Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Spoiler Examples

In any discussion like this about spoilers, it stands to reason that people will use spoilers as examples. I'm concerned that casual editors who find their way here are going to see information that they would expect to see in the articles, but not here. Until we settle this dispute about whether spoilers belong or not, or until we can determine what is and isn't a spoiler, let's try to not come up with new examples of spoilers unless it has bearing on a new discussion point. Let's try to use the same examples that have already been provided if possible (Sephiroth kills Aerith, Snape kills Dumbledore, etc.). Spouting off a spoiler in the attitude of "This is how it is, get used to it" is just being a WP:DICK, and doesn't help the anti-spoiler side look any better. --—NicholaiDaedalus 16:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to extend the virus any further than the article space (where in my opinion it has gotten quite out of hand.) In normal conversation one would discuss plot details such as those of The Crying Game, The Sixth Sense and even the latest Harry Potter where they are relevant, so I don't know why it should be so different just because we're discussing things online. --Tony Sidaway 18:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Because while I disagree with using Spoiler Warnings at all, I am not about to enforce my views until a consensus is reached. And people who advocate spoiler warnings come here to advocate them and do not want to have spoilers revealed to them, not even here. Forcing them to see spoilers by posting them loudly on the very place that they come to to address this issue doesn't give them much choice in the matter. --—NicholaiDaedalus 20:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I will not be constrained in my use of illustrative examples such that people who need to read WP:ENC do not learn that Portia dresses up as the judge and takes all of Shylock's money in the trial. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Forcing them to see spoilers? Perhaps the person with the loud signature in Greek would like to reconsider the term. Please do tell us how they are being forced - what method - gun to head? Kidnapped children? Other? Tell me. I don't mind finding out. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Killer Chihuahua: You're use of personal attacks aside, I mean simply that in order to express that they do not wish to see spoilers they have to read spoilers in that very discussion.
Hipocrite: I'm not asking anyone to constrain their arguments, but rather not blurt out needless spoilers that do nothing for the discussion aside from make a WP:POINT. And if it can be said with an already discussed example, then use that. If it can't be said with an already discussed example, then use a new example to make your point. --—NicholaiDaedalus 20:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What personal attack? Substantiate that accusation or withdraw it. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Your rather insulting reference to my signature. You don't like my signature, fine you don't have to. But that has nothing to do with this discussion so leave it out. --—NicholaiDaedalus 20:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
A descriptive phrase is not a personal attack, Nick. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
"person with the loud signature" is insulting as "loud" has a negative connotation. If you did not intend to insult me, then you should not have referred to my by any sort of description in the first place, you should instead refer to me by name as it's considered polite. But I repeat myself: "(this) has nothing to do with this discussion so leave it out." --—NicholaiDaedalus 21:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. "loud" is not inherently insulting - I find that a truly odd notion, if you didn't want it loud why is it so dramatic and colorful? - so again, not a personal attack. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
If you don't intend to insult, then refer to people by name and avoid the risk of misinterpretation. --—NicholaiDaedalus 21:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
          • To the casual reader, this comes across as a clear insult. "person with the loud signature in Greek" is clearly a choice INSTEAD of using their name. If you are going to make a choice not to use someone's name and create a "description" instead, with the obvious (and successful) attempt to egg them on, then at least have the guts to own up to it.Smatprt 01:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. People call me MurderousCanine or similar variations on my nick's meanings, and I find it amusing. Its absurd grandstanding to call it a personal insult. A personal insult is something like "stupid *expletive* *expletive* jerk" - no ambiguity there. Telling me to "own up to it" is ridiculous. Presuming an insult was meant is clearly an AGF violation. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Functional consensus already exists. We're just waiting for everybody to accept it. I do agree that we shouldn't needlessly use spoilers in examples, although the spoilers we're seeing are hardly that: Crying Game, Harry Potter and whatnot. --Tony Sidaway 20:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
"Functional consensus already exists. We're just waiting for everybody to accept it." Isn't wide-acceptance what determines consensus? --—NicholaiDaedalus 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for saying that. Concise, effective, hits the nail on the head. :) --Kizor 21:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
It's over. It's done. Normality has been established. --Tony Sidaway 15:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. --Kizor 17:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
To Tony Sidaway: No offense, but do you realize what you are saying sounds like the most cabalish/presumptive thing ever? Broken down, it's basically: Most people already agree. We're just waiting for them to agree.
Undoubtedly, this is not what you meant, so can you please clarify? Abeg92contribs 01:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This is silly

Can we at least agree that spoiler warnings do not belong in articles on non-fiction books? (Although I suppose it could be argued that calling a book by David Brock nonfiction could be assuming a great deal.) More evidence that these things are stupid and vastly overused. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It shows that they can be overused, I grant you that. Their overuse says nothing about their use, and I believe that the latter is far more significant and far less discussed. Debate here has focused on extreme cases - fairy tales, Shakespearian plays - ordinary works such as contemporary mystery novels have only been brought up once or twice, and then with the response of, quote, "Sucks for them." --Kizor 18:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
If they are permitted the tendency to overuse is unavoidable, as the poll above on including spoiler warnings in Hamlet (Hamlet!?!) shows. There has been extensive rebuttal of your last point. Uncle G's discussion is especially persuasive. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I found it a good argument for the use of spoiler tags. The various counterarguments in Uncle G's discussion look better than the various arguments, but considering that some of them are mine, I would of course think that... --Kizor 18:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The first sentence in WP:5P is relevant here: Wikipedia is a combination of a general encyclopedia, specialized encyclopedias and an almanac. None of these contain spoiler warnings, even though some of them cover the plots of fictional works. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It strikes me as odd that "other encyclopedias don't do it, therefore, we shouldn't either" is not covered by WP:ATA. After all, it is not even a valid argument form. Yet most of the arguments against spoiler tags have been of exactly this form. Curious. (My apologies for the insertion of philosophical questions into this otherwise wonderful slug-fest.) Postmodern Beatnik 20:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
And for the record, I do agree with ObiterDicta that spoiler warnings do not belong in articles on non-fictional subjects. Indeed, it is difficult to see how such things can be "spoiled." I suppose that there may be those who are unaware that the North wins the American Civil War, but surely it is not a matter of great suspense. I suppose an argument could be made that one can spoil, say, a soccer match by revealing the outcome early on in the article, but a match would have to be rather famous to warrant an article (and thus the outcome is likely to be common knowledge). Postmodern Beatnik 20:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings are fine

We would not have this problem if everyone followed something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate, where you are told to split the plot into a spoilers-free section and a spoilers one. Personally, without a definitive guide like the one from WikiProject Novels, the tags should stay. -- ReyBrujo 12:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That should only be done if it doesn't violate NPOV, see examples brought up by others earlier. Warning readers about spoilers is optional, and should not be required in an article template (I have removed the tags from the template). Kusma (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Then remove the infobox as well, which should be optional. While I agree people can have different opinions about what is a spoiler and what not, at least we should give them the opportunity to do so. The Spoiler warnings may be used in articles whose primary subject is fictional where the editors proposing them can provide a compelling and justifiable reason to insert one. Such reasons should show that knowledge of the spoiler would likely substantially diminish many readers' enjoyment of the work. reasoning is bullshit (not attacking the one who wrote that, but the spirit of the guideline): once the tags are removed, nobody will allow them to come back, even if a "compelling and justifiable reason" is given. -- ReyBrujo 12:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, considering most leads have a synopsis of the plot, as part of the summary for the entire article, that right there is your spoiler-free information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Not really, because the leading section should focus not on plot, but on other general information about the article. -- ReyBrujo 12:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It would be perverse (and needless to say, contrary to Neutral point of view) to omit mention of the distinguishing plot twists from the Wikipedia:lead sections of, for instance, Deathtrap, The Crying Game, The Sixth Sense. It is here that we see the starkness of the divide between an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia and a fan site where sensitivies about plot twists are given priority over plain exposition and balanced writing. --Tony Sidaway 12:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, the rationale for adding the warning is not consistent. A "compelling" reason can be "The show aired yesterday for the first time, demonstrating who the series main villain is", which after a couple of months becomes less compelling because "show is already a month old". -- ReyBrujo 12:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the spoiler warning can be removed as time goes by. On the Doctor Who project I've suggested that we remove spoiler tags for all episodes except those first shown in the past two years. This allows ample time for each season to propagate through the distribution chain, and the tags may be useful in providing an extra reminder for readers in countries where recent programmes have not yet been shown or distributed on DVD. --Tony Sidaway 13:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, here is the point where people confuse "plot" with "synopsis". The lead is a summary of the entire article, thus a "synopsis" is just as appropriate as who wrote or directed the film, as it's part of the "basic" information in the first paragraph of lead. I don't think there is any problem with having a spoiler in the plot, as it's a tip to casual readers that may have stumbled into an article. Can we live without them? Yes. But it doesn't contradict Wikipedia. Spoiler warnings are not censoring anything, they are simply say "hey, keep your eyes open because you are about to read things that may spoil the film, book, etc for you". Bignole 13:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
That word "spoil" again. It can be assumed that any article about a fictional work will contain information about the fictional work, including the plot. If a plot element is a significant part of the work (such as for instance Julius Caesar's assassination in the Senate) then it will likely appear in the lead. It may "spoil" the article for people whose enjoyment of literary works inexplicably demands complete ignorance and surprise at every scene. They must find a way to live with their problems. They are not Wikipedia's problems. --Tony Sidaway 16:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

An ample amount of people have put forth their opinion that plot is vital. I don't know how to get through to you that "spoilers" aren't called that because of some willful perversity of USENET or partisanship by pro-tag editors. They're called that because that's what plot revelations are considered to be, right up to in the dictionary. Plot is vital. No decision here should be made or influenced based on the few singular claims that it is not. --Kizor 22:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

To new participants: don't comment here - be bold!

This discussion is a red herring. While it continues, spoiler tags are being removed in a semi-automated way. Two policies have been re-written to justify this: WP:NDT which used to have a section giving spoiler warnings as an explicit exception, now replaced with a much weaker comment, and WP:SPOIL, which has been re-written to disallow almost all spoilers warnings currently present, and make it extremely difficult to justify new ones. Editors involved point out correctly that on Wikipedia, policy follows consensus, and consensus is established by unreverted edits. I don't know if this doctrine envisaged a few editors armed with WP:AWB changing thousands of pages over the course of a few days; maybe so, I'm pretty new here.

I'm glad the template itself has now been updated to point people here. Those in favour of spoiler warnings should restore them in articles where they think they are appropriate (this currently contravenes no policy, since WP:SPOIL is only a proposal as yet). Don't edit war, just one revert per article (burned my fingers doing more than that myself). You might also try to edit the policies back to something that reflects current practice, but (as I found) this will quickly be reverted; there is no interest in further discussion over there. I hate to give this advice and would welcome any better suggestions. I'm not going to take it myself: I've done my bit; if spoiler warnings are as popular as their widespread use suggests, there should be plenty of editors to do the work. PaddyLeahy 18:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to be bold and do something useful, you can also check out Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Spoiler and Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Endspoiler and remove tags that are unnecessary. Kusma (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
While Wikipedia encourages newcomers to be bold, I really think that this is the sort of time that being bold would end in pointless edit warring, 3RR violations, and subsequent blockings, especially if set by moderators who are biased to one side or the other. This is one of the times that it is best to wait things out. You Can't See Me! 19:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you encouraging new users to begin edit wars over spoiler warnings? Even if you tell them to make only one revert, this kind of editing in mass can be seen just as disruptive as 3RR violations. Imagine if a bunch of editors began adding the warnings to articles, then many more begin to take the away, you have one giant editing war. I am stating this from a non-biased and logical standpoint. Telling users to purposefully revert spoiler warnings back into articles, or have users take them away again, and again, and again, is bad for Wikipedia and any user involved. DarthGriz98 19:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I did not ask people to remove all spoiler warnings, just those that are unnecessary, many of which exist. If the warnings are truly unnecessary, this won't lead to revert warring, but to a better encyclopedia. Kusma (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
My comment was directed at the overall revert them back in opinion of User:PaddyLeahy, not at the appropriate removal of obviously unnecessary warnings. DarthGriz98 19:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, editors who are less than expert can easily losed their heads and let their behavior degenerate into edit warring, which in the present circumstances would certainly get them blocked (several such instances have already occurred). If anyone feels they must do this, remember that it's always best to discuss edits like this on the talk page if you're reverted. This way you communicate clearly what you're doing and why you're doing it, and the other editors working on the page have a chance to read and perhaps be won over by your justification. Note that the mass edits being conducted by David Gerard are once-only edits. In general he isn't going back and edit warring if he's reverted. This is how one edits boldly without causing disruption. --Tony Sidaway 19:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The whole "once-only" thing only works if all users follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle. In this case, there seem to be many places where multiple users are removing tags and reverting. The bold-revert system doesn't work if everyone thinks they should have an opportunity to "be bold" on every article (in the worst gaming, three times per day). We can be as polite as we want here, but that doesn't change the bullshit edit wars that are going on across numerous articles. --- RockMFR 20:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I think what I've observed here (and I've said it before on this page) is that the people putting tags back are quickly overwhelmed by the sheer number of people removing them again. This is as close to an empirical measure of consensus as we have on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 20:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
No matter what side of the debate you're on, you can't possibly decide consensus by looking at which side can get more accounts clicking the revert button. --- RockMFR 20:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
In practice, that's sometimes how policy changes on a wiki. Editors, convinced by argument, change their editing practices in sufficient numbers to establish a new hegemony. Those who oppose the change eventually accept it because they are overwhelmed by force of numbers. If there is sufficient opposition, the policy change fails. --Tony Sidaway
Voting is evil.
Wikipedia is NOT democracy. --Akral 20:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
...and if you want to be bold and do something useful, you can also check out Category:Animated_series and add tags that are necessary. --Akral 19:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The Life of Brian article where I first noticed the discussion about Spoiler Tags was edited by two different editors ObiterDicta and Kusma and if I had kept editing it I would have been caught by 3R not those editors .Garda40 20:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is what I mean by "overwhelmed by force of numbers". --Tony Sidaway 20:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm also of the opinion that we shouldn't make this into an arm-wrestling contest, but the removal of tags doesn't say much about consensus when one side uses AWB to make literally thousands of edits and the other doesn't. --Kizor 22:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Where's the middle ground?

Surely there must be something between the "Spoilers warnings for every plot detail" that had been the case in the recent past vs. "No spoilers warnings for anything". It seems too many people on both sides are too willing to blow up the middle ground on the application of spoiler warnings. --Farix (Talk) 03:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we've got the middle ground. Spoiler warnings where the proponent can make a strong case that substantial numbers of readers, not editors, will suffer greatly from knowing the plot or some other information, if it were not preceded by a spoiler tag in addition to any other matter such as "Plot" headings and the like.
At the moment on the Doctor Who project I'm working with a two year horizon. Spoiler warnings are de rigueur for anything first broadcast after May, 2005, no spoiler warnings for anything broadcast before unless someone objects and then we talk about it. --Tony Sidaway 03:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Protest against premature removal of spoiler warnings

While this discussion has been going on, several editors have been engaged in wholesale removal of spoiler warnings from wikipedia. Moreover, admins on the anti-spoler side have blocked at least two editors who tried to undo this work. One justification offered is that there has been little opposition to this. (Despite topic #PLEASE STOP EDIT WARRING above). Therefore, for the record, I PROTEST. Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way. If not, kindly add your protest here. PaddyLeahy 10:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but go take a look at the actual guideline. That's been changed too. Perhaps you should be protesting that instead. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The presence of (what appears to us etc.) greater injustice prevents us from acting against other injustice? --Kizor 20:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The same should go for those readding the spoiler tags. But frankly, I think this is a good candidate for Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. --Farix (Talk) 12:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, that award goes to User: AHEM No personal attacks. courtesy of the ISA. Jussen 22:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Paddy, I should point out that at least one of the IPs above who got blocked was adding spoiler tags to other works, so in this case at least the block was entirely justified. David Fuchs 13:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Strongly agree with PaddyLeahy. Very little maturity or good judgement being displayed on Wikipedia these last few days. The whole affair has certainly damaged the goodwill of many editors towards the project. AndyJones 13:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of these blocks are warranted, by the way. As an anti-siler myself, I still agree that we should not be removing the tags until concensus is reached, which it isn't yet. --—NicholaiDaedalus 14:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Consensus sometimes has to be demonstrated by actual editing. The actual editing performed over the past day or two has shown that there has been excessive centralized discussion and there is in fact very little practical opposition to the removal of the unnecessary and intrusive spoiler tags that follow clearly labelled "Plot" headings and the like. Discussion is important, but so is being bold. --Tony Sidaway 15:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

While myself trying not to remove any given inappropriate spoiler warning more than once, I see that three (so far) of the editors replacing them have been blocked for 3RR, i.e. are hotheads anyway. What I'm finding is that almost all my removals are sticking - that is, that the wider Wikipedia populace really doesn't seem to care, and actually people are nothing like as attached to spoilers on Wikipedia as their advocates here seem to think. I've also yet to hear of complaints from actual aggrieved readers, i.e. the people the spoiler warnings are supposed to be for - David Gerard 16:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You haven't heard complaints because most casual readers didn't know where to complain, or even that there was a discussion (until the spoiler warning was changed), so that argument doesn't fly. I find it very poor behavior on your part to continue removing spoilers while the discussion is still far from resolved. Clarityfiend 17:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

In the last 4 days David Gerard has removed nearly a thousand spoiler tags from articles he has previously shown no interest in whatsoever. The above comment is an absurd attempt to justify the unjustifiable. All you are doing is creating a lot of pointless work for yourselves and for other editors because most of these tags will reappear over time, and rightly so. PaddyLeahy 16:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Will they? Now that the guideline has changed, you might not want to think that so quickly. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The rules were changed later, so he never broke the rules?
Incidentally, I presume Gerard refers to me as one of the blocked editors - I took care not to break 3RR. --Kizor 20:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
As you are not one of the blocked users, then it makes no sense at all to presume he referred to you as one. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was. Then I was unblocked, and it would've worn off by this time anyway. --Kizor 22:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
There is plainly no consensus for the widespread use of the {{spoiler}} tag. Therefore, including it in articles is shaky at best--it gives the impression that it is official policy, and encourages other users to make the mistake of adding it to articles in turn. While discussion is ongoing, I think it's fair to say that for the vast majority of articles out there, no consensus for the use of spoiler tags is going to emerge in the immediate future. Therefore, we ought to remove them for now; if, in the distant future, a consensus for spoiler tags emerges, it will be easy enough to add them in the places where it is determined to be approprate. --Aquillion 20:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
This is self serving logic. Until a consensus has been reached, the tags should neither be added nor removed, because either action implies a decision has been made. And if Gerard wants to hear a complaint from a casual reader about the removal of spoiler tags, this is mine - without the spoiler tag in place, who is to know where to come to debate the issue? Again, self serving logic that gives no weight to the fact that no consensus has been reached, one way or the other. No action should be taken either for or against the matter until that consensus is reached. 60.241.179.28 07:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What. The. Fuck.

I wrote about this subject politely and in great detail in a previous wiki-process of some sort (which I can't find again) like a year ago. This clearly is an issue which won't go away, as an unwelcome link in an article so helpfully informed me.

If you don't warn readers, most of whom don't know about and couldn't give a sweet fuck about "process", what they might find in a top-10 Google hit, than you're pissing off people USING, rather than EDITING, this "encyclopedia". Do you honestly believe this project should be for the wankers worrying about edit-count and adminship rather than the tens of thousands who don't care who can edit the wikipedia, just want to read it?

Seriously, anyone blathering on some principle saying warning people about spoilers is contrary to some imaginary principle of wikidogma should see their family die in a hotel fire, let alone be taken seriously in yet another masturbatory exercise in displaying their keen insight into what an encyclopedia should be. dharmabum 12:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I have a hard time believing you could write about this subject "politely" - but how many people, who as you said, find something in google, would be looking up the "Special Effects" section? A) People go to these pages for the plot, B) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - and last I checked Webster's didn't have a 'spoiler warning'danielfolsom 12:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
a) Webster's is a dictionary, genius. b) Just ignore the swearing and hyperbole. He's right. This is not a paper encylcopedia, this is the Internet. Certain other assumptions have to be taken into account - like the fact that people may have got here via Google wanting to find out certain information about a work other than the plot, and would not appreciate having said plot ruined for them just because someone thinks that placing friendly one-line disclaimers delinating it from the rest of the article doesn't fit with his idea of what an encylopedia should do. Ultimately, you have to ask yourself this question: is Wikipedia for the readers or isn't it? If you couldn't care less about the convenience of the people using the encylopedia, well, then you carry on doing what you're doing, removing helpful templates because "WEBSTERS DOESN'T DO IT HARGUGAGHLGHBLAH" and basically turning it from an encyclopedia into an enormous metaphysical circlejerk. Applemask 13:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
As someone who works on a scholarly journal that is published online, I am frankly insulted to hear the idea that anything that's on the Internet needs to conform to the social etiquette of a Buffy fanforum. Encyclopedia Britannica and Encarta have Internet versions. They still don't use spoiler warnings. We're an encyclopedia that happens to be online, not a website that happens to be an encyclopedia. Phil Sandifer 15:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Which means you have to take other factors, such as search engines, into account. Besides, even if I was to accept your ludicrous proposal that if Encarta jumped off a cliff etc, Encarta doesn't cover things that could be spoiled. Wikipedia does. If the former did too, they probably would use spoiler warnings, just like all other resources on similar subjects already do. Why? Because it's polite. Because it's sensible. Because they're not stupid. Because they won't put their own pretensions of being a wieghty historical resource above the convenience of their readers, and/or the ability to cover ground such as television shows, movies, comics etc in any sort of depth without the risk of pointlessly angering said readers. Removing spoiler warnings would be a travesty of the Wikipedia concept and would probably cause a mass exodus to Citizendium to boot. Applemask 16:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I can assure you, as someone who has worked on a web version of a print encyclopedia, as someone who is an active scholar in popular culture (which can be spoiled), as someone who works on an online journal of comics studies, and as a teacher of composition on the university level that no respectable project with any serious oversight from a remotely scholarly source would use spoiler warnings. It is simply ridiculous to assert that Encarta, Britannica, or any serious reference work that leaves editorial decisions up to people with actual qualifications would ever utilize spoiler warnings. Phil Sandifer 17:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
They probably wouldn't utilize spoilers at all. We're talking about basic politeness here, not whether or not Wikipedia is a history textbook. Which, by the way, it isn't. It's a source of information on a broad variety of topics, but we can't treat it like a University text, because the users, on the whole, probably won't. Again, this is about nothing but basic consideration for the people who actually use this thing. Applemask 19:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
[ARGH EDIT CONFLICT!] Please be polite. Even if you're fustrated. I think that it will be the reader's fault, if they get annoyed when they get spoiled. We exist to inform, and shouldn't have to think about what the audience wants to read. That's not the point. Wikipedia *is* an encyclopedia, after all. Encyclopedias give factual information. They don't tell you when you're gonna be spoiled or not. But one can argue that Wikipedia is no ordinary encyclopedia, with all the fan content around, such as massive articles on tv shows and music releases etc, but that's another argument. — « hippi ippi » 12:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, of course, it's the READERS' fault for reading the massive enjoyment-ruining blob in the middle of the article. Not Wikipedia's fault for not having the common decency and civility to warn them just in case they haven't seen, or read or whatever, the subject under discussion but still want to find out certain things about it. Silly me, thinking that people could be at all interested in a film, book, comic or TV show they haven't actually seen or read all the way through yet. Applemask 13:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, but of course. I stand by what I have said. Bottom line: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that exists to only inform. We, as editors and writers, also exist to inform. We shouldn't need to think about what the audience wants to read, except for a good quality article, that again, achieves the purpose of informing the reader. — « hippi ippi » 11:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Why isn't a spoiler warning considered informative?--agr 13:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
A spoiler warning (or any warning) is informative in as much as it is meta information, telling the reader something about what the article contains. What people are arguing here (among many things) is that warning readers that an encyclopedia contains information, even very detailed information, is redundant and contradictory to what an encyclopedia should contain: Information on the very subject they look up in an as clear and encyclopedic style as possible. For this reason we don't use warning tags when an article containins explicit images that many people find extremely offensive, scientific facts that contradicts the Bible, religious testimonies that science don't explain, pictures of the Prophet, offensive words, and all the wikipedia content that is even punishable by death to distribute in some countries. We don't warn about any of this with tags in the articles, even if some of it, quite frankly, is much more worth warning about than some plot detail in a work of fiction. Instead of using warnings everywhere where some people might get offended or learn facts they weren't prepared to take in, we simply state in the general disclaimer that Wikipedia contains spoilers and content you might find objectionable, and we have agreed upon to not use disclaimer templates. Not even in articles on medicine or law, where the risk of the content causing real damage to someone is much higher than when we reveal the ending of a movie. We don't warn. We inform. Shanes 15:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, it doesn't help your cause when you insult others like that. "Masterbatory excersize" or not, you almost prove the point you're arguing against -- the point of Wikipedia is to be the best encyclopedia it can be, for the sake of people who want to use an encylopedia. It has been said time and again on this page why (many of us think, at least) much of the time the warnings are aginst that goal. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 14:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Such incivil comments are not tolerated on Wikipedia. Such incivility can result in blocks. You need to calm down and treat the debate seriously; otherwise, you'll fine that the anti-spoiler users won't be the only ones who are not "taken seriously in yet another masturbatory exercise in displaying their keen insight into what an encyclopedia should be". The same goes to Applemask, whose comments like "Webster is a dictionary, genius" and "enormous metaphysical circlejerk" belong on GameFAQs forums, not Wikipedia RfCs. Until the level of maturity in this thread is raised a few notches, I will not respond to the points mentioned. — Deckiller 15:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I am treating the debate seriously. Removing spoiler warnings would be a betrayal of the whole concept of Wikipedia, assuming that the point of Wikipedia was always the readers of the encyclopedia and not the writers. I mean, if I've got it wrong and the people behind this wiki never actually did care about the convenience of the people using it, then there it is. Applemask 16:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Also I don't know if you've seen GameFAQs forums. I have the advantage over those guys at least by virtue of my ability to write in more or less cogent sentences. Applemask 22:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
"Removing spoiler warnings would be a betrayal of the whole concept of Wikipedia, assuming that the point of Wikipedia was always the readers of the encyclopedia and not the writers" - that first part it kinda funny, because you obviously don't know the convept of wikipedia since you have to say "assuming [the concept is]" later. I happen to know the concept of Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia - and the point of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia. Spoiler warnings are unencyclopedic, and violate Wikipedia' guidelines per WP:NDT's first reason here (B/c they're redundant) and Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer.danielfolsom 22:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia, yes, is an encyclopedia. A user-edited, continually evolving encyclopedia. It seems your opinion is that it should, despite those obvious off-the-bat differences, be as staid and limiting as print encyclopedias, who are bound with concerns about publishing costs and volume length. It makes me so sad that such short-sightedness is wrecking the most useful thing ever put onto the internet. dharmabum 07:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
So Wikipedia isn't for the people who use it. The readers are in fact less important than some arbitrary rules, and their convenience can be sacrificed for the status of the Wiki. Because as we all know it's "unencyclopedic" to give a damn about the people actually reading the encyclopedia, and all encylopediae ever published show basic and nonchalant contempt for their own readership. Applemask 12:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is for the people who wish to use it as an encyclopedia. It is not for the people who wish to use it as a source for movie reviews or what have you. --Stormie 13:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Near as I can tell, he is not advocating Wikipedia as a source for movie reviews or what have you. He is advocating that readers can use Wikipedia as a general encyclopedia on the topic of fiction, and as a specialized encyclopedia on the topic of fiction. That is what we they can do with spoiler tags, and cannot do without. In doing so he does not advocate adding any kind of content, such as movie reviews. He considers sacrificing this ability to be detrimental for Wikipedia's readership. --Kizor 13:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, in some ways apple whatever is right - but I actually happen to have this - so I'm right too. Granted I realize that Webster's is better known for its dictionary, so I probably should have used another example.danielfolsom 15:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
ACtually now that I look closer - that's a lie - I don't have that exact version.danielfolsom 15:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
[to dharmabum]Wanker, am I? How about some WP:NPA? Anyway, is it too much to ask for the readers to treat Wikipedia as an encyclopedia instead of some cesspool of the internet? Are we imposing too much on them by being an encyclopedia rather than everyforum.com? Axem Titanium 15:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I dont look at game movie pages for the plot, I generaly use them for the criticisim and praise junk. Don't assume people only visit movies/game pages for the plot. --Armanalp 15:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • And criticism, at least of the scholarly sort, is not going to give you a spoiler warning. There are no spoiler warnings in any journal of film studies that I have ever read. We probably shouldn't introduce spoiler warnings when we recount the content of those journals. Phil Sandifer 15:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Responsible publications and critics avoid spoiler warnings as a matter of courtesy to their readers. People studying film studies accept that they will be spoiled about many plots as a trade-off for studying far more films for core content than viewing each of those films will allow. People who come here are not necessarily film students. Professional critical standards do not take into account the kind of internet user who likes to flip to the last page of latest Harry Potter novel and post a spoiler in their blog just to piss everyone off. Such people are not exactly the norm on Wikipedia, but they have the same freedom to edit that we all do, and it is partially against them the spoiler warning mitigates. dharmabum 07:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"We ... shouldn't have to think about what the audience wants to read." That's ridiculous. Wikipedia provides a service, so it is unreasonable not to even consider what the people it provides a service to might actually want. Anyway, the omission of spoiler warnings causes much more inconvenience and trouble to the people who want spoiler warnings than their inclusion causes to those who don't want them. A spoiler warning takes up one little line in an article and is easily ignored. A spoiler without a warning can upset people and cause them to stop using this site. Surely the balance weighs in favour of keeping them? As for what other online encyclopedia such as Encarta do, I'm not sure that's helpful, because one can simply argue that Encarta should copy us rather than the other way around. Just because others haven't yet caught up with Internet etiquette doesn't mean that we shouldn't either. Richard75 16:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Dharmabum, Wikipedia is not an ivory tower. You are welcome to bring forth persuasive arguments in a constructive manner, rather than throwing a bunch of random insults around in frustration, in the process severely embarrassing the people who support your opinion. --Darkbane talk 16:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A fourth spoiler fan just got blocked for 3RR. Pro-spoiler fans appear to be hotheads with trouble editing with continence - David Gerard 17:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Do not generalize please. Although I are being pushed to hotheadedness by your behavior, so it may be a self-fulfilling prophesy. Seriously, you're an admin? Clarityfiend 17:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
And former arbitrator, and one of Wikipedia's major press contacts in the UK. Perhaps your expectations are misguided? Phil Sandifer 19:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Not quite sure what you expected. When tough things need to get done, fake platitudes go right out the window. You ever seen heated back-room company negotiations?! This is a sheep pile in comparison. --Cyde Weys 21:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I actually, with qualifications, apologize for my foul language, even though I do not disapprove of profanity and am a firm believer in using the whole scope of the English language. I have a typical Irish temper. It does sometimes cause some people to not take me seriously, and while I do not want to embarass those who support my position, I do not apologize for my position. It takes a pretty silly argument to drive me to that level of frustration. Part of that frustration was caused by having problems finding my well-reasoned, profanity-free argument for spoiler warnings nearly a year ago in a current crusade against them, causing me to question the point of being reasonable and level-headed in regards to this issue. dharmabum 07:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings

Saw this discussion linked to on a spoiler warning. Good idea, whoever did that. Having any spoiler warnings on an encyclopedia is retarded. If you do not want to know salient plot points, don't seek out an encyclopedia article on the topic. If the concept of an encyclopedia is too hard to understand, then you should not be allowed to use a computer. That is all. 195.189.142.201 16:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What if you're looking for other information on the subject and are prepared to steer away from the clearly delinated spoiler areas? Because people do that as well, you know. Applemask 16:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that a spoiler warning in an article about a book, movie, etc. is basically redundant. But there are cases where a spoiler tag is still appropriate, for example the revelation of the death of a character in an article about another character, or something like the line "Darth Vader is revealed as Luke's father" in an article about C-3PO. Places where you may not expect to find that information. MrDenton 13:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Quoting: "If the concept of an encyclopedia is too hard to understand, then you should not be allowed to use a computer.".
I'm sorry but this is just an argumentum ad hominem. You have no method of justifying this comment, nor enforcing it. Many people who don't know how to use an encyclopaedia can use a computer - ICT is a key part of the UK curriculm, the functions and purpose of an encyclopaedia isn't (which might explain the need for WP:NOT.
Anyhow, many people don't look at the link before they click on it. I agree that spoilers should be used with consideration, but think there is a place for the lowly warning. Wikipedia is not an hard-copy encyclopedia at any rate. It is a living edition. This said, spoiler warnings have a place in the web edition of WP. In a hard-copy encyclopedia, the `user` is aware of the potential for spoiling the plot as they can have some idea of the purchase date. WP doesn't have a purchase (update date) which is marked for each article. Philipwhiuk 19:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
As I predicted at the outset, the bulk of the arguments for spoiler tags are arguments made by friends of readers, who decide on their behalf that they're too stupid to understand that a section marked "plot" in an encyclopedia article about a fictional work will contain details of the plot. This isn't a good argument, in fact it's very poor one. --Tony Sidaway 19:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I already pointed out that plot sections need spoiler tags for a consistent user interface. We don't say that putting "Tuesday" on a calendar is for readers "too stupid to understand that the day after Monday has to be Tuesday". The reader could easily figure it out if we omitted it, but we don't, because it's better to make things consistent.
You're also ignoring that not every plot element is a spoiler. The spoiler may be at the end of the plot section in which case we should only put the spoiler warning at the end of the plot section.
And on the other hand, it may be necessary to use a spoiler earlier in the article, in which case the spoiler warning may appear even before the plot section. Ken Arromdee 14:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Why I think spoiler warnings should be used

Ok, I only had the time to read the first arguements at the top of this page. There is no way anyone is going to make me read the entire debate here! Anyway, I started a new section...

An encyclopedia is, according to http://dictionary.reference.com , a "a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject." Never in Encyclopedia Britannica or World Book have I seen plots placed in articles about movies. In fact, I haven't seen any movie articles in these popular encyclopedias. This is why Wikipedia is unique. Our encyclopedia has gone beyond the scope of the average encyclopedia in terms of topics. What does this have to do with a spoiler debate, you ask? The average reader does not expect to see a detailed summary of a film in an encyclopedia, even if the section is marked "Plot". Nobody expects to find such information in an encyclopedia. This is why spoiler warnings are important.

Regarding the issues of placement within the article or disrupting the flow of a paragraph, why don't we just put a little icon on the top right corner of the page, like the protected and featured content tags? It would adequately warn a reader about spoilers, while the flow of the article is maitained.

What's wrong with putting spoiler warnings on Shakespeare's works and other popular literary pieces? I've only read two of Shakespeare's works (Romeo and Juliet and Julius Caesar), and knowing what's going to happen in the end reduces the excitement and suspense in the play. Now the Bible might be going too far, but IDK.-- Ed ¿Cómo estás? 18:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Does not knowing that Julius Caesar will be assassinated by the conspirators including his son-on-law and his best friend in the senate really play any part on one's enjoyment of Julius Caesar? As for Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare himself inserted the most enormous possible "plot spoiler" into the prologue of the play:
From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life;
Whose misadventured piteous overthrows
Do with their death bury their parents' strife.
If you watch the play, these lines are in the first speech you hear when the curtain goes up. --Tony Sidaway 19:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
And Romeo's slaying of Tybalt, the banishment, Mercurio's death, the straying messenger, the twin suicides, the monk Lawrence's plan and the balcony scene? --Kizor 20:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure, he doesn't go into a tremendous amount of detail, but he definitely gives the ending away. --Tony Sidaway 21:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
And leaves in every single other plot twist. Anyway, Shakespeare and fairy tales are extreme examples, what about less popular or contemporary works? --Kizor 22:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Does not knowing that Julius Caesar will be assassinated by the conspirators including his son-on-law and his best friend in the senate really play any part on one's enjoyment of Julius Caesar?


Yes ,it does because if you have no knowledge of the historical incident upon which the play is based knowing that the title character dies and further that his son in law and best friend help kill him means that you watch the play in an entirely different manner eg keeping a watch for those characters or a particular location only.

I know that I have watched movies looking out for particular incidents,people etc when I have known the spoiler for that movie .Garda40 20:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Those are very good points. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Nor does it have an obligation to protect imbeciles from their inability to understand that a section marked "Plot" will discuss the plot. We should not be putting redundant warnings into the body of articles. --Tony Sidaway 21:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
But what of sections that are not marked "Plot?" Have a look at Naruto Uzumaki's article. Nowhere on that article is there a section devoted to plot synopsis because of a recent attempt to cut down on plot summaries on Naruto character pages. If you read through the article, notice that there are in fact bits and pieces of spoilers all over the place, whether they be in his personality section, his abilities section, etc. While a lot of articles keep their spoilers all under one "Plot Synopsis" header, a lot of others do not. If a museum has a new exhibit, but it doesn't have a banner, the least it can do is get a doorman to notify visitors as they enter. The same applies here. You Can't See Me! 21:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article states explicitly that Naruto is a fictional character. It follows that the entire article will contain descriptions that come directly from the fictional works in which the character appears. Reading the article after the first sentence, if you actively want not to be told about the character, would require a degree of denseness that it would not be reasonable to assume in our readers. --Tony Sidaway 22:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Abilities and personality, the stuff that should be on a character article rather than plot summary, are not spoilers on their own. The problem is, they might (and often do) contain spoilers. If a person wanted to find out what Naruto's primary abilities are, he'd also run into the fact that he was tutored by Jiraiya, fights with Sasuke, and goes through all this other fun stuff; for all we know, he might have just wanted a simple description of the attacks, like the contents of the technique list. However intelligent the human race may be, we as a species - including myself and yours - are prone to moments of stupidity and denseness. You Can't See Me! 22:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Further, he has no way of knowing whether it's an in-depth description, with spoilers, or a superficial one without. He can make an informed decision to be spoiled or not be spoiled if spoiler warnings are used consistently, but not in any other case. --Kizor 22:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Tony, why do you insist on insulting people because they don't subscribe to the same method of thought as you? Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia for everyone, or just for your select elite? You should be catering for everyone, and you should not be making assumptions about what they will and will not think. That is highly presumptuous and arrogant. 60.241.179.28 07:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOT#PAPER doesn't mean what you think it means. WP:NOT#PAPER states that because Wikipedia is not bound by the constraints of a paper-based publication, therefore, there are no limits to the amount of subjects that Wikipedia covers nor is there a limit on the depth of with the subject is covered. --Farix (Talk) 21:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
To User:Ed, I'd like to direct you to Uncle G's arguments. Britannica is a general use encyclopedia that doesn't include movie articles but there are plenty of more focused encyclopedias that document movies/recent books/video games/whatever, most (and I believe all) of which do not include spoiler warnings simply because they are unprofessional and redundant. They realize that their readers read for the express purpose of learning about that topic so they don't condescend or coddle them with such warnings. Axem Titanium 22:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that arguement, but Uncle G's arguements refer to specialized encyclopedias that are specially made to discuss works of fiction, etc. Such encyclopedias focus on one topic. On the other hand, Wikipedia does not focus on one topic, nor does it's name (Wikipedia) imply an association with a certain topic. Now, if its name was "Moviepedia", then one would safely assume that its articles would contain spoilers. The point is: Nobody expect's to find spoilers on Wikipedia!--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 02:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia does not focus on one topic. It covers all topics: this is kind of the point of "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia". You should be expecting as much detail on anything in Wikipedia as you might expect to find in any specialist encyclopedia. Yes, I understand there are certain people who have trouble understanding this, but they will learn eventually to see the light (OK, so I'm partly joking there…but not much). HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow

Just clicked on a link from a page that had a spoiler warning and I don't see the fuss you people re talking about. Thereisnowhy 20:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is reasonable for seven words and two horizontal lines. Oh, wait... You Can't See Me! 08:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Why I just don't think these things are acceptable

I'm afraid it all boils down to my blank incomprehension of suggestions that we should put redundant warnings into our articles just to mollycoddle people who, knowing of their own personal wishes not to have foreknowledge of the details of fictional works, would stupidly or perversely choose to read articles about those works.

If they want to read about the work, let them read the article. If they don't, let them refrain. It's not Wikipedia's business to tell people what to read, but it isn't Wikipedia's business to put redundant warnings into articles. These people have to wrestle with their own demons, and good luck to them. --Tony Sidaway 22:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, I remain incomprehending of why people do not acknowledge the fact that there are valid reasons to read about fictional works that they are not familiar with, without wishing to have foreknowledge of all the details. They can do so with spoiler warnings, but cannot without. With consistent use of spoiler tags, a reader who has heard the LucasArts adventure game LOOM is exceptional will be able to learn about its unprecedented take on the genre and its use of Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake as its soundtrack. Likewise, someone who's interested in Moulin Rouge! will be able to learn of the play's critical acclaim and, in detail, the numerous awards it has won. Without spoiler tags, both of them will have to assume the entire articles off limits. --Kizor 22:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC) (examples added later, edit-conflicting with Sidaway's answer)

Certainly I can acknowledge that some people may wish to only have a highly selective subset of information about fictional work. This is their problem, not Wikipedia's. If they come to Wikipedia, they'll get the works. They know this and if they still insist on coming to Wikipedia then that is their problem and not ours. --Tony Sidaway 22:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
So in other words, it's not Wikipedia's responsibility to appeal to the readers. Wasn't appeal to the readers the whole reason that this ordeal started? Sorry if this seems a bit cynical. I'm just a bit confused by the fact that we're removing something that will aid readers because they might-or-might-not find it insulting, yet it's their problem if they want it back. You Can't See Me! 23:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The spoiler warning lead me here, other than that I have no idea about how this "en" bureaucracy works, so I'm just going to add my opinion right here. Wikipedia is a site which provides information. If you do request and later read an article here, you will (hopefully) find just that. "Spoiler" warnings are redundant and at the Norwegian (bokmål) wiki our policy is to avoid them. Warning readers that there is information in an article doesn't seem right to us. I do like how the "en" warning has decreased in size, I would like to see them disappear completely. However readers/users reach an article, they search information and expects to find it. I can only speculate that the spoiler warning is something a movie fan subculture has been able to force into the system.
Apart from the uselessness of the template in general I also do see it as an insult to the reader. It's often located after some sort of "Story/Plot" subtitle/section in the article, which makes it so redundant one would think the person who put it there must be a little slow himself. One argument is the user is stupid enough to study extensive information about a movie without wanting to know what it is really about, another is the user actually reading a "Plot" section of an article without wanting to know the story. Although the first is far-fetched, the latter really is an insult to most normal people.
Wikipedia is not IMDB. Nor are we an idiot-proof operating system: Wikipedia should be accessible, we don't need "do you really want to read this" warnings. Btd-no 23:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
And it will cause genuine damage to that accessibility to remove spoiler warnings. With them, people may learn about works they wish to experience later. There's every valid reason to do that. Without them, people cannot. --Kizor 23:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the rhetoric is getting a little out of hand here. Reading a spoiler isn't going to cause "genuine damage". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for frak's sake. Nobody can genuinely say they were surprised if they come to read the article about Harry Potter, and surprise surprise, they learn that Snape kills Dumbledore. --Cyde Weys 03:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Genuine damage to that accessibility, as I said. Of course not genuine damage as in a blow to the thorax, the technology to do that online is being kept strictly restricted to pain only. --Kizor 04:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The reader does not necessarily know what kind of information is going to be in a Wikipedia article and which information will not be. The reader might be very new to Wikipedia. I don't see why the reader's desire to avoid spoilers should be "their" problem especially when they might not even know that the article contained spoilers until after reading it. Q0 01:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Interesting examples. I'm familiar with LOOM, perhaps the most beautiful game I've ever played. The plot has absolutely nothing to do with the enjoyment of the game. Similarly I cannot imagine how knowledge of the plot of Moulin Rouge! could harm anyone's enjoyment of the film. These are petty obsessions of a few people, and must not impinge on our task of writing the article.
Moreover I note that in both of the articles you mention, Moulin Rouge! and LOOM, the spoiler warnings followed clearly marked "plot" or "Gameplay" section headings. So we're not only assuming that our readers put a perverse and ideosyncratic emphasis on plot details, we're also assuming that they cannot read simple words like "Plot" and "Gameplay" but can read the more complex spoiler warnings. There's just no sense to this. It's quite baffling. I know these asinine warnings are common on Usenet, but Wikipedia isn't Usenet and we should get rid of them. --Tony Sidaway 23:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that it just isn't true that every plot section contains a spoiler, I've already rebutted this above. We don't claim that the Tuesday on a calendar is for people "who can't read the word Monday and figure out that the day after is Tuesday". Or here's another example. On any Wikipedia page is a search box. It has the word "search" printed on the search button. It also has the word "search" at the top. That word is completely redundant. Do you claim that it's just there for users who can't read the word on the button but can read it a half inch higher up? Of course not. It's there because other parts of the page have words at the top and the user interface should be consistent. Ken Arromdee 15:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
To the contrary, I state that the majority of people will find their enjoyment of the vast majority of works, be they literary, theatrical or televisional or whatever, to be diminished if they know about the plotline. Take, for instance, mystery novels, where fundamental points to the enjoyment of the work are suspicion, clues and puzzles, and horror works, where the they are surprise and uncertainty. Take Pratchett's detective novel, Feet of Clay - the author remarked fondly on receiving a postcard that said "We were sure it was in the wallpaper, you bastard!" --Kizor 23:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, that does not apply in many cases and it would be monumentally dense to naively assume that a section marked "Plot" would not contain any spoilers. Axem Titanium 23:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
You honestly submit that the majority of works, enough to be a rule, are not diminished with foreknowledge of their plot? I will address the section marked "plot" in more detail. --Kizor 23:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The plot is important but is not the make-or-break deal that some people in this discussion are making it out to be. It honestly isn't. For instance I'm really looking forward to seeing the third Pirates of the Caribbean film when it's released in a few days, but foreknowledge of the plot wouldn't harm--and might well greatly enhance--my enjoyment of the film. The two earlier films were not noticeably original in their plot, but they were very enjoyable to watch. --Tony Sidaway 23:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Foreknowledge will ruin Fight Club, or any film, book, or any other work with a large plot twist that turns the premise on its head. It will ruin any work where the point is tension. It will ruin any "will-they-or-won't-they" romance or drama. It will ruin horror movies, detective novels and the xenobiological mysteries of the Sector General series alike. It will ruin the tension about whether or not a character survives or succeeds. It may not ruin comedies or action movies. It will ruin soap operas and dramas. When I sit down on Monday to watch Heroes, which has built up excitement for months about whether or not New York will be destroyed and will reveal the outcome in the next episode, my excitement will not be enhanced nor maintained if I know the outcome beforehand. Plot is vital. --Kizor 23:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
No I can't see this. Indeed I didn't bother to watch Fight Club until someone told me it wasn't about fighting. I was put off by the title. This pre-occupation with concealing plot is quite idiosyncratic and mustn't be used as some bizarre excuse to blight our encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 00:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion is quite bizarre to me. My opinion is quite bizarre to you. Axem below agrees that plot is vital. Maybe we should get a few more opinions... --Kizor 00:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Please don't straw man me. The fact that plot is vital was not the main point of my reply. Axem Titanium 00:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
That was a straw man? I did not realize, and if it was, I apologize. I was aware that it was not the main point of that message, but it is the main point of this series of indents. --Kizor 00:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Plot is vital, yes. Readers are also not stupid and will realize that a section labeled "Plot" is going to have this kind of information. You make a good point that yes, certain knowledge may ruin fictional works (maybe not so strong a word), but we can't force a reader to read something simply because there's no spoiler warning there. The reader should assume that it's there because of the way the section is labeled. Axem Titanium 00:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Or he just might notice that this is an encyclopedia. How much are we willing to bend our primary objective in order to pander to the stupid and the perverse? --Tony Sidaway 00:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
How does having spoilers "bend" the primary objective? It in no way removes any material. It is simply a convenience for those unfamiliar with the arbitrary customs of wikipedia. Also, why do I see the statement that people who don't expect spoilers in a plot section are stupid? Frankly there's nothing stupid about it at all. Wikipedia decided on the arbitrary decision to have spoilers in their plot sections. Someone who was not informed about this beforehand, or who has not personally experienced it is very likely to assume that there will not be any spoilers. English is a very flexible language. There is nothing about the word "Plot" that necessarily implies that spoilers will be present. Spoiler tags provide users who are not familiar with this convention with a convenience, and those users who do not wish to see spoiler tags can turn them off.Ziiv 00:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Spoiler#Guideline_rationale, in particular the part about the compromising of the article by corraling certain important facts behind a spoiler, which belong in the lead section. You describe the inclusion of encyclopedic information in Wikipedia in terms of "arbitrary customs" but you could not be more wrong. Delivering information about the subject matter in a balanced, verifiable and encyclopedia manner is the core of our mission. If the reader doesn't realise that, he soon learns. --Tony Sidaway 00:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
You're using the changed version of the spoiler guideline to support the changes made to the spoiler guideline? You're using the changed rules to justify changes to the rules? Before it was rewritten, as a part of this discussion, it said the express opposite. --Kizor 00:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm citing the well worded arguments in the guideline rather than trot them out here all over again in my own words. --Tony Sidaway 01:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
(to Ziiv) Those "arbitrary decisions" you refer to are actually the definition of an encyclopedia. If that's not what readers expect, that's really not our problem. We can't cater to the minority who don't realize that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Axem Titanium 01:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
How do you know that only a "minority" don't realize that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia? Visiting a Wikipedia page is very different from opening up Britannica. People don't surf around paper encyclopedia like the way the surf on the web. There are many Wikipedia mirrors and people are likely to find them without knowing that they came from Wikipedia. Many readers might find a Wikipedia article from a google search not even know what Wikipedia is. Q0 02:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
1) If you can't read the logo which says "Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia", you probably can't read much else anyway. 2) Wikipedia mirrors are thieves anyway. We shouldn't be responsible for those who don't honor the GFDL. Axem Titanium 03:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

To 2): Er - what? Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks says that "Many correctly follow the licensing terms." Other's don't, but that's quite a different thing as them all being thieves. [Answers.com], for instance, linkst to the GDFL when it uses Wikipedia content. --Kizor 03:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Mirrors are not thieves. However, I must add to this: we are not responsible for their use of content originated by users of our site. --Tony Sidaway 03:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
No, we're not, and I don't place a lot of importance on them myself, but we can still be courteous. A minor issue, but, well, an issue. --Kizor 03:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

My Lord

Wikipedia's chat rooms is as confusing as always. You think hiding over 805,000 different spoilers on every single show and series is going to solve the problem? there are many other wiki sites brewing around the web with the same information, you intentionally typed in www.wikipedia.com typed in your target on search and reaped what you bloody sowed, dont start winning about spoilers when you ruined it for your self at that point, i offen look up spoilers here to see whether the series is good/bad or a waste of my time, if you are going to start removing spoilers then please remove all the cooking recipes extensive tips and hack info from this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.110.237.213 (talk • contribs)

First of all, are you arguing for or against spoiler warnings? Second of all, could you possibly be more civil? Third of all, what? You Can't See Me! 06:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

My Lord - im arguing for Spoilers and arguing against whining brats who couldn't stare away from the Spoilers

Whodunnits

I recognize that many far more experienced editors than myself have well-thought-out points of view here that cover the broad issue of spoiler warnings, but I'd like to suggest that the whodunnit is a special case that could use a spoiler warning -- and perhaps a special one that says, "This is an article about a whodunnit, and if you read any further, you may find out who the murderer is." Whodunnits have a long history of spoiler warnings because if you find out whodunnit, even accidentally -- for instance, by hitting "Random article" and getting an article about a novel that doesn't have a title especially indicative of a whodunnit, like Agatha Christie's "Five Little Pigs", or a whodunnit by an author of whom you've never heard -- well, you've ruined the whole experience that the whodunnit is designed to provide. Whodunnit fans are accustomed to seeing and heeding spoiler warnings in material they read on the internet. I have read a lot of good arguments here for and against spoiler warnings, and I'm torn about the problem of warning people about films such as "The Sixth Sense" precisely because issuing such a warning may alert the canny reader to the fact that something is afoot. But as a very specific case, I suggest that it would be worthwhile putting a "whodunnit" tag on whodunnit novels (and films), so that people interested in whodunnits in general can find new ones to enjoy without ruining their enjoyment of same, and people who have already learned whodunnit can learn more about the book/film itself. Accounting4Taste 23:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't disparage your argument skills that quickly. When I brought this point up to said experienced editors a couple of times, one responded, quote, "sucks for them," and another denied that foreknowledge harms enjoyment. This is fortuitous because my blood pressure had been found to be unusually low. Your argument is quite insightful and better thought-out than mine; would you mind copying it over to the project page? I'd do it myself right away, were that polite. --Kizor 10:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Spoiler warnings were never meant to be a guard, only a heads up. -- Ned Scott 10:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
People who hit "random article" might also find a page that contains shocking images of diseases, nudity, or content that their religion prohibits them to watch. We don't have a warning for them; having one movie/game/book ending spoiled is rather mild in comparison. Kusma (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The point about whodunnits is instructive. The spoiler warnings have been stripped from Murder on the Orient Express, with the justification that the work is 'incredibly famous'. I didn't know the ending was 'incredibly famous' as well, but there you are. Our hopelessly vague guidelines in action. Aside from anything else, it seems inconsistent to have different standards for different works in a series, based purely on subjective notions of fame.
The effect is that people considering branching out into a new genre of fiction cannot use Wikipedia to find out about a major work in a genre without risking having it spoiled for them. I, for example, know nothing about romantic fiction, and apparently now have no business glancing at the article on Pride and Prejudice, just to get some historical background.--Nydas(Talk) 14:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is so much importance attached to knowing the plot of a novel? Why do we call it "spoiling"? If some nitwit can't enjoy a novel of which he knows the plot, really that's his problem, not Wikipedia's. How do such people survive a normal education, where one skims hundreds of works of fiction and reads works on thousands more, in order to gain a basic grasp of their culture? --Tony Sidaway 14:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, basically, it ruins the experience. E.g. You're reading a book with a major twist at the end. Someone comes along and spoils it for you. You're now robbed of the experience of surprise and shock, and can never try to gain it, (most likely) ever. That's why people want - experience is valuable. It's pretty rational for one to avoid spoilers. — hippi ippi 14:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I still don't get it. What harm does it do me if I know the plot? If it has a clever twist, it might make me want to read the novel to see how the writer does it. I've watched Sixth Sense several times now, and I enjoy it somewhat more now than when I just found it a rather puzzling story. Knowing the ending enhances the experience of watching. --Tony Sidaway 16:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It's well established that there exist people who find narrative suspense distasteful. They've been a distinct minority since at least the nineteenth century.--Nydas(Talk) 16:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Well we're not talking about such people, who may not exist for all I know, we're talking about people who are so wedded to the necessity of maintaining narrative suspense that they want it to be projected from the in-universe elements, such as the plot of the book, even to out-of-universe exposition of the kind that one finds in a Wikipedia article. I don't think we should have any truck with that. --Tony Sidaway 16:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I do. It's perfectly normal, not the awful mental illness you're rudely insisting it is.--Nydas(Talk) 17:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure it's not a mental illness, but it's problematic for us if it causes someone to insist that Wikipedia insert redundant warnings into articles just in case they go looking for information on a subject they don't want to know about. --Tony Sidaway 19:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
You have stated that people who like spoiler warnings are stupid, imbecilic, perverse and have demons to wrestle with. Your posts also make it clear that you don't care about narrative suspense, for example, you claim that 'the writing is always more important than the plot.' Your problem with spoilers isn't encyclopedic, it's aesthetic.--Nydas(Talk) 22:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It is pretty easy to avoid spoilers on whodunnits in Wikipedia by not reading an article on that particular whodunnit. Wikipedia has a much clearer structure than a typical usenet group, so spoiler warnings are not necessary. Kusma (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It is pretty easy to ignore a spoiler warning if you don't like them. They do no harm whatsoever. Many people may want to read an article to see if they the book interests them, but not learn the ending. Who are you to tell them, essentially, to get lost?--agr 14:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
We are the people who tell those who complain about images of a penis in penis and of cartoons that people have been killed over in Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy to get lost. Kusma (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
In response to another laughable argument from Tony Sidaway above: part of the enjoyment of a novel, film or play is not knowing how it will end. Indeed, not knowing the plot' is also very important to me, no matter how good the writing might be. There are a few Charles Dickens books I have yet to read, and no nothing of the plot, so I wouldn't want my enjoyment of them to be spoiled through Wikipedia. That said, I'm largely agnostic about the spoiler tags - I'm old enough to know what I want to avoid, but they're essensially harmless :-) but I think Mr Sidaway should try and find some better arguments for removing them! Stephenb (Talk) 15:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been participating in this discussion, so I have a number of points to add. Regarding knowing the ending, here's an example that I have: Fear, by L. Ron Hubbard. The book has an awesome twist at the end. I had the unique experience of not reading or remembering the book for about 5 years, so I had completely forgotten the ending, so when I read it again, I enjoyed it immensely. Now, having been caught by that surprise, I cannot forget it again, and so I cannot read the ending with the same level of enjoyment anymore. Also, I've had the endings of the sixth Harry Potter and Fight Club spoiled for me, and now I have no interest in actually watching the movie completely. It's disappointing to know the ending, cause you're expecting it the whole time you're watching it.

Oh, and the Plot subheadings? People say that people should realize that there will be spoilers within it. But you're attempting to hold the general community to a certain level of intelligence. You cannot discount stupid people. The Warning: Spoilers ahead will always be better at "setting off alarm bells" that a simple Plot. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can discount stupid people. This is why we have disclaimers, so we can show them after they kick up a fuss about Wikipedia not meeting their expectations. As I said earlier, I wouldn't have bothered to watch Fight Club if someone hadn't explained what it's actually about. Not all good films have sensible names. --Tony Sidaway 16:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
What does that signify for people other than you? --Kizor 16:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
For Wikipedia, it signifies that plot spoilers are of minimal concern and do not merit insertion of intrusive and redundant warnings. There are stupid people, but we don't forbid the sale of kitchen knives. --Tony Sidaway 16:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that this Whodunnit point is a very important one. I disagree with Tony that it doesn't matter if you know about the twist ending at the end—the fact is that such works are written specifically to build towards that one climactic moment, and many readers take great pleasure in "competing" with the protagonist to find out "whodunnit". However, this does not require that we add spoiler tags. A well-written opening introduction can include references to "one of the greatest whodunnits ever, with a remarkable twist ending"—similar to a good movie trailer—will suffice. The reader is thus warned that when he enters into the plot summary, that he might ruin it for himself. Unschool 18:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Within the plot of the book, yes, there may be suspense and tension. However outside the book, the main thing to write about it might be that it's most notable for being the first whodunnit in which the detective is the murderer, or the first whodunnit in which the narrator is the murderer. If you omit this from the lead just because somebody might feel that he has been damaged by learning something, then you're really missing the point of writing an encyclopedia article. I don't know whodunnits too well, but I know that the most important thing about The Crying Game is that Dil and Fergus find love in a most unexpected way, a major plot feature of the Sixth Sense is that the dead people don't know they're dead, that Julius Caesar is assassinated in the Senate, and that Romeo and Juliet both commit suicide. Those should probably be mentioned in the leads of their respective articles, with requisite context and due detail. Because that's the difference between writing an encyclopedia and playing at writing an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 19:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The few historical works are ignored by the non-historical works ten to one, twenty to one, fifty to one. Dismissing the great majority of plots that are not known to the general public by quoting the few that may be is missing the point. --Kizor 23:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Even The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, where the spoiler is both quite well known and a large part of the notability of the mystery, keeps it out of the intro, although the intro mentions, as it should, the twist ending. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)