Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 10

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 5

←

Archive 8

→

Spoiler templates proposal at WP:PW

As many people may/may not know spoilers are regulary entered into professional wrestling articles by IP's or other users, which are quickly removed. I have proposed several templates to help warn the user(s). The discussion is ongoing. If you wish to participate, click here. Davnel03 06:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Completeness

I re-added "completeness," which has been in the article for at least three months, and as far as I can find, without any previous complaint. The full sentence is as follows:

Spoiler warnings must not interfere with neutral point of view, completeness, encyclopedic tone, or any other element of article quality.

Can anyone explain why, among the elements listed, "completeness" would not belong? Marc Shepherd 11:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's already been explained, and agreed to by a number of editors - the addition of a spoiler warning _can't_ affect completeness. It does not remove information. Tailoring an article so that spoilers appear in one place might affect completeness (and that is described as against policy elsewhere), but a warning itself does not. As such, the word is unneeded. And something being in the article for at least 3 months without a problem isn't a particular endorsement of it, unless you want to suggest that any undiscovered error somehow gains added legitimacy the longer it remains undiscovered. ;) Wandering Ghost 12:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I just can't fathom why in the world there's an edit war over a damn relatively harmless word. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Tony, Melodia and I all agree it belongs there. However, I've moved the entire sentence, so that no one can claim that adding a warning detracts from completeness. The addition of a spoiler warning wouldn't affect "neutral point of view" or "encyclopedic tone" either, so by the argument given they presumably should have been deleted too! Choosing "completeness" alone for deletion is incoherent. Marc Shepherd 13:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree that adding a spoiler warning can't affect "encyclopedic tone", but that's been one of the anti-warning crowd's primary arguments for eliminating them, so I thought it politic to leave that in. I've also seen it claimed that adding a warning is not NPOV, because the editor is picking and choosing which information to "protect". (I don't agree with these arguments, but they are pretty common, so I tried to take them into account.) --Jere7my 17:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about it, isn't that whole sentence equivalent to "Don't violate Wikipedia policies when editing"? Isn't that redundant? I glanced at a few other style guidelines (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accessibility), and didn't see "Making an article accessible must not interfere with neutral point of view, completeness, encyclopedic tone, or any other element of article quality." The closest I saw (in an admittedly cursory examination) was "Controversial articles, by their very nature, require far greater care to achieve a neutral point of view" — i.e., a sentence explaining why you should use care when editing such articles, not a reminder to follow the rules.

We've also let a "must" phrasing back in, when style guidelines should use "should"s. --Jere7my 18:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that, in theory, if someone had really absorbed and understood all of the other guidelines, the sentence would be redundant. But no one needs to pass a test before editing Wikipedia, and many editors don't know all of the policies—even those as fundamental as WP:NPOV. It's fairly common that spoiler-sensitive editors allow their concerns to influence article content, so the point seems to be worth making. If you do a search, you will find that many other guideline/policy pages refer to each other. This certainly isn't the only place that it happens.

The word "must" appears to be correct in this instance, as I am fairly certain that these are non-negotiable points. "Should" would be appropriate if it were sometimes permissible to compromise completeness, NPOV, or encyclopedic tone due to spoiler concerns. Marc Shepherd 20:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Must" seems to run counter to the idea of a style guide, which after all begins with a block containing the words, "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Anything strong enough to warrant a "must" is better explained elsewhere, and seems redundant here; a style sheet doesn't seem like the place to recapitulate "Intro to Editing Wikipedia 101." *shrug* --Jere7my 21:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Fan-use of spoilers

Looking at the whatlinkshere for {{Spoiler}}, I noticed that a great deal of them are people posting them on talk pages... we should probably sort this out, as I'm pretty sure it hasn't been discussed in length. David Fuchs^(talk) 20:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh good grief .They're on the talk pages and what's probably more important they are historical (at least the 20 or some I clicked are and I can't see that would be different for most of them ) .Garda40 21:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. Kinda silly to weed them out on talk pages. Considering part of the main arguments is that spoiler warnings are a "forum thing" and not an "encyclopedia thing" -- talk pages are forums. So what's wrong with them there? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well...it's the least of Wikipedia's problems. Marc Shepherd 21:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Whilst use of tagging on talk pages probably feeds other inappropriate uses of spoiler tags to some extent, I don't think it's a big deal. I think "forum thing" is a blind alley because our talk pages are not forums in that sense. Nevertheless, it's a very low priority matter. --Tony Sidaway 16:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Other websites that have written policies on spoilers

IMDb has a written spoiler policy. Spoilers are limited to appear only in the "full synopsis" section, which is on a separate page with a spoiler warning headline. All links to that page also include a spoiler warning as part of the link text. Spoilers are discouraged to be added outside of the synopsis page, especially in the shorter plot outline sections, and if spoilers are added else such as the "Goofs" section or the message boards, IMDb requires the use of a spoiler warning, either a template they provide, or the word SPOILER: preceding the spoiler content. You can find this information by searching their help system for the word "spoiler" and also in their submission guide on the page for editing the plot synopsis. --Parsifal _Hello 19:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you found the policy, as it certainly clarifies things. It can definitely be added to the tally of sites that require spoiler tags. Since then I've checked out a few more sites:

1. Yahoo has no spoiler policy [1] and users have complained about spoilers [2] being posted by Yahoo.

2. movies.com (which appears to be owned by Buena Vista) has articles with spoilers but they're marked as such [3]. The same goes for the forums [4].

3. AOL's movie site has a blog at cinematical.com which labels spoilers in its articles [5]. As for their movie boards, I wasn't able to find any policy about spoilers [6] but their TV boards have specific spoiler forums which are clearly labeled [7].

4. MSN Movie Guide has synopses with spoilers (example here [8]) but their content is almost exactly the same as allmovie, and MSN indicates all synopses are from the "All Movie Guide". I think MSN and allmovie can be counted as the same thing and not two separate entities.

So this means of the 10 sites I looked at, allmovie/MSN, Yahoo and TCMdb have spoilers in their descriptions without any kind of warning, tag, or click-through. Yahoo has user complaints about their no-spoiler-tag policy. The other 6 sites -- IMDb, Netflix, Amazon, AOL, movies.com, and Usenet -- have specific spoiler guidelines. I know someone mentioned that Usenet doesn't count for anything, but even dismissing Usenet that still means most major sites use spoiler notifications.

I believe Marc and I were far too hasty in concluding that no spoiler tags is the norm. If others have movie sites I didn't include, or corrections, please contribute. Clockster 07:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

We are making considerable progress here, although I think the analysis calls for some refinement. Of the 10 sites you consulted, several are "fan forums" or sites where most of the coverage appears to be very recent movies. A couple of others (Amazon, Netflix) are in existence primarily to make sales. Their similarity to Wikipedia is tenuous, at best. Where the site is a general reference work covering movies of all periods, not a fan forum, and not a DVD vendor, the percentage including spoiler tags goes way down.

It's also notable that, where the warnings are present, they seem to be often placed on the entire page/post in question, a solution the "pro-tag" faction has consistently rejected as inadequate. Marc Shepherd 13:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no film or movie site that I'm aware of that's similar to Wikipedia, so a direct comparison won't be possible. Also, most sites are either commercial in nature or contain user-generated content or both. Even the IMDb is owned by Amazon, and has links to Amazon products on many (or all) the pages. If we were to dismiss all commercial and fan forum sites, of the 10 I looked in to, that leaves only allmovie/MSN and maybe AOL's blog at cinematical.com. I'm not saying my survey is completely comprehensive, but I do believe these are the best examples we're going to get. Clockster 23:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is arguably sui generis, but one can certainly identify other sites with similar aims — those that are primarily intended for information (rather than sales), edited, comprehensive, broad in coverage, and encyclopedic in tone. Among the movie sites you surveyed, allmovie/MSN seems to come closest. IMDB is a hybrid, in that there is a reference section, but user comments are also permitted, and there seems to be a different spoiler policy for the comments than for the main database.

Of course, Wikipedia isn't only a movie site, so a broader version of this study would look at sites dedicated to other genres. While Wikipedia is the only site that covers such a wide range of subjects, there are plenty of respected reference sites on the Internet that have the tone and comprehensiveness of an encyclopedia, although with a more limited scope. Marc Shepherd 12:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe they are, but we don't know about them, because no one uses them, because they contain spoilers without warnings. :) Seriously, I don't believe there is some large specialized reference site dedicated to literary works, for example. To amass a critical amount of information requires lot of people, and it would probably be well known. IMDB itself has noncommercial origin in USENET database, iirc. Samohyl Jan 18:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

IMDb was originally owned by someone in the UK who kept it as a non-commercial database, yes. You could contribute to it by sending a specifically formatted email. I don't believe it had a USENET component or a way to contribute via USENET, although maybe I just wasn't aware of one. Anyway, the site was sold to Amazon and at that point it became largely commercial.

Before I forget, I found a spoiler tag on the IMDb that gives an example of how they're used in the Trivia section: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052218/trivia Clockster 19:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think IMDb is absolutely relevant. Obviously it is only one source, and it is limited to movies, but its aims are close enough to Wikipedia's to be considered comparable. Indeed, it's quite common to find Wikipedia articles that use IMDb as their source.

An example of a literature site is http://www.online-literature.com/. No spoiler warnings that I could see. One can quite easily find other sites dedicated to specific genres. Marc Shepherd 20:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Cases of doubt?

In my view, a WP:ENGVAR style guideline would only mean that in cases of doubt, the original author decides whether to use spoiler tags or not. However, WP:ENGVAR is a bad comparison. What variant of English an article on Albert Einstein is written does not affect article quality. However, whether an article is structured around spoiler warnings does affect article quality. I think we should adapt the guideline to reality and declare spoiler warnings obsolete. Editors have moved to using {{current fiction}} instead and remove it quickly (it is no longer used even on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows), and the less than 10 pages with spoiler tags and less than 20 pages with current fiction tags show that Wikipedia works pretty well without spoiler warnings. Kusma (talk) 08:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings don't affect article structure or the writing. We might as well delete all 'see also' sections if someone puts one in the wrong place, or avoids mentioning something in the article so they can have it as a see also.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The "original author" rule tends to apply in situations where a decision has far-reaching impact on the overall article. For instance, if an article has been written consistently with British English, a new editor should not change it to American English without a very good reason. But for a "tag" that stands alone, no particular editor has presumptive authority concerning its placement or removal. Marc Shepherd 13:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that states the case well.

If one sentence in an article uses distinctively Australian spelling or grammar, and another is a style that is distinctively American, this does create problems of internal consistency. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English (better known as WP:ENGVAR) proposes some sensible rules of thumb, with exceptions, to be followed in the interests of maintaining internal consistency and recognising that some topics have strong national associations (Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings in British English, for instance, Edgar Allan Poe (pled, not pleaded) and Moby-Dick (color not colour) in American English).

I don't think such considerations apply to spoiler tagging at all. Spoiler tagging should not affect how we write the article at all, and if it does we should remove the tag. --Tony Sidaway 14:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

So at this point...

Beating a dead horse of 'victory', perhaps, but I've noticed that through all this there's been very few new names added to the discussion. In the past month there's been maybe, what, three people coming in galavanting about how the warnings are needed. Maybe there's reasons for this (they see the debate and don't feel like getting involved, etc), but can anyone HONESTLY say that with such a low number of objections on the most obvious place to place them...that so many people care? (And for furthur ref, there's been pretty much nothing at all at Template talk:Spoiler).

I understand there are a number of impassioned people here that really want the warnings back in some fashion, but honestly this is really going in circles, and I have to wonder what, exactly, could even be done at this point? Both sides seem to to be pretty much sticking to their guns, and this results in the current guideline staying mostly static -- which, incidentally, was exactly the case with the old one before this all came up.

Now, if this is REALLY such a large issue, that should have true consensus of the community, perhaps it's finally time to let everyone know that? Obviously watchlist notices are few and far between, so it's likely going to be placed there (and if it is, I imagine we'd get a thousand straw polls and stuff again...), but since, seemingly, no 'new blood' has been brought in, maybe a note in a few well traveled spots about the debate still going on might be appropriate? I dunno. And one other thing, and Tony asked this before, what DO you pro-warnings want? Any proposal has been rejected (though true from the other side as well), and it seems, as Marc said, that you want to go back to the 'Wild West'...which if nothing else, definitely decreases over all article quality. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that some ostensibly pro-spoiler tag people editing this page don't actually want to edit Wikipedia articles to tag spoilers at all. They simply want to edit this talk page and repeatedly proclaim that they are being prevented from doing so, which having seen me and some others add spoiler tags to articles without any problems they must know to be false. --Tony Sidaway 14:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think their position is that, under the current regime, adding spoiler tags is too steep a hill to climb. There's a fairly persistent band of "anti-tag" editors who remove {{spoiler}} on sight, practically whenever it appears. The remedy, for those who favor the tag, is to try to build consensus for it on the article's talk page. But that's a very arduous process, as shown by the fact that, over the last several weeks, only one spoiler tag in the entire English Wikipedia has endured for more than a few hours: Sōsuke Aizen. One could say (as some have done) that the template {{spoiler}} is practically banned on English Wikipedia.

Most of the pro-tag faction want to return to the good old days when editors added {{spoiler}} tags pretty much wherever they thought they were merited, and only editors highly steeped in the subject matter — in Milo's term, the local art jury — would challenge them (if indeed they were challenged at all, which would probably be rare).

I have to give Jere7my credit for proposing at least the beginnings of some very workable rules:

I would be happy to offer limiting suggestions for the guideline, with phrases like "reasonable expectation that narrative suspense is a significant element in the appreciation of the work" to eliminate the fairy-tale tags, and "significant penetration into popular culture" to stop people hiding that Darth Vader is Luke's father....

He is one of the few amongst the pro-tag faction to even make the attempt. Most of them do seem to prefer the "Wild West." Or at least, I have to assume that, because when pressed for any kind of limiting guidelines, they never offer any. Marc Shepherd 14:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the credit, Marc. I'd be happy to expand my thoughts into a new guideline that attempts to better reflect what little consensus we have, with the caveats that a) it will permit somewhat more local intitiative than there exists now, without a return to the OK Corral; b) it will be worded less punitively, to bring it in line with other style guidelines; c) it will be more compact; and d) it will permit more spoilers than the current guideline (but not on the Three Little Pigs!). At the moment, it does not read, to me, like a style guideline, but like a policy page that's been misfiled. --Jere7my 18:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should draft your proposal on another page and show it to us? David Fuchs^(talk) 20:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay — I have a draft proposal, but I'm not actually sure how to put it "on another page". Where does it go, if not this talk page or the project page? --Jere7my 01:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR

By my count, Tony, you are in violation of 3RR. Since I'm not some rat, I'm not going to report you, but you are being rather uncivil for such a minor change. I don't know how you can say with a straight face that this guideline is not in dispute. The tag isn't saying the current version is bad, just that some parts are disputed. What's the problem?--YellowTapedR 20:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Tony does not have more than three reverts in a 24-hour period. Marc Shepherd 21:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Writing to an undisputed guideline?

Parsifal writes [9] "This study shows how editors write under the constraints of a guideline that they believe is not disputed."

Well that's true up to a point, and it's a point worth investigating.

However I (and no doubt many other editors) have already shot his fox. We made tons of edits during a fourteen-day period when this guideline contained the same text that it is now proposed we restore, to wit: "The content of this guideline is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page." Since the guideline was marked as disputed, I usually didn't cite it [10], but I don't think anybody reacted any differently. I simply said something like:

"→Warning: Possible Plot/Ending Spoilers Ahead! - Removed. Fictional character biography can be expected to discuss the plot."[11]

or

" →Character history - and remove redundant warning)"[12]

And of course life went on as usual. My edits continued to be accepted. There wasn't a vast swelling of the ranks of the disaffected, there were no complaints on my talk page about all of those edits.

I guess here you're seeing how Tony Sidaway "writes under the constraints of" a guideline that he believes may possibly be disputed.

Of course I wouldn't have made the edits if I thought they wouldn't be accepted. This is why, if we change the guideline text to read as above, I and most other editors will continue to use it as a guideline. A guideline is a document that is "is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow", but it "isn't set in stone." It isn't a policy, which "has wide acceptance among editors" and no exceptions. You don't lose anything by accepting this as a guideline, you simply recognise that it's been applied a stupendous number of times with huge success, but that you, or anybody else, should look at the particular case pertaining in any given situation, and use your commonsense to make decisions, and discussion to resolve disputes by searching for consensus. Which is, of course, what I and a number of other editors have become quite good at doing over the past few months. --Tony Sidaway 23:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I avoid citing this guideline if I remove a spoiler tag - I try to just say why I'm removing it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Two recent edits reverted

I've reverted the two most recent edits to this guideline:

This edit by User:Jere7my, removed the word "completeness" from the following statement in the section "When spoiler warnings should not be used":

Spoiler warnings must not interfere with neutral point of view, completeness, encyclopedic tone, or any other element of article quality.

The edit summary was as follows: '"Completeness" doesn't belong here — adding a spoiler tag doesn't remove any information, so it can't affect completeness, can it? Editing to remove spoilers could, but that's not what this describes.'

A good example of where using spoiler tags may interfere with completeness is where a very significant fact about the subject of an article is confined behind a spoiler tag in an inner section, causing it to be omitted from the lead section.

This edit, by User:Parsifal, changes the following statement in the section "When spoiler warnings may be appropriate":

Spoiler notices may be appropriate when significant plot revelations appear in unexpected places, if there is consensus that this is necessary (note it on the talk page).

The new version read as follows:

Spoiler notices may be appropriate when significant plot revelations appear in unexpected places. As with all content, if a particular spoiler notice is disputed, discuss on the talk page and abide by consensus with regard to including or omitting the spoiler notice.

The edit summary was: 'consensus is not required "in advance" to edit Wikipedia (WP:BOLD); consensus is needed when content is questioned (WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD'

I think that here the editor of the guideline has confused the concept of consensus and discussion. Consensus is required for all edits--those that don't have consensus are (eventually) undone. That an edit may be made without discussion is the essence of be bold, and this is true of removing or adding a spoiler warning if the editor believes he has reason to suppose that consensus exists for his edit.

The new wording is unnecessarily cluttered. It is moreover current practice, and not at all controversial, for editors to place spoiler tags where they believe they should be placed, so the version of the guideline to which I have reverted expresses current practice accurately without making a meal of it. --Tony Sidaway 12:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Jere7my's edit. The situation Tony described that might affect completeness is not addressed by the sentence he reverted, it's a different subject and is covered by a different part of the guideline. Adding a spoiler notice does not cause information to move to a different section and thereby be omitted. That would violate the part of the guideline that addresses that point.

Adding a spoiler notice "adds" something, does not remove anything, it adds the information that a spoiler is coming up in the text. If someone moved information out of the lead because it's a spoiler, that would be a different action and could interfere with completeness. But simply adding a notice that a spoiler is present does not cause information to move or be omitted. So Jere7my was correct to remove the word - we should use the version as he edited it. --Parsifal _Hello 18:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Parsifal. You've stated my point very well; that section, per its title, should cover whether or not to place spoiler tags, not warn about other edits that may follow from their placement. Tony's concern is covered in the lede — "...it should be placed with careful consideration to assure that it does not create a damaging effect on article organization..." — and could be added to the "How to add or remove spoiler warnings" section. (Also, I'm glad to see my "unexpected places" phrasing survives! :) ) --Jere7my 06:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not remove the reference about the need for consensus, since the definition of consensus you are using today makes it inevitable?--Nydas^(Talk) 18:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Nydas makes a good point. Actually that is exactly what I was doing. That sentence of guideline should say this:

Spoiler notices may be appropriate when significant plot revelations appear in unexpected places.

That's all that's needed, in the section for where they may be appropriate (There's plenty of "when not to use" reasons in the "when not to use" section).

The reason I added the second sentence when I made the edit, was as a concession in advance, knowing that the opponents of spoiler use would want some acknowledgment there may be a dispute and that discussion for consensus would then be needed. But Nydas is correct, based on Tony's argument above the second part is not needed and the simple direct version would be best. --Parsifal _Hello 18:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I consense restoration of Parsifal's edit, and concur with Nydas to omit the second sentence per Tony's reasoning. That combination correctly puts spoiler tag adding or deleting on a standard bold, consensus, and/if discussion par with all other edits. Milo 23:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I also endorse these changes.Wandering Ghost 00:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we should remove the reference to consensus, since that is what we're trying to drive home: that such edits, like any others, are not automatic (which until recently they sadly had become) but are subject to consensus.

Parsifal says:

Adding a spoiler notice does not cause information to move to a different section and thereby be omitted. That would violate the part of the guideline that addresses that point

Well, adding a spoiler notice, does cause information to move. That's the most insidious problem here. If somebody pops a spoiler tag before "Romeo, ignorant of the plot to fake Juliet's death, arrives at her tomb and commits suicide..." it amounts to saying "don't talk about the circumstances of Romeo's death anywhere else in the article, Which is bloody stupid, but we did actually have quite a tussle over that article. --Tony Sidaway 01:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Slippery slope fallacy, Tony. What you're talking about is not an abuse of the spoiler tag, but a failure of editors due to ignorance. It is not the tag's fault that people are unfamiliar with policy, and it does not cause anything. Place a tag in an article and have everyone leave it alone for three days. I guarantee you not a word will have moved. ; ) Postmodern Beatnik 03:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing spoiler warnings also causes information to move, and causes information to be removed, and a perceived lack of ability to add them causes information to be less likely to be added in the first place. Surely that is now cause to readd them. :) Wandering Ghost 12:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As tony is the only one arguing that "completeness" is necessary, I've re-removed it. If he manages to convince people and consensus shifts, let someone else add it back in; I'm tired of "Tony disagrees, thus no consensus". Kuronue | Talk 01:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

sigh* Not again...♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 02:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Care to elaborate, or are you content to only insinuate that we should abandon consensus as an official policy? Postmodern Beatnik 03:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm more than happy with Kuronue's alternate wording (in which he simply removes the words "if there is consensus that this is necessary (note it on the talk page)." As I've stated above, the consensus requirement is implicit in every Wikipedia edit. The problem that I had identified with Parsifal's edit[13], above, was "the editor of the guideline has confused the concept of consensus and discussion." Better to leave something unstated and implicit than to misrepresent.

On Kuronue's statement that 'tony is the only one arguing that "completeness" is necessary', that's obviously incorrect. User:Marc Shepherd has restored it twice in the past week. The term "completeness" first appeared in an edit to Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/draft at 01:41, 19 May 2007, made by User:Hipocrite, who has since then been renamed to User:DepartedUser. The wording of the draft was introduced to Wikipedia:Spoiler in this edit by User:Ned Scott after the old guideline had been marked as rejected. The wording has remained, despite occasional challenges, because it is evident that inappropriate use of this particular tag has in the past seriously constrained completeness and neutral point of view over time. For instance, the lead section of our Romeo and Juliet article used to read:

'' The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy by William Shakespeare concerning the fate of two young "star-cross'd lovers". It is one of the most famous of Shakespeare's plays, one of his earliest theatrical triumphs, and is thought to be the most archetypal love story of the Renaissance and indeed the history of Western culture.

Now that's fine as far as it goes, but it's very vague. This seems to be because discussion the actual plot was regarded as a "spoiler", and confined to the "Synopsis" section behind a spoiler tag.

Now let's look at the first paragraph of the lead in the current version:

''Romeo and Juliet is an early tragedy by William Shakespeare about two teenage "star-cross'd lovers" whose "untimely deaths" ultimately unite their rival households. The play has been highly praised by literary critics for its language and dramatic effect. It was among Shakespeare's most popular plays during his lifetime and, along with Hamlet, is one of his most frequently performed plays. It is considered by many to be the world's most iconic love story.

Still not perfect (the almost meaningless superlative "iconic" should be replaced by something more sensible, and "rival" doesn't pack the same punch as "feuding") but a great improvement over the older version, which dates from 13 May. The lead section is more complete. --Tony Sidaway 14:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Tony, for clarity I would like to note that I was responding to Melodia on the issue of abandoning consensus, not you. Postmodern Beatnik 16:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In 99% of cases revealing the ending in the lead is the result of lapsing into an in-universe viewpoint, acting as if it really happened, as is the case here.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's usually inappropriate, and that is why we don't have words in the guideline saying "the plot must always be discussed in the lead. I don't think that is the case with the lead of Romeo and Juliet. It is not just a love story featuring two colorless ingenues. The plot contributes to its enduring significance, not to mention its popularity. Moreover the article tells us that it has been observed that "until this play romance had not been viewed as a worthy topic for tragedy" (Levenson, Jill L (2000) (ed.). Introduction. Romeo and Juliet. William Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 49–50. ISBN 0192814966.) The use of a tragic rather than a melodramatic form, and the serious treatment, contributed to the success of what was in essence a new form of tragedy. --Tony Sidaway 15:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing there which makes revealing the ending necessary for the lead, especially since it has already said it's a tragedy. The part about uniting their rival households makes it sound like there's a sequel in the works.--Nydas^(Talk) 06:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

1) I'm a she. You'd think after all this time being on opposite sides of this particular debate you'd have bothered to stop by my userpage at least once >.>

2) Tony's the only one arguing for it. One other editor is merely reverting and not coming to the talk page to discuss. Neither of those facts, taken together or seperatly, indicates consensus. Those in favor of fewer or no spoiler tags talk a lot about consensus; I wish to verify that there is, indeed, consensus, before we add things to the guideline. In general, if we omit something that has consensus on accident, it's less detrimental than leaving something in without consensus and then forcing people to abide by it. Kuronue | Talk 02:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Random deletion of guideline text, and how to deal with it

It seems that the trend lately is to randomly lop some text out of the guideline. The latest victim here is the following sentence:

There are additional considerations for deciding whether to include spoiler tags or not; for example, it is generally redundant to put the tags in sections marked 'Plot' or 'Plot Summary'.

Now if there is some problem about the placing of that statement, fine, but it's indisputable that when we've gone in and removed such occurrences of spoiler tags there is hardly ever any comeback. Actually there's hardly ever any comeback anyway, but in "plot" sections this is particularly noticeable.

We've been going on the current guideline now for three months or so, so perhaps we ought to start to write about our experiences in a historical mode. With actual editing data, we could actually corroborate with good fidelity the fact that removals of spoiler tags are seldom challenged. --Tony Sidaway 17:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Now we're asked to consider the following:

Before

There are additional considerations for deciding whether to include spoiler tags or not; for example, it is generally redundant to put the tags in sections marked 'Plot' or 'Plot Summary'.

After

There are additional considerations for deciding whether to include spoiler tags or not; make sure to review this guideline in full before making the decision to add or remove the templates.

I object to this because it blatantly ignores the history of spoiler tag removal. Nearly every single time a spoiler tag is removed, it stays removed, and this is especially true when the tag had been placed in a "Plot", "Synopsis" or similar section. If there was a history of editors arguing that a removed spoiler should be restored, I could understand that this might be a bit of a controversial point.

But no, I don't think we can realistically believe that this change had any basis in experience. Rather, it seems to reflect the opinion of an editor who hangs around on this page but does not involve himself in spoiler-related article edits and does not refer his changes to the history of such edits. What is such an opinion worth? --Tony Sidaway 17:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Putting your eyebrow-raising ad hominem toward another editor aside for the moment...

Your audacious claim of random text removal doesn't meet the eyeball test, and obviously isn't true.

The non-random edit under challenge was never logically valid, and only stayed in as an artifact incidental to circular reasoning. It and much of the rest of this spoiler guide history you are trying to prop up was installed by the May 2007 Spoiler Tag Coup force, not consensus. In three months time it has become abundantly clear that some, much, or all of this Wikipedia:Spoiler guide has no consensus - it is held in place by unconsensed and uncompromising majoritarian force contrary to Wikipedia policy. This guide is fallaciously justified by a bag of fingerprint-averting happenings, like article level 'enforcers' which are the natural outcome of controlling the guide, not a consensus for it, and my term of 'chilling squads' for groups of editors who reportedly seek out and pressure regular editors who want to add spoiler tags.

"believe that this change had any basis in experience" You're right about that. This change is about removing an illogical fallacy. Once they are noticed, all fallacies should be challenged, and none should be allowed to remain anywhere at Wikipedia except historically in talk space. Milo 21:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Your impugning the worth of my opinion is uncivil and I respectfully request that you comment on the content of the discussion and not on me as a person.

The reason I have not involved myself in spoiler-related debates on articles is that after reading many of them and testing the waters on a few of them, I decided my limited time would be more useful working on improving the guideline (not "hanging around" as you described it).

The first edit you noted above was not a random removal. It was done by at least three editors separately. It is also being actively discussed on this talk page in the section immediately above this one, in accordance with consensus process.

The second edit was my attempt to avoid reverting and instead add weight of careful consideration of the guideline for editors working on articles.

Regarding what the edit history shows on this topic: it does not imply consensus to that statement in the guideline that that removal of the spoiler notices from plot sections was not strongly contested, since the removals were based on this guideline that does not have consensus. That's circular reasoning, as has been stated in this discussion by others several times. The article editors who saw the guideline used as a basis for the removals had no way to know that the guideline was not stable or supported by clear consensus, so they "obeyed the rules" and backed down.

That sentence you quoted at the top of your post here does not have consensus for inclusion in the guideline. There is no consensus that plot sections and spoiler notices are redundant. Many editors and active participants on this page do not agree with that statement. That's why other editors removed that sentence as well. As you have said yourself on this page, consensus is required. Until/unless consensus for that sentence is found here, that text should not be part of the guideline. --Parsifal _Hello 17:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

We seem to have entered a new era, with members of the pro-spoiler-tag set just making random edits to long-standing passages in the guideline, to see what they can sneak in. Obviously WP:BOLD in a sense permits this, but such changes are likely to be quickly reverted. Marc Shepherd 17:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there some suggestions fairly recently that, instead of arguing so much on the talk page, that the pro-warning group attempt to improve the guideline? Now when that's being done, we're trying to "sneak it in". Please. The changes made seem to be supported by at least a nontrivial number of people, and opposed by a nontrivial number of people. So, who's side do we go with?

Also I note that some of the 'random edits to long-standing passages' are actually edits to passages that have been slowly modified by the anti-spoiler group to become more anti-spoiler that are perhaps just now being noticed. The only reason they're "long standing" is because not many edits have in general been made since, with discussion focusing on the talk page. Now that edits are being made, the page as a whole are being looked at.

For example, the whole 'for example, it is redundant to put spoiler warnings in plot' segment _before_ the 'when they should not be used' section, seems to stem from a July 21st edit, where he suggests that proper section titling is often better than spoiler warning, and gives a fair amount of detail on the thought. Fair enough, and perhaps even a decent compromise. Then on August 28th, it's "condensed" and becomes "for example, spoiler warnings are generally redundant'. Except, that's harsher language than original, and, as it comes from the lead section, more likely to be read and just taken as gospel without reading the rest. It also leaves no room for exceptions. And, the warning about spoiler warnings being redundant, is ALSO redundant... because it's talked about in more detail later on. We don't need a "for example". The page isn't that long, they can see the examples that spoiler warnings are inappropriate all together. Why highlight that one? Why not highlight, "for example, fairy tales should probably not get spoiler warnings." So yeah, that was the basis of the edit of a section that had only been in that form for a few weeks. So, after noticing it being removed and replaced a few times, I removed it too. Eegads, what a change to a long-standing page.

I should also note that through a series of edits, each arguably seemingly plausible on their own, the wording has slowly been shifted less and less spoiler tolerant. There's the above case, there's the suggestion that spoiler tags might be better on newer works being replaced with a suggestion to use 'current fiction' tags (said proposal seems to lack consensus, but perhaps we didn't notice right off, it being snuck in while discussing other things). But when a shift is made to be slightly more warning-friendly (or even just less warning hostile), people jump all over it. Well, I see no reason for the pro-warning crowd not to continue making any changes we see fit, at any time. We're not being any sneakier than anybody else, but perhaps we're just not as on the ball on it. Wandering Ghost 16:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The edits are not random, they are thoughtful, and they are addressed to elements that do not have consensus. That's according to policy.

There is no trying to sneak in changes. Obviously, we're all aware that every change will be immediately noticed and reverted. But a few people reverting every change is not consensus.

Since the page does not have consensus, it's correct to modify it until it does, that's also according to policy. The ratio of discussion to editing on this guideline is absolutely huge. With so much discussion, a bit of editing seems welcome and appropriate.

long-standing passages do not have more authority just because they've not been changed for a while. Consensus conveys the authority, not time. You know the "consensus can change" page, I don't need to link it for you.

Please leave off the emotionally charged accusations of "sneaking" and "random" edits, or , implying that people who don't agree with you are not just as sincere as you are about improving Wikipedia. Just because we don't agree doesn't mean we should use impolite language when we discuss the issues. "Sneaking" implies that the person needs to hide because they're doing something wrong. That's simply not accurate, and not a polite way to collaborate. --Parsifal _Hello 18:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I call those edits "random," because any reader of this page would know that there is likely no consensus for them. Now, I realize that some people believe there's no consensus for the current guideline either. But a change from one bad version to another bad version is no improvement. The only pattern I've seen in the last couple of months of debate is that any suggestion is instantly shouted down. No sincere suggestion gains traction, regardless of which side it comes from. So the new approach is to just boldly change the guideline without discussion, to see what sticks. I can't say I blame you, as those actually try to gain consensus first are inevitably rebuffed. Marc Shepherd 19:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see my warning at the top of this thread about edging into private language and tendentious debating. While I respect Tony as a debate opponent, and I admire his efforts to improve his relationships and performance at Wikipedia, he's only human. He has previously gotten himself into top-level hot water, and in this case has set a poor example which you would be foolish to emulate.

Put in the slightly blunter terms of power, the clique will probably save Tony if he is put in the dock. On the other hand, since your chosen position is to serve the clique, and servants are expendable, they probably won't save you. Milo 21:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

And any reader of this page knows that that particular sentence is under debate. It's under debate one section above this one. Scroll up literally one section. Yet if we try to edit it, here comes Tony with his "indisputable", with his "randomly lop some text out of the guideline", with his "What is such an opinion worth?". I swear to god, Tony, if you don't stop making smart-ass personal attacks against everyone who touches your precious guideline I'll haul your ass before the appropriate channels. Calm down, and stop trying to micro-manage every word that you disagree with, and Marc, chill out as well before you become just as bad as he is. There's more to wikipedia than this guideline; if other people editing shit bothers you that much, maybe you should see if some other encyclopedia is hiring. Kuronue | Talk 20:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The "haul your ass before the appropriate channels" approach has, I believe, already been tried and got nowhere. Marc Shepherd 20:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And I have to say your "I swear to god... haul your ass" comments seem much more vitrolic than anything Tony has said. You might want to sit down and calm yourself before knocking on others. David Fuchs^(talk) 16:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

...an editor who hangs around on this page but does not involve himself in spoiler-related article edits. That's because they'll get banned. People aren't going to fall into that trap again.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

blah blah blah big scary anti-spoiler people who pick on the poor little pro-spoiler people who just want to make things good for the common good. blah blah blah. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what these comments of yours are meant to accomplish, other than inflame the situation or insult people you disagree with. No, you're not the only one who has made a heated comment here, but you're certainly the only one who has made a habit of continuously immature, insulting, senseless comments.

Nydas' point that people aren't adding spoiler tags to articles because they know what kind of "trap" awaits them if they do is accurate, at least in my case. After reading the discussion here and the archives, even though I have found two articles recently which I felt needed a spoiler tag, I'm just not going to bother. I don't think I'll be banned, per se, but I know it will just get reverted and, at best, just be used as a data point in this discussion. It's a waste of time to try to add a spoiler tag, even if they are ostensibly allowed in the correct situations. Clockster 20:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"But I know it will just get reverted." Good grief! That's a bit weak. You say you "know" your edits will be reverted, so you think this gives you the right to come to this page and describe people you disagree with as "smugly self-righteous" and blame them for the fact that you believe that your edits will be reverted. That's the most appalling, passive aggressive, argument. leaving those whom you have falsely accused with absolutely no way of disproving your accusation, for you couch it in such vague terms than we're not even aware of the articles to which you're claiming you edits will be reverted. Please clean up your act. --Tony Sidaway 16:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, there is consensus for the changes to the guideline. Team Anti-Spoiler should learn the difference between consensus and unanimity.--YellowTapedR 02:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What consensus do you think you see? There may be a majority view that the guideline should be somehow different, but I haven't seen consensus for any particular substantive change. Marc Shepherd 02:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's really a case of disconsensus and removal of the baldly illogical plot=spoilers fallacy. Milo 21:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Enough filibustering. Consensus is clearly is favor of Parsifal's edits. --YellowTapedR 04:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

And what is the basis for this? Marc Shepherd 11:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As I suggested above, the best way to deal with these random edits may be to investigate the history of spoiler tag removal since mid-June. My seat-of-pants feeling on this is that the investigation will show that there is extremely low opposition to such removals, and reverts and discussion on talk pages, while they do happen, are extremely rare. Claims that the current guideline lacks consensus would thus be shown to be fictional by any reasonably comprehensive evidence-gathering exercise. The facts arising, being facts and not just opinions, where significant could be added to the guideline to show that it enjoys very broad de facto consensus indeed. --Tony Sidaway 13:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Tony's analysis is spot-on. Most pro-tag editors have consistently resisted all suggestions to provide any kind of empirical analysis or research. As Carl noted, it would also be helpful to have practical examples of where the tags would be worthwhile, but the pro-tag faction seldom offers any.

As far as I can tell, most people on the pro-tag side want a return to the "Wild West," where editors add spoiler tags pretty much wherever they want, without the near-automatic removal that is the case today. No one on the pro-tag side has actually used the term "Wild West," but as none of them has been willing to propose guidelines that would at all limit or guide editors, this is the practical effect of their position. Marc Shepherd 14:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"pro-tag editors have consistently resisted ... empirical analysis or research." I'd say what's being resisted is your transparent attempt to foist an "off-Wiki practice" philosophy I'd lightly describe as to the left of Attila the Hun.

"would at all limit or guide editors" That's your simple misunderstanding from failure to read the archives before becoming so eye-rollingly outspoken on this page. You appear to be promoting a thinly veiled conservatism when you don't even know what there is to conserve.

I made a statement early on that I accepted Phil Sandifer's good writing standards, which always was his principle complaint about spoiler tagging. AFAIK, no pro-tagger has disputed that principle that articles should be written as best possible, and only then consense spoiler tagging issues.

Once the article is well-written, spoiler tags can be reasonably placed anywhere the local consensus art jury decides that they are needed, and it does not affect the quality of writing. Anti-taggers are thus reduced to complaining about how the tags look. When tags are hidden by default they are left with nothing to complain about — yet they continue to complain. This is proof of a hidden agenda. On investigation this hidden agenda turns out to be no less than an attempt to exclude many of the next half-generation of young people from using and influencing Wikipedia. In the largest view, it is a pitiful attempt by fogeys, young and old, to hold back the inexorable process of change. Milo 21:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for Tony to provide data about how many different people have been adding spoiler tags in the last few months, and how many different people have been removing them. That, I think, would be a wonderful peek on what consensus might be. I've asked that since the very beginning. He's claimed all along that the edits had consensus because there's been "no significant opposition", and said he's monitored that opposition, and yet he's provided no empircal data on that vital question. He's provided a few data points that might seem at first glance to back up his side (mostly seeming to revolve around things like 'well, if there WAS opposition, they'd be back by now'), but then several people have also done counts at the number of different people who've been reverted by Tony personally which seem just as damning the other way.

I still think one of the fundamental problems is that many on the anti-spoiler-warning group won't budge much on the question of spoiler warnings. We _have_ proposed guidelines, and they tend to be shot down. So we propose them again, and they're shot down too... because they fundamentally don't agree spoiler warnings should exist, and so any proposal that includes them doesn't satisfy. Whereas with the pro-warning side, yes, we fundamentally believe that spoiler warnings should be included, but we are naturally willing to compromise on the amount. So I'm still waiting for a anti-warning person to propose firm guidelines that will allow some non-trivial number of spoiler warnings to exist, that won't be shot down, because we're not psychic. We can't read your minds to see what you might be okay with. So please, all those of you who are opposed to them, come up with some firm guidelines that allow some to exist that you could agree with, and save us a lot of work of trying to guess. You (Marc)'ve come closest to doing so, I think, with your time-based suggestion (but again, I think without it actually being a 'spoiler warning' and using the spoiler tag, it's a non-starter), and I thank you for the effort, which is why I endorsed the compromise-in-theory (devil's always in the details). Wandering Ghost 16:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't advocate gunslinging and tumbleweeds, but it's interesting to see what WP:CONSENSUS says about the conditions under which guidelines should exist: "If we find that a particular consensus happens often, we write it down as a guideline, to save people the time having to discuss the same principles over and over." Does it seem like that situation holds for WP:SPOILER — that we're observing a consensus on spoilers that arises often and independently, and codifying it in a guideline?

I would be happy to offer limiting suggestions for the guideline, with phrases like "reasonable expectation that narrative suspense is a significant element in the appreciation of the work" to eliminate the fairy-tale tags, and "significant penetration into popular culture" to stop people hiding that Darth Vader is Luke's father, but honestly it seems like this discussion is too clenched to get any traction on real revision here. People are demanding bright-line rules for a guideline that depends on flexibility and individual judgment. There's a middle ground between grim rigidity and the OK Corral. --Jere7my 07:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

(Just to save us a bit of back-and-forth: to anyone whose first response is, "Who decides what's 'reasonable' or 'significant'?" I say, "The local editors," to which the response will likely be, "That's how we got into this mess — local editors putting spoiler tags on the Three Little Pigs," to which I'll respond "Then a more reasonable editor will be able to point to this guideline and ask, 'Don't you think the Three Little Pigs has significant penetration in popular culture?' and if that leads to an argument on the talk page then it has bigger problems than spoiler tags.") --Jere7my 07:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"Wild West" is a bit dramatic, don't you think? The anti-spoiler team also fails to show empirical data other than saying, without backing it up, that no one is reverting, which is false. What you're really trying to do is prevent progress from being made on the guideline by changing the subject. I think a more worthy cause for the people who want to make wikipedia more encyclopedic is to nuke the trivia sections, but that's just me. --YellowTapedR 14:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Tony has, on numerous occasions, provided solid empirical data for his comments. He did not say that "no one is reverting." He said that there is "extremely low opposition to such removals." This can easily be seen by the fact that when instances of {{spoiler}} are removed, there is a fairly low incidence of them coming back again.

It's pretty clear that the pre-May standard was a "Wild West" (as far as spoiler tags went), with little consistency or guidance as to their use. If there's a middle ground that the pro-tag editors would favor, I'd like to know what it is. My own proposed compromise was summarily rejected—as, of course, I knew it would be—although it would have resulted in spoiler tags being added to thousands of articles. I'm not offering another one, as at this point I don't really know what the pro-tag faction wants, other than a return to the "Wild West." The pro-tag faction is much better at telling us what they're against, than telling us what they're for.

Now, here's a radical thought. Rather than beating their heads against a wall on this talk page, suppose the pro-tag faction actually chooses a few representative articles and adds spoiler tags in the manner that they believe is correct, then let us all know when they're done. Then we'd actually have something concrete to discuss. If Nydas, Milo, Parsifal, and YellowTapedR, and Koronue each pick 5 articles that are representative of their point of view, we'd then have 25 concrete examples to work with. Marc Shepherd 14:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be really refreshing. I'd welcome that. --Tony Sidaway 14:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"beating their heads against a wall" Interesting take, but a better metaphor is 'chiseling and undermining a wall protecting a house of cards'. My take is that Wikipedia is a correctness-seeking environment, pro-taggers are correct, therefore after a glacial-movement period of months to years, pro-taggers will eventually prevail when the larger community of editors rises up against this petty tyranny of incorrectness. Milo 21:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I provided research showing Kusma reverted 20 different users in 18 hours, suggesting that thousands of people have been reverted. I have advocated a variant of WP:ENGVAR as a basis for this policy, not the 'Wild West'. As it stands this 'guideline' is enforced more strictly than any policy, and is intellectually dishonest to boot. Tony's ideas of consensus are self-serving and incoherent, whilst Marc thinks off-Wiki practice should dictate our policies, over 5+ years of on-Wiki practice. --Nydas^(Talk) 14:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you're primarily focused on personal attacks and what purportedly happened in the past, rather than on what ought to be done about it now. If you made a concrete proposal based on WP:ENGVAR, can you kindly provide a link? I don't remember it.

I have never said that off-Wiki practice should dictate our policies. But an awful lot of Wikipedia policies are indeed analogues of off-Wiki precedents. If you are suggesting that spoiler tags ought to be used in certain situations, it's an awful lot easier if you can objectively demonstrate that numerous other sources, in similar situations, and in similar ways, have already done so.

On the other hand, if you cannot demonstrate objectively that numerous other sources have used spoiler tags in the way you are proposing, then it becomes an awful lot more difficult to argue persuasively that we are doing a disservice to the reader. It's not impossible to make that argument, but it becomes harder, and is more likely to be seen as an unsubstantiated personal preference.

In suggesting that you should back your proposed revision with objective facts, I am trying to make your life easier, not harder. If you do so, then it becomes something better than just "your opinion." Marc Shepherd 16:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't make things easier or more difficult because your entire premise is flawed. It's the no true Scotsman fallacy. There's no point trying to find objective information (like porridge consumption statistics), since the definition you are using is incorrect. Maybe you could find sources from before May 2007 which state that Wikipedia is not a true reference work due to spoiler tags.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the correct definition, then? As always, you tell us what things aren't, but don't tell us what they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc Shepherd (talk • contribs) 17:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, and it's not relevant. It's sufficient to note that few people consider not having spoiler warnings critical to being an encyclopedia. Just like you get cars with or without seatbelts, no-one would think that being a car was contingent on them.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a good example. You can't sell a car without working front and rear seatbelts in my country at least. I suspect this applies to the whole EU. No seatbelts, no car. A seatbelt-free car remains conceivable, and you can even have one and use it on your private property, but you can't keep it on the road or sell it. --Tony Sidaway 18:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"Most [U.S.] states exempt vehicles not manufactured with seatbelts" [14] Milo 21:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd go so far to say it's the perfect example AGAINST his case. Cars without seat belts are conceivable, and easy to manufacture, but put to actual use they go against common sense. For some people, similar reasoning could be applied to spoiler warnings on an encyclopedia. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Cars without seat belts aren't just 'conceivable', they exist, period. The point being that one can debate seat belts on their own merits, rather than insisting that car-ness is contingent on having seat belts in some platonic way.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Do school buses count here? They don't have seatbelts. Perhaps Wikipedia is a school bus. Now, can we pretend Nydas actually said "CD player" and move on? --Jere7my 07:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you find any that say it's good that WP has them compared other encyclopedias? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Heck, I'm happy to look far more broadly than that—not just at encyclopedias, but at other edited reference works, whatever and wherever they may be. I am simply trying to suggest a way that Nydas's point of view can be taken out of the realm of pure unsubstantiated emotional opinion. Perhaps there are other ways....? Marc Shepherd 19:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That's how I see your point of view. No organisation has decreed that encyclopedias cannot contain spoiler warnings. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with or without them.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the burden for giving reasons lies with those who want the guideline changed. Life's not fair that way. Yet, most of your posts are on peripheral topics: allegedly misbehaving editors/admins, fears of getting banned, or stating that the existing guideline is illegitimate in the first place. None of those points have led to a better guideline.

Saying that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with or without them" is weak, because it is neutral. If Wikipedia is just as good either way, then we might as well leave it the way it is.

I don't like the current guideline either, but my proposal for improving it was soundly defeated, and at the moment I can't think of a better one. I've given you two ideas, and you haven't pursued them. One is to survey what other reference sites have done. Another is to pick 5 Wikipedia articles and give us your proposal for how they should be re-edited for spoiler tags. Maybe someday I'll think of another method, but those are the two I can think of at the moment. Marc Shepherd 20:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why the anti-spoiler side isn't required to presesent these hard, objective facts. The best I've seen is some anecdotal evidence given (e.g. "look at this history page right now, a tag was removed and it hasn't been reinserted yet.") That's not objective (see anecdotal evidence). The best proposal I've seen so far is my own, to take a rough statistical measure using search engines and from that it's clear that numerous spoiler warnings exist on many sites all over the internet (at least 503,000; around a million on IMDB; some forum software has special mechanisms for it; etc). "If Wikipedia is just as good either way, then we might as well leave it the way it is." -- this isn't what Nydas stated; Nydas simply said that it would still remain an encyclopedia either way, not that it would be a better or worse of one. Can you point out a similar type of encyclopedia that doesn't include spoiler warnings? That's the problem, if we are to follow the strict, traditional definition, we'd have to take down the majority of Wikipedia articles. 99.9% of the works of fiction (e.g. movies) that people would like to have spoiler warnings don't even exist in traditional encyclopedias. I haven't heard of anyone looking for summaries of anything other than classical texts (e.g. fairy tales) in encyclopedias--Wikipedia is different, many, many people do look up summaries of plots on Wikipedia.I agree though that sample articles with warnings would be good. At the same time I wish someone disagreeing with my definition would speak out against it (I specified it in my comment responded to by Ghost). -Nathan J. Yoder 06:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that most encyclopedias do not contain detailed plot summaries of modern works, and those that do are sufficiently narrow in focus that a reader who picks up the book will have a reasonable expectation of getting spoiled. (Nobody's going to pick up the Doctor Who Fancyclopedia who doesn't already know what happens in the episodes, for instance.) There's also a question of implementation — how would spoiler tags work in printed matter? Most encyclopedias don't have hyperlinks, either! It's been demonstrated here that most broad-topic internet reference sites (e.g. IMDB) do use spoiler tags. --Jere7my 07:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The ongoing and apparently knowing definitional misuse of the word "random/randomly" in this thread appears to be edging into private language, which at Wikipedia is a pernicious type of tendentious debating - an offense that has inclusively led to the community ban of at least one editor. This type of tendentious debating is a willful blindness toward using English words or neologisms in a way that obscures or collides with dictionary-defined or well-known extra-lexical word meanings. Usefully novel meanings for established words are classically placed within quote marks or otherwise explained, but it remains fundamentally tendentious to write "three" in a context where one intends the meaning of "seven" or "pudding". Milo 21:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Five articles

It's rich to demand 5 articles each when we've probably not had 5 articles total where spoiler tags have done some damage.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a demand: more of a suggestion. If finding five articles in which you think spoiler tags would be appropriate would be too onerous, try a smaller number. --Tony Sidaway 15:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Marc Shepherd 16:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Marc Shepherd wrote (14:34): "adds spoiler tags in the manner that they believe is correct " To me this is a red herring, because Marc's suggestion comes across as disingenuous. With the spoiler guide as written I'm not allowed to do this. Milo 21:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That simply isn't true. Find an article, click the edit link, insert the characters {{spoiler}} where you think fit, and then click the "Save page" button. All editors are allowed to do this. --Tony Sidaway 11:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr. Literal.

I've looked over the current spoiler guide text, and I find the following texts which do not allow me to "[add] spoiler tags in the manner that [I] believe is correct".

"spoiler notices should only be used if a plot spoiler appears in an unexpected place" It says I can't put a spoiler tag just anyplace there is a spoiler. Maybe this doesn't quite require mind-reading the readers, but it is at least excessively presumptive in stereotyping them.
"it is generally redundant to put the tags in sections marked 'Plot' or 'Plot Summary'" It says I can't/shouldn't put a spoiler tag around a spoiler I find in these sections. This is of course the plot=spoilers fallacy, and to uphold correctness, fallacies written by editors must be removed from Wikipedia when they are discovered.
"Spoilers and spoiler warnings should not be used in articles on non-fictional subjects" It says I can't place any spoiler notice about non-fiction spoilers. This is a notion based on the failure of teapot rulers to do research before micromanaging editors who know more than the rulers do. This is a no-brainer -- all venues that have designed surprises should be allowed to have spoiler notice tags. This includes amusement rides which are technically non-fiction, and I provided a spoiler-tagged example on the talk page many weeks ago. In addition to designed surprises, there are spoiler leaks in delayed-broadcast sports venues. Last weekend I discovered (if I correctly understand it) that weekend wrestling shows are pre-recorded, and the live audience routinely leaks the shows' outcome to bloggers and fans who regularly post spoilers at WP prior to broadcast time. It's an unverified info problem for WP editors, but the point is that spoilers exist in the wrestling venue which, agree or not, is classified as non-fiction.
"Spoiler warnings are usually redundant when used to cover an entire "Plot" or "Synopsis" heading, or fictional "History" headings of any sort in articles whose subject is fictional, since spoilers are to be expected in a plot summary." I probably don't want to do this, but, again, this needs to be rewritten to remove the plot=spoilers fallacy.
"Articles about fictional characters, objects, or places can be expected to include significant elements of the story. They should only contain spoiler warnings around specific details that a reader might not expect to come across." It again says I can't put a spoiler tag just anyplace there is a spoiler. I want to put spoiler notices where the spoilers are, subject to approval by an unbiased local consensus art jury, and currently they are all biased due to the current unconsensed, biased, WP:Owned-by-force Wikipedia:Spoiler guide.
"Spoiler notices are more likely to be appropriate in newer works than in older works" This guide discourages me, and therefore I will be biasedly reverted, if I try to spoiler tag the Jurassic Park trilogy for those who haven't seen the greatest family movie of narrative suspense ever made. (There are many moments not to be spoiled, but I'm particularly thinking of the unforgettable human consumption scene.) This guide text is disrespectful toward the millions of young people who encounter older fiction works each year, and devaluing of the works themselves.
"Do not improvise such warnings in plain text" It says I can no longer write my own spoiler notice, no matter the local circumstances, or how inappropriate the template tag may be. This text is fascist spawn, and there is no need for it except to gratify control freaks. It's also enforceable only by a pointless Hans Brinker campaign against IP editors. It's difficult for IP editors to figure out how to place a template, much less find the right one. I wrote a plain-text notice because it was easy, said what I wanted it to say, and it worked just fine. Eventually, another editor replaced it with a template. I think that's the usual tag evolution.

Q.E.D., true enough. Milo 08:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read the text at the top of the guideline page. For your convenience, I will repeat the relevant part of it here:

This page is considered a style guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

(Bolded by me for emphasis)

Stop falsely claiming that the guideline "does not allow" you to edit Wikipedia as you see fit. --Tony Sidaway 16:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Milo has lost track of the objective. The idea is that Milo, rather than arguing in the abstract, would suggest some actual examples of where he thinks the tags are warranted, and how they would be placed. If he is concerned about editing the article namespace, he could provide the examples in his user space.

On top of that, if Milo would just provide the 5 examples, I would be happy to agree to a temporary moratorium on removing them, so that they could be adequately discussed on this talk page. If Milo is unable or unwilling to provide examples, it has to make me wonder just how important this is to him, or if he is just making a WP:POINT. Marc Shepherd 13:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL ! Did you even read WP:POINT? The first line header reads: "State your point; don't prove it experimentally. Which makes me wonder if you are out of your debating league...

In the post above I've explained by WP:Spoiler guide text analysis why I can't provide in-article examples. More exactly to your point, the two sides are so far apart that the detail level of examples you are asking for is without significant meaning. Furthermore, I'm arguing principle, of which there is an insufficient amount that the two sides have in common.

"Milo has lost track of the objective" Not at all; as proved by inspection of my posts, I have regularly and consistently restated it. As a primary objective, if agreed that good article writing comes first, then my objective is to allow editors to place, and the readers to use, spoiler notice tags where there are spoilers, as consensed by a local consensus art jury, as helped by the spoiler guide to do this, and unbiased by any rejected spoiler guide with the agenda of suppressing spoiler notices. There are probably a number of secondary objectives, including restoration of the spoiler-notice-relevant balance of power between Wikipedia central design and local editing autonomy. Milo 08:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Milo, if you think that Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point forbids you from editing Wikipedia to improve it, you have serious problems understanding Wkipedia policy. It does not. --Tony Sidaway 16:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In terms of the requests for "hard facts", I've begun compiling spoiler additions and removals day in, day out, and randomly sampling any articles that consistently appear to fluctuate between having warnings and having none. When I've got a good chunk of time, I'll post the data here. David Fuchs^(talk) 16:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR

Nydas first raised the idea of an WP:ENGVAR-style guideline in this discussion on 18 June, and it was supported by User:Wandering Ghost. However the discussion degenerated into an argument over the meaning of Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT).

He mentioned it again in this discussion on July 27 and again in this one on August 10. The idea doesn't seem to have gathered any traction on either occasion, and perhaps this was because there was some doubt as to how it should apply to spoiler tagging. Perhaps now would be a good time to flesh out the idea. --Tony Sidaway 16:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Tony for that. Nydas did indeed propose: "The best compromise would be a variant of WP:ENGVAR, stressing that spoiler warnings are neither good nor bad, with clear indications of exceptions."

That's basically what we have now. Nowhere does the existing guideline say that spoiler warnings are good or bad. There are two sections with the "exceptions," describing where warnings should not be used, and describing where they might be appropriate.

What I assume Nydas wants is a different set of exceptions—something that would be more supportive of using the warnings in a wider variety of circumstances. What those circumstances would be is the open question, to which he has never yet proposed a solution. Marc Shepherd 17:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing like what we have now. If WP:ENGVAR was like this guideline, it would contain 'On Wikipedia, however, it is generally expected that American spellings will be used. An article with strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation may use the spellings associated with that nation, provided that it does not interfere with clarity, conciseness and there is consensus for it.' Add in a group dedicated to using bots to eliminate non-American spellings, and it's easy to see what would happen.

What to take from WP:ENGVAR is the way in which it is enforced. There is no half-dozen admins devoted to eliminating all non-American spellings, it's decided at a local level. That's more important than the writing, although the WP:ENGVAR is far superior in this aspect as well.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There are many WP guidelines with bots regularly checking for enforcement. There are also some pretty damned important policies with no bot patrol, because no one can think of a way of doing it. For instance, there is no automated check for WP:NPOV violations, but I'll bet there are far more edits every day for NPOV than for spoiler tags.

WP:ENGVAR is like WP:NPOV, in that there is no straightforward way to check for violations. But it's very easy to find instances of {{spoiler}}. Whatever the correct guideline may turn out to be, what's wrong with checking for the tag and modifying the article if it doesn't belong there?

I mean, I can definitely see your reasoning for wanting the guideline to read differently than it does today. But once the guideline is modified to your satisfaction—I still don't know what that would look like, but let's suppose it happens somehow—why shouldn't you want diligent editors patrolling to check that it is correctly followed? Marc Shepherd 21:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Nydas is saying that guideline wording is always imperfect, so there will always be gray areas that require local attention by editors familiar with the subject. I.e., WP:SPOILER is more like WP:NPOV. --Jere7my 08:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that guidelines are always imperfect. With 2,000,000 articles in English Wikipedia, every guideline is being constantly violated. But there are some well written guidelines that provide clear advice with solid, real-life examples. All I've asked of Nydas (and those sharing his viewpoint) is to suggest how that could work for WP:SPOILER, and he always refuses. Marc Shepherd 13:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer and Tony Sidaway expressly forbade the use of clearcut examples. When I added a blurb stating that spoiler warnings might be OK on recently released films, they removed it.

A guideline would have a list of when spoiler warnings are appropriate (though not necessary) and when not appropriate. You say that this is what we have now, but only in the way the 1936 Soviet Constitution guaranteed universal suffrage. A simple list of articles that should not have spoiler tags would be fiction over 300 years old, poems, nursery rhymes, fairy tales, folklore, religion, music, cartoon shorts, operas and non-fiction. This can be changed as necessary. Otherwise it's up local editors. You call this 'Wild West', I call it 'Wikipedia'. In practice this will probably mean that spoiler tags will return to standalone fiction like Sati (book), whilst not to franchise fiction (which is dominated by powerful Wikiprojects).--Nydas^(Talk) 18:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sati (book) in its present state is a perfect example of an article that does not need a spoiler tag. The book is 17 years old and the other sections are clearly labeled. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The plot summary in Sati is so small that one could think that it was a back-of-the-book style blurb. I don't subscribe to your view that people should avoid plot summaries in all cases, even when it looks safe. It's hobbling Wikipedia's accessibility and functionality with a moral and aesthetic agenda.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A brief and unscientific survey of spoiler tagging in the top grossing movies of 2007

In practice discussions over spoiler tags seem to be surprisingly rare. For instance I would expect a fair amount of discussion about plot spoilers for recent grossing movies, but looking at the top ten of 2007 according to 2007 movies#Box_Office, I see the following:

Movie	US release date	Spoilers/tagging discussion?	Tags added/removed?	Tag edit war?
Ocean's Thirteen	8 June	None	Yes	No
Live Free or Die Hard	27 June	Briefly 1 July	Yes	No
Ratatouille (film)	29 June	None	Quite a lot	No
300 (film)	9 March	23 March and 7 August	No	No
The Simpsons Movie	27 July	25 July and 29 August	Yes	No
Transformers (film)	2 July	Extensively 2-8 July and also 3 August	Yes	No
Shrek the Third	18 May	Undated	Yes	No
Spider-Man 3	4 May	14 June and 5 September	Yes	No
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film)	11 July	None	Yes	No
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End	24 May	7 June, 2006 7 July, 2006, 29 May, 2007 and 13 June, 2007	Yes	No

The methodology used here was quite simple. I searched for the word "spoiler" in each talk page and associated archive for the second column. I searched for the word "spoiler" in the article history for the third. For the fourth, I looked for signs of an edit war involving edit summaries containing the word "spoiler", and found none.

My impression from reading the discussions is that most of the concern by far was during the pre-release when so-called "spoiler" websites start releasing unauthorized details of the plot. Such details when they appear without proper reliable sourcing in a Wikipedia article should of course be summarily removed. After the first weekend, it seems, concern about spoilers diminishes considerably. --Tony Sidaway 16:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a point — my primary reason for including spoiler tags is to protect not the people editing the articles (who presumably are already familiar with the work in question!) but the larger number of visiting users. Local editors might not even notice spoiler tags being added or deleted, because they're not affected by them, whereas someone without an account who visits an article might be quite upset at the lack of spoiler notices, but not have the knowhow to add them back or click on the discussion tab to register a complaint. Wikipedia should serve the world, not just the community of editors. Even local editors who want the spoiler tags reinstated may be keeping mum until the firestorm dies down — I get the sense that there are a lot of pro-spoiler prairie dogs on local pages who don't want to pop their heads up. --Jere7my 18:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The way Wikipedia works is that we decide article content by consensus arrived at through discussion. If nobody says anything then we cannot know whether it's because they don't have opinions or they have opinions that they don't want to express. --Tony Sidaway 18:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That surely can't be applied wholesale to Wikipedia policy, though. "This would make the encyclopedia more useful for non-editors" seems like an important class of arguments that shouldn't be dismissed just because non-editors (obviously!) aren't speaking for themselves. To put it another way, we are all here to make the encyclopedia "better", which presumably means better for the users, not just the editors!

I also think reaching consensus requires encouraging reluctant editors to express their opinions, and creating an environment where they feel comfortable doing so; otherwise, it becomes a question of wearing down the opposition and "winning", not seeking consensus. --Jere7my 19:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You're both right...in different ways. The population most likely to be upset about an unmarked spoiler is a non-editor—someone coming to Wikipedia to browse, and especially someone who has never used the site before. If anyone is going to be caught unawares, it will be these people.

Regular visitors and most editors will quickly realize—whether they like it or not—that Wikipedia articles aren't spoiler-protected. If they care about that sort of thing, they'll adjust their browsing habits to avoid articles where their enjoyment has the potential to be "spoiled."

I agree with Jere7my that there are probably some editors who would prefer to see the tags, but they accept that "the battle is lost," and they've moved on with their lives. Tony's stats purport to show that there aren't really many people who deeply care about this, while others have anecdotes that purport to show the opposite. Marc Shepherd 19:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the study even concludes that discussion about spoilers are rare, since it shows that most of the talk pages had some sort of discussion about them. And the movies used as examples aren't really known for their twists. --YellowTapedR 20:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This study shows how editors write under the constraints of a guideline that they believe is not disputed. It does not show anything about how those same editors would write if the guideline were different. If someone removes a spoiler notice with an edit summary "removing per WP:SPOILER - no spoiler notices in plot sections", and the guideline says "no spoiler notices in plot sections", most editors will accept that. They are being good citizens, following the guideline. That does not show they like it or agree with it. --Parsifal _Hello 22:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That's circular reasoning, isn't it? On Wikipedia, you're allowed to dispute anything. Every time an editor reads a guideline, and elects to follow it, it represents a decision not to go to the talk page and raise a dispute. Admittedly, there are probably some editors who believe disputing it would be futile, or who don't know that they're allowed to dispute it. But I have no reason to think that happens with WP:SPOILER any more often than it does with any other guideline.

Common sense would suggest, however, that editors who apply the guideline probably agree with it on some level. With all the myriad ways one can spend time here, people don't generally go around fixing violations of guidelines they personally disagree with. Marc Shepherd 22:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you have a good point that if someone doesn't like a guideline they can dispute it; though I'm not sure that if they apply it that means they agree with it. Most users have never edited a guideline, and I'd bet most have not even looked at a guideline talk page. While the guideline header template does indicate it can be edited, it makes a very official-looking presentation; a level of experience and boldness is needed to dive in and change a guideline or post on its talk page contrary to the guideline's current content, whatever that is - especially a guideline with as much tension and polarization in the discussion as this one. Imagine how this talk page would look to a less experienced editor reading it for the first time... --Parsifal _Hello 23:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ocean's Thirteen is about a scam in which the target of the trick is concealed until late in the movie. Live Free Or Die Hard, it only emerges late in the movie, is about a complex trick to exploit a weakness in the US national defence system. In Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End there are several questions pending from the film's predecessor, and the close of the movie contains a significant revelation about the eventual fate of a major character. Similar revelations are made in Transformers (film).

Three of the ten seem to have no spoiler discussion at all, and in three others (Live Free or Die Hard, Shrek the Third and Spider-Man 3) the discussion was desultory, negligible.

Of spoilers in Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, half the discussions were last year, concerning pre-release spoilers. The remainder were likewise desultory.

A complaint about spoilers in 300 (film) was resolved by removal from the Lead section of the statement "The sacrifice of the Spartans inspires all of Greece to unite against the Persian invaders." I've no idea whether this is a key part of the film but it's certainly a key part of the role of the event in Greek history. I suspect that if the same discussion took place today, instead of pre-May, we might place more emphasis on that historical context and the lead might well retain that contextual statement. It would depend how Frank Miller treated the story.

A comparison of the two discussion about spoiler tags in The Simpsons Movie (one before US release, the other a month after) demonstrates how shortlived the concern about spoilers can be.

Only in Transformers (film) has there been really extensive discussion of spoiler tags after the release of the film. There seems to be consensus that the events of the film radically change the structure of the "universe". There is no spoiler tag on that article, but searching the last 2500 edits, which takes us back to the release weekend, I don't see edits that strike me as having the stamp of the alleged "anti-spoiler gang". No, these chaps seem to have decided off their own bat that the article does not need a spoiler tag or warning of any kind.

Have I missed anything out? --Tony Sidaway 22:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I just don't understand how you can discussion about spoilers were "rare" in the examples you gave, since most of them did indeed have discussion. I maintain that they aren't the greatest examples because their strenghts aren't in the twists. And you should take into account that most discussion on talk pages are shortlived. Just because they don't go on for weeks doesn't mean there's consensus in your end.

Ocean's 13 is expected to have twists and turns, and therefore the viewer isn't really surprised. In Live Free or Die Hard, the plot isn't all that important, and the terrorists' plans are so convoluted that it's hard to understand them anyway. I zoned out during At World's End and missed Transformers, so I can't speak to those.

How about looking at 5 or so randomly picked films released in the past two years that do have significant twists. --YellowTapedR 03:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a great idea. Marc Shepherd 11:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

YellowTapedR, I've just given evidence that, of articles about recent major blockbuster movies, eight out of ten articles contained either no discussion of spoiler tagging at all, or only trivial discussion where post-release spoilers are concerned. The exceptions were 300 (film) and Transformers (film). The former had discussion resulting in removal of significant content from the lead (which may or may not have been appropriate, but the decision was arrived at by consensus). The latter has had extensive discussion of spoilers, but doesn't appear to have ever had a tag.

When you said "Ocean's 13 is expected to have twists and turns, and therefore the viewer isn't really surprised", I nearly fell out of my chair. You almost appear to be making an argument that we should not put spoiler tags on articles about films that are widely expected to comprise plot twists. --Tony Sidaway 14:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think spoiler tags should be in plot sections. So, yes, anybody who actually reads through the Ocean's 13 plot not expecting to be spoiled has it coming. Maybe it's because I didn't consider the twist in Ocean's 13 to be surprising given the nature of the series and that I wasn't particularly interested in what happened to begin with. --YellowTapedR 16:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A brief and unscientific survey of spoiler tagging in crime thriller films from mid-2005-mid-2007

Someone suggested this: How about looking at 5 or so randomly picked films released in the past two years that do have significant twists

Okay.

Methodology: I went through Category:Crime thriller films in alphabetical order, finding articles about films released between mid-2005 and mid-2007. I discounted those that had no appreciable plot summary. I stopped when I had found ten of them. Then I followed the same (very simple, simple-minded) methodology I had followed for the survey of top-grossing 2007 movies.

There were no overlaps: by coincidence, no films in the previous survey were included in this one.

Movie	US release date	Spoilers/tagging discussion?	Tags added/removed?	Tag edit war?
.45 (film)	27 April 2007 (DVD)	None	No	No
16 Blocks	3 March 2006	None	No	No
Cargo (2006 film)	24 January, 2006	None	No	No
The Da Vinci Code (film)	19 May 2006	Briefly 22 May, 2006	Yes	No
The Departed	6 October, 2006	14 October, 2006, 14 October, 2006, 27 February, 2007	Yes	No
A History of Violence (film)	September 23, 2005	None	Yes	No
Inside_Man	23 March, 2006	Extensive at Talk:Inside_Man	Yes	No
The Lookout	30 March 2007	None	Yes	No
Lord of War	16 September 2005	None	Yes	No
Lucky Number Slevin	7 April, 2006	None	Yes	No

--Tony Sidaway 15:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the above selection:

.45 doesn't have much of a plot summary, and the film was released to DVD.
Cargo doesn't have much of a plot summary
Lord of War's plot is tortuous and unreadable, and the plot appears to be horrifying rather than twisty. There are events there that could be called "spoilers", however, particularly the deaths.

Against those are strong genre thrillers such as Lucky Number Slevin, Inside Man, The Da Vinci Code, 16 Blocks, etc. --Tony Sidaway 15:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Discarding .45, Cargo, and Lord of War, again we see that most of the articles do not have any discussion about spoilers. Only three out of the remaining seven articles have any discussion at all, and only two of those three have other than negigible discussion. --Tony Sidaway 15:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I'm not sure what to make of the results. I guess one thing I would say it shows is that editors are able to decide on the tags locally and civilly, since no edit wars were reported. --YellowTapedR 16:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tags are redundant in plot summary sections

The point of a section entitled "plot summary" in an encyclopedia article on a book or other work of fiction is to summarize the entire plot of the work, including all important details and the ending. This contrasts with copy on book jackets and newspaper reviews. These are intentionally not plot summaries. They intentionally leave out important details in the interest of selling books (in the case of book covers) or avoiding spoilers (in the case of reviews). Our goal here is not to sell books or to avoid spoilers - it is to be comprehensive in our coverage of all important aspects of any work of fiction for which we have an article. That's why spoiler tags are redundant on plot summary sections here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tags are not redundant in plot summaries. Readers often may wish to know the premise of a plot, and the initial elements, but still wish to skip over sections of the plot description that would spoil the experience of reading the book or seeing the film.

In the current guideline, it is stated that separate sections of articles should not be set aside for spoilers to be included. Therefore spoilers, if they exist in a story, will appear in the plot section. If we eliminate spoiler notices from the plot sections, then readers who want a plot summary without spoilers are out of luck and will visit IMDb instead of Wikipedia.

We can solve this by either accepting spoiler notices within the plot section, or by accepting that some fiction articles will have two plot sections - one that is a summary with no spoilers included, and another more complete plot section that does include spoilers.

Since there has been very strong opposition to the idea of accepting separate spoiled and non-spoiled plot sections, it seems that the best solution is to accept spoiler notices within plot sections when there is an important plot twist.

If we don't accept that, then many readers will simply avoid Wikipedia articles about films or books they have not seen or read. That deprecates Wikipedia by reducing readership; it deprecates the experience of those readers who would like to know more about a film or book before experiencing it, in that some advance knowledge can make the experience better in many ways; and it deprecates the work of those Wikipedia editors who are also enthusiasts of film or book fiction and who do not wish their work to spoil the experience of others. --Parsifal _Hello 02:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, readers who do not want to learn the plot of a fictional work should not read an encyclopedia article about the work, and certainly should not read a section entitled "plot summary" in an encyclopedia article about the work. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the edit which perpetuates the plot=spoilers fallacy. Some plot summaries have spoilers and some don't; that's a fact that falsifies an unqualified claim of spoiler tag redundancy in plot summary sections.

Garion96's edit summary weakly attempted to justify a connection between the two using the unqualified phrase "plot or plot summary is an excellent indication there will be spoilers", meaning he claims by probability that one is very likely to find spoilers in all the things or at least most of the things called "plot" or "plot summary" that exist in the publishing world. I doubt that's true because of the bias by publishers, fans, and reviewers, to avoid spoilers. Summaries by their nature leave things out. Since there is both a profit bias and a social disappointment bias to leave spoilers out, then logically spoilers will be left out far more often than other plot details, making it less likely to find spoilers in plot summaries. How much less likely is more difficult to say, but at the least it falsifies the claim of "an excellent indication". Until and unless proved otherwise, I assess Garion96's claim to be a notion.

Out of the many kinds of "plot" and "plot summary", I used the example of novel jackets because it was the largest and most simple example that would fit in the edit summary.

CBM wrote (02:33): "The point of a section entitled "plot summary" in an encyclopedia article on a book or other work of fiction is to summarize the entire plot of the work, including all important details and the ending." I agree that this sounds like a "Wikipedia plot summary", that being a particular type of plot summary heavily promoted on this page for months, but the article sections aren't being titled that way. The readers only see "Plot summary" and Wikipedia by policy does not uniquely decide the definition or restrict range of use of that or any other common-use phrase. There exist other types of write-ups that readers seem to think are plot summaries in a continuum ranging from many details with an ending, to the skeleton summaries printed in TV schedules. Are you saying all those readers are wrong? If so, can you prove it?

''CBM wrote (02:33): "This contrasts with copy on book jackets and newspaper reviews. These are intentionally not plot summaries." Intentionally not plot summaries? Can you cite a definitional source for this breath-taking claim covering the entire field of book and newspaper publishing? Milo 07:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The empirical evidence contradicts what Milo is saying. When editors put {{spoiler}} on a page, the most commmon usage is to mark the entire plot, or in some cases the entire article. It would seem, then, that the average editor does not see it the way Milo does.

I do agree with Milo that the common-sense meaning of "spoiler" is not the entire plot, but some subset of it. But it's clear that, without better guidance, editors will continue to use the {{spoiler}} tag rather indiscriminately. Marc Shepherd 12:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I added an instruction in the "how to use" section of the guideline to clarify this. --Parsifal _Hello 17:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I did explain why it isn't right to compare newspaper/book jacket plot blurbs with plot blurbs in an encyclopedia. "They intentionally leave out important details in the interest of selling books (in the case of book covers) or avoiding spoilers (in the case of reviews)."

Let me expand on an earlier comment I made: any section here entitled "plot summary" should cover all significant points of the plot of the work, including spoilers and the ending as appropriate. If some articles don't do this, it's because the articles aren't done yet. In an ideal limit when every article has reached perfection, those incomplete articles would have longer plot summaries. The right solution to a plot summary that only has some significant details, but not all of them, is to add the rest when possible, not add a spoiler tag for the ones that are there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If mis-use of tags isn't good enough reason to delete them (there's discussion about the Trivia tag along the same lines, that people tag anything labeled "Trivia" even if it's appropriate to the article as per the guideline), then it's certainly not good enough reason to re-write the guideline. Just because people misuse spoiler tags, and misuse them often, doesn't mean there's never a proper use for them; misuse of fact tags doesn't mean you shouldn't tag anything as unverified, does it? I think we need to throw out this "people misuse them" argument and focus on the ideal - because isn't the guideline here to show us what, if all the tags were used properly, things SHOULD look like? Kuronue | Talk 20:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would much rather discuss situations where the tags might be appropriate. There has been a lack of such examples. Would you suggest a couple test cases? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there was the spoiler tag over at Halo: Combat Evolved that was in the 'enemies' section, because it detailed the existence of the Flood. I suppose that some would try and put the spoiler in the plot section where it is talked about the appearance of this enemy- I know I removed one global spoiler on the page a while back. David Fuchs^(talk) 16:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

2007-9-12

Please note that the sentence in the lede about spoiler tags being redundant in plot sections is not detailed below; the lower part has a weaker sentence. I tried to move the sentence from the lede to a lower section, to remove redundancy as D. Fuchs was trying to do, but my edit was reverted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

2007-9-14

I have again moved the sentence from the lede lower down. The lede clearly stated that spoiler tags are generally inappropriate inside plot sections (not just at the top); the lower part only talks about using them to cover an entire plot section. I agree that the lower part is redundant, but the way to remove that redundancy is to remove the weaker wording, not the stronger wording. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No example has been given of an article where the spoiler warning tag is justifiable inside a "plot summary" section. I encourage anyone who thinks there might be an example to present one. If no example can be found of an instance where a warning tag is appropriate in a plot summary section, then there's no reason for the guideline not to point out that "generally" these tags are unneeded; that would make the guideline agree with real life. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Persistent false allegations of disputed content

The guideline has not changed significantly in function or wording since late July. It's time to start treating attempts to label this guideline as "in dispute" as trolling. No dispute has been demonstrated in months. The new guideline has worked flawlessly since early June.

It is for those who wish to claim that this guideline is disputed (and that doesn't mean "I personally disagree with it" to demonstrate that there is significant divergence between this guideline and on-wiki practice. --Tony Sidaway 20:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, enlighten me, what the heck you call this:

08:02, September 13, 2007 Kusma (Talk | contribs) (2,584 bytes) (rewritten to conform to reality (no spoiler warnings except for {{current fiction}})) (undo)

09:07, September 13, 2007 Marc Shepherd (Talk | contribs) (7,127 bytes) (revert edit, which borders on vandalism. Certainly nothing resembling consensus for it.) (undo)

09:10, September 13, 2007 Kusma (Talk | contribs) (2,584 bytes) (rv edit with edit summary bordering on personal attack to descriptive guideline instead of wishful thinking) (undo)

09:27, September 13, 2007 YellowTapedR (Talk | contribs) (7,127 bytes) (Marc's right, no consensus for such a drastic change) (undo)

This was, oh, let me think... yesterday. Not in dispute? Assuming dispute means that there are groups of editors who disagree and are working towards a compromise, this page is in dispute. Assuming disputed means the guideline doesn't reflect on-wiki practice, it's in "dispute" because the current practice states no spoiler tags, no consideration of spoilers at all, wheras the guideline says you can put them in certain places as exceptions. Kuronue | Talk 16:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Editors trolling does not equate to a dispute. If there is evidence that there are serious problems implementing the guideline, let's see the evidence. A few editors editing a guideline to match their personal preferences, which have been slung out and forgotten by the rest of the community, does not amount to a dispute. As I have suggested before, it is probably time to call this what it is: trolling. --Tony Sidaway 17:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Trolling? I see. I forgot. To the anti-spoiler brigade, anyone who disagrees are trolls. Bah. Forget it. I see this page isn't ready to settle down and seriously discuss things yet. Kuronue | Talk 17:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Demonstrate a substantive problem with implemenation of the current guideline, or stop trolling. --Tony Sidaway 17:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Damn the torpedos, once more into the breach, etc.

I've drafted a new spoiler guideline at User:Jere7my/spoilerdraft, which I am sure will be heralded as a model of fairness and tact that will obviate all further discussion on this talk page. ;) It's almost a complete ground-up rewrite, but most of the central concepts remain; in large part, I'm just scraping off the barnacles and streamlining the hull. But not all the central concepts remain — I did introduce some policy compromises. I'm not trying to sneak anything in; I hope my proposal will be carefully examined!

In short, the changes I tried to make are:

1) Concision. I think my version of the guideline is clearer, briefer, and easier to follow; the current version has a lot of legacy phrasing, and the meat is buried in dense paragraphs of rules. There's also a lot of repetition — e.g., "it is generally redundant to put the tags in sections marked 'Plot' or 'Plot Summary'" and "Spoiler warnings are usually redundant when used to cover an entire 'Plot' or 'Synopsis' heading." I would advise against adding barnacles back to try to plug every hole — that just makes the guideline harder to read and follow. Special cases should be deduceable from the broad guidelines, and where they're not, sensible people will sort things out locally. Which brings me to...

2) Assuming good faith. The current guideline really does not assume good faith, which is one of my major beefs with it. It opens with a barrage of warnings and reiterations of basic Wikipedia policy, and scolds editors before they've had a chance to do anything wrong. (For instance, the syntax for adding a spoiler tag is one of the last things on the page!) I get the sense that the current guideline is written to continue the argument with editors who might read it; I feel that's not appropriate in a style guide, and some of the specific injunctions will appear dated once this argument dies down (or before — who uses ROT-13 anymore?). Mine, I hope, is more neutrally worded, is firm without being condescending, and reads like a style guideline. It doesn't explicitly draw as many boundary lines, but if we are assuming good faith, and not assuming a priori that it will be abused, they shouldn't be necessary. (I do include a line about consensus, but telling people that their edits shouldn't violate NPOV, for instance, seems redundant.)

3) Truth in advertising. This is my big attempt at compromise — my guideline encourages people to clearly label their section headings, to not usually mark spoilers in section headings that clearly contain them (like "Synopsis"), and to mark them in vaguely labeled sections (like "Plot", which apparently means different things to different people). If local consensus is for arranging the article so no spoiler tags are possible, that's a possibility, but there are other options as well for articles that don't lend themselves to that sort of compartmentalization.

4) Judgment. My guideline does leave more judgment in the hands of local editors, while constraining them more than the "Wild West" scenario. I tried to include a few tips for how spoiler judgments might be sourced, though, to encourage people to think along those lines. --Jere7my 04:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The draft has some good ideas, but overall it leans towards a philosophy that spoiler tags should be used to mark many plot details, and in particular seems to encourage them in many sections where the current guideline argues against them. For example, we have yet to find any example of an article that needs a spoiler tag in a plot summary section; lacking evidence that they are ever needed, we don't want the guideline to suggest that it's OK to write ' an opening paragraph that offers an overview of the plot, then mark off the detailed plot summary with spoiler tags.' — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope it doesn't encourage people one way or the other — what it does, I hope, is permit the organization of articles the way you and Tony et al. like them, with no tags and spoilers in their proper sections, while also permitting local editors some leeway in organization. If you then happen across an article with such a tag, you can reorganize it the way you like, and if locals think it's better it'll stick. Sound reasonable?

What really struck me, in writing this guideline, is how close the positions are at this point. Really, the difference between a spoiler tag and a section heading that functions as a spoiler tag is picayune, a minor formatting question! --Jere7my 18:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I like it. The current guideline focusses mainly on what not to do, while the proposed one is much more positive in its language. --YellowTapedR 05:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's vastly superior to the current guideline in every way, although the problem of over-zealous and biased enforcement will probably not go away. I would avoid using the phrase 'significant penetration into popular culture'. Popular culture is a vague term, and tends to get defined in US-centric, fan-centric terms. For example, we've had it claimed that Darth Vader is universally well-known or that the endings of Ender's Game or the Asimov novels are common knowledge.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! Darth Vader is actually one of the "spoilers" I was trying to explicitly permit. I think that stopped being a spoiler when Spaceballs came out — if Mel Brooks doesn't need to worry about spoiling people, I don't think we do! It's inevitable that people living under a rock will be spoiled by Wikipedia if they're not careful. This is one of the compromise points I think "our" side would do well to give ground on. --Jere7my 18:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that Darth Vader should have a spoiler tag, but I don't think that the character is universally well known, either. Is he well known in China, the Middle East or Africa, or amongst women over 50? I can imagine people in their fifties and sixties thinking that Dan Dare comics or Roy Rogers films are universally well known (note I don't want spoilers on them). In fact, a good test of whether something is widely known is 'would my parents know?'. The problem with the parody test is that parodies are usually aimed at fans.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to get at with "well-known" parodies — something that's been shown at a couple of cons, editors will be able to argue, isn't well-known. (Granted, this makes the definition slightly circular, but I hope it's workable anyway.) In the interest of keeping the guideline sleek, I'd avoid a lot of exceptions. We don't want to reserve all the bickering fun for ourselves! ;) --Jere7my 20:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have an improved version:

Wikipedia does not use spoiler warnings.

This describes the current reality concisely and is vastly superior to both the current guideline and Jere7my's suggestion. Kusma (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That being an extremist position, isn't going to happen.

And now, back the realistic compromise under discussion. Milo 11:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I know that my position used to be extreme. To my surprise, the current use of spoiler warnings on Wikipedia reflects my position. I never thought a removal of all spoiler warnings possible, but I had vastly overestimated their popularity. My policy proposal is a pretty accurate description of spoiler practices on Wikipedia, far more than the "compromise" suggested above. Kusma (talk) 11:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution, Kusma, but I don't think it's at all likely to stick. --Jere7my 18:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It has stuck for a couple of weeks in the encyclopedia. The guideline here will have to be adjusted to reality at some point. Kusma (talk) 08:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Jere7my, I'm encouraged by reading your draft. Please take a look at Milo (08:31) Seven current spoiler guide texts that will not allow me to add spoiler notice tags in the manner that I believe is correct. Of particular interest may be #3 ""Spoilers and spoiler warnings should not be used in articles on non-fictional subjects"" I give examples of why this provision is poorly considered, possibly based on some kind of professional reviewer's parochial world view.
I think you may be promoting an incorrect definition of "synopsis" as being so complete ("a synopsis will necessarily describe the entire plot") that it is guaranteed to contain most/all spoiler details. Several dictionaries refer to "synopsis" as meaning brief, sketchy, or concise, and one glossary says it's synonymous with "plot summary". All summaries must leave things out, and there is high pressure from publishers/producers (profit) and fans (avoiding disappointment) to preferentially leave out spoilers.
A phrase you may be looking for that would be most plot-detail complete is
"plot compendium"
COED compendium: 1 a collection of concise but detailed information about a particular subject.
WordNet compendium: 2. a concise but comprehensive summary of a larger work
Milo 11:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Plot compendium" seems unwieldy, but it could work — I'm open to suggestions! I chose synopsis based on the dictionary.com entry: "a brief summary of the plot of a novel, motion picture, play, etc." That seems to be a teachable standard; "synopsis" is a slightly unusual word, and word could well filter out that, in Wikipedia, "synopsis" means "complete summary". "Plot" seems to have too much variance in how people interpret it. I'd be happy with "synopsis" and "overview" to draw the distinction, which would be eminently clear. (I didn't suggest removing the word "plot" entirely only because that's a major change that would produce a lot of backlash.) --Jere7my 18:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad try, Jere7my. Some comments:

You've omitted all mention of Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles (WP:NDT). Since this guideline is explicitly mentioned in that guideline as an exception to the general rule, it should be mentioned here too, in the lead section.
"Wikipedia uses spoiler tags to mark off significant plot details in articles about fictional works" is incorrect. We don't do that any more. Spoiler tagging is very much a rare exception.
'A section header such as "Plot" or "Overview" can be ambiguous as to the presence of detailed spoilers' doesn't ring true to me. If somebody doesn't expect to find a discussion of the plot in a section called "Plot", there's no hope for him. Seriously, we cannot cater for the irremediably stupid, and in that we're in the same boat with people who design stop lights, hot water taps, and so on. There is a limit. I don't think a "Plot summary" heading is any more illuminating than "Plot", in any case. On "Overview", you're on firmer ground, but I don't think we've got many "Overview" sections that actually describe the plot.
'A plot detail that arises in an unexpected place — a "Cast of Characters" or "Setting" section, for instance — may be marked off with spoiler tags' -Actually current practice is to make the section heading more descriptive.
'In a work that is uncommonly reliant on the impact of a plot twist or surprise ending — a murder mystery, for instance — a spoiler tag may be appropriate even within a properly labeled "Synopsis" section.' In practice we have not found this to be the case.

--Tony Sidaway 15:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony! Some responses:

If mentioning the exception to the disclaimers rule is important, then including it would be fine, though I'd prefer a briefer "This guideline is an exception to WP:DISCLAIMERS" than the current two sentences. I just deleted that as an excessively verbose barnacle, but if it serves a purpose, so be it.
Insofar as spoiler tags are used, they are used to mark off significant plot details — that's what the tag says, after all! They aren't used to mark off all or even many plot details, but the sentence is true as written, no? We could introduce a "some" or "sometimes", but I was looking for a simple descriptive sentence telling what tags are used for, when they are used.
I've seen quite a few complaints about the lack of clarity in headings titled "Plot", here and on David Gerard's talk page and elsewhere. I don't think they're all irredeemably stupid! It just seems to be a section that means different things to different people. It doesn't seem overburdensome to find a clearer wording for those section titles, which would not require adding any new spoiler tags. I'm open to further suggestions!
I think I hinted at the option of renaming the section title, and certainly encouraged people to move the plot detail to a better section, but this is a place where I think leaving the decision to local editors is a good idea. It duplicates the current guideline: "...spoiler notices should only be used if a plot spoiler appears in an unexpected place."
I do think it's a good idea to leave the option open for people to spoiler-protect a major plot twist in a little-known or recent work. The Sixth Sense won't need to be protected, per the popular culture clause, but there are a lot of works nobody's ever heard of that have a major twist, and local editors may want to mark them off. This is a complaint I've seen frequently on talk pages — something local editors seem to want the option to do — and since I encouraged people to source such tags they shouldn't be abused.

Any guideline that damps the flames here is going to require both sides to give a little, and I aimed for compromise in a few places, while describing the consensus we have (which turns out to be quite a bit!). I'm asking "Tony's" side to give ground on the rules that seem to generate the most specific "Why can't I do this?" complaints (that I've seen), and asking "my" side to accept some of the things in the current guideline that they're not thrilled with.

The upshot of my proposed guideline is that Tony, or whoever wants to, will be able to go into most articles and touch them up, by clearly renaming sections and moving a sentence here and there, so spoiler tags aren't necessary. But if local consensus is for a different organizational scheme then that option is available, and local editors will be able to point to the guideline and say "My way is also OK." That seems eminently reasonable to me, and if consensus is indeed against spoiler tags that will become apparent naturally. If consensus chooses to have some spoiler tags in certain places, that will emerge as well. Yes?

It definitely stands in the path of a return to the wild wild west! --Jere7my 18:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Good job so far. While it might be a little too simplistic, I think in general it's much more fresh and certainly more useful than the discussions previously. I made one change, based on sentiment expressed prior, but other than that I think most points are just to be argued out. I'll read over it completely when I have time. David Fuchs^(talk) 19:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I undid your change, on the argument that what you added is said again in the next section, and I want to avoid duplication. I'd be open to clarifying the point that commonly-known works no longer have narrative suspense, if it can be done tidily! --Jere7my 20:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I changed the wording around, a bit subtly, so it gives the impression that section-renaming and spoiler-moving should be considered before adding spoiler tags, without locking anyone into that path. I hope that takes the curse off a bit for Carl and Tony. :) --Jere7my 20:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I like what it says about headings called "Detailed Summary." That's an easy way to avoid spoiling readers without using tags. Maybe using that term should be encouraged across the board, if for nothing else, for the sake of consistency. Or at least for articles that give away the ending. Some articles have endless paragraphs to explain the entire plot, while others, like the one I wrote for Who Can Kill a Child? do it in just a few because editors are a little hazy on the details. --YellowTapedR 04:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Format of the tag

In those cases where a spoiler tag is appropriate—and regardless of how frequent or infrequent that may turn out to be—what form should it take?

A while ago, Milo proposed the following:

Note: spoiler details follow

I think this is a significant improvement over the current version of {{spoiler}}, which at present displays like this:

Note: Significant plot details follow.

Milo's version is an improvement in two ways. In the first place, it explicitly uses the word "spoiler," which I believe is overwhelmingly recognized as the correct term for the concept we are talking about.

It is also an improvement because it is smaller, and therefore less disruptive to the flow of the article. Marc Shepherd 13:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This is best discussed on Template talk:Spoiler. --Tony Sidaway 13:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The reality is that the substantive discussion has been happening here, and to many people the subjects are intertwined. Marc Shepherd 13:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should certainly mention it here, but I suspect that if we arrived at a decision here we'd only have to repeat it all over again on the other talk page, to ensure that we had consensus for the change. Discussion really should take place there in the first instance, because it's a discussion about the content of that template. --Tony Sidaway 14:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It may well need to be repeated if only because that's true of every contentious issue.

The issues of placement and appearance of the tags within the article are a frequently-mentioned issue. The design of the tag bears directly on that discussion and should integrated here; where as Melodia notes, the active discussion is occurring.

Furthermore, the tag detail is ultimately controlled by the prevailing philosophy, and this page is where that consensus philosophy will be decided. If an attempt was made to start the discussion over there, it would still have to be consensed here as part of the overall system, so this is still the correct place to start for now. Milo 14:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Or you could just put a pointer to the appropriate talk page here, and hold the discussion once. No discussion on this page has any bearing on the content of the template, except insofar as the same points may also be raised on that page. Consensus on the content of the template will be decided on Template talk:Spoiler and there alone. . --Tony Sidaway 15:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Marc that Milo's smaller and more directly worded design is superior to the current version, for the reasons Marc mentioned. --Parsifal _Hello 17:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we should move away from the idea that individual plot details should be marked by spoiler tags, as that can lead to structuring articles in suboptimal way if important details are left to the end of the plot section just because they are considered spoiling. And anyway, don't people want the template to be disruptive to the article flow? Until now, I thought that people want their reading flow to be disrupted so they can stop and think whether they want to read on. Kusma (talk) 08:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Inline spoiler tags are less likely to encourage restructuring articles to avoid spoilers by moving them into clearly marked sections. Since there is an endspoiler tag too, the spoilers do not need to be left for the end of a section when the inline tags are used. The smaller tag is visible enough for people who want to avoid spoilers, and less intrusive to people who don't want to see them, with less of an overall effect on the way the article looks. --Parsifal _Hello 17:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

More than just tags

Now that I'm back from a few days calming myself down... Spoilers are more than just tags; thus, the guideline should deal with more than just the proper placement or lack thereof of spoiler tags. I've gotten used to the idea that tags aren't being used anymore, begrudgingly, but I'm still worried about one of my pet articles and spoilers. What are we doing about spoilers in infoboxes? In leads? Are spoilers supposed to be confined to plot summaries, and if so, what are we doing when they're not? For example, the article in question (and I'm scared to list it here in fear that it'll be swarmed with people restoring spoilers where they don't need to be ) is Tia Dalma. The infobox listed her occupation for a long time as "Sea goddess" - but that's not an occupation, and she's only ever been seen making a living as a voodoo priestess, so I put that in instead. It listed several other pieces of information as "sea goddess" (such as location and so forth) and I changed it. Two movies of notability as a voodoo lady, and half a movie of being a goddess (not to mention it being a major spoiler) seems to me to indicate that she's better off using her pre-World's End information in the infobox; furthermore, I put in the lead that she was significant in the third film, including being the subject of a major plot twist; therefore, if someone wants to know what the plot twist was, they'll go to the plot section for the third movie. None of this is covered at all by the current guideline, nor being discussed on the talk page, except for a few lines about it not being good to "twist around" the article to enclose spoilers in certain places. Can we discuss? Kuronue | Talk 01:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. Considerations of "spoilers" must have absolutely no bearing on the way we structure the article. The current guideline should say this if it does not already say it. The Tia Dalma problem was a result of people using biographical infoboxes in articles about fictional characters. The article on this character must of course mention in the lead that she is a human personification of Calypso. --Tony Sidaway 02:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? It's not what she's most notable for. That's why I went ahead and removed it - she's notable for being Tia Dalma, as Calypso is only mentioned in half a movie, which merits a mention but not necessarily a spoiler in the lead. Kuronue | Talk 13:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether this information belongs in the lead or not is independent of whether it is a spoiler or not. Important information necessary for summarising the article has to go there. Less relevant information can be removed. "Spoiling" and "non-spoiling" information needs to be treated in the same way. Kusma (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Define necessary. I don't feel that the spoiler is truly necessary - in fact, most spoilers are not necessary in the lead, and the fact that they're spoilers, IMO, simply adds to their non-necessary. I'd not have cared enough to edit it if it wasn't a spoiler, because someone obviously thought it was or they wouldn't have put it there, but the lead should discuss the aspects which are most notable, leaving the details to the rest of the article; therefore, I feel it's enough to note that she's a major player in the plot of the third movie, while leaving the details to the plot summary section. Kuronue | Talk 16:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the example you brought up was just stupid to begin with- a fictional character probably shouldn't be using biographic boxes. As for tags in leads, as I think has been noted before, Sosuke Aizen has a spoiler smack top in the lead. This can't really be replaced with {{current fiction}} because the spoiler is the character became an antagonist, however the U.S./NA release of the episodes is two years behind the Japanese. The only way you could reasonably remove the spoiler in this case is if current fiction had a modifier that allowed it to specify where it would be unreleased/recently released. David Fuchs^(talk) 11:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I can work magic with templates if you tell me what you want. It would be pretty simple to add a parameter to put an optional extra line of text into the template. One benefit of current fiction over the a spoiler tag at the top of an article is that it is more precise about what's going on. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Tested in the field

The version of the guideline that some editors seem to be so eager to change to suit their personal preferences has been tested in the field and works very well. Please do not try to change it at this stage unless you can provide strong evidence of a need to change. For instance, if you have evidence that the guideline does not reflect current practice, present that evidence. We should not be changing something that clearly works. --Tony Sidaway 17:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been edited every day for the past week, by multiple editors. What we have is hardly a stable consensus version, therefore, your efforts to make everyone shut up and stop editing looks suspiciously like trying to force us to conform to your particular rendering. Kuronue | Talk 17:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus isn't what happen on a single wiki page, but what happens wiki-wide. From my point of view, the persistent efforts of a tiny handful of Wikipedia editors here to sabotage the written guideline are a last gasp effort to avoid recognising that the spoiler tag is effectively dead. You can't change on-wiki practice by changing the content of a guideline. The guideline must follow from practice or else you're wasting your time. If I sound tetchy it's because, after more than three months, I now equate your attempts to change the guideline against overwhelming consensus as a deliberate attempt to sabotage that existing Wikipediawide consensus rather than argue your case and get support. --Tony Sidaway 18:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The current version of the guideline has genuine flaws that I imagine everybody can agree on — for instance, there are three points in the lede that are repeated almost verbatim in the subsequent sections. The draft I suggested solves this problem, and seems to have at least provisional support as a compromise draft from both sides of the aisle (David Fuchs, Carl, Nydas, Milo, and YellowTapedR have all expressed support for some or all of it). I've made some small changes which I hope will address your concerns. --Jere7my 18:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Tony, it seems like you should be arguing for the deletion of the spoiler template and this page, not the preservation of a version that (as currently written) permits spoiler tags. That, in your eyes, would better reflect wikiwide consensus. Correct? --Jere7my 18:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think spoiler tags should be permitted if there is consensus for them. Such instances are vanishingly few but they do still exist. --Tony Sidaway 20:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Tony, if you automatically equate the efforts of anyone but yourself to change the guideline page as "sabotage", you need to back off the page and go do something else. Kuronue | Talk 21:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Your premise is blatantly false. Stop trolling. --Tony Sidaway 22:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What premise? You said it yourself, a few posts above. Stop calling people trolls. I'm sick of your attempts to singlehandedly control the fate of this guideline. Nobody needs your permission to edit wikipedia in any way, shape, or form, so stop saying they do, stop calling them trolls, stop throwing around the word "sabotage" Kuronue | Talk 22:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You falsely claim that I 'automatically equate the efforts of anyone but yourself to change the guideline page as "sabotage"' That is trolling. Stop trolling. --Tony Sidaway 23:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it's only edits you disagree with that are sabotage, and people you disagree with who are trolls. People you agree with are safe. Kuronue | Talk 23:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And off you go trolling again. Please stop. --Tony Sidaway 23:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop making personal attacks. Kuronue | Talk 23:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

New draft is up

Enjoy! (Tony, I saw your edits, but didn't include them — I don't think a history of spoiler tagging fits in the lede. We don't need to tell people what past practice was, or how it differs from current practice — that kind of historical detail can be deduced from histories and talk pages, if people care.) --Jere7my 05:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It should probably contain a reference to works in translation. In theory, this should apply to works being translated out of English as well as into English, like Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, but the English Wikipedia's bias prevents this from happening.--Nydas^(Talk) 06:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an English wiki, so theoretically be should be concerned with English versions, be the originally in English or translations into English. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no good reason to stand on that technicality. The issue of spoilering by Wikipedia articles prior to foreign releases and editions has been frequently mentioned here. I can think of two reasons to suggest that editors consider pending foreign versions as a reason to add spoiler notices.

First, not doing so irritates publishers and producers, which adds to Wikipedia's surely growing reputation as a "spoiler site" that could harm donations at some future tipping point.

Second, with English now the world's major language of business, dismissing the literary desires of non-English cultures for narrative suspense can be noticed and perceived as cultural imperialism. Milo 19:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the page on it, but I know there's one or two out there that tells us we are NOT supposed to worry about Foundation issues. You've been told this before, and ignored it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the Foundation issues page. You tell me, but if this is the correct page did you misunderstand what was meant by "Foundation issues"?

"You've been told this before, and ignored it" Yes, I decided to ignore it after I worked though the political calculus. I'm puzzled as to why you think I would have done otherwise, since I've explained why the issue is valid for consideration based on PR chess moves in the media. If the editor who attempted to chill expression of my position had been able to read what I actually wrote, we might have had a good debate. Milo 05:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the fact that we are not supposed to worry about donations/money issues/etc. I can't believe you seriously think we should compromise the good of the encyclopedia because a few people might decline to give a few bucks because 'boo hoo he was spoiled'. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"we are not supposed to worry about donations/money issues/etc" When you find it let me know, but what you recall may well be gone. I unknowingly referred to WP:RS for a long time after it had been edit-beavered into non-usefulness.

"a few people might decline to give a few bucks" Um, no, you really missed my point. I'm concerned about the potential for pass-along hints suggesting donation withholding from WP among the big money boys and girls with CEO/board level friends in big publishing and Hollywood. I suggest that the industry has dropped hints that they don't like "spoiler sites" that might harm big(er) profits. You aren't taking those hints, or at least are not considering them.

On the other hand, even casual WP withholding may not happen, if the industry concludes that the overall spoiler site problem isn't worth spending PR money to make trouble. Milo 05:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Newly discovered Shakespeare play"

I've edited the reference to a "newly discovered Shakespeare play" [15]:

Before:

(A newly discovered Shakespeare play could well demand spoiler protection for a while!)

After:

(A newly discovered Shakespeare play could conceivably have a spoiler warning' for a while.)

The reasoning is pretty straightforward. I think it unlikely that an article about a newly discovered Shakespeare play would give the plot of the play much prominence. Even if it did, I think it would be unlikely to come as the kind of revelation that would be termed a "spoiler", and I further think it unlikely that people who worry about "spoilers" in video games, comics, soap operas and the like would have the same feeling about the plot of such a play. --Tony Sidaway 18:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Whack-a-mole

If a small group of editors plays whack-a-mole with spoiler tags long enough, eventually the moles will start keeping their heads down. This is not evidence of "consensus". (Also, Tony, could we not label those we disagree with as "trolls"? I'd like to keep the discussion civil. Thanks!) --Jere7my 20:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the evidence I gave earlier. This isn't "a small group", it's Wikipedia consensus. Editors you and I have never heard of are applying the guideline and doing so with success, even on articles about very recently released high-grossing films. I don't think it's inappropriate to describe as trolling the behavior of those who persistently claim that this guideline is in dispute when every reliable statistical pointer we have shows that it's been working successfully for months.

In the end, one has to say of these counter-arguments against the evidence for consensus: "chilling effects", "whack-a-mole", "Wikipedia admins throwing their weight around" and so on that they lack evidential power. They amount to the statement: "I believe that there is no consensus for this guideline, but there are special circumstances that prevent it from manifesting." In other words, special pleading. --Tony Sidaway 21:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

By that argument, wouldn't the wild prevalence of spoiler tags that existed prior to May have been evidence of consensus for widespread spoiler tags? That was working "successfully" for years! How did they get there, if not through consensus editing? It's my feeling that the vast majority of editors are willing to go with the flow here, whatever the flow happens to be. Previously, pro-spoiler folks had a stick; now, anti-spoiler folks have a stick. Most editors without a dog in this race seem to think the whole spoiler debate is an unfortunate quagmire. --Jere7my 23:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

They got there because nobody thought about it. Now we've thought about it. That guideline, and the extent of spoiler tags in articles, reflect that rethink.

You say "By that argument, wouldn't the wild prevalence of spoiler tags that existed prior to May have been evidence of consensus for widespread spoiler tags?" No, we've already covered this. From well over one million articles, hundreds of thousands of which must have been on fictional subjects, only 45,000 or so contained spoiler tags or spoiler warnings of any kind. The Raven, Poe's great narrative poem, had no spoiler tag on May 15 [16]. We don't know how many others.

See User:Tony_Sidaway/exclusion-lists/spoiler for a list of apparently legitimate uses of the word "spoiler" in Wikipedia articles--there are about 1300 of them, mostly related to aviation, automotive aerodynamics or politics ("spoiler" candidates). Others come from comics (The Spoiler was a DC comics character) or wrestling (The Spoiler was also the name of a wrestler).

What has changed, really, is the culture. There are people who are now aware that if they don't keep a look out for spoiler tags we'll end up with spoiler warnings on the likes of Romeo and Juliet, Pygmalion, Help!, and even biographies of real people like Roger Bacon. So we watch, and edit accordingly. --Tony Sidaway 00:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Your claim that there must be hundreds of thousands of other fiction articles is incorrect. Take away stubs without any spoilers, and 45,000 is about right. The spoiler tag in Roger Bacon was over the fictional portrayal section, it's misleading not to mention that (and a misleading example anyway).--Nydas^(Talk) 06:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF. You need to stop calling people who disagree trolls. I saw you doing it recently over in WP:BLP and related articles and people told you that it was inappropriate (and extreme) there too. You've also been quick to throw out that term in the past, so please take the suggestion of many people telling you to WP:AGF. You are also applying a double standard. You are unwilling to accept explanations regarding the pro-spoiler side and consensus on the basis of a lack of large amounts of explicit declaration of their views, but just now you're willing to accept that explanation that "no one really thought about it"--which either requires reading minds, or acknowledging that things can be inferred without this unreasonably high standard of many explicit declarations of viewpoints. You need to stick with a consistent standard. You can't reasonably expect people to make as big of a deal out of a lesser guideline compared to major policies. The standard all over the internet (as per searches presented before) is to use spoiler warnings, so it's clear that internet users in general (the primary Wikipedia audience) wants them. Before a small minority removed many spoiler warnings , we had many of them even on Wikipedia. There is clear, strong evidence that people support the way things previously were. It is absurd to suggest that people are trolling. -Nathan J. Yoder 08:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

By the jargon AGF I think you mean Assume good faith. Read and try to understand that policy. In particular, read the lead where we see "bad faith can include...playing games with policies". I am not the only person to have expressed some dismay at the continual barrage of personal attacks that has characterized the involvement of certain parties in this debate, the futile attempts to involve those they disagree with in arbitration, and the false accusations of collusion and connivance to subvert policy. Now in the face of overwhelming evidence of consensus for the guideline over the past three months or so, we've got people trying to stick a silly "disputed" tag onto it. That's trolling, and we should describe it as trolling. --Tony Sidaway 13:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating, since you're MAKING half of them. Stop making personal attacks before you start trying to point fingers. Kuronue | Talk 21:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm stopping in briefly from a break, so it may be a while before I reply again. You seem to be one of the biggest purveyors of insult in this discussion. Strangely, most of these people suggesting that you're out of line have never filed any arbitration at all against anyone or anything. You've been instructed in two seperate talk pages on two unrelated issues that your accusations of trolling are inappropriate and I strongly suggest you take that suggestion to heart. You're assuming that they're intending to "play games with policies" just because a disputed tag was put up--that's the entirety of your evidence and even you know that it's very weak. In fact, I'm beginning to think that you're acting in bad faith (and perhaps have a little troll side too you, especially considering your history), since you persistently ignoring unrelated people in discussions suggesting that your accusations are neither correct, nor even remotely obvious. When you're ready to either present evidence that putting a disputed tag up when there's a dispute on the talk page is necessarily evidence of bad faith and trolling, be my guest. Until then, I suggest you stop violating policies and personally attacking people. -Nathan J. Yoder 03:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Current fiction

User:Wandering Ghost writes [17]:

Now, blanket labelling a whole article by pointing out that it's current fiction I feel removes utility for not much gain - most people searching wikipedia will probably have a rough idea that something is within the length of time of required for it to be 'current fiction', and they want _some_ information anyway. A blanket warning therefore just forces them to choose 'read this and maybe be spoiled, or don't read it' - which is absolutely no different from the choice they have on any other page, except it's in their face (in actuality, it would be more useful to have a blanket warning on _older_ works, such that 'this work is considered 'old fiction' and as such spoiler warnings are not included', since that would actually _warn_. I'm not advocating for that it, I'm just saying that would make more sense to me than the current fiction blanket). Targetted warnings let them know what sections can be read, which is what most people want.

However we do have some very positive feedback on the use of this tag. The tag was used on the article about the recently published Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, and was finally removed on 3 September as a result of a discussion on the talk page that decided to remove it forty-five days after the novel had been released. The period was felt to be "a nice, round number", "sounds good", and "pretty reasonable for the release of a book."

As I write, the template is transcluded by fifteen articles and its wording is as follows:

This article documents a recently released work of fiction.

It may contain detailed information on the characters, plot, and ending of the work of fiction it describes.

While it does have the disadvantage that it does not provide a targetted warning, so the reader is faced with the question of whether he goes ahead and reads it or not, I think experience has shown us that targetting of spoiler tags was (and remains) vanishingly rare on Wikipedia.

There is also the problem that individual thresholds for spoilers differ greatly. For some people, the revelation that there is an alien creature on board the Nostromo is a spoiler. For others, it will be the fact that one of the crew is an android who has orders to bring the alien back for study, and has been instructed to treat the crew as expendable. Still others will want to avoid discovering which, if any, of the crew survive. In practice we used to blanket the entire plot section, and to continue my example this was true of Alien (film) [18], although in practice the Lead section contained an untagged spoiler that crew member Ellen Ripley survives to become the central character of the sequels (which is fine--you would have had to be hiding in a cave for the past thirty years to avoid knowing of her strong association with the franchise).

So in practice template:current fiction doesn't really differ that much from template:spoiler, except that it makes Wikipedia's common practice more clear to the reader. The reader will notice that the warning is restricted to recent fiction, and that after a short time it is removed. He will thus not be misled as to the nature of Wikipedia, but will see it almost from the start as a serious encyclopedia, quite distinct from the fan sites and the like which do their best to hide the plot twists from readers. --Tony Sidaway 17:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"targetting of spoiler tags was (and remains) vanishingly rare on Wikipedia." So what — you, the rest of the clique, and the vigil-antis of the current spoiler guide are seeking, reverting, chilling, and enforcing the defacto ban of spoiler notices. Since 40+% of WP editors want spoiler tags, you and I both know that the tags will slowly come back as soon as the spoiler guide allows them too. That's why you are struggling against the inevitable to prevent meaningful compromise. Your position is incorrect in a correctness-seeking environment; therefore it is philosophically corrupt; therefore you will fail to maintain it in the long run.

In fact, you have kept repeating this unpersuasive circular reasoning so often, that I'm hereby declaring it as one the standing fallacies of the anti-tag house of cards: the extinction=consensus fallacy. Milo 15:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If, as you claim, there is a large number of editors who completely disagree with this guideline, wouldn't they be coming to this guideline page to complain about it? Compare what happened when WP:ATT was begin discussed - a huge number of editors commented. But I don't see more and more editors coming here to complain. That's why I have started to back away from this discussion, because it seems to be coming to a natural end. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"If, as you claim, there is a large number of editors who completely disagree with this guideline," Strawman fallacy, I didn't say that. Milo 16:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You said 'Since 40+% of WP editors want spoiler tags, ...'. I don't see any evidence that these people want the tags badly enough to come here and talk about it. Most people seem to have accepted the new guideline after the RFC. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"Most people seem to have accepted the new guideline after the RFC." Most people still don't know one way or another - that's why it was a coup. Due process failure to notify is one of the more serious complaints of process abuse. IIRC, wiki-wide, there were only two total days of notice on the template itself, that the spoiler template was being MfD'ed or TfD'ed. And more process abuses were piled on after that. Most of the thousands of editors affected (some number up to 45,000) had no clue that their spoiler tags were about to be disappeared, or what to do about it after they did.

"I don't see any evidence that these people want ... to come here and talk about it." They don't know that there is anyplace to go to and talk about it. After being told the story of the May 2007 Spoiler Coup, an average editor with a serious pre-broadcast spoiler problem wrote: "I actually do remember when all across Wikipedia all of a sudden all the spoiler tags were gone for films and such, but I had no idea until now how or why it had happened."[19]

"want the tags badly enough" Your use of "badly enough" reflects your key misunderstanding. Spoiler notices are a feature of middling importance with a moderate effect. Many people, say 40+%, get pleasure from narrative suspense in fiction as preserved by spoiler notices. If a bunch of blue meanies decide to take their pleasure away, the abused aren't going to take up cudgels and torches. Their loss is not unimportant to them, it's just not important enough for most of them to spend time arguing about it. However, if they knew that I was arguing on their behalf, most of them would approve. Milo 02:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, Tony, can you understand two things?:

People will not judge Wikipedia's accuracy by existence of SWs. This is simply stupid thing to do, whoever does that is stupid and deserves what he gets as a result.
This guideline always contained the rule that the SW shouldn't be in the plot section. Assuming most people here follow the rules and are not trying to do WP:POINT, then it is logically flawed to judge about their wishes from what they actually do to the articles. So any guess on what people actually want based on research how many people are adding SWs against this guideline (in most cases, obviously the SW goes to the plot section) is flawed because of this.

I wish you would understand, finally, after 4 months, at least these two logical fallacies you are making, so everyone could move on. Samohyl Jan 19:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are misplaced. Please try to base your criticisms on what I have said, and not something you just made up. --Tony Sidaway 19:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No, #1 refers to, I cite "He [reader] will thus not be misled as to the nature of Wikipedia, but will see it almost from the start as a serious encyclopedia, quite distinct from the fan sites". And #2 refers to section called "A brief and unscientific survey of spoiler tagging in the top grossing movies of 2007" and many similar remarks throughout. Don't play stupid. Either you agree with the two points I made or not. I want to know where are you standing now. Samohyl Jan 22:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I imagined that you're misread the first statement you quoted, and you've confirmed it. I said nothing about accuracy, rather it was about tone. Since you've falsely accused me of "playing stupid" I don't think I need add any more. Please re-read and try to understand what I have written. --Tony Sidaway 22:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Tony that the {{current fiction}} on the Harry Potter articles worked very well, and its removal was done without the usual anti-tag suspects here involving themselves. A warning on the entire article instead of individual sections, while not useful to those who want some special part of the information only, helps to avoid structuting the article around spoiler concerns. I think we should move away from the idea that individual plot details should be tagged to this type of courtesy notice for people who have forgotten that an encyclopedia should give all details. There seems to be far less argument about {{current fiction}} than about {{spoiler}}. Kusma (talk) 08:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"this type of courtesy notice" This is a slight misunderstanding. Spoiler and "current fiction" are not courtesy notices. They are content utility notices, like the disambiguation notice and the Table of contents box.

"we should move away from the idea that individual plot details should be tagged ... for people who have forgotten that an encyclopedia should give all details." This is a red herring. AFAIK, both pro-taggers and anti-taggers agree that this encyclopedia should give all details. Therefore "should give all details" has no logical debate relationship to whether or not to tag individual plot details with spoiler notices. Milo 15:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I do view {{current fiction}} as a courtesy notice. It is completely redundant to the content disclaimer but I think we should let it stand in some articles for a while, it seems to make some people happy and takes care of most of the demand for spoiler tagging. Kusma (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You are personally welcome to view it as a courtesy, but as a Wikipedia policy precedent, it is a tar pit trap. What is a courtesy in one culture is too frequently offensive in another. It also opens the door to slippery-slope demands for "courtesy" amounting to censorship by fundamentalists. If spoiler tags are properly understood as just another content utility notice, it completely avoids the courtesy trap. Yet the reader is left with unspoken good feelings just as though a formal courtesy had been extended.

Since spoiler notices are content notices, the disclaimer policy does not apply. Disclaimers only apply to dangers, and here there is none. Therefore, reference to disclaimers should be completely removed from the guide. Milo 02:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately Wikipedia policy does not operate by precedent, and consensus can change. But anyway, if using courtesy is a trap, it is easy to avoid: as you say there is no danger in spoilers, so we don't need any spoiler warnings. Kusma (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(reset)

"Wikipedia policy does not operate by precedent" Tell that to Marc - he's arguing just the opposite (using other equivalent language) that WP can't/shouldn't do this or that spoiler tagwise, without some off-WP precedent. It's been my experience that when debaters do that – make opposite arguments toward the same general position – they are probably both extremists and probably both wrong. I can tell you it gives me the feeling of winning the debate in well-centered principle. In practice, like all other organizations, Wikipedia policy ultimately operates by politics which are some pastiche of principle.

"no danger in spoilers, so we don't need any spoiler warnings" They certainly should not be called by that falsely-hyperbolic name in a correctness-seeking environment. However, that's another red herring, because the need for correctly named spoiler notices is logically unrelated to courtesy, danger or lack of them. They are just another content utility notice.

There is also no need for utility disambiguation content notices, or for that matter a utility Table of Contents notice box. They are utilities because one can get information from the article without them. However, having these utilities makes it faster and easier to get and avoid certain kinds of information. Despite the puffery here that WP should force readers to learn things they don't want to learn, in reality, readers routinely use the TOC to avoid information, like "History" if one only wants to know the "Current situation". Eliminating the Table of Contents or the disambigs would certainly force readers to learn much in which they have no interest, but that obviously isn't going to happen. There are no valid reasons to treat hidden spoiler notices any differently than disambiguation notices. With both writing and esthetics having been eliminated as valid anti-spoiler-tag reasons, only hidden agendas remain:

WP:IDontLikeIt, WP:DoItBecauseTheySaidSo, and worst of all,

WP:GetRidOfThoseYoungPeopleWhoDontWriteLikeMe.

Milo 03:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

How about WP:WhatTheHellIsMiloTalkingAboutANYWay? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 10:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Sorry that you couldn't understand. The good news is that as a clique hierarchist fellow traveler you don't necessarily need to understand – you can just parrot your betters. Of course, if you ever tire of having "betters", you can become a Jeffersonian political freethinker. Milo 23:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed guideline message box

Since there is clearly a dispute in progress about the content of the guideline, the guideline page needs to announce that, just like any other page that has disputed content.

Otherwise, editors viewing the guideline will naturally assume it is stable and has consensus. It is not stable and does not have consensus, as can be seen by looking at the recent edit history.

How can it not be a dispute to have continual removing, re-adding, and changing a significant rule or definition within the guideline, by multiple editors, over a couple weeks?

If that's not worthy of a note at the top that there is a dispute about the content, then how much dispute would be needed for such a disputed-content notification to be used?

Until the guideline does not have significant dispute in progress, it is appropriate to inform readers of the guideline that the version they are looking at could be different in five minutes, so they can consider that when reading it.

I'm not going to revert it again myself and re-add the message box at this time, but I suggest that anyone who agrees there is a dispute in progress regarding this guideline is welcome to re-add the message box. --Parsifal _Hello 17:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Good luck. It took weeks to add it last time. You can expect the usual ever-changing definitions of consensus from Tony. His table above suggests that edit warring is a part of today's definition, although should you actually edit war, he'll seek to have you punished.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody suggested edit warring. What Marc suggested yesterday [20] was "Rather than beating their heads against a wall on this talk page, suppose the pro-tag faction actually chooses a few representative articles and adds spoiler tags in the manner that they believe is correct, then let us all know when they're done. Then we'd actually have something concrete to discuss." Why not try it? --Tony Sidaway 17:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any confidence that you won't have me punished for adding them.--Nydas^(Talk) 06:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You know very well that nobody can be "punished" for placing a spoiler tag on an article, but it clearly suits you to use this excuse. I suspect that you will not do so because you wish to continue making false accusations and nasty insinuations. We call that trolling. --Tony Sidaway 14:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A troll "is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an online community....with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response" (see Troll (Internet)). At this point, I'm reasonably persuaded that Nydas and Milo are indeed trolls. I don't apply that label indiscriminately to the whole pro-spoiler-tag set, but I think it clearly applies to them.

The simple suggestion was to find five articles, and illustrate how he thought spoiler tags ought to be used. Nydas refuses. If you can't find five examples—or, if that's too onerous, three examples—then why all the blustering and acrimony?

If Nydas really felt that adopting the suggestion would invite "punishment" — not that there's any rational basis for that fear — he could make a proposal in his user space. Of course, maybe Nydas has other reasons for refusing, such as: 1) It requires effort; 2) It requires thought; 3) It's difficult; 4) Trolling is more fun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc Shepherd (talk • contribs) 16:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"I'm reasonably persuaded that Nydas and Milo are indeed trolls." This is an outright WP:NPA personal attack — delete those remarks from this page.

In the future keep such PA persuasions to yourself. An apology by you to me and Nydas would also be appropriate.

Worse still, you are completely wrong in both the formal sense (the policy definition of trolling at Wikipedia failed) and in the subjective sense (WP:Troll essay: "vocal critics of Wikipedia structures and processes are not trolls").

Beware. Following Tony's lead is getting you into trouble. His irresponsible accusations of trolling behavior have no basis, because Nydas and I are completely sincere in making well-reasoned and philosophically-based criticisms.

My counter-charge against Tony's baseless trolling accusations is that they have the effect of distracting the discussion and the editing of the guide, and most especially, any significant progress toward compromise. Over a period of months his rigid May 2007 position has lost ground millimeter by millimeter, as the fallacies of the anti-spoiler-tag position, and the correctnesses of the pro-spoiler-tag position have emerged. Eventually there will be a bone fide compromise, and ultimately he will be unable to prevent it.

"maybe Nydas has other reasons for refusing, such as: 1) It requires effort; 2) It requires thought; 3) It's difficult; 4) Trolling is more fun." These are uncivil implications against Nydas' character, implying that if he doesn't do what you want, he's 1) lazy, 2) stupid, 3) lazy again, 4) and insincere. My experience of Nydas is that he is hard working, brilliantly educated†, and utterly sincere in his opposition to established injustice. Shame on you for implying otherwise — you should apologize to Nydas. († How much did YOU know about the 1936 Soviet Constitution before he pointed it out?) Milo 03:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There's more than you two in the anti-spoiler camp. We have half a dozen admins who despise spoiler tags, treating it as worse than vandalism. If David Gerard, Phil Sandifer or Guy decides to ban me for being a troll, or disruptive, or 'silly', or whatever, will you stand up for me?--Nydas^(Talk) 17:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Again you make a trollish accusation, falsely implying that David Gerard, JzG, and Phil Sandifer are amongst "half a dozen" administrators who "treat [spoiler tags] worse than vandalism" and implying that they might ban you "for being a troll, or disruptive, or 'silly'" if you edit an article to put a spoiler tag into it. This is false. Stop hiding behind false accusations. --Tony Sidaway 18:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

At root, trolling is insincere. If Nydas believes it, it's not trolling, period. You can claim he is wrong, or exaggerating, but you can't claim his sincere accusation is trollish.

Nydas is describing systemic bias, in which the elements of corruption are spread around so thinly that, usually, they cannot be individually detected or proved. I, too, believe there is systemic bias. The rare tipping of the hand during the AWB investigation scandal was a convincer for me and other editors.

The reports of bans, chilling, and almost certain reversions we've gotten here, despite your claims that everyone deserved what they got, reasonably suggest an abundance of caution in not becoming involved in field experiments. My position is that the WP:Spoiler guide has to change first. Milo 03:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(Copied from #Discussion)
Viriditas wrote: "Milo, check out WP:TROLL. Whether you like it or not, you do have a tendency to come off as "trollish". Many of your comments on this talk page can be construed as "deliberately inflammatory", however this doesn't make you an outright troll. The essay in question states that "people who passionately believe in what they are writing also sometimes behave in a way that may make them appear to be a troll" so I suggest that editors give you the benefit of the doubt until they have reason to believe otherwise. —Viriditas 04:33, 22 September 2007"

I see that you don't take seriously your own policy of not commenting on editors. On only your second post here you have managed to make a bad situation worse. Marc Shepard, a young inexperienced editor, committed an outright official policy violation of WP:NPA against two long-time posters [21]. You just sent a message from which he can infer that it's ok to do that.
He's a newb, you're not. You should have known better, but apparently you didn't research before commenting. You wrote "Milo, check out WP:TROLL" – had you researched this incident, you should have seen that I've already quoted from WP:Troll. (Milo (03:54) wrote: (WP:Troll essay: "vocal critics of Wikipedia structures and processes are not trolls") "[22]). Marc's proper response is to delete the PA. He hasn't done that yet. If you really want to help, tell him to do that. If you aren't willing to help promote respect for WP:NPA policy, please depart this thread. Milo 15:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Day 19 since Marc's unambiguous personal attack of 13 September 2007 on two editors — and still no deletion by him. Milo 04:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

Wikipedia does not use spoiler warnings any more. I have rewritten the guideline to reflect this. Kusma (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of WP:Point... Milo 12:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What does writing a descriptive guideline have to do with WP:POINT? I am sorry but I don't understand you. Kusma (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now that I think about it, WP:Bold and WP:Point aren't so easy to distinguish. Milo 13:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read, and try to understand, the guideline known as wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, aka WP:POINT. It refers to people making edits they do not believe are correct in order to illustrate a perceived problem with Wikipedia policy. Kusma clearly does think that it is correct to avoid using spoiler tags. His edit was unorthodox but not disruptive. --Tony Sidaway 13:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have been reverted. The guideline now again reads like Wikipedia does have warnings for spoilers in "unexpected places", although this is not true. The only warnings that currently exist are notices that cover the whole article as in Sandworms of Dune and Sōsuke Aizen. Spoiler warnings elsewhere do not seem to persist.

In general, I think that the Harry Potter 7 release was a good test for the use of {{current fiction}} instead of {{spoiler}} - people used the current fiction tag as a warning for a little more than a month after the release, and now there is little demand for their reintroduction (the exact amount of time that fiction stays "current" is, of course, debatable, as I admitted in my bold edit). If a high-profile example like Harry Potter can be covered here without spoiler warnings, perhaps we do not need them anywhere anymore. Kusma (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You are entirely correct that that is the current de facto situation—as the pro-tag partisans themselves have often pointed out. If it persists that way for a while, it will probably be appropriate to admit that the current guideline is a sham, and replace it with something resembling your draft.

However, we're not yet at that point. If the current guideline were actually followed, I think there would be other articles warranting spoiler tags. The problem is that people don't follow the guideline. They just slap the warning on the entire article, or on the entire plot. The addition of the tag is quickly reverted, and usually it never comes back again. Marc Shepherd 13:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That in turn suggests to me that most people don't feel strongly enough about the matter to engage in discussion over placement on the talk page. --Tony Sidaway 14:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Or that most people have better senses of self-preservation than we do. :P Not everyone wants to jump into a morass, however passionately they feel. I myself am only back in this discussion against my better judgment, and I feel quite strongly indeed! It's my prediction that Wikipedia won't achieve spoiler equilibrium until some months after this guideline is settled and the flames have died down, because a lot of people are staying very gingerly away. --Jere7my 18:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that Kusma seems to be clearly in violation of WP:POINT to me, but that's a side issue as far as I am concerned. His edit is already gone and unlikely to win consensus. What I am here to object to today is the notion that a decreasing number of tags is evidence of some sort of consensus against them. More likely, the fact that a group of administrators (who are less likely to be opposed) went around deleting tags, in addition to the fact that the pro-spoiler editors have decided (sometimes at the tip of a sword, by the way) to settle the issue here before adding spoilers back, has resulted in fewer tags. No surprise there. But also, no evidence of consensus. Better reasoning, please! Postmodern Beatnik 20:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Pending new draft

My proposed draft has received some support, enthusiastic or partial, from nearly everyone who has commented on it. I'd like to open this as a space for further comments; if there appears to be consensus that the new draft is strictly better than the current draft, even if you see particular problems with it, I'll replace the page tonight, after the draft has been up for 48 hours.

When commenting, consider that 1) the proposed draft is clearly cleaner and easier to follow than the current version; 2) it reads more like a style guide (i.e. a firm suggestion) than the current version; 3) it encourages editors to create clear section titles in preference to adding spoiler tags (i.e. "Tony-style" articles) — if wikiwide consensus is indeed against spoiler tags the guideline will allow them to continue to deproliferate — while offering some leeway to local editors; and 4) if we can come to a consensus we can all hang up our gloves and go home. ;) --Jere7my 18:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The draft has improved, in my opinion, since the previous version I read. It has a couple things that could be resolved once it's here, but in general it's fine with me. A few points:

The lede should include the word "limited" somewhere, in case someone takes it as a license to insert the tags liberally.
Every article should have sections; the bullet lower down that suggests otherwise is confusing. Articles that have so little content that they don't have section titles are best improved by expanding them.
The section headers have names that make it hard to find things easily with the TOC.
The draft mentions "local" editors; all editors have equal standing.

I'm sure these sorts of things can be resolved with normal discussion and editing if the draft is copied here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

All good suggestions. Thanks! I noticed the poor interaction of the question-and-answer format with the TOC; that's definitely something to work on. --Jere7my 20:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, Carl: is "certain plot details" close enough to "limited" in the lede? "Certain" implies "not all" and even "not most", which is all that "limited" would do, I think. --Jere7my 20:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot more jargon there. What does "those who are likely to be spoiled" mean? Could we say "those who are likely to be surprised", if that's what is meant? Also wherever the draft uses the term "spoiler", it should probably follow the far more encyclopedic "plot detail" or "significant plot detail", or even "plot twist". The term "spoiler", as we've discovered over several months, is so vague as to be almost impossible to pin down, whereas a "significant plot detail" is obviously any plot detail that should be in an encyclopedia on the subject. --Tony Sidaway 20:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"Those who are likely to be surprised" is fine by me. I think replacing "spoiler" with a multi-word equivalent everywhere is going to be unwieldy, though it could well be a good idea in some spots. The opening sentence makes it clear, I think, that spoiler = significant plot detail, and it seems clear from context in some other places: in "Alternatively, the unexpected plot detail may be marked off with spoiler tags. (Remember that those who are likely to be spoiled are those who are unfamiliar with the work, so they may not know where to expect spoilers!)", for instance, it seems clear that the final "spoilers" refers to the plot details we've been discussing. And since the title of the page uses the term spoiler, additional uses seem unlikely to make the page appear less encyclopedic!

Alternately, how about changing the opening line to "...certain significant plot details ("spoilers") in articles..." with the parenthetical being a link to Spoiler (media)? That should clarify it for the whole page. --Jere7my 20:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I made that last change, the "surprised" change, and changed one "spoiler" to "plot detail". That last line was lifted verbatim from the current version, though, and it contains most of the references to spoilers, so it shouldn't be adding to the overall jargon level! --Jere7my 20:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a vast improvement to me, especially the part about the difference between 'plot' and 'plot summary'. I've been logging the change in spoiler warnings over the past few days, and the vast majority are in plot sections- although as has been noted previously 'plot' is a little too ambigious, so being the more explicit is the better. David Fuchs^(talk) 20:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced about the difference between "Plot" and "Plot summary", but if there is a difference I think we can resolve it by recommending much more strongly than we already do that the first thing to do on seeing a "Plot" section containing elements of plot should be to change the section heading to read something that spells out the word "plot" more clearly. If that means replacing the single word "Plot" with "Plot summary", which to me seems almost a "null edit", then do it. I've been replacing "Characters" with "Character histories" for months now, when I found such a section, simply because it is conceivable that somebody reading the article might expect the "Characters" section to be a mere dramatis personae. Wikipedia being what it is, many such sections acquire their own narrative dimension, and should be labelled more explicitly. --Tony Sidaway 22:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to steer clear of "recommending much more strongly" in general, since this is after all only a guideline. I was trying to echo the tone of WP:TRIVIA, which encourages a less-disputed (though not undisputed!) practice of "fixing" trivia sections while still managing to gently suggest: "it may be", "a better way", etc. The proposed WP:SPOILER draft currently suggests section-renaming as the first of several suggestions, which seems to nudge people in that direction without dictating it.

As for "Plot" being unclear, I see where you're coming from, but I think we've observationally determined that, for some people, "Plot" just isn't specific enough. I think this reflects spoken English to some degree: "What's the plot?" can mean "Summarize the story for me in detail," "Give me a back-of-the-book teaser," or "Is it boy-meets-girl or man-vs.-nature?" I think "Plot Summary" is pretty clear, and I think in the end we agree on that, and it seems to have some support behind it (though I still prefer "Synopsis" — I think it's better to offer multiple options). --Jere7my 00:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to rain on the wonderful parade, but you've failed to mention the lead section at all. Other than that, it looks vastly improved. Kuronue | Talk 21:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow — what should I mention about the lede? Carl made a suggestion about the lede, and in return I asked him if "certain" would do as well as "limited"; I also added the "exception to disclaimers" bit Tony wanted. Was there something else I missed? As written, the lede seems concise and descriptive to me. Oh, I see — you meant it doesn't address the question of spoilers in the lede! As I see it, this guideline should address the placement and presence of spoiler tags, not dictate how articles should be written. The guideline does make the suggestion that the lede is a good place for a "back-of-the-book" style overview, and suggests moving spoilers in unlabeled sections to a better location, both of which provide avenues for de-spoilering the lede, but it's agnostic on how the lede should be written. That seems the purview of local editors. --Jere7my 22:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Anything about contents of the lede should refer to the Lead section guideline (aka WP:LEAD), likewise nothing in this guideline can supersede Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) (WP:WAF). We can provide some pointers that echo those very well established documents (we should for instance remind editors that they should be writing about the real-world significance of the subject, not their favorite bit of plot detail), but we probably don't want to pre-empt those guidelines too much. --Tony Sidaway 22:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that the guidelines isn't called "Spoiler tags", it's called "Spoilers" - thus it should dictate when and where spoilers, spoiler tags, and the like are appropriate. Spoilers in the lede seem to fall under the category of both spoiler and lede; if there was anything about spoilers in WP:LEAD, there wouldn't need to be anything here, but as there is not, it's kind of our responsibility. Kuronue | Talk 22:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No. This guideline cannot dictate anything. In particular, this guideline cannot overturn the Neutral point of view policy. --Tony Sidaway 23:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If the guideline can't dictate _anything_ it can't dictate where spoiler tags are placed. It can't overwrite policy, is all, but nobody's saying it should. Bah, whatever, the draft is still better than the current guideline, so let's get it implemented and then worry about details like that later. Kuronue | Talk 23:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You're getting there. It's a guideline. It can't dictate anything. --Tony Sidaway 23:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Then it can't dictate that spoiler tags are inappropriate in plot sections, and in the absence of any policy saying that they're inappropriate there, then spoiler tags are appropriate in plot sections, in which case, should I start adding them back? Perhaps dictate was the wrong word, but certainly it has RULES. Kuronue | Talk 23:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The proposed draft actually does say that spoiler tags might sometimes be used within Plot Summary sections under certain circumstances, and doesn't totally preclude them anywhere if you can achieve a consensus for their inclusion. --Jere7my 00:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Kuronue, I think you're beginning to understand. A guideline can only describe the way things are. If you believe that "in the absence of any policy saying that they're inappropriate there, then spoiler tags are appropriate in plot sections", you don't understand Wikipedia.

Spoiler tags may sometimes be appropriate in plot sections (I could name a few and have placed such tag in plot sections). No guideline can ever prescribe behavior. That's why we have guidelines rather than policies on some matters.

Jere7my I thank you for your work. I think we're basically on the same page. --Tony Sidaway 00:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can dig up a few concrete examples, I would appreciate it. The discussion of spoiler tags in plot sections has been somewhat abstract so far. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

One that springs immediately to mind is my use of a spoiler tag for Last of the Time Lords. But that was actually me saying that the Master's regeneration was important enough to appear in the lead and therefore we should put the spoiler tag in at the top of the article. Not a good example of the precise thing you're asking for, but certainly for the brief period when this was hot news it might have been a good idea to have a spoiler tag in the plot even if the news hadn't been worthy of appearing in the lead.

I also accepted (and changed to a spoiler template) a spoiler tag in the plot section of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows on 23 July [23],. The novel had been released on 21 July.

The "current fiction" template, placed at the top of an articles, seems to have taken over that function lately, and I don't disagree with that. That's why I now believe that the spoiler tag is essentially dead. --Tony Sidaway 01:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"A guideline is any page that is: (1) actionable (i.e. it recommends, or recommends against, an action to be taken by editors) and (2) authorized by consensus." Therefore, the Spoiler Guideline should recommend or recommend against action with regards to spoilers. So are we recommending or recommending against having spoilers in the lede? Really, the semantics are getting old. We're recommending against putting spoiler tags, but yet when I bring up something unrelated to tags themselves, suddenly we get caught up in my "not understanding" wikipedia. Kuronue | Talk 01:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The proposed draft is largely agnostic on the subject of spoilers in the lede, though it suggests moving them to a clearly labeled section. It provides a means by which people may remove spoilers from the lede if they wish to, and suggests the lede is a good place for a "back-of-the-book" overview, but in practice it'll be up to local editors to find a consensus: no spoilers in the lede, unprotected spoilers in the lede, or tagged spoilers in the lede. As I wrote it, it's a style guide for spoiler tags, not a guide for writing articles. --Jere7my 03:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

We can't recommend that spoilers be kept out of the lead section without going against Neutral point of view. --Tony Sidaway 20:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain in detail? NPOV does indicate re-arranging an article is bad, but it adds the qualifier that rearranging the article "based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself" or "Arrangements of formatting, headers, footnotes or other elements that appear to unduly favor a particular "side" of an issue". How is a spoiler a POV, considering it's factual information about the subject of the article in question? Then again, it's probably a stupid question since I "don't understand wikipedia" Kuronue | Talk 13:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If an aspect of a subject is important enough to appear in the lead section it should appear there. Removing it on the sole grounds that it is a "spoiler" necessarily destroys the balance of the article. For instance, our article on the Aesop fable, The Boy Who Cried Wolf, largely comprises the following description of the plot and theme:

The protagonist of the fable is a bored shepherd boy who entertained himself by calling out "wolf". Nearby villagers who came to his rescue found that the alarms were false and that they'd wasted their time. When the boy was actually confronted by a wolf, the villagers did not believe his cries for help and his flock perished. In some versions when the villagers ignore him the wolf either kills him, and in other versions the wolf simply mocks the boy saying now no one will help him and that it serves him right for playing tricks. The moral is stated at the end of the fable as:

"Even when liars tell the truth, they are never believed. The liar will lie once, twice, and then perish when he tells the truth."

Were this to be removed to a labelled section because it is a spoiler, the chief reason for which the tale is one of Aesop's most commonly referenced fables (to the extent that "to cry wolf" is a common English phrase almost universally understood) would be lost, and the lead section of the article would be unbalanced.

Actually even with the plot summary, the lead section is unbalanced, because it still does not record the cultural significance, as found in the likes of Brewer [24] and Webster [25]. But that's a different matter. --Tony Sidaway 14:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see that, but things like "Tia dalma is revealed to be the goddess Calypso" - she's notable for being Tia Dalma for all three movies, and outside the third film, she's not particularly notable as a goddess, so I figure that's along the lines of "and then character X shot character Y!" - a development in their history worth noting, but not the main reason for notability, thus not lede-worthy outside of the fact that "OMG no wai!!!!! Most important plot twist EVAR!!!" fancruft reactions. So a clarification might be in order. Kuronue | Talk 23:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers, schmoilers. This is an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 02:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ownership of articles

Per Ownership of articles, I have made the following edit: [26]

In a work that is uncommonly reliant on the impact of a plot twist or surprise ending — a murder mystery, for instance — a spoiler tag may be appropriate even within a properly labeled "Synopsis" section, if local editors agree. These should be sourced when possible (e.g., by citing a professional reviewer who describes the impact of the surprise).

In a work that is uncommonly reliant on the impact of a plot twist or surprise ending — a murder mystery, for instance — a spoiler tag may be appropriate even within a properly labeled "Synopsis" section, if there is consensus. These should be sourced when possible (e.g., by citing a professional reviewer who describes the impact of the surprise).

This has been discussed before. The concept of "local editors" is absolutely alien to Wikipedia's "anyone can edit" principle. --Tony Sidaway 17:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"concept of "local editors" is absolutely alien to Wikipedia's "anyone can edit" principle" Nonsense. If you show up to edit, you are local. The implied point is you do have to show up. Milo 20:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Then there's no need to mention it.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Then there's no need to mention it" I disagree. "Local" is about where decisions are to be made, not who makes them. The point of mentioning "local editors" or "local consensus" is to establish that certain things are to be decided on the article's local talk page, and thus will not be decided centrally by the guide.

The analogy is to unnamed states' rights and people's rights being explicitly mentioned as reserved to the states and the people in the U.S. Constitution. The framers knew that failure to mention the equivalent of local rights will result in an erosion of those rights. Milo 19:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that "local editors" has no more meaning than "editors". — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

At one time that might have been true, but until Tony's circular reasoning of consensus decided elsewhere than the article and its talk page is completely refuted, it currently needs to be made explicit. Milo 20:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Carl and Tony. There are no "local editors," and there is no "local consensus." Marc Shepherd 20:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There may be no "local editors" or "local consensus," but Milo still has a point. If the language is the issue, why don't we just say that consensus should be established on the article's talk page? Postmodern Beatnik 21:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll explain precisely why the term "local editors" is a very important one in the context of this long, long discussion:

20:51, 12 June 2007 Wandering Ghost:
If the consensus truly is overwhelming, the local editors will make sure to keep them out.
12:42, 18 June 2007 Wandering Ghost:
It has been noted that there is a tendency for people who are vehemently anti- or pro- spoiler warning to show up to spoiler warning tag discussions on talk pages or articles they're uninvolved with, and in numbers which overwhelm the local editors, in an attempt to push their view that spoilers should be rarer or more common. These people should be ignored where there is a strong local consensus one way or the other.
22:59, 29 June 2007 User:Jere7my:
A small handful of admins and senior editors are stomping out brushfires of spoiler tags wherever they arise, usually against the wishes of local editors. It's not cool, man. It's way far away from the spirit of Wikipedia.
12:23, 30 June 2007 User:Jere7my:
As I said on the mediation page, since the anti-spoiler folks think there's broad consensus that spoiler tags are bad, granting more leeway to local editors shouldn't (in their eyes) lead to a lot of new spoiler tags.
22:33, 6 July 2007 User:Philipreuben:
I can agree with this, provided it involves rewording the guideline to make clear that certain issues are contentious and therefore left entirely up to local editors.
12:35, 7 July 2007 User:Wandering Ghost:
...and often outright claim consensus for removal because the page isn't watched by many people except one or two local editors and the people who decide they need to personally approve or deny every spoiler warning.
19:42, 18 July 2007 User:Postmodern Beatnik:
Are we (by which I mean local editors) up to the task? We better be. Otherwise, we're not doing our jobs.

[[User:~~Nydas~~Milo]] is right, when he says that "the implied point is you do have to show up" and [Nydas said earlier] "there's no need to mention it." Yes.

User:Milomedes says: The point of mentioning "local editors" or "local consensus" is to establish that certain things are to be decided on the article's local talk page, and thus will not be decided centrally by the guide. I think what he says is right, which is why I include the phrase "if there is consensus." Obviously consensus here has its usual meaning of informed consensus resulting from discussion of the issue in context, and has the same sense of "you do have to show up" that ~~Nydas~~Milo mentioned, and does imply the requirement for discussion. Blind revert wars are not how we decide consensus. If there is opposition we must always decide it by discussion at the most immediate point: the talk page of the article in question.

But my reason for avoidance of the term "local editors" in this context is that, historically in this debate, it has been used to distinguish those who simply turn up from those who might for whatever reason have performed more edits to that article, or to that type of article. It is because that concept has attached itself to the term "local editors" that I would avoid using it in this guideline. If it simply and unambiguously meant "editors on the talk page, making decisions subject to the broader consensus and the sense of Wikipedia policy", then I'd probably go along with it. --Tony Sidaway 01:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Tony, I split my post after writing it, and without a second set of tildes, my emphatic remark (you do have to show up) got attributed to Nydas. I've taken the liberty of making attribution corrections to your post of which I hope you approve. If not, they are at least a guide to your further re-edit corrections and rethinking based on the facts. Feel free to just delete-edit and rewrite it without the strikeout mess that I inadvertently caused.

Several of the quotes use "local editors" in a meaning for which I would use "regular editors", since local refers to geography (in this case virtual geography). In my edit to the guideline, I used the term "local consensus" which I think avoids the problem of confusing "local editors" with "regular editors". There may be another way to describe the same locale.

"if there is consensus" does not make clear enough that certain things should be decided on the article's talk page. Since Wikiprojects are now claiming consensus jurisdiction over articles, a clear distinction of where a decision should be made may help avoid bureaucratic disputes over who has to get consensus permission from whom before doing what.

I'd say that if Wikiproject editors want to exert control over article consensus, they too have to show up just like everyone else. Milo 06:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure where this obsession with "local editors" and "local consensus" comes from. Obviously, in a sense, every article is edited locally: someone has to show up and edit it. But because that is self-evident, those intent on adding "locality" to the guideline must mean something else. I'm guessing here, but I think some folks are trying to distinguish the subject-matter experts who create most of the content, from generalist editors who work all over the place.

I don't think it works that way. The generalist editors have a role to play, too — for instance, in recognizing recurring patters, and making pages look consistent. Decisions accumulate one page at a time, but it's perfectly natural to add or remove a spoiler tag, because similar articles have added or removed it. Consensus, therefore, is not always decided locally in one article. Marc Shepherd 15:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the term "local editor" is pretty obvious. It's someone who has the article in his watchlist and fixes vandalism occasionally, or who writes or edits some content for it, or who just returns there from time to time. On the other hand, I would say someone who monitors large number of articles by bot (where large means more than he could handle himself) or changes an often used template is not a local editor in the affected articles. Of course, the category is fuzzy, but many categories are. There are maybe 200000 articles about fiction (just a wild guess), so people who care about SWs on all of them are not local editors by any definition. Also note that this doesn't goes against ownership of articles - everyone can become local editor of any article he wishes to. Also, to prevent misunderstandings, I don't think that some editors should have say over another. I think "consensus by local editors" in this sense means that there will be no editors going around those 200000 articles and telling other editors (who care more about article in question) how should they place the spoiler tags. I want to discourage such behaviour. Samohyl Jan 18:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your definition of "local editor," but what has it to do with the guideline? Does any other guideline refer to "local editors" (as opposed to other kinds of editors)? On Wikipedia, no one needs to become "local" before they can edit. The consensus process doesn't work any differently for spoiler tags than it does for other stylistic matter. Marc Shepherd 19:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't want to guideline prefer any editor over another (being democrat and anti-elitist, I don't even consider it right), I just want to discourage certain behaviour. Just like WP:ENGVAR (rather gently, imho) tries to discourage people from going around and change the English variety on articles. Samohyl Jan 00:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but it _does_ work differently for spoiler tags than for some other stylistic matters. Because of the editing imbalance. Because a) consensus is not clear one way or the other in this case, and b) one side has an overwhelming advantage in editing their POV.

Let's look at it this way. On some page, Z, there is naturally disagreement about whether a spoiler tag is appropriate. Say in general, X people think it is inappropriate, and Y people think it should be there. How do people in X get to the page? They search for uses of template Spoiler, and once they get there, they remove it. How do people in Y get to the page? They have to already be there. Otherwise they don't know there's a debate going on. They might not even know the page EXISTS. So even if Y is equal to or greater than X, because people in X can easily find the edit on Z they don't agree with, they can win there (and if there is no such edit, they have already won). And then move on to Z', where there may be just as much disagreement. And Z. In essence, _ADDING_ spoiler tags is _already_ restricted to 'local editors'.

If there was a bug that prevented people from searching for words in American spellings, but not for searching for words in British spelling, then it would likewise be very possible for some determined group to remove British spelling from most pages - they might be fought on a page by page basis, but if there were enough of them and they kept vigilant, they could do it.

I still feel strongly that _something_ needs to be done to

address this. If not specifying a preference for local editors in this case, then agreeing on limiting the number of solely spoiler-related edits in a certain time frame (say 3 per day), to prevent people from going on patrol (the rule would apply to either adding or removing spoiler warnings, but in this case would have more effect in one particular area), or a "do not make your only edit the addition or removal of a spoiler, only add or remove a spoiler warning as part of a larger edit", or the creation of a 'disputed spoiler' tag, invisible on the page, but that people can search for and add their point of view, and suggest that when removing a spoiler tag, you should replace it with the disputedspoiler tag. Or something else that I haven't thought of that can help address this. Wandering Ghost 12:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not about specialist versus generalist, it's about not encouraging people who don't give two shits about a particular article, who won't help clean it up or write anything or verify anything, coming along to insist that it's of utmost importance that the article have or not have a spoiler tag; if a handful of editors do so on a number of articles, no matter WHICH side they're on, then vanish once they win, is that really consensus or just subtle spoiler-POV pushing? Kuronue | Talk 21:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example of the situation in which the people who visited the page to remove the spoiler tag never visited it before and haven't visited it since. Have a look at the talk page as well.Garda40 22:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

How can you know they never visited it before or after? You don't have to edit anything to look at it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 23:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing me with a good laugh seeing you quibble about the word visited .Garda40 00:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely the reason why such behaviour cannot be explicitly banned, but should be discouraged. Samohyl Jan 00:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You're saying it should be discouraged to not make some edits because others won't be made too? I for one have a number of pages I watch but have never made an edit to. You speak as if there's something horridly wrong with doing that. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I was referring to behaviour I and Kuronue described above, obviously. Samohyl Jan 07:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The very reason we have a wiki is to enable anybody to edit. If we get to the stage where we are discouraging edits by known, trusted editors, then we might as well give up. --Tony Sidaway 01:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If we get to the stage where we encourage people to go from article to article pushing their POV, we're doomed. It's the same as people coming to, say, all pregnancy- and abortion-related articles saying "We should use the terms "mother" and "baby" and "father" and "womb"" because that fits their pro-life spin (and this is an actual case going on now, mind). We should encourage people to IMPROVE WIKIPEDIA, not to POLICE SPOILER TAGS. Kuronue | Talk 02:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It takes all kinds of editing to improve Wikipedia, and what you refer to as "policing spoiler tags" is only one of them. I (and I'm sure the vast majority of all Wikipedians) would characterize your reasoning as a false dichotomy. we've been here before. On 27 August, I explained the situation as follows [27]:

But that being so, what am I doing to improve Wikipedia? Chopping out tags that some people find useful? Not a bit of it. Mostly I remove redundant tags from sections with names like "Story", "Plot" or "Synopsis". As I've stated above, it's not acceptable in an encyclopedia to write about such matters without covering what most reasonable people would consider spoilers. But that's not all I do. I change the names of sections, or add section names where they do not already exist, so that the reader will not be misled. Don't misunderstand me: I don't create corraled areas of spoiling content. Rather, I create structure in the article that shows the casual reader that this is an encyclopedia and not a fan site, that its mission is to inform and not to conceal. I am performing an essential function in the construction of an encyclopedia: making an infrastructure that permits all significant elements of a subject to be covered, and removing elements that make such coverage difficult to provide in an integrated manner. We shouldn't be dodging in and ou of "spoiler" areas dictated arbitrarily by random editors. Rather we should always feel free to refactor any article to improve the delivery of information.

In short, I'm very happy with the work I've done on Wikipedia, and you have yet to show that it does anything but good to the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 02:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's a bad thing to correct structure of articles; I'm saying it's generally a bad idea to promote that being the only thing you do in all of wikipedia. Nor am I claiming it's the only thing you do, but really. There're FAR larger problems than this one, and nobody should be encouraged to do nothing but police the spoiler tag issue, hunting down every last instance to eradicate it. That's rather WP:POINTish. Kuronue | Talk 23:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes you're right to state that there are other problems that need to solved. I think it would be an extremely short-sighted person who claimed that's the only thing I do on Wikipedia. Blind might be a better word (see this which I've already quoted from at length and which is consonant with my extremely long contribution history). Please read Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (aka WP:POINT). It's very important to understand what it means. It definitely doesn't mean "don't try to improve Wikipedia's content with each and ever edit you make.."

I know I or some other experienced editors asks someone to read and try to understand WP:POINT just about every time it's cited, but there's a good reason for that: it's often cited in a quite baffling manner that it impossible to connect in any way to that text or the sense of that guideline. --Tony Sidaway 23:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm blind? Nor am I claiming it's the only thing you do, from the post RIGHT above yours. I'm stating a WORST-case scenario, not trying to say that it's done. If all you do is start edit was about spoiler tags and force your own personal agenda - claiming consensus is with your side - then that is disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. It's a good thing nobody's that bad -- yet. I'm worried that it might happen in the future, and the way to prevent that would be to avoid advocating monitoring spoiler tag usage across all of wikipedia - the temptation to then bring your own personal agenda, for or against, is rather great. Kuronue | Talk 23:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. As long as we all understand that you absolutely were not talking about the current implementation of the guideline, but only about some hypothetical person who might make considerable efforts to keep spoiler tagging under control.

Starting edit wars by removing spoiler tags, whatever one's personal opinion of the matter, would of course be extremely disruptive, we agree on that. We definitely shouldn't do that. It isn't anything to do with WP:POINT, however. Please do read and try to understand that guideline. Please also stop abusing the word "agenda". The way you use it above, it seems to be absolutely meaningless. "By going to the toilet, Smith was pursuing an agenda of voiding his bowels". Utterly without sense. --Tony Sidaway 23:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry my meager command of the english langauge is not up to your standards, m'lord. I'll refrain from bothering in the future. I've stated my point, anyone can here read it, for better or for worse. I'm done defending it at this point in time. Kuronue | Talk 23:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Reduced usefulness

Hi. I just wanted to post how disappointed I am at the removal of spoiler warnings from Wikipedia, as it's made the site far less useful. Wikipedia is still the site of choice for looking up almost anything: places, historical figures, mathematical formulae, and random things like Toucan crossings or Caravanserai. But there's now a massive category of exceptions: anything fictional that I haven't seen but might want to.

Obviously I can safely look at the page for a film I've seen, or for a book I already know I won't want to see. But for anything in between those categories – any anime, computer game, film, book, or TV series that I might or might not want to see, as well as for random characters like the Dread Pirate Roberts where I might not be able to remember what fictional work they're from – Wikipedia is no longer safe for me to use.

This is a pity both from my point of view (looking something up on Wikipedia is simply more useful and reliable than googling it) and from yours (because I always make a point of fixing any typos or grammatical issues in WP pages I visit, and contributing new content if I can, even though my wife mocks me for it). --AlexChurchill 09:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well there's a HUGE archive of discussion that talks about why they were removed, the good, the bad, and everything in between. Your comments are pretty much a retread. If you want, go read a bunch of the discussions. But the main problem? WP was *NEVER* 'safe' as you put it. Before the large mass revomal, there were still MANY articles without any spoiler warnings (almost any Final Fantasy and any Opera page, for instance). In fact, I'd say it's MUCH better now -- think about it, if you're expecting a warning (like you seemed to have), and it's not there, then it's worse than it not being expected in the first place.

As for 'safe'? Well, a lot of people would consider a number of photos and articles on profanity and other issues to be 'unsafe', but yet there's near-universal agreement about keeping those as they are. Why should spoiler warnings be any different? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've read a lot of the archive, but it is rather overwhelming in volume and hard to filter down to the actual points. It seems to me that individual pages which are missing spoiler warnings can have them easily added (as people keep doing to pages even now), and it's a matter of what the policy should be. And as for safety of other topics, the point is it's very easy to include the spoiler warning template, it can be easily skipped over by those who don't require it, and it provides immense service that makes the encyclopedia far more useful. It seems like in the same way that everyone knows Wikipedia's bad at webcomics, the reputation of Wikipedia's coverage for all of fiction is going to drop rapidly. (The first few pages of Googling for "Wikipedia Spoiler-warning -site:wikipedia.org" suggest that the majority of the internet wanted spoiler warnings and disapproves of their removal.) And this will be sad, because I like Wikipedia, and I'm sad to see it go this way.

But I'm not expecting anything to change because of this one comment. I'm just surprised that the actions of a vocal minority have been allowed to set the new policy, and just wanted to log a vote for reinstating them when the matter next comes up for discussion. --AlexChurchill 12:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

For the heck of it, I just did such a search. Outside a reference to WP spoiling HP Deathly Hollows in the first line (before the book was out, mind you), the first reference to WP spoiling was in the 21st entry, and all it says was "Its the dang Wikipedia that spoils things for me ". It's not until the 23rd that a truly relevant link comes up, to a forum, which pretty much rehashes this page, including such wonderful comments as "There's a big hole in my life. I guess I'll have to fill it with alcohol. Thanks a lot, Jimmy Wales. Ass.", and from the other side "People who care about spoilers and spoiler warnings enough to moan about something like this could do with a visit from the clue doctor to give them a few shots of HOLY SHIT I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT A PERSON COULD HAVE SUCH FUCKED UP PRIORITIES AND SUCH A SHELTERED EXISTENCE."...so yeah. But a bit down, a VERY interesting comment that says things perfexctly, IMO: So maybe wikipedia is trying to be more -pedia and less what wiki- has become. I can't honestly blame them. If they hope to remain relevant, they can't become so user influenced that all objectivity is lost.

But anyway, that seems to be about the only real place there's any discussion within the first 50 or so entries. So I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with that. Spammy post, but eh... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Melodia offered a good summary, but I would add a couple of points.

The premise that spoiler warnings were deleted by a "vocal minority" is very much disputed. There is anecdotal evidence for and against that assumption. Before the so-called "mass removals," there were warnings on about 45,000 articles, which is less than half of the articles that theoretically should have had them. This is certainly one piece of evidence that the majority either opposes the warnings or doesn't care either way, as otherwise they should have been much more prevalent.

One unsolved problem is that every reader has a different perspective on how much of the plot is allowed to be disclosed without "spoiling it." For episodic fiction (TV shows, webcomics, serial novels, film franchises), some editors believe that only the most recently-disclosed plot details need to be spoiler-protected. In an article on a recurring character, the warnings might surround only the latest events in that character's fictional life. But this is helpful only to readers who are caught up to the exact point in the story that the editor predicted. Those who have gone beyond that don't need the warnings, and those who've gone less far are going to have earlier parts of the story spoiled. Marc Shepherd 15:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no evidence that there was a theoretical deficiency of spoiler warnings. Take away stubs with no spoilers, and 45,000 is about right. As for the reduced usefulness for researching new fiction, it's irrelevant to the anti-spoiler camp; they prefer their self-invented definition of 'encyclopedia'.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no evidence that 45,000 was the correct figure, either. Marc Shepherd 12:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So maybe wikipedia is trying to be more -pedia and less what wiki- has become. I can't honestly blame them. If they hope to remain relevant, they can't become so user influenced that all objectivity is lost. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What do have SWs to do with objectivity? They're no more related to NPOV, verifiability or accuracy than a choice of spelling, article structure or headings. To Alex - I agree with you, I feel same way; in the meantime, you may consider having userbox template on your user page like this: {{Userboxtop|Userboxes}} {{User:Kizor/User spoilertags}} {{Userboxbottom}} Samohyl Jan 06:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ironic, Melodia, considering that that comment falls under the umbrella of user influence. Oh no, a paradoxical conundrum! Wikipedia will crumble under it's own weight! Whatever shall we do? ~_^ Kuronue | Talk 13:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi AlexChurchill, it's difficult to summarize a million-some bytes of disputatious debate into a nutshell. As I've put the story together from the pro-tag view:

In May 2007, a reasonable good-writing manifesto intended to prevent spoiler notices from influencing the structure of articles, got carried away into a bigoted vendetta against mostly young consumers of narrative suspense (which spoilers break), evolved into a majoritarian do-it-because-we-said-so force, overrode compromise consensus while editing the spoiler guide, and was then enforced by ongoing search-and-destroy operations against spoiler-tags, as justified by the majoritarian-forced editing of the spoiler guide. There has long been a workable compromise on the table of good article-writing structure, combined with using spoiler tags hidden by default (you would need to turn them on), but it's going to take a long time to balance out the majoritarians with compromise consensus.

"Notices"? Oh yes, it turns out that spoiler tags aren't "warnings" or "alerts" by dictionary definition, because spoiler disappointment isn't dangerous or unsafe. The opponents have seized on that hyped "warning" misusage to distract from a compromise using the "no disclaimers" (of danger) policy. Correctly calling them "spoiler notices" (a type of content notice like the disambiguation notices) makes that debate distraction go away.

By poll, about 40+% of readers/editors want spoiler tags. This is a large minority, but as a minority rights issue it's only of middling importance. I've estimated that the public issue to restore spoiler tags is only five months into a one to two year campaign. Two external wildcards are that big publishing/Hollywood profits and perhaps a million web posters indirectly support the use of spoiler notices. The SanFrancisco Chronicle has already declared the immorality of spoilers, which hints that moral citizens might not want to donate money to "spoiler sites".

I agree with Samohyl Jan that the {{User:Kizor/User spoilertags}} is a useful way to express your disappointment at the loss of all but a few temporary, token spoiler notices. Tell your friends too. Milo 15:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)