Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

This policy is not good for readers

Wikipedia is not merely an objective database but also a resource. People want to learn about a piece of fictional media, and so they often either look it up straight on Wikipedia, or Google it (which often has Wikipedia as a top result). Having spoilers so clearly in front can and will alienate readers who just want a light summary and not every explicit detail. All they will learn is that Wikipedia is not a good resource when it comes to fictional material, and avoid it in the future.

Don't misconstrue what I'm saying as the opposite extreme. I'm not saying that Wikipedia should be out to promote these fictional works. You can still provide a factual summary without spoiling the reader, except when absolutely necessary (as in the case of noteworthy controversies). It's not difficult to accomplish.

Also, many of these fiction-based articles not only spoil the reader, but go out of their way to do so. Certain writers make it a priority, even when it's unnecessary. The standard often changes from article to article. Some keep their spoilers in the episode summaries (which are either a separate section or another article entirely), some put them right out in front. The former is more reader-friendly than the latter.

67.168.247.216 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

First, there is a big difference between covering every explicit detail and the main points of the overall plot. Second, I don't see is as Wikipedia's job to protect people that don't realize that a plot section covers plot details. Finally, is there any evidence thst anyone has stopped using Wikipedia over this?--174.91.187.80 (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

How can you verify that a plot detail is a spoiler? After all, what plot details are considered "spoilers" is entirely in the eye of the beholder. You simply cannot describe a plot summary completely without including plot details that some individuals may consider "spoilers". I'll also point out that many readers come to Wikipedia to read the so-called "spoilers". In fact, the reason websites that cover TV and film placed the word "spoiler" in an articles' headline is to attract readers. —Farix (t | c) 22:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@TheFarix: While I agree with most of what you said above I have a question where you said: "In fact, the reason websites that cover TV and film placed the word "spoiler" in an articles' headline is to attract readers." Now that I would like to see a source for, reliable (preferable) or otherwise. Please note that I am not being funny or trying to make trouble. I am currently researching historic strategies for marketing of films and tv shows and I haven't seen any articles that suggest what your statement does. Thanks. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 08:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It IS NOT A POLICY! And it being used as one is one of the main problems I noted in the above RfC. IP, a number of editors expressed that this guideline is problematic as written; this includes one of the main editors who has supported the guideline for years, Masem. See the Survey section above, and the discussions that follow it. Because of the support that RfC received, and my disagreement with how that RfC was closed despite that support (except for the fact that the closer rightly noted that there was general agreement that spoilers typically should not be in the lead), I will be revisiting this spoiler case in another month or so. It will be held at WP:Village pump (policy) and the RfC will be crafted differently (with consideration given to the consensus that spoilers typically should not be in the lead) and well-advertised. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm still amazed that you managed to take a sentence from a paragraph that was written to express as bluntly as possible the opinion that spoilerness should not be taken account of in any manner, and somehow interpret it as a warrant to take spoilerness into account - David Gerard (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but I'm still amazed that you do not see that the general consensus, as noted by the closer of the RfC, is that spoilers typically should not be in the lead. If you want to know the reasons for that, you are free to read the RfC all over again. There was no consensus that the guideline should stay as it is. None. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Flyer, if you opened another RfC and the community could not agree on any changes, would that be the end of the matter for you? I'm not asking as a dig against you--I'm just trying to figure out if there's any "no change" scenario that you'd tolerate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You misrepresented my stance. This guideline is generally fine, but I would have no problem with more clarifying language to recommend where judicious use of spoilers should be taken. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, the continuous posts on this talk page about problems with the guideline mean that the matter will never be over. That stated, it could be improved, per the previous proposals. There would certainly be less complaints about the guideline if the guideline's wording was improved and did not make it seem that a spoiler should reasonably be placed anywhere. I would try to continue the proposal aspect here without a RfC, but that won't work since editors watching this page usually ignore or disregard complaints about and/or suggestions for the guideline. There is hardly ever a discussion here. The biggest discussion happened because of the RfC that I advertised. In this case, the community did agree on the lead matter and that the current wording is vague. What tripped up the RfC (other than my initial wording for it not being clear to some editors, and the bickering) is that editors could not all, or even majority-wise, agree on exact wording that would be an improvement. Will I ever accept the guideline as is? No. Will I keep pursuing that it is changed from the state it is currently in? After one more RfC (if I'm the one to start it, that is), I will likely be done with pursuing the matter on my own. If an editor needs my help to reasonably change the guideline after that, I will oblige.

Masem, I did not mean to misrepresent your stance. My initial comment above regarding you was to note that even though you have supported this guideline for years, you agree that it needs improvement...especially to combat the the way it is currently misused by a number of editors. I kept all your RfC commentary in mind. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm just popping in here... I had posted on the talk page some time ago... unhappy to see there was a vote that I didn't know about, I would have expressed my opinion again. I can't quite understand exactly what the outcome of this was... what is the current policy?Daleylife (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The policy is the same as it's been for years. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Any content should be added or not added based on if it helps the encyclopedia. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Daleylife, keep in mind that WP:Spoiler is a guideline, not a policy. See WP:Policies and guidelines for a better understanding of the difference. I considered contacting you about the RfC, but your edit history shows that you are a very inactive editor and you didn't (still don't) have an email option enabled. I had hoped you would turn up to comment in time, but, alas, it didn't happen. Just read the RfC to see the various thoughts made in the discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

At a certain point, the difference between "guideline" and "policy" is a continuum. See also Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles (which refers to spoilers in its first sentence) or Wikipedia:Perennial proposals for suggested changes to guidelines that never quite seem to swing it, and why that might be.

Flyer22, you appear yet again to be trying to rules-lawyer your way to a world where Wikipedia will consider spoilers as an editorial issue. I don't expect you'll listen, but I do feel I should note this is exceedingly unlikely to pass, and that in making out to others that it has a chance you are misleading them - David Gerard (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

David Gerard, are you threatened every time I comment here? Seems like. The aforementioned RfC does not at all indicate that considering spoilers as an editorial issue "is exceedingly unlikely to pass." And if it did, you wouldn't be repeatedly trying to counter anything I state at this talk page. You wouldn't be worried about the continual and growing support for a change in the guideline. And, really, spoilers are already an editorial issue, as a number of editors in the RfC made clear. Many editors use common sense when it comes to where a spoiler should and should not go. Others just like to spoil for no reason at all, and this guideline will eventually be changed to make it clearer that spoiling for no reason at all is unacceptable. A number of editors in the RfC made it clear that the "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." sentence is not enough to counter unnecessary spoiling. I suggest you stop seeing this matter as a notch on your belt. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn:I just want to to reply to Flyer22. I have confirmed my email address. And in regards to my editing, I edited for years before knowing I could make an actual account. Sometimes I have forgotten to log in, but I will try to stay logged in from now on. I appreciate you at least thought to try to alert me to the vote. I have yet to really read what's been discussed as of late. I will add my thoughts if applicable, after I read everything. Daleylife (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Readd, but only for movies

This function should be readded, but only for movies (and some specific, very popular books). In my opinion, we should have a spoiler label that has a timed occurrence, such as it is only present for six months after the release, and then it is removed automatically. Please send feedback. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Why only movies and specific popular books? Harryhenry1 (talk) 03:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Because it just seems logical. I don't know how to explain, but it just makes sense. Like seriously they removed the tag because someone used it on The Three Little Pigs. Obviously you won't need a spoiler alert for that. Video games would probably aid from a spoiler tag as well but I'll get to that later on. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

This only makes it more subjective in its application, one of the reasons it was a problem when we had them. Once you include them, even if you argue for specifically objective bounds, people will still find ways to make that extend well outside those bounds or other issues. Hence better not to include them at all, and if you get "burned" once on being spoiled when coming to WP on a recent work, you know to avoid that in the future. --MASEM (t) 11:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I orginally thought we could take a vote or something, but now I read what you're saying and I'm now not requesting this UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

My thoughts on changing the guideline

Welp, I'm late. Very, very late.

Shocked to see so much opposition to the change in the guideline. I'll be frank, I did not read this entire mountain of opinion--- but I clearly saw more people auguring that spoilers on wikipedia should stay and some even think the guideline needs to be stronger.

So, I will just share my opinion as best I can. @Cyphoidbomb: mentions in their opposition that a film student might want spoilers galore on film articles for research. (Basically.) I was a film student and here's what I say: Yes, sometimes I do want as much info on a film or television show that I can find. I want to read on wikipedia every little detail on the plot, production, etc.

But, here's the other side of the coin... the reason I began talking on this page in the first place.

Say I have just discovered a new television show. It's currently on its 5th season, but the previous seasons are available to stream. Now say that I've watched Season 1. I now come to wikipedia because I love this show. I want to read more about it. I go to the wiki page for this show. Now, in my opinion, I feel that main pages of shows should be vague. Don't spoil too much. However, if I click on SEASON ONE that takes me to a new page, it is within this page that spoilers can be every other word--- I have watched season one, so I know all that happens. And I might want to know some behind the scenes stuff. Any twists about this season would be here.

However--- say a character is in season one and then is absent until season five. The fact this character appears again SHOULD NOT be in "the season one" article, because it spoils a season I have yet to see. The interesting throwback to a character that reappears would be better suited on the main page for the fifth season. Now, of course there normally is that chart showing the actors and the seasons they appear in. So THAT is a little iffy, I do admit. But those charts don't give any character detail, so while you might know a character returns, you don't know why. the DETAIL of the character's return would be on the main page for the season in which they reappear.

Basically, spoilers, I feel, should be contained within their respective season main pages. The general page for a show should be vague, certainly not spoiling a character's true identity in the cast section or changing a female's last name if she marries a character at the end of a season. I gave the real life example that the /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desperate_Housewives cast section originally revealed (SPOILER) that Susan Mayer eventually marries Mike Delfino, so the actress was credited as "Susan Delfino" in the main cast section, which spoils Susan's story arc.

If for any reason a spoiler must be included in the main page of a television show, I feel a cover feature should be implemented, where the reader must hover over it with its mouse or click it if on mobile.) My point is that a reader could be on a page just for a basic summary or they could in fact be a student wanting to know the whole enchilada. To account for both these cases, the "hover over spoiler" is a good work around. I also feel thisshould be the case for film articles, as there usually isn't more "in depth pages" for films. Those are just one huge article. This "hover over" spoilers also is a good thing to do for books.

But with films, like the television shows, I do feel character descriptions should still be vague. They can hint to something more, but the cast section is the 1st or second thing you see, and a reader very well could just want basic information. I do admit that film articles might be trickier to "solve" when it comes to spoilers, but those that supported the change of the guideline seemed to indicate that having an editor use discretion when editing makes perfect sense to me. Away from having spoilers hidden that you must uncover, I think a general "spoilers ahead" or something to that effect could be noted in articles for books, films, and television. Just give a little warning since you aren't quite sure who's reading.

Lastly, why I feel this is a situation that needs to be addressed is when you search for a film or television show, wikipedia is almost always a top search result. Editors MUST find a balance between the casual "wanting to know just a bit" reader and the "film student wanting every detail" reader. Daleylife (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Go to the top of this page. See all those archive links? Start reading. And then keep reading. And then read some more. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Spoilers are fine in actual articles, e.g. episode synopsis pages. They are unacceptable in List of Episode summaries, which are used by people before they've seen some or all of the episodes. This policy must be reversed on at least these pages. Abatie (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

No, list of episode pages may use spoilers. We don't consider that people who haven't seen a full series may come to these pages to read about them. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

And that policy is unacceptably wrong: people *do* use the List of Episodes pages who haven't seen some or all of the episodes. Abatie (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Which goes back to the core of our Spoiler policy - what is considered a spoiler is highly subjective and thus impossible to distinguish, so we simply do not worry ourselves with hiding spoilers. --MASEM (t) 18:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

And what does that matter to an encyclopedia that attempts to cover a topic as completely as reliable sources allow? We don't remove verifiable content from articles because "people may not want to know about it." —Farix (t | c) 19:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe Wikia (which proudly proclaims "Fandom powered by Wikia") is a better place for you and the hypothetical others to search for episode lists catered to your spoiler-free expectations. Not even sure what you (and the hypothetical others) expect to see at a List of episodes article. I assume only titles and airdates? Even loglines can contain some spoiling information. So can titles, actually. Let's cut those too. And if an episode aired on Valentine's Day, that might potentially spoil the love-story premise. Come to think of it, we should collectively demand that guest star credits be placed at the end of episodes. If I know at the beginning that John De Lancie is in a Star Trek episode, then I know it's a Q story, and that'll spoil the surprise Q pops in to torment Picard. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

List of Episodes is equivalent to TV Guide and should be treated as such. strawman arguments about absurd cases are silly. While there may be some gray areas in what's considered a spoiler, if something is controversial, it can be handled in its own discussion. In the real world, it's not going to be an issue *that* often. It's absurd that the idea of removing a major spoiler from a brief summary (like a main character getting killed off) should be forbidden. Abatie (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a TV guide, so your analogy is false. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the express purpose of an encyclopedia is to convey as much pertinent information as possible in the least amount of space. Now, some LOE pages, like List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes don't contain summaries, but that's largely because the sheer volume of episodes and summaries and other content has warranted the creation of independent articles for each season. But per longstanding WikiProject Television consesnsus, 1) We don't create a LOE article until we've started a second season episode table (which means that full episode summaries would appear in the MAIN article for that show for all of S1) and 2) only when there is sufficient content to warrant an independent article for the season would we create one. Your objection to having spoilers in LOE tables would require us to create individual season articles from the very beginning regardless of whether or not there was sufficient content to warrant one. So let's say Sherlock (TV series) was starting, per your argument, we'd have to create a S1 article for a scant three episodes, and then unique articles for each season thereafter just to protect you and the hypothetical others from having their trivial enjoyment spoiled. That's a ridiculous amount of sprawl for something that is basically your own problem and your own responsibility to manage. Not to mention all the additional work editors would have to perform to write all those loglines, assuming that's what you're looking for when you access the LOE page. Who's going to perform that work? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I was arguing no such thing - a List of Episodes is a List of Episodes, whether it's a separate article or not. Nor do I expect editors to do the work there any more than they do anywhere else in the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abatie (talk • contribs) 02:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

You are arguing exactly such a thing as what I've detailed above, not because it's part of a devious plan on your part, (it's obviously not) but because from lack of experience you aren't aware of how most TV articles evolve, and the result of your objection would require massive changes across the entirety of our television articles. During the normal evolution of a TV article, all those complete beginning-to-end 200-word synopses for season one should already appear at the main article in broad daylight until such time as we could spin them off into a unique List of Episodes article. Now, if those complicated 200 word summaries spoil your enjoyment of each episode in season one, 1) who's responsible for going through all of the complex summaries of TV shows across the project? 2) Who writes shorter unspoil-y versions? 3) What do we do with the information we've suppressed? Throw it out? Stuff it behind some giant spoiler wall? Do we make a college kid studying TV highlight every summary like a lottery scratcher? Or do we create a unique article for every episode in global television history based on those paltry 200 word episode synopses? Maybe you have other possibilities? From where I'm sitting, the need to have fictional enjoyment preserved at all costs seems to make the delivery of factual content really complicated. I'd rather someone happen upon an article, read a summary and say, "oh shit, I shouldn't have read that" than create some complicated scenario where people who really need the information can't readily find it because of the coddling alternatives. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

You are very wrong on this point. A list of episodes is a summary of episodes in either a series or a single season. As part of that summary, the plot of those episodes, and especially major plot points, must be summarized in order to be complete. Also, content verified by reliable sources is not censored and a plot summary is verified by the episode itself. It very much appears you are advocating a form of censorship by prohibiting certain plot details you deem to be "spoilers". —Farix (t | c) 01:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

By all means, pull out the big C-word just because I'm advocating some common sense common courtesy. Well, at least now I've experienced how Wikipedia got its reputation. Let's just apply ivory tower guidelines to special cases where they not only don't make sense, but are highly obnoxious as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abatie (talk • contribs) 02:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Suppression of information on the basis that it would cause you brief emotional discomfort is exactly censorship. Let's not say "fuck" because it could offend someone's sensibilities. What's the difference? It's trivial suppression of information. And your "common sense courtesy" example is not well conceived, given you've provided no plan for what your ideal scenario is, or any plan for how to implement it, or where the proposed labor would come from to implement it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Abatie: - first, let me say, sorry that this is not a warm welcome but as stated above, there are tens of pages of people discussing this over at least ten years. It's...tired and contentious. I think we would all ask you to consider the following:

• What is a spoiler? - that sounds easy right? Try it! See how specific you can get as an over-arching concept.
• What is it possible to spoil? - previously, people have gone so far as to remove information from articles about fairground rides to avoid 'spoiling' the endings - do you consider this to be a valid argument? If not, at what point do we draw the line, and how would you argue that the line was not arbitrary?
• What if the spoiler is the thing that makes it notable/an intrinsic part of the work? - Romeo and Juliet die. If you live in a 'western culture' you already know that. How would you write a spoiler ?policy that incorporated 'exceptions' for 'things everyone already knows' and again, how would you make that line non-arbitrary? If you don't think we should make an exception, how far are you willing to take this? Previously, someone (perhaps facetiously) put a spoiler warning on the 3 little pigs. Is this something that is acceptable? If not, why?
• Who are we removing this information for? - Above, I said, if you live in a 'western culture' you know that Romeo and Juliet die. What if you're from a culture or country where people aren't exposed to Shakespeare? Aren't you being rather anglo-centric and culturally insensitive if you decide that it's ok to spoil endings for those people? What if a TV show has been broadcast in the UK this week, but US audiences won't be able to see it until next week - are we going to hold off on adding the information, just for those readers?

These are things to carefully consider, and that we have, for years. Though additional input is always welcome, I would suggest that you do a little digging into why things are the way they are. (And maybe everyone else could see that this person has made 10 edits and be a little less bite-y) Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• As a Wikipedian (and as a spoiler-warning-hater) I definitely don't want Abatie feeling like everyone's descended upon them. The Spoiler Debate is basically that individual Wikipedians can be quite sensible as individuals, but Wikipedians as a group tend to immediately take any idea to extremes. The archives of this talk page will be most informative ... - David Gerard (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The Wikitrout of remarkably Doomed Proposals

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

This has been discussed to death, if you want to start a long and acrimonious debate culminating in no change in the guideline then feel free, but be aware that is all you will be doing. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Shall we need FAQ banner?

I have seen so many perennial proposals on changing the guideline and so many discussions on spoilers and guidelines. Can we have an {{FAQ}} banner and construct it, so we can likely reduce a number of endless discussions about them? --George Ho (talk) 07:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I say go for it, although I wouldn't be too surprised if people ignore it. Anomie⚔ 16:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Given that the guideline is already its own FAQ, it most likely will. —Farix (t | c) 19:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd support this if it could be guaranteed that the FAQ didn't spoil people's enjoyment of reading the full set of discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I shall guarantee that the questions shall be about the guideline itself, not about "spoilers" (already done in the project page). And I'm sure people will still enjoy reading the past discussions (including longer ones), even with the FAQ banner. (I wonder a smiley here is appropriate.) Meanwhile, shall I be bold and then add the FAQ banner anyways? George Ho (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

People will still propose changes to the guideline because, as the most recent big RfC shows, editors are significantly divided on their feelings about this guideline (which some people continue to treat as a policy). That RfC shows that editors are generally in agreement that obvious spoilers are not needed in the lead, and that the question of what is an obvious spoiler is more so common sense than subjective. The RfC shows that editors generally feel that spoilers should only be in the lead unless necessary. And yet there still has not been a change made to the guideline to reflect this or other concerns. Simple re-wording would indeed help issues with this guideline, which is often used to enforce spoilers where they don't need to be. So, no, I doubt that a FAQ will help anything, especially if it's worded in a biased way as to discourage editors from bringing up concerns they have about this guideline. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization of that discussion. I think the majority of users in that discussion felt that plot elements should be included or not included, both in the lead, and elsewhere in the article, based solely on encyclopedic concerns, and not on whether some people might view them as spoilers. Paul August ☎ 22:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know you disagree. But the closer stated, "While many participants agree that, in general, the lead of an article is not the place for spoilers, a clear majority disagree with the proposal as stated, and a substantial number do not even agree that there is a solvable problem here." There was, in fact, general agreement that spoilers are usually not needed in the lead. This is clear not only by the votes, but by those making proposals and commenting in the proposal section or other sections of the RfC. There were editors who had no issue with summarizing the plot in the lead, as long as unnecessary spoilers were not added to the lead. The Sixth Sense example of unnecessary spoiling was supported. So was the belief that we should not be spoiling for the sake of spoiling. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course, "we should not be spoiling for the sake of spoiling", no one is advocating for that. And yes some things which someone might consider to be spoilers would be appropriate for the lead, but the reasons for this would be for encyclopedic reasons, not because they were spoilers. Paul August ☎ 18:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Not everyone agreed with the "not because they are spoilers" reasoning. Keeping them out of the lead because they are spoilers was indeed part of the reasoning of editors in the RfC. Anyone is free to read the RfC to see this. Editors were very clear that spoilers generally should not be in the lead without very good reason. Some, like me, were also clear that this guideline is used by some to spoil for the sake of spoiling and that the current wording of the guideline does not sufficiently combat that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You guys. I said below already that I'm withdrawing the FAQ idea for now. You can discuss other topics related to the guideline at another thread. I've not yet closed the discussion that I started, but I may if the thread goes stray away from the central point of the discussion and gets heated. George Ho (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

All right. I'll hold the FAQ idea for now. I might revisit this when the time is right. George Ho (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Adaptations of Work into Other Media?

I wanted to get some opinions on a disagreement here: Too many spoilers?.

American Gods (TV series) is an actively produced TV series, which has aired one episode (on March 30) as of this post. The show is based on the novel American Gods, which was published in 2001. Contributors to the TV series wiki page have added significant character and story revelations, and other contributors have cried foul on the spoilers. The additions are sourced from journalists discussing the novel with the assumption that the TV series will be entirely faithful to the published work. My issue (and question for you) is - at what point is it fair to make that assumption?

The showrunners have been upfront about their intention to significantly change some characters (The Technical Boy), add new ones (Vulcan) and the pilot episode added two entirely original scenes (Audrey in the cemetery, Shadow being attacked toward the end). Is my assumption - that the show and the novel should be treated as independent entities - legitimate? Am I right in thinking it's inappropriate to include a character's "true identity" in the Cast List (revealed late in the novel, and a significant twist), when the character hasn't even appeared on the show yet? (Some of the actors have been very candid about their character's various identities but the actor in this particular instance has been tight-lipped and evasive in every interview, if intention is a factor here.) Thanks. The Red Queen (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You can't make the assumption that the show will follow the book 100% faithful, so you are absolutely that those details should not be included until the show reveals or de-reveals them. One similar example that I know that we avoided that were on A Series of Unfortunate Events (TV series) (The NEtflix adaption) where the set of parents, which are known in book to be named, were never named (even in the series) so we stuck to just "Mother" and "Father"; if the series should mention the names that equate with the book, then we can change that. Editors should assume nothing from the book going into the TV show, unless there is sourced comments from the creators that affirm a connection. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what your question has to do with this guideline. Paul August ☎ 17:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Probably because the discussion on the article begain with "OMG spoilers from the book!" and WP:Spoiler is the obvious place to look for a policy about that. It turns out it's actually a WP:CRYSTAL situation, we don't know how closely the TV show is actually going to follow the book's plot so guesses along those lines are speculation that doesn't belong in the article. People who want to see the book's plot are welcome to go read the book's article and draw their own conclusions. Anomie⚔ 17:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes! WP:CRYSTAL is exactly what I was trying to express, but I didn't have the reference. Thank you! The Red Queen (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

"possible spoilers"

Currently the page contains the sentence:

"Wikipedia previously included such warnings in some articles, but no longer does so, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers"

I edited this to add the word "possible" in front of the word "spoilers", but was reverted by here. I think the word is needed because of the fact that certainly not every plot detail will be considered a spoiler by every reader. This fact underlies one of the main problems with trying to make spoilers a consideration. That is, what constitutes a spoiler is, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder, and cannot usefully be defined. Paul August ☎ 01:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted you. And here's why: In what way can it be validly argued that such a section will not include spoilers? Unless, of course, you are talking about a "Premise" section as well. Our "Premise" sections usually are not considered spoil-ery. Our Plot sections are. We already have an issue with this guideline being used to justify spoilers any and everywhere in an article. You now want it to imply that the Plot section or "Ending" section may not be spoiler-ish and anyone who states so is simply giving their opinion on the matter because of the supposed diverse opinion on what a spoiler is? People know what spoilers are; they are not usually divided on what they are. The Spoiler (media) article currently states, "A spoiler is an element of a disseminated summary or description of any piece of fiction that reveals any plot elements which threaten to give away important details. Typically, the details of the conclusion of the plot, including the climax and ending, are especially regarded as spoiler material." How does a Plot section or "Ending" section not do that? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

If you want to add "possible" back and no one else objects, then go ahead and do it. Although I object, it's not that big of an issue. And I'm not interested in getting into a big "What is a spoiler?" debate right now; I am busy with too many other things. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying that every plot detail constitutes a spoiler? Paul August ☎ 11:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

No, but I did consider that the "possible" bit could be interpreted to mean spoilers might be included. My argument is pretty much what GB fan stated below. If a person reads a plot section, they are spoiled on that film, television show, book, play, or other media story, unless they already know what happens in the story or unless the section is missing key details. If I am told of everything that is going to happen in a film, I am spoiled on that film. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. My definition of "spoiler" would not matter. I am stating what I argued in the big RfC we had last year -- people usually know what spoilers are. Take Bignole and Favre1fan93 recently warning me about spoilers, seen here and here, when we were discussing shows. Common sense. They had enough respect for me to warn me. And I thanked them for that. That stated, they had been told beforehand that I'm not yet caught up with Arrow. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On the other hand, whatever any particular person considers "spoilers", those things imply their presence. The word "possible" there seems to be unnecessary fluff. Anomie⚔ 11:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say every plot detail is a spoiler but I would say that every plot section contains spoilers. If a plot section does not contain a spoiler, that means one of two things to me. Either the plot summary is not detailed enough and only contains those elements that are in trailers or every person in the world knows the entire plot. ~ GB fan 11:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessarry fluff. Popcornduff (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you are stating that you agree with Anomie that Paul August's edit is unnecessary fluff? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. Sorry about that. (Man, I didn't even manage to spell "unnecessary" correctly.) Popcornduff (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the addition of "possible" seems unnecessary. If the section doesn't contain spoilers, then it's likely underdeveloped. "Spoilers" doesn't meant that every item is a spoiler, nor does it mean that every person is "spoiled" by having read it. It means that there are elements that identify key bits of information. That's it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Given that this is about a single, seemingly inconsequential word ("possible"), this entire debate is a bit WP:LAME. But if you want my opinion on this, I fall on the side of not including it. DarkKnight2149 20:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, the only way I could be a summary not having any spoilers at all would be if it is so underdeveloped that it's basically useless.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Darkknight2149, LOL! Yes, Wikipedia is full of lame debates. I remember looking at the WP:LAME page years ago and thinking that we really do argue over trivial things sometimes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Categories, spoiler warnings and highlighted text

I would just like to bring up a few quick points / suggestions.

Firstly the category section at the bottom of the page. Is it necessary for this section to include information that is in turn a spoiler? I know this may be subjective but the category section seems like a fairly minor part of Wikipedia and not so crucial that information that is spoiler related could be avoided.

Secondly I would agree with previous comments that I think there should be a spoiler warning in specific sections of articles. Specifically when it come to video games (and perhaps other media) the vast majority of games with comprehensive Wikipedia articles have their own separate Wiki pages that cover details of the game in far more depth than Wikipedia. These Wiki pages almost always contain spoiler warnings. The majority of video game articles I have seen do not go so depth that I would regard spoiler related information to be necessary to the description.

Another option I've thought of is why not use (apologies I do not know the specific name for it) blocked out text? As in where what is written is blocked out and then when highlighted the words are revealed. I think this could be a useful option when it comes to spoiler related content where both parties win. The content is still there, so Wikipedia can stay comprehensive, people can see the information if they so wish, but also most will be able to avoid being accidentally spoiled.

Comments, thoughts, suggestions etc welcomed. Thanks for your time. Helper201 (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Though I appreciate your instincts to problem-solve, I don't think that blocked-out text would be very welcoming for users with visual or other impairments. Adding another step between a reader and the information they need doesn't seem ideal. What categories are you referring to that could be spoilerish? Something like Category:Tattooine residents sired by Darth Vader? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I can see your point there. How about just a simple spoiler warning? And / or placing spoiler information in italics? In terms of categories, I'm referring specifically to the section at the bottom of the page. For me this occurred on the page Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors. The plot of the game keeps the players location a mystery and (unknown to me at the time) only reveals the players location upon the completion of one of the six total endings. I was not aware of this as I had completed the game multiple times, but had not received this specific ending. The category section for this page gives away the players location. Helper201 (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Then don't read Wikipedia on an article you don't want to be spoiled about. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's meant to give information, not hide it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Please, is there any need to state the blatantly obvious? As I have said before, I generally make it a point to obviously do as such. However most would clearly not expect to get spoiled from a category section. Also some people (such as myself) want to find information around something without spoilers. Especially for example if its a video game with multiple endings, it may take many, many hours to complete. So certain information will want to be found, but other information avoided. That is why I suggested a warning for spoiler material or placing spoiler information in italics, therefore the information would remain, but people could also be avoided being spoiled, so everyone would win. Helper201 (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

And that becomes the other problem with spoilers, exactly where you draw the line between what is and isn't a spoiler. It's impossible to have any definitive advise on where that line is drawn, so we simply forgo trying to draw that line, and assume that as long as you can meet WP:V, all appropriate material can be included. WP is a comprehensive work so we're not going to tiptoe around some details that a small selection of readers may not wish to be spoiled about. --MASEM (t) 21:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Helper201. A spoiler warning has no chance of gaining support; the "Why spoiler warnings are no longer used" section in the guideline is clear as to why that's the case. The guideline is somewhat problematic as is, however, for reasons noted at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 17#RfC: Proposal to make unnecessary spoiling clearer in the guideline. That is archived; so don't comment there. As that discussion shows, the best we can probably do to ensure that readers are not unnecessarily spoiled on Wikipedia is to make sure that the guideline is clear that spoilers typically should not be included when not needed, especially in the case of the lead. If the spoiler does not aid a reader in understanding the story, then exactly why are we including it in the lead? That has been my issue with certain editors when it comes to spoiling. They spoil for the sake of spoiling, and use this guideline as a justification to do so. Yes, the guideline currently states, "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." But as noted in the RfC, that is vague and is often ignored. I care about readers not being unnecessarily spoiled, and that's the way that I edit. And as seen in the aforementioned RfC and in the #"possible spoilers" discussion above, I don't subscribe to the view that it's difficult or otherwise challenging to know what a spoiler is. Sometimes what a spoiler is can be a matter of dispute, but it usually is not. In most cases involving a dispute over spoiler inclusion, editors agree that the material is a spoiler; they simply have a different opinion on whether or not it should be included. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of spoilers in the cast section of Westworld

RfC on Potential Spoilers: "Should information revealed to the viewer throughout the series (such as major plot points and reveals) be contained in the Cast and characters section of the article?" -- Radiphus 16:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Reader poll

I was wondering whether there has ever been a poll of readers (not editors) of Wikipedia's articles on fiction, not just regular readers but including those coming from Google, on whether they would prefer spoiler warnings. I cannot find one in the archives of this discussion page. If a significant majority of readers would prefer there to be spoiler warnings, would editors agree to include them, since presumably an encyclopedia is written for its readers and not for its editors? Highflyer Hank (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we've done a poll, but I would not be surprised if there was a overwhelming response to want spoiler warnings. But while are writing for readers, we're writing for all readers, not just a general swath of them, which is why there is some content we simply do not include (per WP:NOT), and including spoiler warnings just because some do want it would not be an appropriate step, plus all the editing nightmares that would come from that. --MASEM (t) 13:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

This principle seems to be aimed at using discussion to arrive at a reasoned consensus rather than blindly following the first intuitions of a majority of editors by voting and then ending up with incoherent policies. However, if it would turn out that after reasoned engagement with Wikipedia's readers, they still clearly prefer the inclusion of spoiler warnings, I don't see how the guideline would provide a reason to write the encyclopaedia in a way which editors prefer rather than how a much larger group of readers (who are the ones for whom the encyclopaedia is written) prefers it. Highflyer Hank (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

They prefer not to be spoiled. This has been made clear on article talk pages countless times. So I concur with Masem on that. But if they read a Plot section, they should expect to be spoiled; it's similar to a viewer reading the comments section of a video before watching the video and then complaining that the comments section has spoilers. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Edits

I'm not saying that the policy on spoilers should be changed, but the text is currently worded too strongly, presents contentious opinions as facts, and contains factual falsehoods:

"There was no strong basis to exclude disclaimers for potential spoilers from the "No disclaimers in articles" guideline when many other disclaimers—such as warnings about offensive images or content and medical and legal disclaimers—would be of greater benefit to the reader."

This is highly subjective and unsupported by evidence. No surveys or other indications are cited to support the claim that warnings about offensive images would be of greater benefit to readers than warnings about spoilers, for instance, and I suspect that for many people, reading spoilers has more long-lasting negative implications than viewing an offensive image (both annoying or shocking them in the moment and affecting the enjoyment of several hours of consuming a fictional work later, rather than only the former).

"# No other academic, scholarly, or other professional publications that describe or analyze works of fiction, such as other encyclopedias, include disclaimers about spoilers when discussing said works."

This is factually false, since other language Wikipedias include spoiler warnings (e.g. the Dutch one). This wording therefore has to be changed for sure.

"# Sections that frequently contain spoiler warnings—such as plot summaries, episode lists, character descriptions, etc.—were already clearly named to indicate that they contain plot details. Therefore, further disclaimers would be redundant and unnecessary."

This is again too strongly worded and incorrect. A section heading of "episode list" does not 'clearly' indicate that it contains crucial details about the ending of these episodes, for instance. Better would be "were already named to indicate that they may contain plot details".

"Labeling a plot detail as a spoiler would require editors to use their own subjective opinions to interpret the significance of a plot detail and its likelihood of altering the enjoyment of the work of fiction. This would be a violation of Wikipedia's core policies of no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view."

The process of writing an encyclopaedia always involves interpretation, and not every form of interpretation is biased or a violation of a prohibition on original research. Take for instance the article "Liberalism", which states that liberalism "became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world" during the Age of Enlightenment. What is the threshold for 'popularity'? Even if a source says that it became popular, this is still a subjective statement, since other sources may only consider something to be 'popular' when the majority of a group likes it, etc.

Furthermore, it would be possible in certain cases to cite sources to establish that a certain plot detail is widely considered significant and is in fact likely to alter the enjoyment of a work of fiction. One conclusive example is this: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/23/books.harrypotter . This alone makes the statement that labeling a plot detail as a spoiler would always be a violation of Wikipedia's policies on verifiability factually wrong.

Could we please change the wording to make it more accurate? I tried boldly to do this but it was reverted by someone who considered it 'weasel wording'. However, the guideline against weasel wording is aimed at claims such as 'some people think X', which should be replaced by 'person Y thinks X' with a citation, not by making the claim seem even less contentious by presenting controversial opinions as facts by writing 'X is true' without a citation.

Highflyer Hank (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I note you also provide no evidence for your assertion that readers would get more benefit from spoiler warnings than from medical warnings, legal warnings, and warnings about potentially-offensive content. Anecdotally, I note that a recent TFD about a template warning that articles contain names of recently-deceased Austrailian aboriginals received many more comments in support than I've seen on this page in the years that I've been watching it.

Further, the page is very probably correct in stating that there was no strong basis for excluding spoiler warnings from WP:NDA, regardless of any lack of sources for the claim that readers would find other types of disclaimers more beneficial.

I also note that other-language Wikipedias are no more "academic, scholarly, or other professional publications" than the English Wikipedia is, as much as we aspire to that level of quality.

I could agree with you that an "Episode list" section perhaps doesn't clearly indicate that it contains spoilers, although once you look at the first entry and see that it contains a brief plot summary it should be obvious that you shouldn't read further if you want to avoid spoilers. But your attempt to change it from "would be redundant" to "could be considered partially redundant" was very weasely.

I could also agree with you that it might be a bit of a stretch to claim that editorial judgment over whether something is a spoiler or not falls under WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. However, your attempted change in that area did not help that point. I also note that citing an article from 2005 to claim something is a spoiler may not apply in 2017, since as time passes things that were once spoilers tend to become common knowledge, and then we get well into territory where the arguing over whether something is or is not still a spoiler X years later is going to be a waste of everyone's time. At least this way we keep the time-wasting confined to this talk page. Anomie⚔ 15:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

For the watchers

Despite the fact that it's a guaranteed way to spoil at least some elements, it's common practice for horror fans to read the Wikipedia page for movies before they watch them—just in case the film really is too scary or horrific to bear.

I have no idea how true that is, but it was an interesting comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed addition

Given the mess over the film over "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" (see [1]) I would propose something like: However, despite the lack of spoiler notices, content that would be considered as a spoiler must remain verifiable, meaning that the work in question should have been reasonably published to the public so that its plot summary can be verified by anyone reading or viewing the work (see WP:WAF). For examples, in film, a single showing at a film festival would not be sufficiently public, while a limited "sneak peak" at multiple theaters prior to wide release would be. Wording is only suggested but this would be at the end of the lede. --Masem (t) 19:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Unclear necessary - if the "spoiler" is mentioned in WP:RSes, it's out there, and if it isn't, what would we have to cite? - David Gerard (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a case where the spoiler was added by an IP on claim they saw it at Cannes. There was no sourcing for it, based on the principle that the film itself serves as the primary source for the film, but there was no way for anyone to verify that at the time the IP posted their plot summary. This is not a case where an RS published the plot summary that we could use. --Masem (t) 21:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd say the clear problem there is allowing a work to be cited about itself - something that's led to articles with a few paragraphs from RSes and a great big slab of plot summary that's functionally OR - and not something a spoiler guideline can patch effectively, or should try to - David Gerard (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

That is currently how practice is with plot summaries, and wholly separate material. It's been a WP:PEREN to try to change that - though per WP:NOT#PLOT articles that consider of only plot summaries are generally not appropriate.

To stress, the case above was for a film notable before its plot was known, due to the star power behind it. This wasn't a question of adding a plot summary and overwhelming the article with it. It was just that the plot summary was claimed to be based on a Cannes showing when in fact it was made up entirely, but there was no verifyable way to check (by seeing the actual film). --Masem (t) 02:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully disagreeing with Mr. Gerard's concerns above. A primary source, like the film itself, can absolutely be used to verify uncontroversial information. Cast lists, for example. Plot points. Anything that can be observed, but that doesn't require interpretation. If a scene is shot at the Heathrow airport, we don't have to dig through libraries to find supporting information if the sign on terminal overhang says "Heathrow". But to Masem's point, I don't think this is a Spoiler issue so much as it is a MOS:FILM issue. Plot summaries must be verifiable, so they should only be included if there is significant coverage by reliable sources prior to a film's release, or if the film has been released to the general public. So I agree with Masem in principle, but not because of the spoiler potential, instead because of the bullshit potential. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I have concern that the situation is more than just in the film industry. For example, television critics often get pilot/season premiere episodes to review before airing, video game journalists get prerelease copies, neither of which is a "public publication", but all you need is one person to claim they had gotten such a copy and are vouching for it. Yes, there's more a concern with film because of the existence of film festivals where these showings are common, so the problem is more visible there, but it does extent to other media. --Masem (t) 05:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I would say that this is still attempting to patch problems with media coverage by the back door, and the spoiler guideline is a particularly bad place to try to do that - David Gerard (talk) 08:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

That sort of text would be better added to WP:RS or WP:V, IMO, as it's not really relevant here (WP:PUBLISHED may be a good place for it). And let's not succumb to David Gerard's primary source paranoia either. Anomie⚔ 13:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the only connection of the issue of a fabricated plot summary to the spoiler guideline is that people used WP:SPOILER to justify re-including the wrong plot summary. WP:SPOILER should not be used to keep unverifiable material in the article. A possible addition:

If material in an article is unverifiable, it can be removed whether it is considered a spoiler or not, and this guideline should not be used to justify inclusion of anything that fails the core content policy Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Any comments on that? —Kusma (t·c) 08:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd say no - and the spoiler guideline should be shorter. Look at the history of this talk page for people attempting to twist the wording here to justify blocking their least-favourite spoilers. If people aren't following basic sourcing guidelines, this is not a place to try to fix that - David Gerard (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The guideline's point is "don't worry about spoilers, just write a good article following good encyclopaedic practices". My point is just to make that more explicit, maybe in a "What this guideline is not" section. —Kusma (t·c) 09:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

This too seems unnecessary to me. At most, maybe adjust the existing wording to something like editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served and content policies are followed. Anomie⚔ 13:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Going along Kusma's wordings, I still think the need to stress that the verifyability of material that is considered a spoiler must be there, and for most contemporary works, that requires the work to be publicly published, and not simply released in a very limited/restricted fashion as in film festivals or from screener copies or online leaks - just not in as many words. Its gets past the issue that had been claimed that SPOILER prevented removal, and that we're talking the different of timing before mass publication, rather than something where it has been been published but things like PAYWALL block quick and free access. --Masem (t) 13:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The error here is that you're giving spoiler-ness or not any attention, and that's not something that should be modified in WP:SPOILER. You're trying to fix a sourcing problem in a guideline that is not about sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, maybe that's the problem that sourcing is not mentioned here, which is still probably important to understand why SPOILER exists. We have general allowance that plot summaries and similar content are verifiable by the primary source itself. (Some editors don't like that, but that's generally consensus). So as long as the primary source is publicly available, we're not going to play around with spoiler warnings or the like. If the primary source is not out yet, then there should be no summary outside of what has been reported in secondary sources, which we are not going to play spoiler games with , either. Stemming specifically from the poor arguments used to try to retain a claimed plot summary in absence of a public release of a film, SPOILER should not be silent on the sourcing issue: we will publish spoilers but those spoilers must meet WP:V, which for new works, means that there must be some type of public release to justify an unsourced summary, or sourced to secondary reliable sources. Yes, SPOILER mentions WP:V but I think we need to be very explicit here to avoid the bad argument that came up before. --Masem (t) 17:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

This strikes me as an isolated case where one IP made a bad argument and a few others got confused between "remove the unverifiable plot summary" and "this article should never have a plot summary". Are there other cases where people have made the same bad argument, that shows this is more than just WP:AJRULE? Anomie⚔ 18:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Anomie here. This is not materially different from random kids making predictions about series finales in animation articles claiming "my uncle is an executive producer on the series and the preview I saw had Mickey kill Goofy by accident." We see this all the time. We usually just revert and demand they provide proof, and that seems good enough. I don't know all of the details of how our regulars got snookered with the Once Upon a Time hoax, but if something is complete bullshit, it is not a spoiler, it is just complete bullshit. We don't need new rules that say "do not add bullshit". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, just so we're not having this discussion in two places, which would present complications for establishing consensus, there appears to be a parallel discussion happening at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Revising the guidance on plot sourcing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Yep, that looks like the correct place to be having this discussion on plot sourcing, and not here - and I concur, this sounds like trying to make a WP:AJRULE, and this really isn't the place for one of those - David Gerard (talk) 09:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree generally with David and Anomie here. Paul August ☎ 09:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)