section of spoilers to reach their desired content. I'm aware a clickable jump to secion exists, but some artivles still contain sections which only have spoilers in parts. Just a suggestion — AndyTheSkanker (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese Wikipedia does this, among others. I find the concept ridiculous for the same reasons that spoiler tags themselves are ridiculous, in that we are not in the business of coddling our readership or hiding information. --Darkbane talk 19:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spoiler tags do have a use. Granted it is true that only so much information can be revealed without using spoilers, but what's so wrong with that. Take into account movie articles. Perhaps someone wants to know when a movie was made, or who by, but they still intend to watch the movie, by viewing the plot details their enjoyment would be ruined. You may personally find it ridiculous, but not all wikipedia patrons will, hence why on the opinions of a few we cannot simply take away a feature that can affect everyone's enjoyment of wikipedia. — AndyTheSkanker (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be careful about quantifying it as "a few". From the polls so far, the opinions are split, and more people are against spoiler tags in obvious sections like plot and episode summaries. We haven't reached any solution, but it seems to me that it's not just "a few" who have second thoughts about spoiler tags here. As for the use of spoiler tags, I doubt I can offer any new pro/contra insight that's not been mentioned in the 100,000 words written above.
On the other hand, I am also against the inclusion of very minute plot details in the first place - it's a copyright infringement, it's fancruft, and it's unencyclopedic content. That's only tangential to this argument, however, and is part of the bigger issue with our overly extensive coverage of popular culture. --Darkbane talk 21:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the opinion is split isn't that a greater reason to not remove them?— AndyTheSkanker (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ones being removed right now are the ones where opinion is overwhelmingly in favor of removing them, such as a plot section that starts with a spoiler tag. There doesn't seem to be much opposition to this change either, and I've removed a bunch myself without any reverts. --Darkbane talk 21:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the opinion is in favour of those being removed currently then it's a good idea to remove them, however, to entirely remove them may not be such a good idea as in some articles spoilers are contained within a section alongside facts or opinions which may not be viewed as spoilers.AndyTheSkanker (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why there's this page, which has already grown way out of proportion :D On another note, one poster above somewhere noted that the definition of what is and is not a spoiler is by itself original research and thus against our policies. --Darkbane talk 23:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hiding content using the methods typically found on forums seems to be an even worse idea than the current system. I don't see how this is a solution to the problem at hand. --- RockMFR 21:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did state that it wasn't a DIRECT contribution to the argument, but rather a related sidenote/suggestion AndyTheSkanker (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support User:AndyTheSkanker's suggestion; for reasons, vide supra.JoergenB 19:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although a good proposal, I do not support it as I do not want to have to click to see content. Wikipedia is not censored and specifically I do not agree that we should hide content. --Edwin Herdman 22:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But TOC's, footnotes and wikipedia project banners are sometimes hidden and you have to click to see the information, so this has already begun. Awadewit Talk 14:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But those things don't contain large swaths of prose. You can't compare them. Axem Titanium 15:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need any of this

Thousands of spoiler tags have been removed from the Wiki over the past few days, from articles spanning the spectrum from unpopular to highly popular. Very few spoiler tags have been put back. There hasn't been a steady stream of complaints, there hasn't been any disruption except for the odd lone edit warrior "saving the wiki" by pointlessly replacing tags in the face of multiple editors removing them.

Therefore I suggest that there is no problem to solve. No reason to make up clever software hacks to make spoiler tags visible or invisible according to preference, no need to worry about the hyper-sensitive reader, so loud and voluble on the wiki but so rare in email complaints, who insists on reading an article about a subject but demands that we disclose only part of the information up front, even if this compromises our Neutral point of view policy.

Let's have an end to all that. The massive overuse of spoiler tags on Wikipedia is unnecessary, lets give most of them a decent burial. Those that are used must be justified explicitly on the talk page and never again placed on an article against consensus. The justification must explain why the core policies of Wikipedia are not compromised by the use of spoiler tags in each instance where they are used.

We must never again have a situation where one can emerge from an article about the Shakespeare play Julius Caesar without a clear knowledge that it is about an assassination conspiracy, or from The Crying Game without a keen understanding of its sensitive treatment of minority sexualities, or from The Sixth Sense without (for instance) an understanding of the role of the color red in Shyamalan's cinematography. Critical information must not be hidden. This isn't an internet forum, it's an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 23:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, asking people to prove a negative. Ken Arromdee 03:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


never again placed on an article against consensus
Perhaps we could have an actual consensus first to remove them as well.After all in the long term if they were removed next week after an actual consensus was reached it wouldn't make much difference
Critical information must not be hidden.
Nobody is asking for critical information to be hidden just to point out to the reader , who might have got there randomly , the fact that you may spoil your enjoyment of the book,film etc if you continue to look at the article .Position the warning as appropriate to the article .Garda40 23:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. It's not hiding the vital information, as this information may be displayed, as for the argument about casual users no understanding, why not for the first week or so, on people's first visit to the site since, have them redirected for a couple of seconds to an explanation then back to the article they requested? And as for the question of hidden or no by default, why not hidden but members, as with many things, have the choice?
AndyTheSkanker (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the existence of a spoiler tag on "Plot" in the Romeo and Juliet article makes an editor reluctant to state in the opening section that the lovers commit suicide and that this is the agency of their families' reconciliation, then vital information is hidden. One should not have to delve into the innards of an article to understand the subject matter.
As for consensus to remove, this has existed for several days now but we're just waiting for the discussion to catch up with events. --Tony Sidaway 01:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus to remove. Ken Arromdee 03:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then try this on for size, if you had no consensus to include the warning, then why would consensus be required to remove it? -- Ned Scott 06:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, by WP:CONSENSUS, apathy is generally a sign that consensus takes place. Consensus that they should be there existed until recently. We're now at a deciding stage, at which point the new consensus has not yet been reached. You Can't See Me! 07:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is my observation that the requisite level of apathy for consensus has been established empirically by many thousands of edits. --Tony Sidaway 07:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strange when there wasn't apathy in adding them back by some editors you said this Oh that's just one guy putting the spoiler tag back. He'll stop or be stopped soon enough
So your idea of consenus seems to consist of nobody's putting them back and if they do we'll stop them. Nice consensus .Garda40 14:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there has been apathy over the removal of spoiler tags, including apathy of my own. Pardon me for excluding that tidbit; I was thinking in terms of the discussion rather than the edits for that last part. You Can't See Me! 07:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that this still amounts to "if you don't revert thousands of edits right now, that proves nobody cares about them". Do you realize how much work it is for one person to revert thousands of edits without being obsessive-compulsive?
Not to mention that most people who are annoyed by a spoiler warning and aren't aware of this RFC would just think that it's a bad article in the same way that articles with bad grammar, no references, etc. are bad. I'm sure we have thousands of those, but the fact that people don't fix them doesn't prove they should stay. Ken Arromdee 13:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add: to edit 5000 articles, and take a minute to do each, amounts to over 83 hours. That's more than two weeks of making it a full time job to do nothing other than put spoiler warnings back in Wikipedia (and some people already have full time jobs). To imply that there is consensus to remove spoiler warnings because nobody does this is simply absurd. Ken Arromdee 13:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's sorta' the point. One person reverting does not a consensus make. In order for there to be a conensus, a large party of users either has to encourage the reversion or do nothing. As of now, that arrow largely points to "do nothing" when spoiler tags are removed. You Can't See Me! 17:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're seriously suggesting that because a "large party of users" doesn't try to revert 5000 changes, that proves there's consensus for the changes? Ken Arromdee 18:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not just the fact that very few have been reverted, but that there have been very few complaints of any kind. I think it demonstrates that this really isn't the hot-wire issue that some people in this discussion seem to think it is. --Tony Sidaway 18:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to clarify: There may not be definite consensus at all, but the general apathy over the removal on most articles is congruent with Wikipedia's version (for lack of a better word) of consensus. You Can't See Me! 01:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be surprised to learn that any serious encyclopedia includes "spoiler warnings." Leads that fail to summarize the most important points of the article are uninformative and violate the Manual of style.Proabivouac 00:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More on the subject...

The argument that spoiler warnings shouldn't be used stipulates that "a reader who is not familiar with the story should know to avoid sections such as 'plot'..." But the editors who are wasting all of their time to busily remove spoiler tags and revert any edit that tries to use them in any context. I made an edit to the article Scarface (1983 film) which not only restored the spoiler tags, but also removed a line in the "pop culture references" section that spoiled not only the film itself, but a spoof of the film. A person who has never seen either film and looks at the website will definitely spoil the film if he scanned through the list of spoofs. The edit was reverted FOR NO REASON. Are you telling me that we are allowed to spoil two different films at once without warning? Is this a joke? Then, there are instances in which spoiler tags are DEFINITELY NEEDED and readers not familiar with the storyline will NOT KNOW NOT TO LOOK IN SPECIFIC SECTIONS IN ORDER TO AVOID SPOILERS - the article on Twin Peaks is full of spoilers. Without warnings, a viewer that has never seen the series will have his/her viewing experience severely compromised. Similarly, the articles Eraserhead, Blue Velvet, Mulholland Drive (film), Lost Highway, Fire Walk With Me, etc. all contain heavy spoilers to the point where it would not be accurate to claim that you can avoid them by not viewing the "synopsis" section. This discussion is a complete and total waste of time. The overwhelming majority has stipulated that removing spoiler tag templates from articles - and even altogether - is a BAD IDEA. Stop wasting our time with this crap. Leave the spoiler tags just as they are. I view and edit a lot of articles. A lot of the time, I come across articles for works that I have never read/seen/heard, often to review their FA or GA status. Complete removal of all spoiler tags, in addition to being a waste of time, severely compromises my ability to review articles. Is this what we've been reduced to? A policy that spoiler tags shouldn't be used? Where's the "this is complete horseshit" policy? Every editor who has made attempts to remove every spoiler tag from every article has too much time on their hands. (Ibaranoff24 03:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Er, I understand that you're upset and all, but can you please try to keep cool. Arguments are much more effective that way. You Can't See Me! 03:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an example of why it is so important to do away with spoiler tags altogether--unless I am missing something, you are advocating (1) removing certain information from an article entirely to avoid spoilers, and (2), rewriting articles to put all spoilers in "specific sections", creating other, "sanitized" sections that are carefully written to avoid covering important points because they might reveal plot. These suggestions are simply not good ways to approach articles--they violate many of our oldest guidelines on article creation, and go against the basic principle of creating straightforward, informative text with an easy-to-follow layout. Pop culture references might be worth removing for other reasons, but taking things out just because you are concerned people might actually learn about the subject from them or trying to rewrite the article to limit important information to delineated sections is absurd. Encyclopedias are not review services or discussion boards; readers who do not want to know all important details on a work of fiction--including its general subject and any plot twists it is famous for--should simply not be looking at an encyclopedia article on it, searching for it with internet search engines, or otherwise looking up information on it from general reference areas. --Aquillion 06:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think you understand what you're talking about. I was trying to explain the importance of spoiler tags and why they should be used. As I've explained before, the idea that "if readers don't want to read details about the plot shouldn't be looking an an encyclopedia" is nonsense. Perhaps they want to find out background information on a book, for example, but they have not read it? Or production information on a film that they have not seen? Spoiler tags are extremely useful for many reasons. We should NOT do away with them. (BTW, I didn't remove the cultural reference. I removed the spoiler. And part of the reason I removed the spoiler was because it's more information that what's actually needed, in addition to spoiling the plots of two different films.) (Ibaranoff24 08:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • I'm just not convinced by these arguments. Please try more bold text. --Tony Sidaway 07:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the real problem is that most readers, especially newcomers, will expect spoiler warnings to precede spoilers. I think that if we do delete the tags (and I'm hoping that won't be the eventual outcome of this discussion, but I can see a lot of people are in favour of it), we should at least provide a warning other than the disclaimer that most people won't even realise exists. Would anyone have a problem with a line of (reasonably unobtrusive) text at the top of every page saying "Wikipedia contains spoilers" or similar? I stress that I prefer our current guidelines, but feel that some form of spoiler warning is better than no warning. RobbieG 12:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, no, that wouldn't solve anything. RobbieG 12:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You already said it yourself. The idea of putting a line on top of every page warning of spoilers is a bit ridiculous - Wikipedia contains tens of thousands of articles completely unrelated to pop culture. Besides, every page already contains a link to the general disclaimer, which very prominently links to the content disclaimer, where it is stated in a prominent heading that "Wikipedia contains spoilers" --Darkbane talk 12:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the Disclaimer link does not show prominently enough. By default skin setting, the setting that the majority of passerbies and newcomers see when they load up an article, the Disclaimer link is at the very bottom of the page. I wasn't even aware that it existed until several months after I signeds up. I think that the link needs to be more prominent, such that the default skin shows all three links at the top of the page. You Can't See Me! 12:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with You Can't See Me!. I didn't even know our disclaimer covered spoilers until months after signing up, and I was using this site as a reference work long before I signed up. I would certainly like to see a more prominent link to the disclaimer, regardless of the outcome of this debate. RobbieG 12:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without being too cynical, we recognise the disclaimer exists, but how many casual users are actually inclined to read it. Hell, I hadn't until yesterday when I chose to sign up. The idea of perhaps putting it at the top of articles within certain sections however, would that be manageable? Like have an umbrella section to the effect of Pop Culture or something, and maintain the current sections which would be included as sub-sections? I know this sounds a little complicated, but hell, it's an idea. AndyTheSkanker (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to worry about people not looking at the disclaimer. It isn't intended for anyone to go and look at voluntarily, it's just somewhere we send people to look if they complain that the site doesn't operate as they expected. We say, "look, this isn't a fan site or Usenet, it's an encyclopedia" and they go and look at the disclaimers and what do you know, it says that this is an encyclopedia and outlines all the ways you'd expect an encyclopedia to differ from a fan site. --Tony Sidaway 13:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that's true, but still... Wouldn't it be better to have them at least notice the disclaimer link rather than just slapping them in the face with it afterwards? You Can't See Me! 16:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Putting a spoiler warning on top of every page, even just on top of every popular culture related page, will only serve to ridicule us. That's really the equivalent of writing "reading this text might teach you something" on top of every page in a Calculus book. The fact that someone finding a page through Google might be exposed to spoilers is not a valid reason to deface every page with that kind of thing. Even the current "solution" is better than that. --Darkbane talk 14:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I do respect your opinion, I dont think it's quite like that. It's not so much "This might teach you something" but more "This might ruin your enjoyment of said article should you choose to view/listen to/read it." Iunno, perhaps given how split the opinions on this issue seem to be it's best given the circumstances just to take an "If it ain't broke don't fix it" stance point. After all, the spoiler warnings wouldn't be here if they didn't serve a purpose. Like with the Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film For Theaters production section. If I hadn't seen that movie, I still wouldn't necessarily expect the production section to contain spoilers, so there in is a valid use for the spoiler tag. Why would a warning at the top of the pop cuture page be such a bad idea, I know this website is devoted to being a free encyclopedia but by being user editable and the like it already breaks alot of encyclopedic conventions. AndyTheSkanker (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It just adds clutter to the top of the page. It's already our policy to include spoilers, and I believe there's no reason to shove this fact into every reader's face. Every single reader of the encyclopedia only needs to be told this fact once in their lifetime, if at all, but what is suggested here will continually distract the reader. Furthermore, it doesn't serve any purpose. The fact that an encyclopedia might contain spoilers is blatantly obvious. A warning at the top of the page only states the obvious and does not add any important information - it still does not tell you where those spoilers are, so you won't know what you shouldn't read. I would be more in favor moving the disclaimer link to the top, left of the user link and above the article/talk link. That makes at least a bit of sense. --Darkbane talk 14:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why not have some form of splash page, that only comes up once, with the disclaimer. Like have it leave a cookie to say they've seen this page already, and then have it redirect them. That COULD be a compromise. Once again, just a suggestion.AndyTheSkanker (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would not like that at all. That would be even more out-of-place, unattractive and distracting than the current spoiler warnings. Voretus 15:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a ONCE OFF page that'd come up with the disclaimer then a 'click to proceed to your chosen page' Why is that such a big deal? Also, what is this attitude of shitting on peoples suggestions all about? it's pretty fucking annoying.AndyTheSkanker (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if you think so, but I wasn't aware that not liking a suggestion and then saying so was considered shitting on it. I said I would not like it, then I explained why. Please don't take it the wrong way. Moving on, the way I'm reading it, it seems like you're saying that the splash page would come up for every page that a reader had not seen already. Every page already links to the disclaimers. A splash page would be even more prominent than the current spoiler warnings, which many people already think are too prominent or in the way. Voretus 16:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Voretus--even if it only pops up once, the first time you read an article on fiction, I wouldn't like it, even as an unregistered casual reader. Plain old spoiler warnings are much better than having to click thru to read something. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Reindenting) Voretus, I think he means a splash page that pops up the first time somebody accesses the site. As in, when they type in a Wikipedia page URL, when they click on a link to Wikipedia from Google, when they click on a link to Wikipedia from Answers, or otherwise. I doubt that he meant a splash page that would pop up with every visited article.
Andy, please try to keep your cool. I don't see how you interpreted that negatively, but whatever the case may be, Voretus was simply commenting on your idea. As it turns out it was just a simple misunderstanding. You Can't See Me! 16:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Stressful day. But yeah, that's what I meant. It comes up on your first visit to the site, leaves a cookie, then doesn't come up again. So people KNOW what they're getting, and have seen the disclaimer.AndyTheSkanker (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of my earlier comments have done more to annoy than to enlighten, and for that I apologise. However I do think the splash page idea, however it's implemented, does not sound like a suitable solution to the perceived problem. --Tony Sidaway 17:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, AndyTheSkanker, I'm gonna say this even though it's obvious: while I think these suggestions are bad, it's good that people bring suggestions, so don't be annoyed and/or discouraged. :D --Darkbane talk 17:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know they're not necessarily great suggestions, I'm just trying to explore some central ground. I mean, it's fair enough to say we can/cant remove them all together, but what are we going to replace them with if we do get rid of them, because at the end of the day no-one reads the disclaimer and it's probably a good idea that we give people some kinda warning y'know? Also, sorry for being an asshat earlier AndyTheSkanker (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Partly in the interests of improving the tone here, but partly because I really feel this but don't say it often, I'll just say sincere thanks to you and others in this discussion for offering constructive suggestions. --Tony Sidaway 18:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so there's not too many people in favor of the warning at the top of the page, or a one off display of the disclaimer, but is it really worth eliminating the tags? I mean, wouldn't it be a better idea to warn people? I can understand the removal of them under plot sections, but in character articles and the like, they should definatley be maintained, say for example, I was someone who stumbled across Dragon Ball Z recently, and i wanted to know something about a specific character, lets say Vegeta. So I visit the page and see a history section. That wouldn't necessarily suggest that the section would contain spoilers, because the term history could suggest two or three things, but it doesn't imply spoilers, hence, there would still be a further use for the retention of spoiler tags.AndyTheSkanker (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you really think so? From the word "history" I would assume that those sections would be full of spoilers. And indeed, looking over that section, every single line in there, more or less, is a spoiler. --Darkbane talk 01:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm aware that it's full of spoilers, I meant more, personally, to me the word history didn't necessarily imply spoilers. especially given the dragonball franchise spawned 3 series in the same universe with the same characters. Dragonball, Dragonball Z and Dragonball GT. But yeah, that's just my opinion I guess.AndyTheSkanker (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

False sense of security?

Not to jump in all late and everything, but it seems that one of the main reasons we don't use other kinds of disclaimers is because it gives the impression that we'll always have one. So if we say "don't try this at home" in one article but not another, people assume the other article is okay to try at home. (With the proliferation of warning labels on household products, I pretty much assume any household chemical is okay to drink if the label doesn't tell me I'll die.) If we have spoilers in some articles but not others, or in some sections but not others, this situation is much more confusing. If I see spoiler warnings on Wikipedia in character sections but not lead sections or plot sections, I might well assume that those other sections don't contain spoilers--or else they'd have the warnings too.

That said, I'm not passionate about removing spoiler warnings, because I barely notice them. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same "argument" could be used against {{fact}}, {{citations missing}}, {{totallydisputed}}, and other such warning templates. It's not a valid argument against those and it's not valid against spoiler warnings either. Just because some crappy amateur articles aren't marked up with spoiler warnings, doesn't mean we shouldn't have spoiler warnings on, say, articles about recently-released films with surprising plot twists.—greenrd 21:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly--{{fact}} and suchwhat are maintenance templates as much as anything. They don't serve merely to warn the reader, but to call editors into action. They say something here needs fixed. That's something different from a spoiler warning, which isn't intended to be removed once the article is improved. NickelShoe (Talk) 13:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boredom and prose

I'm getting bored with the debate. That said, the actual prose of the spoiler guideline needs improvement; it's somewhat bloated. I took a half-baked pass, but it needs more. — Deckiller 21:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a call for people to take their own passes on the prose of the guideline. Please ensure that the wording is optimal. — Deckiller 23:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

Well, I figure we're not getting anywhere by debating the use and purpouse of the tags, so how about some suggestions? Suggestions about what action to take, draft guidelines and the like, and we can see how everyone feels towards these, because this is turing into an endless cycle.AndyTheSkanker (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That's been going on for a while at WP:SPOIL. We put the guideline live last night, and it's so far been doing OK. Phil Sandifer 22:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my bad, but if anyone wants to suggest any alterations to these or anything?AndyTheSkanker (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Spoiler? 23:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I do like the fact that it states editors need compelling and justifiable reasons before including spoiler warnings in an article rather then using spoiler warnings as a "security blanket" because someone's enjoyment of a work might be diminished. --Farix (Talk) 23:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was off on removing "compelling"; although I agree that the arguments better be compelling, I was just trying to be preemptive because of the strong oppositions to the current wording. I over analyzed. — Deckiller 00:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I didn't understand the inclusion of was that spoiler tags must not impede the neutral stancepoint of an article. I just don't see how a spoiler which would normally be something to the effect of plot and/or ending details, could effect neutrality, however, that's just what I think.AndyTheSkanker (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The neutrality aspect is about whether the detail or ending is significant enough to "ruin" the reader's experience if the reader knows about the detail ahead of time. --Farix (Talk) 01:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for instance the article lead will be unbalanced if you don't happen to mention that Julius Caesar is the victim of a plot to assassinate him in the senate. Major plot elements should be covered thoroughly in the body text, if such coverage is merited in the type of article. --Tony Sidaway 01:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) It's a Catch-22. It violates WP:NPOV when editors identify certain plot points as "ruining" the reader/viewers experience if it was known ahead of time. (I also think it potentially violates WP:V as it has to be verifiable that knowledge of the plot point beforehand will ruin the experience.) So the tags are used indiscriminately as "security blanket" for the entire plot. This, however, is an abuse of what the spoiler tags were meant for. --Farix (Talk) 01:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It no more violates NPOV than putting things in paragraphs or having external links does. It's purely a question of style and readability. Is it violating NPOV when there are 'early life' sections in biographies, since editors will have to make a judgement?--Nydas(Talk) 07:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong question. Need to improve "plot summaries"

I love spoiler tags because I like to avoid reading story-teller wannabes recalling a story scene-for-scene, one sound-effect at a time, complete with visual gags and irrelevant-to-the-plot details. Here's one particularly poor attempt from "The Return of Chef" South Park episode:

"Oh my God! They killed Chef!" "You bastards!". Cartman suggests that Chef may not be dead because "They say the last thing you do before you die is crap your--" At that instant, Chef's body empties its bowels, and the boys leave the scene, dismayed that their friend is apparently dead.

More "serious" films get the same shoddy treatment. Example from Cast Away:

The woman sending the package, an artist in a welder's suit, tells the driver she will have another one for him to take that coming Thursday. We see the package delivered all the way to a residence in Moscow, Russia, to a man in a cowboy hat and robe. A Russian woman who is with the man, apparently on intimate terms, asks, "Who is it from?". He replies, "My wife".

These examples explain detail that is largely irrelevant to the story. I didn't look far for these two examples. They're just the last two things I watched and looked up. There's no twist that is spoilt in these examples (the second example is from an opening scene), instead the story itself is ruined by a poor retelling.

Do we need "spoiler" tags to warn the reader that there's a terribly written "synopsis" following? No, we need better written plot summaries. My two cents. —Pengo 01:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I've been bothered by the "security blanket" approach to spoiler warnings that was used until lately. It's a lazy way for editors to avoid identifying specific points and make compelling arguments that the point will cause a film or work to be "ruined" when the viewer, listener, or reader learns of the point beforehand. But then, I also thing there are better ways of handling these points without surrounding them with {spoiler}. --Farix (Talk) 01:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course we do! It's quicker to mass-tag as "spoiler" than it is to actually think about how to rewrite the badly-written plot sections (which might involve actually watching the movie). It's silly to expect someone to do the latter for each article which has spoiler problems - it's a huge amount of work.—greenrd 10:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Pengo's point was that rather than slapping a spoiler warning on the section instead this trivia and extreme level of minutiae should be removed from the prose as it's irrelevant to the overall plot summary anyway. And to add my two cents: we are here to write articles correctly, not try to use "quick fixes". Don't be lazy, some articles are a lot of work to clean them up, that's just the way it is. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 17:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about being "lazy", whatever that means in the context of Wikipedia editing. I understand the point you are making, but please do not use such a pejorative word as "lazy" for this absolutely normal and standard editing practice (see Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup for other examples). By analogy: if I see that a non-fiction article relating to say, brain surgery, contains some dubious claims and is completely unreferenced, would I attempt to rewrite the article!? No, I don't feel comfortable doing that, because I know nothing about brain surgery - so I would tag it with an appropriate tag template to warn the readers and other editors, such as {{unreferenced}}. The same goes for seemingly badly-written plot sections in articles on literature and movies that I know nothing about. I might just tag them "spoiler warning"; or I might tag as both "spoiler warning" and "this section needs a complete rewrite"{{plot}}, depending on my level of confidence, and my interest in the topic.—greenrd 18:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that a spoiler warning ISN'T there to say "rewrite this" or "cite this" like those tags are. They are expected to 'stay' instead. A huge difference. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 18:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but the original point was that spoilers are sometimes only there because of excessively-detailed plot summaries. My point is that, in such cases, adding a spoiler warning is better than no edit at all - it's not at all like in Biographies of Living Persons where we are supposed to go "Oh no! An unsourced contentious claim! Must immediately remove it!" Overlong plot summaries are not life-threatening, they are not a high priority item either legally or personally, from my point of view. And sometimes I am not sure whether a particular spoiler would be included or not in a really good writeup of the subject of the article, but I'm pretty sure that it is a spoiler. Sorry to have to spell all this out - it seems like it should be obvious, but I'm not sure that it's obvious to everyone in this discussion.—greenrd 19:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not obvious, because a good, concise plot summary still outlines the main twists and other spoilers. Using a spoiler tag for cleanup doesn't solve anything, because a succinct overview still spoils. Moreover, spoiler-less plot summaries are like back-of-the-book advertisements or hooks, which are unacceptable on Wikipedia. — Deckiller 16:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poll 5, for readers: Do you USE spoiler warnings?

All the polls question if editors are comfortable with using spoiler warnings. However, Wikipedia is written for people, so the basic question should be, if people prefer to have spoiler warnings in here. I think if spoiler warnings are used by people, then they should be used, because they don't really hurt anyone. Either way, it would be good to know. So, I am asking:

Do you, as Wikipedia reader, not editor, sometimes use a spoiler warning?

Yes

  1. Yes. Before I go to cinema, I look at the movie I will go to on Wikipedia, but skip the spoilers. If I would intend to read a book (even a classical work), I would look it up on Wikipedia first, and skip spoilers. If I would want a famous puzzle, I would look into Wikipedia, but of course skip the solution, so I could deal with it myself. It's because I really like Wikipedia, and usually go to look up anything on it. Samohyl Jan 14:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes, per Samohyl Jan above. If my friends at school talk about this awesome movie that they watched over the weekend (and didn't invite me to the theater with them...), I myself would want to watch it if they return with good feedback. I would go on Wikipedia and look up information about the movie such as: what the movie's about, who's starring in the film, etc. If I see the spoiler warnings, then I skip it, because I don't want to see what actually happens in the movie.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 15:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes. I may skim an article on a film I haven't seen or a book I haven't read to get an impression if it is worth seeing or reading for me. Movie reviews invariably consist mainly of a (usually pointless) retelling of the storyline and spoil the film for me. I appreciate it if I can see what part to skip until I have seen the film/read the book (or decided it's not worth it).  --LambiamTalk 16:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Absolutely. And I a friend tell me recently that if Wikipedia stops using spoiler warnings, he will use it considerably less often. --Masamage ♫ 16:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes, but only occasionally. Q0 20:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes, alot. Cause I dislike things being ruined for me before I see them. - AndyTheSkankerTalk21:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yes, if I want to see if a book or movie is worth reading or seeing I check wikipedia. If there were no spoiler tags and the spoilers were not confined to descriptive heading, wikipedia would work contrary to the purpose in which I'm using it.--Rayc 22:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yes, although rarely; but if I am reading an article about a book I have sometimes found the book interesting and decided to read it. When these have included spoiler warnings, I have been glad to turn my eyes away. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Constantly. Last week I saw Rogue Moon at a library sale, checked the Wikipedia article on a public access terminal and was delighted to see an analysis of themes below a spoiler-end tag that gave no more information on the actual plot than the back cover. I liked the themes and bought the book. When warnings on plot spoilers were common enough to be a rule, that is, up until two weeks ago, I could look up information on awards, reception, etc. on topics that interested me - such as TV series or books that I was considering reading - without risking ruining or substantially reducing my enjoyment on those works. --Kizor 07:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Yes, I'll be honest. Not terribly frequently, but I used to find them useful as I was reading certain television show articles. However, I'm also of the opinion that we should not have spoiler warnings anywhere. That really doesn't make sense, I know... --- RockMFR 17:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Yes. From time to time I look up a work to see if I might want to see/read it. I detest learning the ending of a story, and it only take a blink of an eye to read something I'll wish I hadn't read. The spoiler warnings provide a valuable service in alerting me to be careful in such situations. --agr 21:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. All the time. I always check on the WP about the film/anime/book I'm going to enjoy and I always watch carefully for spoilers. --Akral 22:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Yes, for fiction series I'm following. Otherwise not at all — but I want the choice. Due to heavy involvement with reality, there are several series of movies that may take decades for me to finish seeing. I was displeased that an apparently famous Harry Potter spoiler was revealed on the project talk page, because, I'd never heard about it at all, I hadn't seen the movie, but someday convenient, I planned to do so. Do I lose my social privilege to not suffer spoilers because I didn't have $10 when the movie was first run? Or that I didn't rush to the video store when it came out on DVD (did it?). Do I lose my privilege because I plan to watch it 'too late', when it arrives at the public library for free? Milo 06:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No

  1. No. I don't read articles about things I'm afraid of being spoiled on. I usually read articles on fiction after reading the book/watching the movie. And what I feel like "spoils" a work of fiction is less plot details than interpretative commentary anyway (I like to think about that for myself first). Spoiler warnings don't make much impression on me as a reader. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No, if there's ever a movie that I'm thinking about going to see, I usually either A) Avoid the article, B) Only read the first paragraph, since usually that doesn't have spoilers but it can give an introduction, C) Look up commercials on youtube.danielfolsom 15:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Absolutely not. — Deckiller 16:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Not at all. "Oh noes, Dumbledore is killed by Snape"? That didn't impact my enjoyment of the book. Likewise I'm not horribly scarred by learning the ending to any movie if I find it here- the execution is the thing. Spoilers are just annoying, not least for astetics- the spoiler template tiles across the screen and looks ugly, especially when it overlaps an infobox. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 17:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Interestingly enough, one of the reasons I look up film and literary articles on Wikipedia is precisely because it has spoilers. And it most cases, the section titles alone give me enough of a clue as to where to find them. But really, what is the point of this poll? What is it suppose to determine in settling the debate about spoiler warnings? --Farix (Talk) 17:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The current debate is mostly about editor's perspective (are spoilers professional? do they break flow of article? etc.), but there is also reader's perspective (and my curiosity), and this poll is intended to investigate if and how readers use the spoiler warnings. BTW, I also prefer Wikipedia over IMDB because it also tells you the ending. Samohyl Jan 18:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No, it makes no sense, so long as you limit it to Wikipedia. Axem Titanium 18:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. No, never. If I'm thinking about seeing a movie, I avoid reading anything about it anywhere. If you read a review, what you consider to be a spoiler may not be what the reviewer thinks is a spoiler, and then, voila, the beans are spilled. It happens everywhere, and usually without warning. That's life—and if, like me, it bugs you, you avoid it. Unschool 19:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. No. My feeling is that knowing the plot ahead of time doesn't "spoil" the work. There are a very fixed number of plots in fiction. A truly original one is almost unheard of. I watch movies and read books for storytelling. How it unfolds, the ideas expressed, how the characters are portrayed, the quality of the writing or the acting or directing. Any outside description of a work of art isn't going to diminish my enjoyment of it if it's quality. That's what annoys me most, as a reader, about the spoiler warnings. It's telling me (in a non-NPOV way) that finding out what happens is the point of art which I think is an unsophisticated way to approach a film, book, play, opera, whatever. --dm (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. No. --Aude (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. No. I will not look at the Wikipedia article on something if I don't want to be spoiled. A movie, for instance, the only place I'll look is at the review summaries on rottentomatoes.com. --Stormie 03:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Polls are.....(say it together).....EVIL :

Poll 5. Is this a case of making 'em vote again until they get the right result. This debate is absurd. There are lots of these horrid things to remove - why don't you all go and be useful.--Docg 20:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to fix that typo before anyone gets the wrong idea... --- RockMFR 20:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fix it for him. But I have to agree with Doc's point. Just like Straw Poll 4, it isn't meant to help us come to a consensus, but just adds another meaningless talking point. Polls should be reserve to see if there is a consensus on a particular solution or set of solutions. So let's avoid further polling until we come up with some potential solutions or compromises. --Farix (Talk) 21:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't fix my posts. Poles are evil - see m:How to deal with Poles.--Docg 21:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another vote that this leading us off track and wasting time. I do believe that spoiler tags are misguided. --Edwin Herdman 22:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as the starter of Straw Poll 4, thank you for making that insult. That poll was made to establish consensus on the validity of an oft-used argument by finding out the general view among Wikipedia editors and by generating discussion about the subject. --Kizor 07:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Votes are deprecated. Wikipedia talk:Spoiler is where the action is - David Gerard 01:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Not about you personally, ok? Change your WP-confused phone number.)
Many of us refute any such votes deprecation, and charge encroachment by systemic oligarchy as its basis. Majoritarian legislative voting has well-understood abuse issues, but that's not what poll voting is.
Dare I tell truth to power? "Voting is evil" is a preponderant lie, repeatedly misapplied within the Wikimedia web space.
Poll voting is useful and good as a vox populi balance to the useful aspects of limited oligarchy. Even if one is utterly convinced of the necessity for Wikipedia to be controlled by a presumptively benign oligarchy, and there are rational such reasons proposed, there are also a host of reasons for wise oligarchs to allow poll votes to run their natural course without interference.
I see that the Wikipedia:Voting is evil essay has been nearly expelled from Wikipedia project space. I call for the philosophically even worse Meta:Polls are evil essay to be renamed and re-edited due to that title being outrageous POV, the likes of which are intolerable anywhere else in Wikimedia article space.
A nationalist flag-waver I'm not, but on this USA Memorial Day Weekend, it is appropriate to remind everyone that millions of people in the real world have died inclusively for the right to vote, however flawed the current implementation of that right may be. Milo 21:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*cough*

Maybe when you guys are over polling one another you might like to come and look at our spoiler guideline: Wikipedia:Spoiler. --Tony Sidaway 22:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

our spoiler guideline . Isn't it meant to be the Wikipedia guideline .Garda40 11:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, I think that's what he meant.—greenrd 16:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could stand to be polite in your victory. It wouldn't cost you much. --Kizor 07:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OMG! WILL THIS EVER STOP! JUST DO ONE FINAL POLL AND LOCK THE F@#@# DEBATE! *apologies for uncivility*Quatreryukami 02:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It will only end when the cabal wants it to end. Uhhh... I mean ... there is no cabaldanielfolsom 03:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poll ∞ - can we stop with the polls?

Support :P Sheesh! This is getting ridiculous. If certain people didn't get the results they wanted in one poll, they shouldn't decide to hold as many polls as possible to find one that will support their point of view. Can we move on, perhaps work with existing fiction wikiprojects to improve the style of existing plot synopses and get on with the job? I empathise with those above who are getting pregressively more irritated with this silly exercise in wikidemocracy. Besides, many people who do use Wikipedia don't even contribute to the encyclopedia and aren't aware of this poll, so how can we find out what their preference is in relation to spoiler warnings? Brisvegas 09:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do not change policy by voting, so the polls aren't constructive anyway. You'll note that many people who have been discussing here haven't voted in the polls. Kusma (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines/Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning&oldid=134064118"