Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Warning, sm*rk ahead

When people say "A great number of people like spoiler warnings" I wonder who they're talking about. I've removed hundreds of spoiler warnings in the past few days, and some people have removed many thousands of them. The silence, with all due deference to the people discussing matters in this page, has been deafening.

None of us has had to edit war, but those who care enough about the spoiler tags seem to be so few and far between that they themselves are usually in an edit war with two, three, four or more who remove the tags. So evidently this love of these intrusive marks is very rare.

Most spoilers are hidden behind a clear signal like "Plot", "Synopsis", "Gameplay", "Characters" or whatnot. If you can read English (and most people can) then there's no problem, just go to the contents list and skip to the next section.

There are probably more people who dislike the word "smirk" than there are people whose day would be ruined by hearing that Blake is Cram's father, that Crunge sees stupid people, but they don't know they're stupid, or that Sherella is really Herella. We don't hide the word "smirk" behind nasty, ugly marks saying "warning, sm*rk ahead" with a horrible great blight of bold italic across the page. We don't patronise people who don't like the word "smirk", we assume that they are aware of their limitations and have developed strategies to deal with them. Further, we don't demand of people who dislike the horrible warnings, that they mess with their browsers so as to avoid seeing them in an encyclopedia that the came to because they wanted information.

And that's what we're here for. We're here to produce informational articles, not to act as nannies to people who want to turn us into a conduit for the selective dissemination of information. If someone needs to have our informational content filtered, let him pay a premium for that service, using our content at no cost, with the filtering performed at his expense. This is not out job. We are producing the material, we are not going to kow-tow to an interest group that wishes to censor our manner of presentation. --Tony Sidaway 01:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

removed from where it was placed inside my edit. --Tony Sidaway 03:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. That's like saying, "the silence, with all due respect to the many arguments I've heard against it, has been deafening". Have you been editing high-traffic articles or low-traffic articles? Also, maybe the anti's are more represented among the "hardcore" editors and the pro's are more represented among readers who don't want to or feel confident enough to edit? You've got to at least admit it's possible...—greenrd 01:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

end of moved comment. --Tony Sidaway 03:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, that's what I'm saying! Though while you're making those hundreds of spoiler removals, why not point them to this page? I don't see why we're removing these things now when we'll basically be doing it all over again in a week or so after everything gets reverted. People are reverting because we're still discussing, so why not wait a bit till were done? Do spoilers really matter that much? Jussen 01:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no clue what the word "smirk" has to do anything with this, but I'll move on...

The reason we're not reverting the removal of spoiler warnings is that we want to avoid what we call an edit war. In an edit war, two opposing parties revert each other so that they could get their own point across. Instead of reverting, we're all gathering in this page to discuss things, although things do seem to be getting quite slow here.

Now my question to you is: Why are you removing spoiler warnings during a debate that discusses the their existence? Shouldn't we be discussing rather than taking immediate action? I don't know what your heart says, but I think that you should revert back until we solve our differences. Listen to your conscience... Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just not quite sure who you're talking to. I'm sure Tony Sidaway knows what an edit war is (as do I, but hey, I'm the new guy). And while my conscience (or whatever) tells me to get rid of spoilers, I'm waiting until we finish this discussion. So, um, whaddya talking about? Jussen 02:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh great, I think I've gotten caught up in the joke thread. Jussen 02:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You keep on triumphantly declaring that there is a consensus against spoiler warnings. Saying that doesn't make it true. As best I can tell - and I'm trying not to let my preference color this - it sure seems like it's the same hardcore editors who for some bizarre reason feel really really passionately about not kowtowing to the, er, special interest group. The rate of text output is not an indication of consensus, and a fair majority of casual browsers are pro spoiler warnings. The previous RFC was also fairly dramatic on that issue and is obviously still relevant- the final vote tally was something like 43 in favor of keeping warnings, 14 against, yet both sides were about evenly represented in the debate. Just look at the TFD, which grabbed considerably more random people than the ill-trafficed MFD and had more people voting "Strong Keep" than "Delete" (13 SK, 12 K, 3 WD, 11 D, 2SD by my quick count.) SnowFire 02:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say if you were to just go by votes - the fact that the delete votes nearly double the keep in the mfd above prove consensus. And the tfd you say grabbed "more random people" - and if the mfd is any indication you mean ip addresses/new accounts - which don't count (in which case the delete votes more than double the keep votes in the mfd). daniel folsom 02:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me quote at length from Wikipedia:Consensus:

On the other hand, it is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue. This, however, is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia's decisions are based not on the numerical fact of how many people showed up and voted a particular way. It is based on a system of good reasons. Attempts to change consensus must be based on a clear engagement with the reasons behind the previous consensus - not simply on the fact that today more people showed up supporting position A than position B.

This paragraph seems to apply to you guys.—greenrd 03:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I had nothing to do with the first one - or asking again - however it's a completely different thing - while I have not seen the tfd I imagine that some people voted per policy - and now more people are fighting the policy. daniel folsom 03:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that how consensus works on Wikipedia? A decision is made, an action is taken, disapproval is expressed, and negotiation takes place. This can be taken to a larger scale and applied to anything - even policy, especially when policy is rewritten after a quick judgement that a large portion of viewers and users were completely unaware of. You Can't See Me! 03:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

i'm not really sure what your arguing here ... all I'm saying is there's like a hierchy - articles -- > policy -- > Basic principles. For the tfd, people should have voted based on policy, but this time it's different - since we're arguing a policy.daniel folsom 03:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I'm not sure exactly what you're implying here. All I meant by "random" people was the fact that MFD is almost certainly the least visited XfD, so few people not watching the spoiler warnings page would accidentally stumble upon it (I know I knew absolutely nothing of it). And if you refer to the "asking again" thing, I disagree with you doubly. First, asking again is fine since "consensus can change." Second, if anyone is asking again, it is the against crowd, since the last RFC ended conclusively in favor of spoiler warnings. Now, as per the first statement, this is fine, of course; if there is a dispute, the policy should be revisited. But yeah, I don't see how this can be held against the anti- crowd. SnowFire 03:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You were the one that brought up asking again ... but whatever daniel folsom 03:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

In reply to greenrd, my understanding is that by early this morning David Gerard had removed spoilers from about 5,000 articles, about 10% of all articles on the wiki that formerly contained spoilers. This includes high traffic and low traffic articles. There has been very little response of any kind, and certainly no great revolt.

In reply to Jussen, I'm just not seeing any reverts to speak of. A piddling few for the number of edits performed.

In reply to SnowFire, my experience doesn't bear out your findings. Please revise your position in view of the empirical evidence. --Tony Sidaway 03:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, let's get rid of some spoilers! Jussen 04:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait, I can only get rid of the warnings, not the spoilers? Oh well. Jussen 04:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This argument amounts to: I won't believe you really disagree unless you revert war. This challenge to disruptive editing is itself disruptive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Back to Work, Youse!

Uhg! More pointless arguments over minor issues. Let's get back to editing the damned encyclopedia, people! Nricardo 02:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Right on. Dan100 (Talk) 12:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

We like endless discussions. -- ReyBrujo 02:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Shorter plot summaries

I broadly agree with DES from a few days back. I find spoiler warnings useful: that is, I read articles while avoiding the spoilers. Pragmatic solutions are better than dogma, so I am unconvinced by some of the arguments opposed to spoiler tags. I would note that, while other encyclopaedias don't use them, most sources for contemporary material do avoid spoilers: a typical review in a newspaper will not give away the ending of a film, for example. Spoiler warnings can be over-used, they can be under-used, but poor usage is not a reason to remove the tag entirely. People should be focusing on making articles better, not edit-warring over spoiler warnings. Again and again, arguments in the Wikipedia community seem to get lost in points of principle when we could all be improving article quality. One way in which we can make articles better is in dealing with over-long and poorly-written plot summaries, which are often the source of spoiler warnings. Let's make plot summaries more apt and more focused on notable points rather than trivia. Bondegezou 09:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with what Bondegezou has said above me. We need spoiler tags as a compromise; sometimes we have to reveal plot twists for encyclopedia reasons, but we shouldn't ruin the reader's experience. I also agree that we should cut out long and rambling plot summaries from some articles. Walton_monarchist89 09:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Above, they have said pretty much what I want to say. Ab e g92contribs 10:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, plot summaries are often long and rambling. I trimmed the plot summary for one Doctor Who episode from 2000 words to a more readable 600, though ideally it would be closer to 250 and miss out much unnecessary detail. This is not easy to do, because the articles are often edited by fans who have no sense of what is and is not important, they just want to produce a blow-by-blow account of minutiae. It's hard work summarising plot, too. However that is another subject. --Tony Sidaway 10:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You're telling me! (Though I'm more for 600 than 250, but that's partially a matter of taste.) Can you link to some of your work so that I can see if I can better my own summarizing? --Kizor 14:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the material. If it's a 60 hour RPG with an 80,000 word script and dozens of cutscenes, then a 750-1,250 word summary is fine. For one episode, though, 2-3 paras or 200-700 words seems like a good target. Unfortunately, even among my fellow editors I'm in the minority (The plot summaries for Final Fantasy IV and Final Fantasy VII are at least 500 words too long for me; I think the plot summary for Final Fantasy VIII is optimal for a 40-60 hour interactive novel with gameplay). 1,000 word story synopsis, and brief outlines of the setting/characters and what went into their creation. — Deckill er 14:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

FFVIII looks about right. I'd add some things about the relationships between the characters if it wasn't supplemented by such extensive character coverage. It does depend a lot on the work - FFIV spends a lot less time on cutscenes and packs a ridiculous amount of actual events, which take more space here. And Heroes juggles a number of paraller plotlines in every episode. --Kizor 14:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the character interactions information is left for the subpage, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. Honestly, I think all summaries should rely on the work. "Scholarly secondary sources" for plot summaries is just plain unrealistic. FFIV does spend way too much time, especially since the script and game aren't even half the length of FF8. The articles are otherwise good, though, and I think that once WP:FF meets its goal of elevating each article to GA status, we'll work on polishing our old FAs. — Deckill er 15:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Why now?

Why has this discussion only appeared recently? People know that if they want to look at the plot, there's a risk of getting spoilers.--Del

And if they look at a list of characters, they may not realize the risk of spoilers.

I'd rather Wikipedia treat me like an idiot and say that there's spoilers in the character list (even though this is not always so) than wander upon the Phoenix Wright character list and read a game-ruining spoiler. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

A quick opinion from a casual user

As someone who has edited maybe a dozen articles and written none, perhaps my opinion doesn't hold as much water as some. That said, this whole arguement seems a bit strange. Wikipedia is a great source of information. However, it is not an encyclopedia in the same sense that the large multi-volumed encyclopedias in a library are encyclopedia. Those books would never have the extensive sections about television shows and pricing games on The Price Is Right that Wikipedia has. Although Wikipedia may have started out with the intent to be one of those, it has grown into something different, something new. It is, I think, the primary source of information on the web, with many other sources of information (answers.com, google, etc.) pointing at it. This puts it in fundamentally new, uncharted waters. Many users, when looking for any information at all, will load up wikipedia and type in the subject they want to research. Or, they will load up google, type in the subject, and the first hit will be wikipedia. These aren't people who are intentionally consulting an encyclopedia. They are people looking for information. Wikipedia shouldn't concern itself with encyclopedic integrity or the avoidance of redundancy or even providing aesthetic pleasure, it should concern itself with providing information to people seeking information.

I don't buy the arguement that "plot" implies spoilers. The plot of Citizen Kane could be described as "a rich newspaperman's life is remembered" or "a rich newspaperman desires Rosebud, his sled." No one would mind having the first told to them before they saw the movie, but plenty would be angry to discover the second. Thus, I think wikipedia has two options; either not include information that could be spoilers (which is silly and contrary to the idea of providing information) or warn readers of spoilers. In my opinion, it is more important to provide information to readers without risking making the work any less enjoyable for them then it is to cater to the egos of editors with lofty ideals about encyclopedic integrity.

I think this whole arguement assumes that wikipedia is for the information providers, when, of course, it is really for the information seekers.

But that's just my opinion. 71.232.175.180 01:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well said--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well said. The views of Wikipedia readers have been radically underrepresented here. The discussion on this page seems to have been dominated by a relatively small group of "anti's", who don't seem to realise how unrepresentative this discussion has been so far. I only heard about it because the spoiler template was edited to include a link to this page.—greenrd 02:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

QFT! Great comment. --Akral 08:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear! I'd take it further: this discussion often seems to assume that spoilers are restricted to the "plot" section, but they're not. Does a "themes" section have spoilers? Some do, some don't. "Reception"? "Characters"? A reader has no way of knowing this in advance, regardless of his familiarity with the encyclopedia. --Kizor 02:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, other wikipedians think they know the Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything, and spoiler warnings isn't it. -- ReyBrujo 02:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm willing to listen to anyone's arguments, but the fact that "It's [the reader's] problem" was mentioned above (multiple times, nevertheless) worries me. You Can 't See Me! 03:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As another casual user, I have to say I agree completely, especially with the argument that plot summaries and spoilers are not necessarily the same thing. NurMisur 04:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I am a casual user, too, and found this discussion by way of the change in the spoiler warning template. I agree with what's been said above. As user Bondegezou pointed out below, "most sources for contemporary material do avoid spoilers: a typical review in a newspaper will not give away the ending of a film, for example." When I look up an article on fiction I expect to see what type of media it is, genre, release date, critical reception, etc. Definitely not plot summaries and potential surprises. And I think a great many casual readers feel the same. The spoiler warning tag serves a good purpose. The argument that it may have been overused in a few articles shouldn't be an excuse for banishing it altogether. 201.78.173.237 20:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's make spoiler warnings unnecessary

This whole issue would go away if people finally realized that plot summaries are unencyclopedic. We shouldn't have them anyway, because as an encyclopedia, our job is to discuss the real world, not fictional worlds. So we should delete not only the "spoilers start here" and "spoilers end here" tags, but also everything in between them. Then we'd be well on the way to writing a serious encyclopedia instead of a database of fancruft. —An gr 15:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Mylord - a true encyclopedia doesn't care weather the info is real fake or pointless, it displays the information that the people want, no matter how ridiculous or ambitious it is, wikipedia wouldn't be popular it if was the same as the encyclopedia on your dusty book shelf.

Realapedia, The Free REAL WORLD ONLY Encyclopedia. Tired of people writing down knowledge about things that don't interest you because they're fiction? Pretend that information doesn't exist, and become an editor today! Pshaw, Gravity's Rainbow? That's not important! Try writing an article on call option - it may be useless to most people in their lives, but at least it's real! Voretus 16:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Gravity's Rainbow is perfectly real. I used to have a copy sitting on my bookshelf. What happens within the story, however, isn't real and has no bearing on the real world. —An gr 17:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Fiction can most definitely have a bearing on the real world. There are thousands of religions with conflicting holy texts; some, if not all of them, must be fiction. The plots of countless books have inspired remakes in film and audio - directly influenced by their stories, not always by their critical reception. The plots of some books by Haruki Murakami have influenced people in Japan to dress differently. Plots of books can influence television shows, and vice-versa. Elements of House are influenced by Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories, which are fiction. Many, many people in the world are influenced by the things they read or see; fiction can cause people to act differently, change their outlooks on life, or commit crimes. Voretus 17:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The plot of a fictional work can sometimes be extremely important for real-world things. For instance, if someone is looking up The Sixth Sense to try and understand a reference to it somewhere, there's a good chance they need to know what the twist ending is. Likewise, if someone references a famous part of Hamlet, even a reader who for some reason knows nothing about it should be able to look in Wikipedia to get a general sense of what the reference means. I do agree that many articles can go overboard, though... in an article about, say, Superman or Captain America, it's more important to give a general overview of who the character is and what they mean culturally than to try and give a silly play-by-play of all ~70-odd years they've been in print. Even then, though, a few key things are still worth touching on... the 'death of superman', say, was a fairly major event in the real world when it happened, and had an impact on how comics were seen and published even to today. It's true, though, that putting such things in 'plot' sections might be a mistake... it could be better to break them up into relevent sections based on what's important. --Aquillion 17:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Besides, as it has been pointed out numerous times, we are not a traditional encyclopedia. We cover all major aspects of a topic, including the fictional universe elements; however, the fictional aspects should not take up more space than the real word aspects. — Deckill er 18:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we cover fictional topics? I'm sure that some works of fiction (Using an earlyer example, Romeo and Juliet or The Tragedy of Julius Ceasar) have encyclopedic articles in Britanica or whatever is your personal favorite. So why should we be any different? Also, as before stated, we are a Unique encyclopedia in that we cover any topic that can be sourced reliably. So why not? Quatreryukami 18:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, but encyclopedic articles discuss R&J or Julius Caesar as plays; they don't just summarize the plot. CliffsNotes are not encyclopedia articles. —Angr 18:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  - I don't think he means we should cover only a topic's plot. The plot should be part of a larger topic that treats the topic as a whole. That is the essense of WP:WAF, and what many of us advocate — as long as it's not taken to an extreme (such as starting each sentence in a plot summary with "Continuing with the fictional plot of this fictional topic....."). — Deckill er 18:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    - The problem I think some people have with this, though, is with the prevailence of 'plot' sections that just dump the topic's entire plot into a block of text wholesale; current practice seems to be to automatically do that with almost any fictional work. It's one thing to give a general overview or to discuss significent and relevent sections of plot... but I'm not sure we need to give, say, a blow-by-blow of every episode of a popular TV series, for instance. It is important to show the major parts of the subject, and burying them in an excessively-detailed plot section can end up making this worse. --Aquillion 18:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- There's no reasonable way to have an article on a fictional subject without incorporating spoilers. There will be spoilers on an article on a fictional subject even if it does not have a plot summary section. You Can 't See Me! 18:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is both a general encyclopedia and an almanac. Neither, by definition, exclude fictional topics:

Encyclopedia - a comprehensive reference work with articles on a range of topics.
Almanac - a book or table listing astronomical, nautical or other events for the year; sometimes, but not essentially, containing historical and statistical information. (taken from Wiktionary) --- RockMFR 19:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Questioning the encyclopedic nature of the spoilers being warned against

I'd like to bring up a few questions I think are relevant and not being discussed.

What is the meaning of fiction to the knowledge seeker? Admittedly the purpose of an encyclopedia is to make knowledge more accessible. What does that mean in the realm of fiction? Cutting an expression of non-facts down to major facts of the expression may miss the point. The events within a work of fiction are trivial and non-encyclopedic. The effect of those events may well be important and encyclopedic.

I disagree. If a particular event in a work of fiction is discussed in several mainstream media reviews, arguably it's notable and not trivial. With respect, you seem to be coming at this from the point of view that an English Literature professor or a philosopher might take. An ordinary Jo or Joe might be more interested in what happens in a movie, or what is unique about a movie, rather than the the effects of the event - the "moral message", "plot motifs", "technical vision", or any of that high-falutin stuff that a lot of people don't care about, if you see what I'm getting at.—greenrd 22:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The effect can be described without repeating the fictitious elements. To reproduce fictitious elements not otherwise noteworthy is to reduce a portion of the encyclopedia itself to fiction. The facts of a fiction are generally not noteworthy.

Related to the last point, noteworthiness should always dictate treatment. Classics are definitionally noteworthy, and their meanings have been amply researched and prepared for encyclopedic treatment. I think a problem we're having may be the definition of classic, and we're running into ever more neo-classics. We have a sense that a given movie or television series will be classic, but we don't know what primary sources to consult for importance. Another unconsidered question may be the tainting effect that promotion has within mass media: while mass media may be acceptable sources for articles on world events, perhaps they are not acceptable sources for articles on other constructs of the mass media.

Is it possible that the qualia of witnessing a plot twist, for example, in the context of a fictitious world is a kind of knowledge perhaps not suited to an encyclopedia? If that knowledge is suited to an encyclopedia, I would propose that in general it is as yet missing — that knowledge is dropping on the floor during the reduction from the fiction to the fact of it.

Are there are a lot of articles on unimportant subjects? I'm not sure what I think of this, but perhaps if a subject is important, the treatment should be confined to the important aspects. The interplay between media and their mass audiences may be important. An encyclopedia should cover the important parts.

I think a lot of the problem here is the original research aspect to most articles on fiction. Editors are writing what they experienced of fiction, rather than what society has digested into commentary which can be cited. I think that to talk of whether spoiler warnings are encyclopedic, when the content of articles itself is not, is missing the point. Discussion of spoiler warnings might even be best deferred until we have an understanding of what should (or should not) be present to warn against.

I have used some weasel words until now, in part because I don't have the answers —and probably don't even have a position— and in part to try to soften my critique. (End weasel words.) Typing up what happened in a work of fiction is fairly masturbatory. Encyclopedic knowledge lies outside recountings. Christian Campbell 20:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right to raise the notability point, but we're not going to see the kind of drastic narrowing of Wikipedia's scope that you propose, any time soon - it would be a huge change, requiring a huge consultation. Whether to exclude such a large amount of material is, I respectfully propose, a debate for another time and another place - let's not make the spoiler warning debate any more complicated than it already is! If anyone wants to continue the debate in this section - I urge you to take it to another page - thanks.—greenrd 22:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the trend is for the inclusion of volumes of non-encyclopedic content on pop subjects. I agree that this warrants serious debate elsewhere. My immediate point however is that this is the largest part of the spoiler debate issue, and really folks are debating two different things at the same time:

Spoiler warnings may or may not belong on notable matter — this is an encyclopedic question.
Spoiler warnings may or may not belong on trivia (in the broadest sense; I do not mean "Trivia" sections, although those are certainly part of the trivia) — this is a popular debate.

No policy based in either encyclopedic or popular reasoning is going to be appropriate in the other context. I'm trying to focus this debate on the exact complication that is inspiring so much recursive debate here. Christian Campbell 16:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers should be hidden by javascript [unshoutied & shortened]

The fact that encyclopedias do not contain warnings misses the point, because each article that needs a spoiler warning is actually a combination of two articles. The first is about how the subject is *presented* by their authors and by the press in general and MUST NOT CONTAIN SPOILERS. The second is about what people who experienced the subject write about it to an audience that wishes to know about the details of the experience.

An alternative to spoiler warnings could be to split articles, but it is less convenient for users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.167.204.15 (talk • contribs)

Spoilers are not corralled behind one single section; they are spread through out an article in bits and pieces. Do you really expect an article to be coherent when every other sentence is hidden? You Can't See Me! 21:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a really dumb idea, no offense. It even contradicts the old version of the spoiler policy. Axem Titanium 21:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sentences whose meaning depends on spoilers are to be considered spoilers too, obviously. 192.167.204.15 22:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, just because we are an online encyclopedia doesn't mean we have to use every form of netequette out there. We don't type our articles in AIMspeak, nor are we to present material as if we are a fansite. I can live with tags for certain situations, but certainly not hiding spoilers. That's what they do on message boards, not encyclopedias (regardless of what kind of encyclopedia we are; it's something we just don't do). — Deckill er 22:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that non-encyclopedias do something means that we shouldn't do it? That strikes me as the inverse of the proposition that the fact that other encyclopedias do something means that we should do it, and I can't support either. Every "edit this page" link is a breach of convention, and the existence of Wikipedia is proof that we've built a reference not on the basis of what others do or don't do, but on evaluating on our own what's good and what works. On reflection, we're the kind of encyclopedia that's an ecletic mix of old and new. --Kizor 22:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, but let's also put this into perspective. We're talking about masking half the text in the article with javascript, not adding a few tags or making some policy changes. My response was focused squarely on the concept brought up in this thread, not on the general philosophy of Wikipedia. — Deckill er 22:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Then that was rather a waste of a good argument on my part, wasn't it? --Kizor 22:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps :) But you do have a point. Although the community should always compare ourselves to other things and remember the function of an encyclopedia, it's not the only factor that should go into discussion. It's just one aspect. Nevertheless, I believe that there are other arguments as to why spoiler tags (or most, at the very least) should be removed that don't just have to do with comparing ourselves to other projects, but we won't go over that for the millionth time :) — Deckill er 23:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should be warnings, but not hidden text, otherwise we would transform Wikipedia in a Choose Your Own Adventure book. -- ReyBrujo 01:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, spoiler WARNINGS should be hideable with Javascript, not spoilers themselves

A great number of people like spoiler warnings, and a large number (no-one knows how large) dislikes them. Simple solution: allow readers to dismiss the warnings, by clicking a link (which would set a cookie). If the user wants to make that change permanent, so that it takes effect on whichever computer they're using, they can create an account.

This would satisfy almost everyone, because everyone gets the opportunity to see the version of Wikipedia that they prefer - and would dampen down edit wars over spoilers, which are a waste of time and disruptive to Wikipedia.

Spoiler warnings would have to be on by default, simply because, otherwise casual users don't get a realistic opportunity to know they exist.

The existing editing policy would be unchanged: do not contort an article's structure in order to fit it around spoiler warnings. No need for (inevitably arbitrary) time limits on spoiler warnings - you could even potentially have spoiler warnings on Charles Dickens works if there is consensus among article editors - no problem.

Hopefully this is a compromise that the vast majority could support - and I think it's the only compromise that both sides could support.—greenrd 23:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

SUPPORT - spoiler warnings make a lot of sense, and I am glad to have them in WP. On the other hand, the moronic text in the spoiler warning saying that the template itself is being discussed and considered for deletion is ironically way more distracting than the spoiler warning itself! Change the spoiler warning template back - they are so common no one really notices them anymore, anyway. But they do now.68.146.200.201 23:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Enough with the voting. As it stands, editing your CSS config will hide all spoilers. Voting for this is like voting for midsummer. --Tony Sidaway 23:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

My proposal, if enacted, would mean that anyone who understood an English phrase like "hide these warnings" could switch off spoiler warnings - not just people who were prepared to create an account, find some technical instructions relating to CSS, and follow them correctly(!).—greenrd 00:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you're proposal is probably the most reasonable solution I see, but I'd rather address the more interesting question of, "do spoiler warnings belong in an encyclopedia?" Unfortunately it seems like the conversation is starting to die down and I haven't a clue as to what the consensus is. Jussen 00:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Support - This would be a great compromise between those that want the spoiler warnings and those that do not want the spoilers warnings. --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 00:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This idea effectively avoids the question of whether spoiler warnings are appropriate for an encyclopedia or not. It simply sidesteps it until someone else starts complaining about the need to edit around a spoiler warning, except it will be worse since he can't even see the warning that he's trying to edit around. This is a bad idea. Axem Titanium 00:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the point - to sidestep it. I believe we are never going to achieve consensus on this question on an encyclopedia-wide level. So, realistically, I think the are only two ways out: someone high-up steps in and makes a unilateral policy decision - which would cause anger, and would be a bad outcome I think - or we find some kind of compromise. Of course the editor in your example would be able to see the warning because (a) it would be on by default (b) he or she would be able to turn it on and off in prefs, and (c) it would always appear in edit boxes anyway. It's not going to solve all arguments but it should at least solve most of them. Cases in recently-published works where a big spoiler really "needs" to be in the lead section are rare to non-existent, in my view. —greenrd 00:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't Support Or however you say ~support. I'd rather try to address the more interesting question of, "do spoiler warnings belong in an encyclopedia?" (as I stated above, though probably in the wrong place) Unfortunately it seems like the conversation is starting to die down and I haven't a clue as to what the consensus is. Jussen 00:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think that spoiler warnings are appropriate for this encyclopedia because Wikipedia provides the following information for fictional works:

Information regarding the fictional work's publication, inspiration, impact on society, criticism, and many other things about the published work. This type of information does not require a spoiler warning, since it doesn't hinder one's enjoyment of the book or movie.
Information regarding the work's characters, settings, writing/filming style, etc. These don't interfere with one's enjoyment of the fictional work as well.
Information summarizing the work's plot, ending, or climax that would definitely hinder one's enjoyment of the fictional work.

Because Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia focused on one subject, we should not expect people to know that we're going to give them spoilers. Other general encyclopedias, such as World Book and Britannica, do not give spoilers away. If the general encyclopedias don't give away that kind of information, what makes you think that our readers will expect to find spoilers here? They need to be warned that Wikipedia is a unique encyclopedia in which we give away information about everything.

If some editors don't like it, then they can hide the spoiler warnings. It's that simple.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 00:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Before we go vote-happy on this proposal, why don't we step back and see if we agree with the current wording of the Wikipedia:Spoiler page? It has received considerable work and if anything, that should be considered first. Axem Titanium 00:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

(To Ed) According to WP:5P, Wikipedia is a combination of "general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs". None of those use spoiler warnings. Why should we? Axem Titanium 00:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh...you got me there! True, other encyclopedias don't use spoiler warnings. However, websites that are specifically made to describe movies, such as http://imdb.com/ , do prevent their readers by hiding spoiler content. This is done by adding a "more" link to a separate page with all of the plot summaries. If a site that's devoted to movies censors its spoilers, why shouldn't Wikipedia censor it's spoilers as well?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That may be fine for IMDB, but on Wikipedia, that's called a content fork, a practice that was frowned upon, even under the old version of the spoiler guideline. Axem Titanium 01:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. What I meant to say was that since IMDB warns its readers about spoilers, Wikipedia should warn its readers about spoilers as well.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that? All I see is a "plot outline" and a link that says "more". It has nothing analogous to Wikipedia's current spoiler warning. Axem Titanium 01:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The link that says "more" practically says, "Don't click here unless you want the spoilers." In this case, the spoiler warning is implied, since it restricts readers from reading potentially ruining info.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I see but that method is impossible on Wikipedia because it is a content fork. On the other hand, I have nothing against an implied spoiler warning. This entire time, I've been calling the "Plot" header a form of implied spoiler warning that wards away people who don't want to see spoilers. Axem Titanium 01:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, I'm not suggesting any content forks. Don't forget that in some articles, the plot section might just be an overview of the work of fiction, while a separate section marked "summary" might give the actual details of the plot. In the "plot" section, the spoiler warning wouldn't be necessary while the "summary" section might actually need one.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

(To Axem) That's basically what I'm saying. We should continue to see how this page (the spoiler page that is) turns out and go from there. Jussen 01:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Axem Titanium 01:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"(To Ed) According to WP:5P, Wikipedia is a combination of "general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs". None of those use spoiler warnings. Why should we? Axem Titanium 00:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)"

Because Wikipedia is neither. Rather, it's both. A general encyclopedia does not go into detail at all or only when necessary, a specialized encyclopedia can assume that its readers want the specifics. As a general-purpose work, Wikipedia cannot make that assumption. Readers use it as a general encyclopedia and as a specific encyclopedia. No other work has the resources for that. --Kizor 02:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a good idea. There are good arguments on both sides and this seems like a highly reasonable compromise solution. JoshuaZ 06:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings have been hideable for years. Making them hideable does not change anything, is not a compromise at all and does not address the problems with NPOV and WP:LEAD that were the reason for Phil Sandifer to start the MFD. Kusma (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

strong support - this is an awesome idea.139.48.81.98 17:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My 2 Cents

It needs to be taken into account that wikipedia is anything but a normal encyclopedia. As much as users want it to be or pretends to be a normal encyclopedia does not allow the general public to edit it a normal encyclopedia more importantly does not cover the range or scope of topics, that wikipedia covers to begin with. Nor can it expect to cover topics in wikipedia as they unfold. As someone who keeps up, with articles more as a reader than an editor, and reads much of pop culture articles (music, movies, tv, books, comic related articles), one must consider different considerations must take place for these articles.

Most encyclopedia's don't cover pop culture topics to begin with, nor do academic journals. (Yes I'm sure their journals of socialogy, history, social sciences, film studies, literary, that do, but not in the same shape or format, wikipedia summarisez and describes the actual details work. not the back ground or detail, and is not giving an analysis of the work). The second thing is most works do not cover plot summaries in real time. Many works on wikipedia with spoiler tags are unfinished works series, television ect. They are updated as soon as new information is released, especially if the work is popular and anticipated. A very good example is the new harry potter book, a very anticipated topic. At the moment, the article contains a section on details which the book will adress, using the authors interviews as source, however on release of this book, which release date is not equivalent in all countries and timzones, it is most likeley that article will be updated with a plot summary. However, a reader in foreign country, which has a later release date for the novel, may not know the release in other countries, or that this is a completed work. For this person a spoiler warning is benificial.

The second thing is it almost seems irrelavent, and a very minor topic to have the level of discussion that is here. Essentially the argument is what is the formatting convention of wikipedia. Does it really detract that much from an article by having a tag in tiny bold print. I don't think so. A spoiler warning will only appear on an article related to some form of fictional work (whether it be literary, film, drama/plays, or artistic). These articles have a different level of pseudo-academic content then an article on physics (Wikipedia is not a peer reviewed academic journal, I will not even pretend to call it academic, it is usually not even considered an appropriate citation for freshman university papers that require research no matter what topic is adressed). The subject matter in the article is less serious in nature, and it does not, in my opinion, lower the content value of these articles, by including a tag. Nanashiwanderer 11:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well said. WP:NOT#PAPER. Ab e g92contribs 13:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler Warnings...OK?

I would just like to point out that this is an interesting arguement. Take a look at Final Fantasy 7 for example. NO SPOILER WARNINGS. ANYWHERE. Why put them on some but not on others? Quote from said article, commented out in it:

"If the first thing that went through your mind when you saw the word "Plot" was to add a spoiler tag, then you have proven to yourself that other people will also realize that "Plot" is synonymous with "spoiler" and thus a spoiler tag is unnecessary.".

Why not apply this to other articles? And FF7 is a FEATURED ARTICLE. Should this not represent Wiki's best? We should just apply it's policies to all pages! Or am I shooting the breeze here? Quatreryukami 14:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not the article grade that defines guidelines, it's policies. --Akral 14:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's neither; it's what editors actually approve of. This is not determined by a few words on an obscure guideline page; it's not determined by bots; it's determined by discussion. FA should be considered, and they did talk about spoiler tags. Their absence was ruled irrelevant; I think this was a bad decision; but all this means is that they're not necessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

We have System Shock that's every bit as much a featured article, and which had spoilers until the anti-spoiler gang here started removing them repeatedly. Why should that be less meaningful than FF7? Further, I'd like to point out that spoilers aren't restricted in just "Plot". "Themes"? Might have them, might not. "Reception"? "Characters"? "Development"? "Related media"? Even "Merchandise"? The reader genuinely has no way of knowing in advance by himself. There's no denying that a spoiler warning in "Plot" is redundant for that section, but that's not where its effect ends. If it continues to other sections, or from other sections, it marks those as well. If it ends, it marks the rest of the article free, until the next spoiler tag. (There's no rule that articles can only use one spoiler-endspoiler pair. I've seen many that don't since this mess began.) Without the tags, the reader has to assume that any part of the article can contain spoilers. --Kizor 14:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

So, as I said, why not just either remove them or use them everywhere appropriate? Quatreryukami 14:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You just pointed out a little discussed fact about section titles. That is that the section title is also the spoiler warning. So there is really no need to duplicate the warning by placing the spoiler warning template right under the section's title. If it is that obvious by a section title that the section contains spoilers, then the section title is all that's needed. --Farix (Talk) 14:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Little discussed...? You can hardly move in here for people decrying spoiler tags for that reason. Anyway, there's an argument of mine about this three messages up. --Kizor 14:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

So why the complaints over removing spoiler warnings from sections whose titles clearly indicate that spoilers are present? Since the title already warns that spoilers are present in that section, there is no need to remind the reader "again". Or are we going to assume that some readers are unable to comprehend such section titles, which at that point a spoiler warning template is useless. --Farix (Talk) 15:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm now in danger of collapsing from sleep deprivation, but again, that is not the only function they fulfill by being there... --Kizor 15:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Farix, spoiler warnings belong in plot sections not because the reader can't comprehend the title, but because redundant information is needed for usability. Go look at the left side of any Wikipedia page; you have a search button and you have the word "search" printed a second time right above. It would be absurd to say "the word 'search' at the top is for users who are unable to comprehend the word on the button".

The word is put there in order to be consistent; it's better to label each part of the page, even if in some cases the user can figure it out and no label is strictly necessary. Likewise, it's more consistent to label spoilers everywhere, even where the user can already figure it out. Ken Arromdee 15:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And this attitude brings us spoiler warnings in articles that describe the life of Jesus, the Trojan War, or in articles about fairytales or nursery rhymes. Consensus says not to do that (and common sense does, too), so the consistency you desire has already been proven to be bad. Kusma (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If I'm reading Arromdee correctly - correct me if I'm wrong, Ken - he's talking about consistency within articles, not between articles. In other words, how they should be used where they're used, not where they should be used. That's another thing entirely. --Kizor 16:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Kusma (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that isn't a good example; "Search" and "Go" lead to two different things. The "search" box is to group those together. Whereas with the plot summary section, we obviously know that it's for one thing: the plot summary. We don't put critical reaction or anything else with the plot summary, so redundancy is less needed. — Deckill er 16:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

We know, but not everyone is a Wikipedia admin. Despite all the ranting and raving about 'how can people be so stupid, perverse' etc, it simply isn't obvious to people who rarely look at Wikipedia.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If they rarely look at Wikipedia for information, then I'm not that concerned about them. They are the lowest common denominator, but they don't even represent a significant minority of Wikipedia readers. The problem with tailoring content to the lowest common denominator is that it also means treating everyone else as if they are just as illiterate, which led to the bewildering state of having spoiler warnings on fairy tales, well known classical works, and section whose titles make it clear that it contains spoilers. --Farix (Talk) 20:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a deplorable attitude, thinking that people who unfamiliar with Wikipedia are 'illiterate'. Your claim that people who only occasionally look at Wikipedia are an insignificant minority is fantastical; we have tens of millions of readers, and only four million registered users.--Nydas^(Talk) 06:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that people who don't understand that a section titled "Plot summery" doesn't contain spoilers are probably illiterate and an additional spoiler warning won't do any good. They are also such a remote minority that we shouldn't concern ourselves about it. --Farix (Talk) 13:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And I, and many others, are saying that you are wrong. Someone who is not familiar with Wikipedia cannot magically know if a section entitled plot summary contains spoilers, any more than they could if the section were in an unfamiliar newspaper, magazine, press release, website or book.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ken, I don't buy your argument at all. In fact, it is the least convincing argument of all of the pro-redundant spoiler warnings arguments that has been given so far. Nothing on the left bar is redundant with anything else in the left bar. In fact, the only thing that is redundant with anything else on the page is the link to the "About Wikipedia" which is also found in the footer. But that is another issue entirely and has nothing to do with spoiler warnings. Apples and oranges here. --Farix (Talk) 20:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The word 'search' is not redundant with the word 'search'?

You might try to argue that the top one refers to "search" in general, and the other 'search' is more specific. But even then, if you have two kinds of searching, you don't need to label it 'search'. It's still redundant.

Or look at the navigation section. It has the word 'navigation' in it and then the section consists of types of navigation. If everything in the box is navigation anyway, putting the word 'navigation' at the top adds no information, but it adds usability.

And when I'm editing a page, it contains two statements that the user agrees to license content under the GFDL. It also contains an edit box and yet says "Editing..." at the top. Why put a label of 'editing' on something that's obviously an edit box?

Pretty much all human communication contains redundancy. The connection with spoiler warnings is that people want to remove spoiler warnings from plot sections because the user can already figure out that a plot section has spoilers in it. But it doesn't *matter* whether the user can figure it out. The user can figure out that a box with a Go and Search button has something to do with searching, yet we still put a 'search' at the top. Ken Arromdee 14:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Mylord - Seriously this would all be solved if the Plot Spoilers would be put in another page entirely, or better yet make it that you have to sign up to wiki to see plot spoilers, chaos solved end discussion.

Please, Please, PLEASE sign your f@#@# posts!

Anyway, he brings up an interesting point. What if all spoilers were on another page, like a subpage? We could put non-spoilers on one page, and have something saying, maybe

This page has no spoilers. If you would like spoilers on the story, click here

Sounds pretty good, Mylord! Just sign your posts. Quatreryukami 14:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

STOP fighting each other in articles, PLEASE

I don't really care whether spoiler tags are there (anywhere), or not, though I don't see how it really hurts anything, either.

However, I am getting very tired of seeing the majority of edits on my watchlist being people adding and removing the tags on the same pages, over and over, reverting each other, with both sides pointing to policy, or pointing to nothing, or whatever. Figure something out here, then go through adding or removing the tags. Just leave them alone for now, until a solution is actually reached here first. -Bbik 20:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is this fighting taking place? I've done hundreds and encountered very few problems. --Tony Sidaway 20:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Off the top of my head? One of the most recent ones is "All You Zombies—". I don't remember what others right now, and don't really have the time to go checking, but that's by no means the only one. -Bbik 20:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh that's just one guy putting the spoiler tag back. He'll stop or be stopped soon enough. --Tony Sidaway 20:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, there are so many things wrong with that comment. I don't even know where to begin. --- RockMFR 20:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

We're not endlessly forgiving of edit warring. --Tony Sidaway 21:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite - but your attitude seems to be first "there is little evidence of putting spoiler warnings back in - so that proves that people don't care about it" and then, when someone does care about it and does put the warnings back in, you're like "He'll be stopped". It's hard to assume good faith and keep a cool head when you say things like that.—greenrd 00:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's the way the wiki works. Edit war and you'll be blocked. Haven't you noticed this? If it's so easy for us to make radical changes in a very short period, and it's difficult for those opposing us to make any change at all without edit warring, then I'd call that a very good empirical measure of consensus. --Tony Sidaway 00:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

After reading your comments here, I really don't think you understand how Wikipedia should work. --- RockMFR 00:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

We all have opinions on how Wikipedia should work. Knowledge about how Wikipedia does work is more useful and helps one to concentrate on what is both beneficial and achievable rather than strive fruitlessly after an unattainable ideal. --Tony Sidaway 18:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. If one person mass-removes spoiler warning, then a few people start adding them back in, then some people remove them again, then an edit war ensues, that doesn't prove consensus! Getting there first and being the most fanatical about it does not prove that the consensus is with your side, either.—greenrd 14:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If that were happening, your conclusion would be correct. However, as I've remarked previously, that isn't what's happening. --Tony Sidaway 18:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If there really is any fighting going on, just make sure that the article goes back to it's status before the edit war. If the spoiler tags were there before, then put them back. We should be discussing here, not fighting.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 23:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

when people ask what is wrong with the world, i hope someone points them directly to the insane amount of wasted time on arguing over a few pixels that happen to warn people that if they havent seen this episode/movie that they might not want to read this. may god have mercy on your souls.

I hereby declare the above user winner of this whole discussion. Picaroon (Talk) 00:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, guys. It's seven words and two horizontal lines. Haven't people been killed for less than that? You Can 't See Me! 06:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Progress

Has any real progress been made here - to me all these arguments seem to amount to nothing, it seems like very few people have switched sides, and very few changes have been made (except for various people running through articles to add/delete spoilers) - and if I'm right (although there is a very good chance I'm wrong) I think at some point in the not-to distant future (like in a week) we should use WP:IAR and just flat out vote on this.Danielfolsom 21:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus that spoiler warnings do not belong on articles about fairy tales. There is a fairly weak consensus that classical and historical works should not have spoiler warnings—taking into account that many spoiler supporters said it should be a case-by-case bases. The standing consensus that spoilers should not be hidden has been reaffirmed. However, there is currently no clear consensus on spoiler warnings in sections titled "Plot", "Plot summary", "Synopses", or some variation thereof. So some progress has been made. --Farix (Talk) 21:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we've made a lot of progress. Many thousands of redundant spoiler warnings have been removed from articles, and very few have been put back. Basically the policy has changed and we're just adjusting to the idea. --Tony Sidaway 00:20, 23 May 200(UTC)

No , we are not adjusting to the idea and changes by using AWB ( a method which is not supposed to be used for controversial edits) doesn't help .Garda40 00:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If you take a look at Wikipedia: Spoiler the page has changed quite a bit in the last week. Hopefully as it changes, the presence of spoiler warnings and the guidelines of relative projects will change as well. I think we're doing pretty good, sorry I'm an optimist. Jussen 00:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Have a look here David Gerald is doing mass edits and nothing else as far as I can see.This is something that Kusma has been asked to stop doing at this point in the discussion and has stopped .Garda40 01:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I was not speaking of the more uncontroversial move - I was speaking of the plot section - which is obviously - per one of the above straw polls - the most debatable.daniel folsom 02:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

(To Garda) Please tell me Wikipedia isn't so bureaucracy-choked that he's not even allowed to be bold and ignore all rules. He went out on a limb to start removing spoiler warnings and when he saw that they weren't getting reverted, he kept going. Isn't the main purpose of policy practical applications? He's tested it and it works. Axem Titanium 02:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not policy , at least yet, and trying to make it de facto policy isn't helpful.And I of course can only speak for myself but I didn't revert because I don't want to get into an edit war especially with people who can ban me .Garda40 03:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

He's making the changes and they're sticking. Ergo his edits are well within Wikipedia policy. It's a wiki, and nobody needs permission to edit. --Tony Sidaway 18:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think that we're making any progress here. There is a clear dissent against the removal of spoiler warnings, and I feel shocked by the fact that spoiler warnings are being removed during a controversial debate. We should be discussing, not setting an environment for an edit war.

On the entire matter of this debate, I still stand firm on my position regarding the usefulness of spoiler warnings. Several times, I have read articles about books, movies, etc. where unwanted information just happened to slip into my brain. Why? Because that particular section was not surrounded by spoiler warnings, and the section does not have an obvious name such as "Trivia", "Characters", and others. Whenever a reader sees a spoiler warning, it benefits the reader by allowing him or her to make a choice about reading on. However, removing the spoiler warnings does not benefit anyone; rather, it might accidentally lead unsuspecting readers into the abyss of the unknown... Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A medical disclaimer at the top of every medical page would be more useful, but we don't have one, and for good reasons. Kusma (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I submit that medical disclaimers are another thing entirely and the comparison inapplicable. As Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates said until you removed this text very recently: You can choose to ignore medical-related content on Wikipedia, but once you've read a spoiler, you can't just pretend you never read it. -Frazzydee|✍ 12:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) --Kizor 05:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want to be spoiled about Harry Potter, you can choose to avoid Harry Potter-related content on Wikipedia, but once you've seen a shocking image of a disease / nudity / whatever / something your religion prohibits you to see, you can't just pretend you've never seen it. I fail to see any justification for spoiler warnings in your quote. Kusma (talk) 05:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Nuff said. Quatreryukami 03:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok - it's not a vote yet, so just saying "Agreed" doesn't really do anything...daniel folsom 03:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What more could this user possibly say if there is a complete agreement?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What are they even agreeing about? We're talking about a potential vote - and this user said "Agreed" to you, and I assume that you are for a vote since you have the same reasons as me - but then the user said "Nuff said." - which doesn't make sense (for obvious reasons)daniel folsom 03:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

We do not vote on guidelines, but discuss them. There is still no real answer from the pro-warning crew to the arguments that spoiler warnings can lead to violations of WP:NPOV and bad writing per WP:LEAD. Anyway, nobody suggests that we should deliberately spoil things for people where not necessary: it is clear that writing "Harry meets Dumbledore, who will get killed by Snape in Book 6" is an unnecessary spoiler in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, but it should be avoided as unnecessary information, not tagged with an unencyclopedic warnings. Kusma (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"There is still no answer" is not an argument, it's a statement "since we're not voting, if I claim there's no answer and the admins believe me, policy says the admins should ignore everyone else no matter how many of them there are".

There is, of course, an answer: if spoiler warnings lead to bad writing, then make sure the articles contain good writing. Just because spoiler warnings can be abused is no reason to delete them. Ken Arromdee 14:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Disclaimer

I've been browsing this page and just want to make a few comments.

First of all, I think it's more constructive to focus on whether or not spoiler warnings add value - not whether everyone else is doing them. That allows for the possibility of innovation. If other encyclopaedias don't have spoilers, but wikipedia does, well, that might give wikipedia an edge. I'm not saying it does (yet), but consider the possibility that it might. There's got to be a first for everything. Attack the spoilers on their own grounds, if you want to attack them.

Let me defamiliarise the argument with an analogy. Imagine that putting spoilers in wikipedia is like putting those little tubes on the ends of shoelaces to make them easier to thread. Someone invented that, and before they did, no one had done it before. Now, some of the arguments on this page are like, "Well, *other* shoelaces don't have them" - or, worse still, "Do they think we're too clumsy to thread our shoelaces? If someone's too inept to get their laces through the holes, then it's *their* look-out if they trip up."

Well, the news is, some people *are* too clumsy to thread their shoelaces, and some people *are* too stupid to google around the internet without (in the absence of a safety net) ruining films for themselves. If you want to penalise them, fine... but it's funny how moderately clever (or even just non-stupid) people are snobby about stupidity. I find it just as obnoxious as athletic people being snobby about weaklings... but I digress.

The real question should be whether or not the innovation makes the product better. Are spoiler warnings useful? I think so. For a start, they allow greater precision over what we learn and when. If I'm interested in a film, I can take in the cast, critical reception, and other details without giving the ending away. Some have argued that "Plot" is enough. Sure, a heading like that allows you to pick and choose. But a spoiler warning allows *greater precision*. Imagine a fictitious film called Rover's Return:

PLOT

Bitter salesman John (Keanus Reeves) sets off on a quest to look for his long-lost father, accompanied by stray dog Rover. Rover surprises John by spelling messages with scrabble tiles from a magnetic travel set. Astonished, John joins a circus, and makes a million touring America with Rover: the Incredible Canine Agony Aunt. As the money rolls in, he soon forgets his quest for his father, and falls in love with the magician's assistant.

- - WARNING: SPOILER WARNINGS FOLLOW ***

John and Rover eventually have a run-in with the magician. After the final conclusion, it is revealed that Rover is John's father: the magician turned him into a dog some years previously.

Apologies for the dumb example. Here, in addition to cast, critical reception, and trivia about the film, I can now read enough of the plot to work out what sort of film it is, without ruining the twist ending. Sure, a film encyclopaedia would just spoil the film... but does that make it a more or less useful product? The warning gives me greater control over what I learn and when. Otherwise, it's just an information "dump" that I have to avoid until I've seen the film. Encyclopaedic, sure, but it alienates part of the potential readership.

The warning also gives me control in another way. If I read in a newspaper that Rover's Return has "the most ridiculous and predictable twist since Jaws VI: This Time It's Not A Shark", and have no interest in the film other than to find out what the twist was, because I know it's my brother's favourite film and (well, the theoretical examples get worse and worse) want to work it into my best man's speech, then the highly visibly spoiler alerts allow me to quickly home in that.

Clearly, some people like spoilers. Question two - does anyone who *doesn't* like them have a valid reason to object? Objections seem to be:

"Other encyclopaedias don't do them." "It's unprofessional." Like I said before - let's consider whether they add value to wikipedia; *not* whether everyone else is doing them.

"If people are too stupid to..." Well, some people *are* stupid. Get over it! Don't alienate them from your encyclopaedia; they're the ones who need it the most...

I mean, let's face it. The spoiler warnings don't hurt or take up much space. The anti-spoilers seem to object to them on principle - i.e., they don't hurt you or affect you use of the site; they just make you growl inwardly because you have a chip on your shoulder. Just a few thoughts.Sparrowgrass 20:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, spoiler tempaltes are unencyclopedic and all around useless. If you don't want information on the movie - don't go to the page - get the movie, watch it, then go to the page. I think this could all be solved by a giant disclaimer on the main page: "Contrary to seemingly popular belief per spoiler vote - Wikipedia's Articles DO Contain Information!" daniel folsom 15:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Your point being? --87.189.124.195

Put more eloquently, saying "get the movie, watch it, then go to the page" discourages use of WP and therefore violates WP:IAR -- pushing people away from WP does not "improve" it. 144.51.111.1 16:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

But even with spoiler warnings you can't recommend that someone who wishes to remain unspoiled read the page and skip over the spoiler-tagged parts, as there's no guarantee that the spoilers are all appropriately tagged. Chuck 17:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah what? That argument made no sense. I said if you don't want to know what happened- see the movie, then go to the page, but you said that that discourages use of WP - but in reality - they won't be seeing information on the thing that they didn't want to know about in the first place.daniel folsom 19:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

But - in my experiences - there's a very high probability of the spoilers being appropriately tagged. Lacking tags are rare enough to consider it a virtual guarantee, at least as long as there are no big pastel maintenance boxes at the top. (Yes, I did previously say that I've run into untagged spoilers several times - there's no contradiction, the total number of articles I've checked is a #¤&$load. I'm a Wikipedia fanatic, do you expect my use to be non-disproportionate?) --Kizor 23:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how seeing a warning about spoilers detracts in anyway from the Wikipedia experience. As an example, I think a film character as important as Darth Vader clearly warrants an article. Say I'd been living under a rock for a long time (On this particle subject I was, I didn't see the Star Wars trilogy until 1996, and had not been spoiled on it until VERY shortly before I saw it) and wanted to find something out about this guy, I'd probably come here, and if I didn't think there was that much to him, I wouldn't expect the major revelation that I would surely find, the tag makes it clear that there is something that could ruin the film experience for me. True you could leave that information out, but then the article becomes "Darth Vader is a bad guy who wears black and breathes funny. The End". The warning seems to be the comprimise between keeping articles too bare, and getting someone so angry that they avoid Wikipedia like the plague. Using my personal example of just how out of the loop a person can be on things that everyone else knows also I suspect illustrates the problem with the idea of putting a time limit on spoilers. Just because something came out 6 months ago, or 6 years, or 60 years, dosn't mean people have already seen it or been spoiled on it. However if spoiler tags are to be abandoned, I would personally recommend that articles on books, movies, TV, video games etc. be written so that there is a spoiler free short blurb above the table of contents for the article that gives a brief idea about the subject, such as "A Clockwork Orange is a 1971 film by Stanley Kubrick and starring Malcolm McDowell, adapted from the 1962 novel by Anthony Burgess." and a bit of stuff about the plot no more than you might expect to see on the back of the box, and putting any further information further below, preferably below the TOC, if the article has one, with the understanding that the main body of the article will be more detailed and probably spoileriffic. Sorry my rant was a bit long, but I feel my example might help the debate in some way, I feel rather passionate about the issue, as I'm sure many others on both sides are. 70.191.222.17 04:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Insulting the casual reader

Personally, I consider spoiler warnings considerate, not insulting. In meatspace, I kick off conversations about 24, Lost, and Stargate: SG-1 with, "Have you seen the latest episode of such-and-such?" There's a reason they're called spoilers: knowing them ahead of time changes a person's experience. I was waiting until The Sixth Sense came out in the dollar theater. The very day before I was going to go, I overheard someone tell the ending, rather unexpectedly, on TV. I knew, because of how it was said, that it was the plot twist at the end. It made my first viewing feel like my second viewing. On the other hand, of my own volition I also read too much about Morrowind, and about Oblivion, so I don't have quite the same experience I would have had otherwise, and it's my own fault I read past the spoiler bars. That all being said, I have, at one time or another, run across a spoiler warning like an unexpected speed-bump, breaking my flow of thought. Sometimes, it's on absurdly small details, sometimes on big details I already know. However, I know they're there for a reason, and I have run across an article or two where I did stop reading at the spoiler break. That said, I would like a coded option to hide/show spoilers, with an opportunity in registered user preferences to

always initially hide spoilers
always expand all spoilers
always view spoilers AND not display the spoiler warnings at all.

That way, like Wikipedia skin preferences, users can control the content they see. This is teh Internets, fer cryin out loud, a simple matter of coding and parsing. This discussion is more and more like debating what color paint Ford Model-Ts should switch to instead of black. Don't be stuck on the two horns of the debate. --BlueNight 22:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Coded option to hide/display spoilers

This simply cannot work. In order to have personalized options you have to be a registered member of Wikipedia. If you are not a registered member and come across the article via a websearch, for example, then what are the default options going to be? Will spoilers be hidden by default? Will the casual reader know how to turn them on if they are looking for them? If their default is to display spoilers, how will the casual reader know how to turn them off? How will they even know to turn them off or on? How can we guarantee that they will know how to turn them off before they read the article, especially if they are linked directly to it and completely circumvent the main page? This suggestion adds several whole new dimensions of complications to an already controversial issue. Whatever decision we make, the solution should be simple. Either use them, don't use them, or use them some of the time. Let's not make this issue more controversial than it already is. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 23:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, spoilers are not all gathered under one particular section. Granted, "Plot" will have a large amount, but there are still loads of other spoilers scattered about on any fictional subject's article. Attempting to hide those will cause a huge drop in article coherence. Due to the two different possible views, it will be impossible to work around that incoherence.

Additionally, what would constitute a spoiler? Direct plot revelation? Character background? Abilities gained later down the road? There is no end-all definition; it's a gray area, not black and white. Thus, one might try to get the spoilers he/she wants and end up with spoilers that he/she does not want. There's no simple way to do that. You Can 't See Me! 02:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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."

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."
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.
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))

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))

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." — Deckill er 16:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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))

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. — Deckill er 16:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Real printed encyclopedias do have plot summaries, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/Precedents. Kusma (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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))

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)

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)
- 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))
I'm just not convinced by these arguments. Please try more bold text. --Tony Sidaway 07:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

On second thoughts, no, that wouldn't solve anything. RobbieG 12:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)