Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Working towards resolution

While I hate to say anything personal, here I feel myself compelled to say it. I consider neither Lifeisunfair nor Netoholic to be fully right here. Netoholic edited out the poll saying that "votes are evil" and refused to contemplate to the majority in the TFD vote, and Lifeisunfair created a POV "backstory" to encourage users to support his arguments. Also, both quickly moved to personal insults instead of productively discussing the problem. Given that, I'm thinking about putting a request for mediation in case the parties fail to resolve the dispute. - Sikon 14:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At this very early stage, a vote is more a distraction than an aid. I have many ideas on how to proceed, but until we get past the egos, not much can be done. I mostly removed the vote based on the guidance from Wikipedia:Survey guidelines, which suggests first gaining consensus on the nature, format, and timing of a survey. The TFD voting is convoluted, and I'm really hoping on this page we can come up with a strategy rather than jsut giving thumbs up or down for these two new templates. We've gotten by for so long without them, that rushing isn't necessary. Thanks Sikon for your comments. -- Netoholic @ 15:01, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
"These guidelines provide a framework that may be followed when creating a new survey. These are not binding in any way."
Please learn the difference between a policy and a guideline. —Lifeisunfair 15:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The requests for comment page encourages the creation of a dispute summary. I honestly attempted to state the facts in a neutral manner, and I've invited Netoholic to edit it (instead of deleting it).
I have made comments pertaining to Netoholic's actions (which I deem inappropriate), but these are intended to constructively criticize, not to insult. I would not oppose mediation, and have considered requesting it. —Lifeisunfair 15:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wanted this to end with a consensus, but unfortunately specific users think that revert wars on both the main page and the talk page are a better solution to the problem. I recommend both parties to, and I hope they are wise enough to, agree on considering mediation as a solution. Once both sides agree to participate in the mediation process, one of them can proceed with putting a request for mediation. If the sides show that they are unwilling to work towards peaceful resolution, I will consider putting an arbitration request against both parties. Yours sincerely, Sikon 17:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hope people, when they read this page, see that I'm attempting compromise (suggesting we use just one parameterized template for the time being). I have yet to see Lifeisunfair conceed any point or sway at all from the attitude he had when this all began. -- Netoholic @ 17:20, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
"This all began" when you reverted the article and announced your intention to continue doing so in perpetuity. By your own admission, you did this without even bothering to read the pertinent discussions on the templates for deletion page (despite the fact that you initiated one and voted in the other). You've repeatedly vandalized this talk page (including the removal of the RfC summary and "evil" voting), and have reverted the article in violation of the three-revert rule (while simultaneously abusing the {{twoversions}} tag and asserting nonexistent authority).
Your newly proposed "compromise" ignores the clear consensus (thus far). You're actually proposing that the more popular of the two templates be dropped, despite overwhelming support on the templates for deletion page.
My stance is unwavering because I honestly believe that I'm correct. The Wikipedia system doesn't dictate that every decision be "compromised" to cater to the opinion of a single individual. If it did, I would force all sorts of compromises. But it doesn't, so I respect the group consensus, and compromise when said consensus is (more or less) evenly divided.
For the record, I do support your revision to the {{spoiler-about}} template. —Lifeisunfair 18:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"reverted the article and announced your intention to continue doing so in perpetuity" - please... provide a link to anywhere I said this. -- Netoholic @ 18:27, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
Your first words posted to this talk page were:
"I revert changes to this page which seem to take away the long-standing desire to have one, general spoiler warning and move towards using message which give specifics about what spoiler topics are ahead."
Not the past tense "I reverted," but the present tense "I revert." —Lifeisunfair 18:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Clearly a typo on my part. Geez. -- Netoholic @ 19:23, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
That isn't remotely clear, given the fact that you've followed through on this pledge (violating the three-revert rule in the process). Also, you made no mention of this "typo" when I referenced "your present tense proclamation that you 'revert changes to this page . . .'" once before. —Lifeisunfair 20:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"My stance is unwavering because I honestly believe that I'm correct" This is at the heart of your problems - impatience at the discussion process and ego. Being right is a wonderful thing, so is humility. -- Netoholic @ 18:30, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
To the above, I have but one reply: "Ditto." —Lifeisunfair 18:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have shown I can compromise and come up with creative alternatives. You are, as you say, "unwavering". -- Netoholic @ 19:23, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
I've cogitated your "creative alternatives," but they defy the clear consensus. They're solutions to a nonexistent problem. —Lifeisunfair 20:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I hereby agree to participate in the mediation process. The mediator should be someone other than MacGyverMagic (who is involved in the template deletion discussions) and Ed Poor (with whom I recently had a major dispute). —Lifeisunfair 18:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not going to mediate. The "Lifeisunfair" account has only a couple hundred edits to it's name, has gotten into multiple edit disputes already, and doesn't significantly contribute to the encyclopedia itself. I have my doubts as to whether this account is this person's only one, especially because they have an unusual familiarity with the dispute resolution process and propensity to "Boldly" get themselves into repeated conflict. -- Netoholic @ 18:27, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
After lecturing me about assuming good faith, you post the above.
This is my one and only account, and I began editing only four months ago. I'm familiar with many of the site's procedures because I took the time to observe, instead of simply diving in. The nature (not the number) of conflicts is what's important, and my positions have been shared by most of the other involved parties.
Your refusal to mediate is dissapointing. —Lifeisunfair 18:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

None of this mud throwing is constructive. Also it distracts from the real discussion. I suggest both of you limit yourselves to commenting on the templates themselves and their use and ignore the trollbait. --MarSch 18:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Request for comment

12:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Issue: Should this article feature the {{spoiler-about}} and {{spoiler-other}} templates?


Summary:

  • Inspired by a discussion on the templates for deletion page, User A created the two templates in question. Each is intended to provide specific details beyond the fact that a spoiler is present (as indicated by the original {{spoiler}} template), particularly in cases in which an article’s/section's title does not elucidate the spoiler's nature.
  • User B asserts that the {{spoiler}} template is more than sufficient, and opposes the use of any additional spoiler templates. This user proposed the deletion of {{spoiler-other}}. The on-going discussion may be viewed here. Subsequently, another user expressed support for {{spoiler-other}}, but proposed the deletion of {{spoiler-about}}. That discussion may be viewed here.
  • User B reverted the spoiler warning page (thereby removing all mentions of the two new templates) and announced an intention to continue doing so in the future.
  • User B responded in kind, arguing that a content dispute should favor "the older version during discussion."
  • User A countered by arguing that User B was the "sole dissenter among many supporters" and "clearly [wasn't] interested in discussion." User A reverted the page once again, warning that the three-revert rule might soon be invoked.
  • User B reverted the page for a third time, but added the {{twoversions}} tag, which advises against further reversions until a decision is reached on the talk page. This effectively prevented User A from reverting the page for a third time.
     

Voting

If you support the implementation of the two new templates, add *Support, followed by an optional brief explanation. If you oppose their use, add *Oppose, followed by an optional brief explanation. Sign your vote with: ~~~~
 
  • Support. A useful feature. - Sikon 12:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Quite useful. Detailed resosns provided in the discussion below, and on the TfD page. DES 15:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support It's a very good feature to have two spoiler templates. Stormscape 21:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Pending discussion both templates should be listed. --MarSch 17:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments below.


I think that Radiant!'s version of it is much better. The smaller, generic version doesn't explain as much. -- Stormscape 07:37, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

To which version are you referring? (Radiant didn't create one.) —Lifeisunfair 12:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey people, this is a discussion of an article, not a place for personal insults. As for me, I like the "alternate" (longer) version more, because I always missed spoiler warnings about "particular elements". However, I don't understand why there's a spoiler warning at the top of it, perhaps it should be removed. - Sikon 08:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. What spoiler warning should be removed? —Lifeisunfair 12:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The spoiler warning just below the title of the alternate version, but above "For software, see Wikipedia:Software (WP:SOW)". - Sikon 12:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, I agree that it doesn't belong. It predates my edits, and Netoholic rightfully removed it when adding the {{twoversions}} tag. —Lifeisunfair 13:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sikon, you mentioned liking the longer version better... would it satisfy your desires to make the necessary changes to {{spoiler}}? My only interest is to have a single template that meets our needs. If people want to reword the existing short template (it used to be longer), that's fine. -- Netoholic @ 13:08, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
The three templates serve disparate purposes. The two new ones are not simply more detailed versions of the original. Each is for use in a different situation. —Lifeisunfair 13:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The debate is whether there is a true need for this "disparate purposes". Please allow Sikon to reply. -- Netoholic @ 14:11, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
But you're suggesting that "the necessary changes [be made] to {{spoiler}}." I'm explaining that this isn't possible. (Even if it were, it would require updating every article and section that contains the {{spoiler}} template.) And Sikon is more than welcome to reply! —Lifeisunfair 14:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please give clear examples of where you think the current generic template doesn't work. -- Netoholic @ 14:38, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
I (and others) have done this on the templates for deletion page (the location of the discussions that you prefer to ignore). —Lifeisunfair 15:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As a historical record and for context, such examples would be better placed here on this page. -- Netoholic @ 17:28, 2005 23 Jun (UTC)
This entire debate is redundant and should not exist. —Lifeisunfair 17:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Older discussion can be found at:


Specific spoiler messages

I revert changes to this page which seem to take away the long-standing desire to have one, general spoiler warning and move towards using message which give specifics about what spoiler topics are ahead.

I think we only need one, simple, generic spoiler "heads up". We're already going above and beyond by putting any sort of flag up, and I just don't see any true benefit to saying in the warning what is going to be spoiled. -- Netoholic @ 16:34, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

I notice that you have said several times (here and on TfD) that "We're already going above and beyond by putting any sort of flag up". Thsid seems to imply that you think any spoiler warning at all is really unnneded or undesireable. Yes, I know you didn't say that, but it seems clearly implied from what you did say. have I misunderstood you? If not, why do you think that way? DES 15:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I first encounterd spoiler warnings in usenet discussion of written works, particularly on rec.arts.sf.written where I have a long history. There the normal foms is "Spolers for X follow" because people have found it is highly useful to indicate what work or works might be spoiler by comments. Thsi is particualrly common when details of one work are discussed to illustrated or compare with another, the nominal focus of the discussion. I know that the structure and purpose of usenet debate is not the same as that here on wikipedia. But in this respoect it seems to me that there are significant similarities.DES 15:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is your "long-standing desire." You're ignoring the result of your deletion proposal (nine "keep" votes to your one "delete"), as well as the nearly year-old text to which you just reverted:
"If this general purpose template is not suitable for the particular article you are working on, feel free to custom-design your own warning text, tailored to the page in question, but please link back to this page."
I'm trying to assume good faith, but you aren't making it easy. —Lifeisunfair 17:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That deletion vote is not over, so don't call it a result. True results will be seen later. In the meantime, that section you keep quoting is the part to be debated. While it might have been there for a year, noone has put it into practice by creating a new template. Any such "custom" spoiler warnings were done on individual pages without using a Template:. As I said, we are already doing a favor putting any messageup at all, we don't need to add complexity though - the "heads up" is enough. -- Netoholic @ 17:39, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
Yes, you keep authoritatively stating this as gospel truth, despite the fact that everyone else (thus far) has disagreed with you. (Even Omegatron, who voted to delete {{spoiler-other}}, endorses the existence of both {{spoiler}} and {{spoiler-about}}.) I'm not implying that the vote has concluded, but the present consensus overwhelmingly supports the use of more than one spoiler template. But of course, you aren't interested in the consensus, as indicated in your present tense proclamation that you "revert changes to this page . . ."
If you do so again, I'll follow suit. Then both of us will be finished for twenty-four hours. I despise edit wars, however, so I truly hope that it doesn't come to that. —Lifeisunfair 18:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Count the number of times that Lifeisunfair has used the word "you" in reference to me in his responses above. Rather than discuss the issue, this thread has dissolved into nothing but gross accusation. Phrases like "you aren't interested in the consensus" show that Lifeisunfair is not prepared to assume good faith in discussion with me, so I choose to end it. I welcome others to join in and provide their views, without condescending reference to other editors. -- Netoholic @ 19:14, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
"Count the number of times that Lifeisunfair has used the word 'you' in reference to me in his responses above."
Well, what am I supposed to say? You are behaving in a manner that I deem inappropriate. Am I supposed to ignore that?
"Rather than discuss the issue, this thread has dissolved into nothing but gross accusation."
I've attempted to discuss the issue, but you refuse to do so beyond proclaiming that your "long-standing desire" shall prevail. Much of my previous reply addressed the specific nature of the dispute, but you ignored all of that, choosing instead to complain about my comments regarding you. Hypocritically, in doing so, you dodged the main issue and concentrated entirely upon me.
"Phrases like 'you aren't interested in the consensus'"
You aren't! You're the only person expressing this stance, but you've decided to override the overwhelming consensus.
"show that Lifeisunfair is not prepared to assume good faith in discussion with me,"
As I said, I've attempted to assume good faith, but you've made it very difficult.
"so I choose to end it."
End it? You never began it! You simply reverted the page and announced that you would continue to do so in perpetuity. The pertinent "discussion" is over on the templates for deletion page, where no one has supported your "one spoiler template" policy. Now you've added the {{twoversions}} tag, thereby exploiting the technicality that the discussion didn't transpire on this talk page. But you were careful to revert back to your version first, thereby locking it in place indefinitely. I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem like good faith to me. It's a clever method of circumventing the spirit of the process to get your way.
"I welcome others to join in and provide their views, without condescending reference to other editors."
And "abrasive" Don't forget "abrasive." That's the other adjective that you used to describe me on my talk page (while instructing me to stop posting so many comments). And do you know what? I see an awful lot of "you"s. —Lifeisunfair 22:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I for one think that retaining all three spoiler templates (Template:Spoiler, Template:Spoiler-other, and Template:Spoiler-about) is the better course -- they are useful in different circumstances. Spoiler is good for the most common case, when the spoiler is about the subject of the article and no other info is needed. Spoiler-about is useful when the spoiler is about something other than (or not exactly the same as) the article subject or when it is about multiple subjects. Spoiler-other is useful when the spoiler deals with both the article subject and another subject.DES 15:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Obviously, if all three are retained (and that is how the consnssus seems to be developing on the TfD page, where the two new templates have both been nominated for deletion) then there should be pointers to all threee here, and descriptions of when they apply and how to sue them.DES 15:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
By the way, the use of one or another of these templates ought to repace any more specific custom spoiler warning, such as the spoiler-whedon or any specialized ones for other fictional universes.DES 15:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I do not understand why Netoholic seems so strongly opposed to having more than one very generic spoiler warning template. He doesn't have to use any of the others. What harm will having there well designed and clearly differentatied templates do? Surely the extra two templates are not an excessive burden on wikipidea, and if carefuily explained here or in any other proper place, (the general templates page, for example) should not lead to undue condusion. It would probably be possible to create a single template that would include the functionality of all three of these tempaltes. But that would require replacing the basic spoiler tempalte in all the many places where it exists, or else deprtacatign it for future use, and still having two inconsistant tempaltes, divided not by usage but by date. That does not strike me as a better solution. DES 15:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
They're pointless. We need exactly one spoiler warning: "this article might contain spoilers." – ugen64 15:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I respect your opinion, but it appears (based upon the voting on the templates for deletion page) that most users disagree. If a spoiler pertains to something other than the article's/section's title, how does your suggested message provide an effective warning? —Lifeisunfair 16:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with ugen64. "this article might contain spoilers." is only a helpful warning if it is clear what the spoilers are about, that is, what work or works might be spoiled. If the spoilers are about the subject of the article, than a basic spoiler warning is fine. On The Lord of the Rings I can expect that a generic spoiler warning will be about LoTR. But if that page also includes spoilers for The Silmarillion (as it well might) then a generic spoiler warning is not sufficent to convey this information. Similerly, on the page about Cyteen by C. J. Cherryh there might well be spoilers for Downbelowstation or Forty Thousand in Gehanna, because the endings of these works are part of the complex backstory to Cyteen and might well be discussed on such a page. Many such examples of complexly involved works where discussion of one might spoil another could easily be cited. DES 17:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Here is one of my concerns - that there just aren't any concrete examples of where spoilers are given for works not related to the article. Your hypothetical argument would be better made if there were actual articles cited. Perhaps, if they exist, we should just be more careful and remove the spoilers? -- Netoholic @ 17:25, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
Such a spoiler is related to the article/section, but it is not related to the article's/section's title, nor is it obvious that the information in question (albeit relevant) will be covered. —Lifeisunfair 17:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please demonstrate that there is real need. Find, say, five articles which spoiler-about and spoiler-other apply to and add them as an example for people to see how they work in practice. -- Netoholic @ 18:24, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
I'm not going to insert templates that presently contain the {{tfd}} tag. Furthermore, the correct criterion is that there's a potential application for the templates. It's likely that many users have been reluctant to add valuable information, simply because there wasn't an appropriate spoiler template (so they didn't realize that it was okay to do so). —Lifeisunfair 18:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See new section examples below. I have not added the new tempaltes to the refereenced pages because they now carry the {{tfd}} tag. But these examples show a few of the more easily found places where these templates might well be used. DES 18:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why a vote

Why do you need a vote to use templates? Just be bold and use them! I must agree with Netoholic that, firstly, the templates are pointless, but as that vote seems to be failing at TFD, that secondly, this vote is even more pointless... you only use votes if you fail to gain a consensus, and you don't need a consensus to edit an article! – ugen64 15:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Netoholic added the {{twoversions}} tag to the article (after reverting back to the older version). While not official policy, it advises against further reversions until after a decision has been made on this talk page. (Netoholic is exploiting the technicality that the templates for deletion page discussion isn't mentioned.) And of course, Netoholic has repeatedly sabotaged the process by deleting the request for comment section (including the voting) and many of these comments. —Lifeisunfair 16:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
twoversions doesn't say "hold a vote" it says "decide on the Talk page". Discussion in this case should proceed without the distraction of a vote. We need a strategy, not just a thumbs up or down on these templates. -- Netoholic @ 17:11, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
The {{twoversions}} tag (which is not official policy) doesn't specify how the decision is to be made. I've opted for a vote (to serve as an opinion gauge), because the pertinent discussions already exist on the templates for deletion page. The logical "strategy" is to proceed in the manner eventually decided there, which will override any decision that's made here. (In other words, if one or both of the templates survive, it/they automatically will qualify for inclusion on the spoiler warning information page.) —Lifeisunfair 17:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Revert war

Please stop reverting the article, Netoholic. You're abusing the {{twoversions}} tag (which is a guideline, not a policy). It's supposed to be inserted "instead of reverting to the other version," but you added it in addition to reverting to your preferred version.

You already have violated the three-revert rule by reverting the page four times in a period of twenty-four hours (less than twenty-two, in fact). I advised you of this on your talk page, but I did not report this (or any of you other misconduct), because you appeared to have settled down. Do you intend to resume these illicit activities? —Lifeisunfair 15:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The point of the twoversion tag was to prevent an edit war while we're discussing. That multiple users fail to respect that tag is disappointing. Why can't we continue to contructively discuss? I have already said I would agree to documenting one of the addition templates, but not both. Why are you in such a hurry... if your idea is sound, then eventually, this long-standing page will incorporate your ideas. -- Netoholic @ 16:05, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
You failed to respect the tag by reverting the article when you inserted it. You also failed to respect an overwhelming consensus, a formal RfC discussion (which you repeatedly deleted) and the three-revert rule. I'm more than willing to constructively discuss, but you aren't entitled to dictate the article's content in the meantime. The templates exist (for now, at least), and should be documented. Despite your apparent belief to the contrary, this does not require your permission. —Lifeisunfair 16:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Both of you should refrain from reverting this page. That said I think it is best if all three templates are listed at this moment for easy reference, even though they are also contained in this talk page.--MarSch 16:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)