Template talk:Spoiler/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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 talk page.

Contents

Formatting

I think the bold italic underlined is hideous. How about:

Warning: Spoilers follow

or

Warning: Spoilers follow

or

Warning: Spoilers follow

Evercat 00:31, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)


There is also the fact that this meaning of "spoiler" is internet slang. Not every reader will know what it means. Any ideas for a clearer explanation?

How about

Warning: Spoilers follow (plot details are revealed)

or even

Warning: Spoilers follow (plot details are revealed--click this link for a more detailed explanation) Niteowlneils

I like the new phrasing. The plain language is just as concise, but doesn't exclude people who don't know internet slang. →Raul654 09:40, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know. Somehow "spoiler" seems more appropriate than the vague "plot details". Then again, I'm willing to admit that to people unfamiliar with the term, "spoiler" is not very informative. How about something more to the point: "Warning: Spoilers - that is, plot details, you ignorant schleps who are not worthy of entering this encyclopedia, curse be on your houses - follow"? -Itai 20:44, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A good effort, but somehow I don't think it's quite as concise or polite ;) →Raul654 20:51, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)


How about "Warning: the remainder of this article reveals details that may spoil your enjoyment of this work." -- Tarquin 09:52, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Not concise enough. What we have now is much better. →Raul654 09:57, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

I think the new version is a big improvement, but we may have shortened it a bit too much. To perserve continuity with old versions, be understandable to the widest set of users (for example, people who've been on the Net for a while, but don't know much English may know spoilers, but not plot details), etc., my suggestion would be:

Warning: Plot details (spoilers) follow

Niteowlneils 00:49, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Disagree. Current spoiler warning is (IMHO) perfect. There's no need to include spoiler (which is jargon) when the current warning conveys it in plain english. →Raul654 00:56, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
Well plot is not on the simple English word list[1], and both words have multiple meanings, so I still feel there will be some users that would only understand spoiler. Niteowlneils 01:16, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
huh? Uh, I don't think so. It's an extremely common english word. I seriously doubt there's anyone who will not know what "plot" means, but what "spoiler" does. Just a quick look-up on my computerized AHD:

plot (pl¼t) n. 1.a. A small piece of ground, generally used for a specific purpose. b. A measured area of land; a lot. 2. A ground plan, as for a building; a diagram. 3. See graph1. 4. The plan of events or main story in a narrative or drama. 5. A secret plan to accomplish a hostile or illegal purpose; a scheme. --plot v. plot·ted, plot·ting, plots. --tr. 1. To represent graphically, as on a chart. 2. Mathematics. a. To locate (points or other figures) on a graph by means of coordinates. b. To draw (a curve) connecting points on a graph. 3. To conceive and arrange the action and incidents of. 4. To form a plot for; prearrange secretly or deviously. --intr. 1. To be located by means of coordinates, as on a chart or with data. 2. To form or take part in a plot; scheme. --plot“less·ness n. →Raul654 03:31, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)


A technical suggestion: it would be great if a spoiler warning lead to a message in the <head><title></title></head> of the page in question, rather than just in the body. My feeling is that if you are looking something up in an encyclopedia, you should already be ready for potential spoilers. So I see the spoiler warning as often more useful for people navigating in from Google searches and the like, who might not realize that they are about to get a plot summary. As such, it would be nice to put the warning somewhere that Google searchers will notice it right away. Chinasaur 19:37, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

That seems good lateral thinking to me. Interested in other thoughts on the matter. Andrewa 12:14, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
IMO those per article spoiler warnings should be depreciated now that we have disclaimer links on the top and bottom of every page. Note that on Wikipedia:General disclaimer there is a link to Wikipedia contains spoilers and content you may find objectionable. Spoilers won't harm you in any way - why are spoiler warnings needed in actual articles instead of before and after? --mav
I almost never consciously look at the title of a webpage when I go browsing. Dysprosia 04:17, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The point is that if it is in the title of the webpage it will appear in the link from most search engines. Chinasaur 01:37, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
Disagree--other than occasionally scanning a privacy policy, I NEVER read anything with words like disclaimer, terms of service, etc. Niteowlneils 23:40, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could not include any plots in the articles and instead have a Plot of... page. I think this would make it very clear. --Kokiri 09:39, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's a possible solution but I'd rather find all the info on a movie in one place. Maybe the plot shd always be the last thing on the page. In ANY event, the global "spoiler" disclaimer is not sufficient, IMHO. That would prevent me from ever reading any article! It's common practice in the universe at large (don't really know about anything outside the solar system, though) to put the spoiler warning specifically with the text--either at the top of the article or immediately preceding the spoiler section. But please let's not rely on a generic applies-to-all-articles-in-WP! Elf 21:32, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, any plot summary, etc. should always be at the bottom of the article, identified with msg:spoiler. Niteowlneils 23:40, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why isn't there a period after "

Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.

" ? Brian Kendig 03:54, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is now. Thanks for pointing that out :) — Timwi 14:32, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Unprotect Now

No reason to protect this page. Admins, please unprotect now. --Cantus 00:40, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Plot Details is not generic enough

I know this has been discussed at length, but the current text (Plot details follow) is not generic enough for a spoilers warning. For example, take a look at the Rubik's Cube article. It now warns that plot details follow when it talks about methods of solving the cube. This is clearly nonsense. A similar situation arises when talking about puzzles in an adventure game, or of solutions to a riddle. "Spoilers follow" works in all situations, and is, in my opinion a much better phrase. I am aware of the slang issue and would be happy for an alternative to 'spoilers' but whatever it is it needs to work on any page, which it currently doesn't. --HappyDog 18:33, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree it should be changed back to "spoiler" unless there is another term which covers both plot details and the other kinds of spoilers this is referring to. I don't think it matters that people may not understand the word. It's a link, so they easily enough find out what it means. Angela. 00:42, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

As no-one else appears to object, could someone please change this back to spoiler (the page is currently protected). Ultimately a better wording would be desirable, but it must cover all uses and in the meantime this has been the only suggestion that will work in all contexts. An alternative approach might be to have a separate msg:spoiler and msg:plot details, but this raises other issues and should be thought through before implementing. --HappyDog 15:50, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Personally I prefer the "Plot details follow" version. If it's not suitable for the Rubik's Cube article, it's probably because a "How to solve it" doesn't need the message.
IMHO, a "how to solve it" does require a message, but I agree that possibly not this particular message. I see little problem in using a different message for an altogether different issue (although the current name, viz. msg:spoiler, will have to be kept unless someone has an extra million years at hand). Before advising, however, could somebody possibly come up with a few other cases, other than Rubik's Cube, in which the current message is not appropriate? (If all cases are game-related, for instance, Warning: a solution follows. should do the trick, useful for computer games – not at the foremost of culture at the moment but likely revered several years hence – as well.) -- Itai 16:26, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
Here's a few examples from the first few pages of a Google search of the site (plot details follow -film -movie):
  • Rubik's Cube
  • The Meaning Of Life - The film is a series of sketches and has no plot.
  • Magic_(illusion)
  • The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything - Here is an example where the placement of the warning makes it meaningless, as it occurs before any mention is made of where the reference is from. This would be fixed by moving it, but where it is the wording is wierd.
  • Mao_(game) - a card game.
  • Deus_Ex:_Invisible_War - No plot details, but a few background details that could give away parts of the previous game in the series.
  • SunDog:_Frozen_Legacy - Gameplay techniques, not plot.
  • Shounen-ai - List of films. No plot details, but if the fact that the films include shounen-ai elements is pivotal it could spoil the film to know in advance (compare to a list of movies with transsexual elements, which would include The CG - no plot details, but definite spoiler).
As a side-issue there were a number of pages (e.g. Utopia) where I don't think the warning is needed at all. --HappyDog 22:50, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure all of these qualify as spoilers, or are inherently problematic. While great many things have been said of The Meaning of Life, I think I am justifiable in saying that most sketches thereby found have a plot, and are thus covered by the current warning. As for the Magic article, I do not think any kind of general warning will cover this. Personally, I think that a warning is not, strictly speaking, required in this particular case, but that little harm is done by it so it may remain. The Answer, which I took the liberty of fixing as per your recommendation, is covered by the current warning. Plot details are revealed. The relevant section of the Mao article I did not read, on account of being intrigued by the introductory section and loath to spoil my surprise. I honestly cannot advise as to Dues Ex, which I've never played. The issue with SunDog is much the same as withRubik's Cube, and a "Warning: game solutions follow" can be adapted to fit both. I honestly don't see why a spoiler warning is required in Shounen-ai - well, I see why somebody might think it is required, but a line has to be drawn - but am far too lazy to start a discussion on the article's discussion page.
The paragraph above, by the way, is actually an argument in favor of the more general "spoilers" - while I concede that in many cases the current message does nicely, something else has to be brought into account. At the moment adding spoiler warnings is a rather mundane process. If several warnings are created, this could turn into a hotbed for grief, with arguments beginning over which is the correct message to place. Possibly the best solution is to create a {{msg:details}}, comprised of: "Warning: details follow", and place it in the beginning of each and every Wikipedia article.
-- Itai 09:17, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

From previous version before MediaWiki talk:Spoiler was move here (Template talk:Spoiler]]:

As "plot details" makes no sense for many of the pages this template is used in, I have changed it back to "spoiler", which can be used far more widely. Angela. 00:23, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Soap Opera Use

I know that for soap operas, a plot synopsis isn't a spoiler since it has already happened. Therefore, the tags that have been reverted make no sense now. Should they be taken out altogether? TheCustomOfLife 19:41, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The talk page had been forgotten back at MediaWiki talk:. I move it here and restored the result of the previous discussion. As we converted most of the old boilerplate texts (Wikipedia:List of spoiler-warnings without msg), I'm quite sure that in most cases it fits. Obviously the standard might not fit a few articles, but I doubt the msg/Template: is/was really intended for game playing strategies (e.g. Mao_(game)). -- User:Docu

How long is this supposed to remain on a page?

This Template is being used for televison shows that have been in reruns for years. How long is this supposed to hang around? RickK 04:47, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I removed it from Another World (soap opera) a while ago only to have it added back by another user. Shows like this, and Ryan's Hope and such...don't need to have it on there. The runs have ended and the episodes are now common knowledge. Mike H 23:13, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Ugly

This is just my opinion, but I think now that it's bigger and bold, it's really ugly. Mike H 23:14, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

To do what it needs to do, it needs to get noticed. Maybe this current revision isn't the way, and I hope others can bring in their ideas. -- Netoholic 23:22, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
How about having some of the text in red, so as to attract attention instead of adding size, may look less tacky. BCKILLa 00:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm much more in favor of this version. Mike H 00:08, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

I really think the old version, Warning: Plot details follow., was just fine. There's no need to stun readers with large text or bright red text. I don't think the message needs to ATTRACT attention, it just needs to be noticed as people read through the article. —siroχo 02:02, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Someone's concern was that in some articles, it wasn't being noticed enough. Mike H 02:05, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Which articles? Perhaps they need to be organized better themselves. Plot details generally should be near the bottom. —siroχo 02:16, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
See here. Mike H 02:24, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

I kind of liked the version with top and bottom horizontal rules. I checked about 20 pages and saw no rendering problems (like overlap, etc.). I don't like red by itself because it looks too much like a dead link. This template needs to "pop". -- Netoholic 03:29, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How about what i've changed it to now (light grey background, black text with a link—blue/purple). It still catches the eye as opposed to normal text, yet its more subtle and doesn't change the feel of the article in general. Don't forget, this text is going to be right in the middle of the article, so it has the possibility of really breaking it up and making it seem unprofessional. I say keep it tasteful and simple. —siroχo 05:02, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
I thinks if noone but me wants it to stand out more, then I'll leave it be. I just don't believe that the spoiler warnings do anything. I've hit upon several pages, missed the spoiler warning, and read on accidently. Too much article content, especially for TV show episodes, fits on a single screen. That means if the spoiler warning isn't the very first thing someone sees, there is no chance for them to back-peddle to the previous page. Either it should stand out significantly, or it's not worth the trouble and the site should have a blanket "there are spoilers here" statement. -- Netoholic 05:13, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have to say, spiff's most recent edit (pink background) made it real nice. I'm up for keeping it as this. I bet this will help solve problems similar to yours as well, Netoholic. (: —siroχo 11:27, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

It is a bit large though. Maybe it would be better if it only took up one line as before, instead of three. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 16:24, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Angela's most recent edit brings us back to the way it was a month ago. Is this the desire of most people, or does this message need some prominence? -- Netoholic 13:04, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I really liked Spliff's edit, too. I made my own edit now. It tries to combine Spliff's and Angela's edits. ZeroOne 21:53, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Prominence (Ugly continued)

Current ==>

Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.

1. Warning: Plot details follow.

(big, and the reason we started the "Ugly" discussion)

2.

Warning: Plot details follow.

(can be part of the text, red attracts the eye, but can be confused with a missing link)

3.

Warning: Plot details follow.

(the horizontal bars don't render properly on all browsers when beside such things as a table, expands to entire screen, which is noticable, but doesn't allow for blending into the text)

4.

Warning: Plot details follow.

(more subtle, yet eye catching)

5.

Warning: Plot details follow.

(pink, instead of grey)

6.

Warning: Plot details follow.

(expands to the entire screen, very noticable, but doesn't allow for clean integration into the text)

7.

Warning: Plot details follow.

(above version with less size)

8.

Warning: This section contains plot details.

(tuned up visibility)

9.

Spoiler warning: This section contains plot, ending, or solution details.

(This template is used on non-fiction pages, so the longer message makes sense)

10.

Spoiler warning: Plot, ending, or solution details follow.

(the previous message was too long)

11.

Spoiler warning: Plot, ending, or solution details follow.

(if there's no background then the whole line need be emphasized strongly -- else it just looks like an item+heading)

12.

Spoiler warning: Plot, ending, or solution details follow.

(well how about a green background -Netoholic)

13.

Spoiler warning: Plot, ending, or solution details follow.

(subtle background)

It seems that number 5 wins for being the comprimise between the recent edits, but does it look good in the text?

IMO it seems that number 6 or 7 looks better in the text, and is more noticable, but it could be seen as a distraction, or some form of article separator (which some could argue is a good thing).

I've made a temporary template {{spoilertest}} that can be used to preview pages in order to see what styles look best. Try some out, and give your comments back here.

The message should serve it's purpose by informing the reader of potential spoilers, while not shocking them so that it's the only thing they see, as well as not looking Ugly. BCKILLa 23:02, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I know, everyone's a critic, but IMO the current one (8th variant) is ugly. Sorry, but it just sticks out way too much; it draws focus the moment the page loads, instead of just getting the attention of the reader once they reach that point. That hot pink color doesn't match the feel of Wikipedia's interface; the much less saturated (more subtle) pink ones above (#5) are better. Also, I think the link should be on "Plot details follow" instead of "Warning", because the link on "Warning" makes me think it's gonna take me to a page describing what a warning is. - Eisnel 23:52, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

True. All your points are valid so I won't repeat them here but I agree with everything you just said. :) ZeroOne 00:09, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Wikipedian thing to do

So the basic ideas are this:

  1. It shouldn't be ugly (generally things that are largish/boldish/darkish seem to be called ugly by people), so try not to bold the whole thing, or increase the text size. Keep it normal sized, and put the main part in italics or block, no bold except for the "warning" part maybe. Use a white or light color background, something not ugly.
  2. Second, It has to catch the eye when scrolling past, just catching the eye when reading isn't enough for everyone. So, give it some sort of background so it stands apart from normal text.

We want to satisfy all wikipedians, or as many as possible. From the two nearly-opposing arguments, the only possible reconciliation is keep the text as standard as possible, while placing a light background behind it. I care not what color it is or how big the background box is, what links where, or even if the text is italic or block, so long as it satisfies both arguments.
This is just an analysis of both sides, take it or leave it... —siroχo 13:21, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely, but I don't think it's currently eyecatching enough (though it's not ugly, which is a good). I'm gonna recolor the background the pale pink (for which I didn't notice any strong objections), but I won't be upset if it gets reverted for further discussion. Be careful not to revert the spacing change I made earlier today, though (unless it's deliberate), as it wasn't spacing correctly on pages. — OwenBlacker 15:49, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
Speaking of spacing, the current version as I'm writing this is an edit at 16-Aug-2004 23:00 by User:Cantus. I think it's adding too much whitespace at the top and bottom (it looks like two lines worth of whitespace on both sides). I would direct attention to Ringworld and Police Academy as just two examples. In the wiki source for both of those, there is a single line of whitespace both above and below the {{spoiler}}, which I think is fairly common. But on the rendered HTML it looks like two lines above and below, way too much whitespace IMO. When I view the HTML source, it has a <p><br/></p> at the start of the spoiler HTML, which appears to be the cause of all the whitespace. I'm not sure why that's getting added, but I think it might have to do with having a Template inside of a Template (the Template:Message box thingie). - Eisnel 00:52, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ending, solution

I don't like the new additions like that. Maybe there should just be a second spoiler template for things not necessarily television shows. I really don't think a Rubik's Cube template should be the same as a template for, say, Ryan's Hope. Mike H 16:01, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

User:Blankfaze's objections

Blankfaze removed all the formatting, with a comment:

THIS BREAKS FOR ME, BADLY. Remove all formatting until someone can figure something out that works for everyone. And what was there a <p> tag???

This makes it really difficult to see, and seems to go against the consensus of this page, so I've reverted it (as had Supadawg).

That doesn't really help Blankfaze, though. Blankfaze, could you be more specific as to how it breaks? If you could take a screengrab, I'm happy to spend some time making a version that doesn't break for you. Post to my User talk: page if you need to get my attention on the matter. — OwenBlacker 20:50, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

  • Last edit didn't change anything for me, but thanks. This could be a problem with my custom skin on WP, but even if it is, if it can't be resolved, then the plain text version needs to be used. blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:28, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Discussion moved from User talk:OwenBlacker and User talk:Blankfaze

I've just reverted your edits to the template again, as they go against the consensus of the page (and make the spoiler note too subtle, imho). I've posted a note similar to this on Template talk:Spoiler but, in summary, I know this isn't so helpful for you, as you removed the formatting so that it would work for you and a broken spoiler template helps noone.

If you could provide a screengrab, some information about your browser and OS versions, or at least more information about how it's broken for you, then I'm more than happy to devote some time to getting this to work acceptably. If you wanna get my attention, post to my Talk: page, though I'll watch this page, so might notice any replies here too. — OwenBlacker 20:55, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Windows XP, Mozilla Firefox 0.93, screenshot.
First of all, thanks for being courteous about this. Secondly, the template should not ever be in a <p> tag. <div> tags serve that purpose. Thirdly, as you can see in my screenshot, this design conflicts with floated divs such as thumb-boxes.
Thanks for your willingness to search for a solution, but I must say that if one isn't found soon then a version that works for EVERYONE (i.e. no formatting) will have to be used.
Thanks :-). blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:08, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm downloading it now (I was on an older version of Firefox, but mainly browse in IE6), and will take a look. Adding a clearer div after it shouldn't be too difficult; I'll see what I can do. — OwenBlacker 22:19, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. Keep me updated. blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:24, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Think it works ok now; d'you wanna see if you can find any very really heinous pages where it breaks badly and I'll take a look at it in situ there — I've realised it's far easier to paste the code into a dangerous page and test it there than to change the template so many times. I've checked The West Wing (television) and, whilst the right-hand border doesn't appear on the spoiler box (which I think we can live with), it doesn't mess with the adjacent photo box any more.
I'm gonna go to bed now (being based in the UK), but I'll take another look at lunchtime tomorrow, at a guess; pticly if you leave me messages here… :o) — OwenBlacker 22:38, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
Good work, I think some of the problem was due to botched code in my user css which I have since debugged. I also don't get a right-hand border but I guess I can live with that. blankfaze | (беседа!) 03:22, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Could you please keep the swearing to a minimum; I don't take offense to it, but other people will. If a newbie sees that, what will he/she think of all of us? And you're an administrator! [[User:Supadawg|supadawg - Talk]] 02:26, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, free speech, motherfucker! blankfaze | (беседа!) 03:14, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
For your information, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines has these Avoid profanity and No personal attacks parts. -ZeroOne 11:13, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Of course everyone has the right to free speech. I had simply assumed that Wikipedia admins were held to a higher standard in terms of conduct. I am disappointed. [[User:Supadawg|supadawg - Talk]] 14:59, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm aware of the policies; Wikipedia:Profanity is a policy guiding ARTICLE NAMESPACE contributions. It makes no attempt to guide PERSONAL/TALK/COMMUNICATORY edits, nor should it. The term "motherfucker" was not mean as a personal attack, more of just a playful interjective, so I'm sorry if it offended someone. Supadawg - I don't understand what cursing has to do with CONDUCT. Are you saying that anyone who curses has poor conduct? Because I know many a person that would testify as to my swell conduct. blankfaze | (беседа!) 21:38, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I can't tell whether you're joking, so read the dictionary[2]. Conduct - noun: 1. The way a person acts, especially from the standpoint of morality and ethics. -- 2. mode or standard of personal behavior. -ZeroOne 22:36, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No, I'm not joking. And I know the definition of "conduct". I just think a silly thing like cursing doesn't necessarily mean a person has poor conduct. My mother curses... yet I wouldn't say she has poor conduct. You realise that these are just words we're talking about, here, nothing so large as say, ACTIONS?  :-P blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:39, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Continuing discussion

Spiff has since changed it to use a <p/> tag instead of a <div/> tag again (not quite sure why); does that cause you any problems (I don't have, and can't install, Firefox at the client's office, so can't check myself). Obv, feel free to edit it again, if nec. Sorry for overwriting your test, btw, I'd not noticed the edit until looking at the history just now. — OwenBlacker 08:55, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

The cartoonlike, clown-faced, painted like a two-bit whore spoiler warning isn't always appropriate

The current cartoon-like, clown-faced, painted-like-a-two-bit-whore spoiler warning (Spoiler warning: Plot, ending, or solution details follow) isn't always appropriate, and is out-right out of place in opera articles (and I would also suggest, out of place in most serious works of literature). "Spoiler" is simply Internet slang which means "don't read here unless you've already seen this recently released movie/broadcast tv show". The idea that works centuries old need "spoilers" is a bit peculiar in the first place, and anyone who reads an opera article or an article on, say, "Romeo and Juliet" should expect a full plot summary with no holds barred. Ancient works do not rely on cheap surprise plot twists, and it is a fair assumption that nearly all of those attending them know the plot in full before they sit down in the theatre. As it is, we have a garish "SPOILER: PLOT REVEALED HERE" under the ==Plot== heading in opera articles and it franly makes us look ridiculous. Isn't it time for [1] abandoning warnings when they're unnecessary, and or [2] tailoring templates so that we don't look completely ludicrous by warning people that we're spoiling the "solution" of King Lear? -- Nunh-huh 07:33, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The world solution was included for articles like Rubik's Cube. A separate template could be made for those. As for inclusion, I think that they should be included so that each reader can make the decision as to what they want to do. Even in classics and operas, the reader should be given some warning that plot details will be divulged. Keep in mind, people unfamiliar with opera may stumble upon an opera article, and we wouldn't want to upset them by telling them the plot, even if we believe they should be familiar with it. As for the "garish"ness of the template, see my above message #The Wikipedian thing to do. —siroχo 07:45, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
On the contrary, reader of articles about classics and operas should expect a complete article: a complete plot, and a complete discussion of themes. No warning required, and certainly not this one. Like all articles about operas, this article contains a plot summary would be excessive; to my mind the == Plot == header is also more than sufficient. The idea that an opera might have a "spoiler" is fairly inane: opera requires an educated audience, nearly none of whom will be surprised by anything in the plot. There is universal agreement that knowing the plot before attending the opera enhances rather than detracts from the experience; it's not anything to be warned against. -- 08:06, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The formatting

Formatting of the spoiler warning looks terrible on some articles (see, e.g., Isaac Asimov#Paternalism). Can we go back to text-only, possibly bolded? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:55, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

I don't see how that's terrible? Please be more specific. Are you sure it's not your browser that makes it look terrible? Here's how Opera7.5 renders the page[3]. --ZeroOne 21:47, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/p/o/Template_talk%7ESpoiler_Archive_1_a955.html"