Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Dispute

The dispute following the revert wars on this page is now over. One of the users was blocked for violating the Three-Revert Rule. The dispute has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/Archive. - Sikon 04:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Evidently, the dispute is not over. Following his 24-hour block, Netoholic removed {{spoiler-other}} from each of the articles into which it had been placed, and reverted Wikipedia:Spoiler warning back to his consensus-defying version. —Lifeisunfair 13:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In addition to reverting the Wikipedia:Spoiler warning page several times to a verson that ommits spoiler-other, Netoholic has changed the tempalte itself into a call to spoiler-about, and has continued to convert uses of spoiler-other into uses of spoiler-about.DES 28 June 2005 22:39 (UTC)

I have added text to the Wikipedia:Spoiler warning page that clarifys the usage of spoiler-other as opposd to the usage of spoiler-about, and indicates explicitly that some editors disapprove of spoiler-other. Really this ought to be sufficient. DES 28 June 2005 22:39 (UTC)

Please take a look at the recent edit histories of:

• A Clash of Kings
• The Farthest Shore
• The Weapon Shops of Isher

And tell me if you think these changes, and the continued reverts to enforece them without discussion, a poll, or any attempt to reach consensus on the issue are appropriate. DES 29 June 2005 16:02 (UTC)

Examples

{{spoiler}}

Here is a short list of pages on which spoiler-about or spoiler-other would be useful. This was constructed via a very brief search. Other interested people should please add examples as the find them. DES 18:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• In The Farthest Shore appears the text "Ged has also matured. He is no longer the impetuous boy who had himself opened a crack between the worlds in A Wizard of Earthsea, or the foolhardy young man who sailed the Dragon's Run and went alone into the Tombs of Atuan." This at least arguably spoils the two earlier works mentions, although not drastically, and the subject work is their direct sequel. DES 18:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• In A Clash of Kings the following text appears: "In the second book from A Song of Ice and Fire, we find Westeros ravaged by war, claimants to the throne in every corner of the kingdom, the extinct species of dragons reborn, and the Black Brothers in utter desolation against the seemingly limitless hordes of wildlings commanded by the King Beyond the Wall." This is a significant spoiler for A Game of Thrones, a work whose title has not been mentioned on this page before this text occurs. DES 18:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• In Beggars Ride the following text appears: "The third book in the Beggars trilogy, Beggars Ride details the aftermath of the society-destroying Change Syringe. These syringes contain a unique nanotechnology called Cell Cleaner."

This is a spoiler for Beggars in Spain and Beggars and Choosers. The title of neither work is mentioned in this article. DES 18:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The "Backstory" section of Children of the Mind would be a good place to sue such a template, although the text in place mentions the names of the other woks involved so that such a warning is not strictly needed there. DES 18:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Similarly, in A Swiftly Tilting Planet while the names of the other works for which spoilers are present are given in the text, one of these templates might well be useful. DES 18:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• in The Weapon Shops of Isher the following text appears: "It and its sequel, The Weapon Makers, detail the adventures of the one Immortal man and his nemesis/wife, the Empress Innelda Isher". The Marriage of The Immortal man and Innelda Isher is a key detail that happens only in the sequel, which the current text does not make clear. spoiler-other is perfect for this article. DES 18:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Spoilers in sequels

Isn't it fair to say that if there is a spoiler tag in, say, an article about Book/Part #2 of a series, that there is an obvious assumption on the part of the reader that certain spoilers for Book/Part #1 would be given? Seems that the generic spoiler tag is sufficient. An extreme example is Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi -- it seems awkward to explicitly state that it will give spoilers for each previous episode. -- Netoholic @ 18:56, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Not always, IMO. It depends how obvious it is that work A is a sequel to work B. It also depends whether the title of Work A is mentioned in the article about work B. In several of the cases above, i do think that such warnings would in fact be quite useful. A case of direct sequels such as Star Wars is where your point is most valid, and such warning least needed. In that case the works are well known to be a series, their titles are well known, and the titles even include a number. All of which makes Star Wars the case where such warnings are least needed. The trickiest case is where there are multiple works that share a setting, but are not strictly sequels to one another. Most of the cases of these that occurred to me off-hand do not seem to have pages (or only stubs) on Wikipedia as yet -- but such pages could well be added at any moment. Note also that at least one example above was an article about Book 1 of a series, that includes a spoiler for book 2. DES 19:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is an example of a situation in which the {{spoiler-other}} template is less than essential, but what's so awkward about that?

And of course, not every example is a sequel. According to Che Nuevara (from the templates for deletion page), many of the Buffyverse articles contain spoilers for other entities (TV shows, books, etc.) that compose the Buffyverse. This is why someone created the {{whedon-spoiler}} template (the deletion discussion of which led me to create the {{spoiler-other}} template).

As for the {{spoiler-about}} template, here's an example of its potential use (in the George Lucas article):

If not for the above, how would someone know which of George Lucas' movies are being spoiled? (That's a random example; I haven't actually read the George Lucas article.) —Lifeisunfair 19:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

which templates are really needed?

It seems clear there is a consensus to keep at least one of spoiler-other and spoiler-about, but do we really need both? In the basic template (spoiler) it is also implicit that the pagename is what might be spoiled, and if that is not clear enough then spoiler-about allows you to say specifically that the pagename is one (or the only) thing which is being spoiled. --MarSch 10:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's true that {{spoiler-about}} could be substituted for {{spoiler-other}}, but not without sacrificing the ideal wording.

is highly preferable to

. . . because the former differentiates between the article's primary and secondary focus, and draws special attention to the non-titular spoiler(s).

—Lifeisunfair 11:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, but you could easily change it to read

Very flexible. -- Netoholic @ 14:02, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

1. That wording is awkward.

2. The purpose of these templates is to simplify the spoiler warning process (which means requiring as little typing/copying/pasting as possible).

—Lifeisunfair 15:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please compromise. Let's implement one parameterized template for a while and see if it even gets used. The wording is not awkward and is a minor consideration. I you want to simplify things, let's not add two templates which are confusingly similar in purpose. Let's add one that fits both cases. -- Netoholic @ 16:08, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

At the present time, both templates enjoy majority support on the templates for deletion page. Why are you in such a hurry to override the general consensus? —Lifeisunfair 16:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This has come up before. Just because there is a lack of consensus to delete a template does not mean that there is a consensus to use the template. -- Netoholic @ 16:57, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Numerous voters have expressed an enthusiastic desire to use the templates. The general community's level of interest, however, cannot be gauged if you don't allow them to learn of the templates' existence. —Lifeisunfair 18:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The people who voted at tfd may not all have been aware of the existence of both these versions. --MarSch 16:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The existence of both templates has been mentioned several times in their respective discussions (including by voters). And of course, I've made a formal requests for comment. —Lifeisunfair 18:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about this wording:

--MarSch 17:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In my assessment, that still fails to differentiate between the article's primary and secondary focus, and to draw special attention to the non-titular spoiler(s). —Lifeisunfair 18:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

MarSch's wording is fine. See the "Actual usage" section for some links where I've used similar. -- Netoholic @ 14:03, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

Actual usage

I have started changing some of the places where Template:whedon-spoiler is used to use spoiler-about or spoiler-other as may be appropriate in each case. A consensus to delete whedon-spoiler in favor of the more general templates has been formed on the TfD page, and users have been requested to remove it from pages where it exists. This will allow some actual test cases to be inspected. So far I have found that spoiler-about is more often wanted, but spoiler-other is frequently the better choice in articles about specific episodes which also spoil broader issues. DES 19:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's great to have some actual usages: Doppelgängland (Buffy episode), Watchers' Council (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), Hush (Buffy episode). Tara Maclay, Once More, With Feeling (Buffy episode), Sunnydale. What strikes me most is that spoiler-other includes the titles, which is very ugly because of the "(Buffy episode)" part. Further I see that where spoiler-about is used the title is not something which is a work which could be spoiled and so spoiler-other could not have been used. --MarSch 10:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is basically the rule I was following. When the spoiler clearly applies only to the subject of the article, use spoiler. When the article subject is itself a work which can be and is spoiled, and other works are also spoiled, use spoiler-other. When the subject is not itself a work, or spoilers apply only to other works, or the result of spoiler-other seems really akward, use spoiler-about. I also tried to read the articles and get soem sense of which other works were actually likely to be spoiled, and customize the template arguments a bit to allow for this -- being conservative as i am not particularly a buffy expert. DES 17:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In every case I've found, spoiler-other is directly redundant with a well-worded spoiler-about. See these examples: Hush & Doppelgängland. -- Netoholic @ 13:02, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

Also check out Quentin Tarantino, Serge A. Storms and Timeline of fictional historical events. --MarSch 10:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The spoiler in the Tarantino article was irrelevant to the article subject, so I removed it and eliminated that tag. The {{tld|spoiler-about|various works}} tag in Timeline of fictional historical events was unhelpful because of the sheer number of different works being sighted -- a better case for simply {(spoiler}} [1]. I have a feeling that the Serge A. Storms article should be merged somewhere (Special:Whatlinkshere/Serge A. Storms leads to some very short articles), so I've left that be for now. -- Netoholic @ 04:32, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

About vs Other

I've been asked to give my opinion here. Quite frankly, while I disagree with Netoholic's actions, I fully agree with his intent. Template:Spoiler-other is 100% redundant with Template:Spoiler-about. Differentiating between the *main* spoilers and the peripheral spoilers is a distinction without a difference -- a spoiler is a spoiler regardless of whether it is part of the main article or a peripheral one. →Raul654 June 29, 2005 01:17 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, and I agree that {{spoiler-about}} is the more versatile of the two templates, but I don't agree that {{spoiler-other}} is 100% redundant. Its differentiation between the primary and secondary spoilers is merely the means by which it draws special attention to the fact that one or more non-titular spoilers are present (something that many readers might not expect). I believe that {{spoiler-other}} allows for superior wording (in applicable cases), and 75% of respondents to the TfD discussion voted to keep it.

In addition to respecting your opinion, I also admire your respect for the consensus. Likewise, I've encountered numerous things on this site that I would prefer be eliminated or dramatically altered, but I never would take it upon myself to override a clear consensus. At some point, the line between "being bold" and "being a vandal" becomes blurred. Wikipedia isn't a democracy, but it also isn't a autocracy.

I realize that Netoholic is only attempting to impose changes that he believes are for the better, but he needs to learn that his opinion doesn't take precedence over everyone else's. When a formal process is involved (as it was in this instance), this is even more clear-cut. —Lifeisunfair 29 June 2005 02:47 (UTC)

In response to User:Raul654, thanks for your views. It is true that with careful wording, you can get a result out of spoiler-about that is pretty much identical to the result of spoiler-other. But it requires more work and more characters. spoiler-other is a tool, intended to make things easier. There are lots of things not strictly requires, and therefore formally redundant, which we retain because they save time and effort. As for the point of emphasizing the difference between spoilers for the article subject and other spoilers, you are correct that spoilers are spoilers, and to my mind the reson for doing this isn't because soem are "main" and others "peripheral". It is because in emphasizint that there are spopilers for the subject of the article, as well as for works that are not the subject, the user is alerted to a state of affairs that may well not be expected. This alert is IMO clearer than it would be with a simnple spoiler about. Granted that spoiler about can be sued to make teh same distinction, why should an editor need to take this trouble when spoiler-other does the job jicely?

Also, I would be more receptive to this arguemt from Netoholic had he not argued strongly for the deletion of spoiler-about as well as spoiler-other, and indeed implied that any spoiler warnings were unneeded (having called them "above and beyond the call" for wikipedia). His embrace of spoiler-about and his strong opposition to spoiler-other seems motivated more by a desire to eliminate in practice at least one of the new spoiler templates than by any other reason. Howver, I shall try to assume good faith. I am sure that Netoholic honestly belives that the fewer spoiler tempaltes the better, and that if spoiler-other exists, it is better if it be unnoticed and unused. DES 29 June 2005 14:23 (UTC)

There is, no doubt, a case to be made against the active use of both templates. I will concede the first step, spoiler about (as currently worded, after the revert) can indeed be used, if with some care, everywhere spoiler-other is appropriate. Anyone who opposes the use of both, please debate on this talk page, perhaps in this section, and see if you can convince people not to use spoiler-other, if it is so important to you. I for one promise to listen to any arguments you or anyone makes, and to do my best to put aside history and listen to the arguments themselves, divorced from my impression of any particular person involved. One warning, I don't consider the existance of three distinct templates to be bad in and of itself. A huge number would be a problem, as for instance a special tneplate for every fantasy universe. But Thre geenral ones, with a warnign that more should not be created lightly, does not seem to me over the top. DES 30 June 2005 14:50 (UTC)

The use of PAGENAME in spoiler-other is THE major flaw in the design. On any page with paranthetical disambiguation, the spoiler-other wording looks terrible. It's longer, and more awkwardly worded. Compare:

spoiler-other

spoiler-about

-- Netoholic @ July 1, 2005 14:15 (UTC)

Your example is valid, but it highlights a relatively uncommon situation. Most article titles do not contain parenthetical disambiguation. Of those that do, many should not be abbreviated in this context.

Does {{spoiler-other}} provide the ability to convey any information that {{spoiler-about}} cannot? No. Does it allow for arguably superior wording and attention grabbing in many cases? Yes. Did a vast majority of respondents vote to keep {{spoiler-other}}? Yes. Is its presence harming anything? No. —Lifeisunfair 1 July 2005 18:28 (UTC)

To say "most articles fo no contain parenthetical disambiguation" is a false arguement. Consider, first, that when talking about spoilers, a larger number of articles with them are going to be disambiguated (i.e. (book), (movie), (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). I'll conceed that I have no idea in what proportion, but a significant number of articles will be disambiguated.

Does {{spoiler-other}} provide the ability to convey any information that {{spoiler-about}} cannot? No, clearly and fully redundant. Does it allow for arguably superior wording and attention grabbing in many cases? That is a matter of opinion. I don't want to see extraneous parentheses or "long forms" of names (Buffy the Vampire Slayer vs. Buffy). using spoiler-other, you're locking in to whatever the PAGENAME is. That makes it ugly, per my example above. Did a vast majority of respondents vote to keep {{spoiler-other}}? Voting to keep is not a mandate to use. They perhaps were either confused by the similar wording or just wanted to see this tried out. A second vote, with the explanation I gave, may change things Is its presence harming anything? Anywhere we can bleed out some of the complexity in our working environment is a Good Thing, so yes, there is harm in having redundant templates where the usage is difficult to explain. -- Netoholic @ July 2, 2005 17:45 (UTC)

"To say 'most articles fo no contain parenthetical disambiguation' is a false arguement. Consider, first, that when talking about spoilers, a larger number of articles with them are going to be disambiguated (i.e. (book), (movie), (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). I'll conceed that I have no idea in what proportion, but a significant number of articles will be disambiguated."

As I said, many such articles (your example notwithstanding) should retain the parenthetical disambiguation within the spoiler warnings.

"Does {{spoiler-other}} provide the ability to convey any information that {{spoiler-about}} cannot? No, clearly and fully redundant."

In that case, every template is redundant, because the information can be conveyed manually.

In applicable cases, {{spoiler-other}} presents information in a manner contrary (and arguably superior) to {{spoiler-about}}.

"Does it allow for arguably superior wording and attention grabbing in many cases? That is a matter of opinion."

Hence my use of the word "arguably."

"I don't want to see extraneous parentheses or 'long forms' of names (Buffy the Vampire Slayer vs. Buffy). using spoiler-other, you're locking in to whatever the PAGENAME is. That makes it ugly, per my example above."

Again, your example applies to a minority of articles.

"Did a vast majority of respondents vote to keep {{spoiler-other}}? Voting to keep is not a mandate to use."

No, but it is a mandate to "keep." You've repeatedly disregarded this consensus.

"They perhaps were either confused by the similar wording or just wanted to see this tried out."

Or perhaps they recognized the templates' disparate applications (which were explicitly noted) and realized that retaining both would be advantageous.

"A second vote, with the explanation I gave, may change things"

The two templates were nominated for deletion almost simultaneously. I personally explained the weakness of {{spoiler-other}} in certain situations (and strength in others), and numerous people voted to retain both.

"Is its presence harming anything? Anywhere we can bleed out some of the complexity in our working environment is a Good Thing, so yes, there is harm in having redundant templates where the usage is difficult to explain."

The vast majority of respondents rejected your contention that the template is "redundant," and its usage is not difficult to explain (aside from your interference). —Lifeisunfair 2 July 2005 19:38 (UTC)

Wording of spoiler warnings

I've given Template:Spoiler-about the following wording:

With this, it can be used more universally - on page titles that are themselves spoiled, as well as page titles which only spoil other works (i.e. the George Lucas example above). -- Netoholic @ June 30, 2005 01:26 (UTC)

In addition to being awkward, your wording does absolutely nothing to enhance the template's versatility, and it precludes its use in a specific section of an article. And for heaven's sake, please stop defying the consensus! People voted to retain both {{spoiler-about}} and {{spoiler-other}} by substantial margins, and you've yet to explain why you believe that you possess the authority to override these decisions. —Lifeisunfair 30 June 2005 01:52 (UTC)

I really dislike that wording. The old wording was pretty close to perfection IMHO. I concur with Lifeisunfair's revert. --MarSch 30 June 2005 12:13 (UTC)

I also feel that this wording is not an improvement. What you didn't mention here was that at the same time (within 13 minutes) you changed spoiler-other into a redirect to spoiler-about, givings the reason that your revised wording allowed spoiler-about to work for both. (Lifeisunfair properly reverted both changs.) You don't seem to understand that the people who support retaining both templates consider the differences between them to be a feature, not a bug. Or else you so strongly disagree with this view that you can't or don't accept that it has any validity. At least that is how you seem to me to be acting. DES 30 June 2005 14:47 (UTC)

idea: spoilers hidden like the content overview

Is there the possibility of adding a template that automatically hides the spoilers, just like the automatically-generated content overview at the beginning of long articles? If a reader wanted to know the spoiler, he could click "Reveal" and the hidden text would be unhidden. User:84.60.162.68

Not really. Since this is an encyclopedia, spoiler warnings are a courtesy only. In fact, hiding text is listed as one of the "unacceptable alternatives". -- Netoholic @ 8 July 2005 20:03 (UTC)

To be fair, the list of "unacceptable alternatives" does not say that hiding spoilers is itself unacceptable, merely that doing so by fiddling with text colors is. I don't know if the above suggestion is workable, but if it is, I would support it. Lusanaherandraton 12:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

How about having them visible as a default, but give the user the option to hide them if they wish? That is, a "Hide" button instead of the "Reveal" one mentioned above? - Gobeirne 00:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It is possible, using the {{hidden}} template. Here is an example:

In The Empire Strikes Back, Darth Vader makes a shocking revelation.

Darth Vader tells Luke Skywalker that he is, in fact, Luke's father. Luke's reply: "Noooo!"

This takes up no more space than necessary. I'm not really sure if it is possible to have the hidden text visible by default. But I think the default of hiding the text is better, because of the arguments given below under the headings A more visible spoiler warning and Not Effective. — MSchmahl 18:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that since there is a template for {{spoiler}} and one for {{endspoiler}} then what about having a link labelled skip that would simply take you from the first to the second of the warnings? That way browsers with javascript disabled won't lose functionality (as would happen if the text were hideable). The only problem would be that all sections with the first would then need the second, but that should be fairly easily sorted I think. - Drrngrvy 12:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Magic-spoiler

On 09:26, 18 July 2005 Netoholic removed the image from {{Magic-spoiler}}. I think this was a poor idea, and i plan to revert to the previous version. Note that some version of this image has been accepted and used for a long time, indeed since the template was first created on 16:11, 18 November 2004 by User:MacGyverMagic. DES 16:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Endspoiler

I just documented {{Endspoiler}}) on the main page. Please look my documetation of this tempalte over, and consider if it seems acceptable. DES 16:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Spoiler GRIPE!

Maybe a repeat of a previously closed discussion, but I personally find it a shame that the Wiki-editors don't take more care in writing more about a certain subject before getting to a spoiler section. Ok, that you release certain information about a subject later in the article, but does the WHOLE article have to be a spoiler!?!? Geeze. --Kim Nevelsteen 08:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree. I don't believe that anyone looks something up and expects to find out nothing, because the first thing in an article is spoiler warning. Spoilers like that are worthless because they do not distinguish between general (mildly spoiling) information and critical spoiler information. A reader wants to be able to read something, and probaly more than would be released in the publicity blurb. Sandpiper 21:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning color

A suggestion:

To put "Spoiler Warning" in all articles in RED letters. I read many articles without knowing they had spoilers simply because the words "Spoiler Warning" didn't catch my eye...

See Template talk:Spoiler#New Proprosal for spoiler warning change. —Cryptic (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Should the "spoiler warning" extend to any literature thats unaccepted as non-fiction in the scientific community?

Well, shouldn't it?--Efgdgdsg 12:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Such as what? Religious scriptures? It's generally accepted that spoiler warnings are applicable to works presented as fiction. —Lifeisunfair 13:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I think religious scriptures count.--220.238.2.146 08:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It also is regarded as an ugly hack.

Who added that line? Can someone buy them a Guinness please? -- Lardarse 05:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

More guidance needed?

See Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines#Spoilers...66.167.253.58 07:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC).

A more visible spoiler warning

Some poor guy just got the ending to Cowboy Bebop ruined for him because he was reading the article on Samurai Champloo and skipped over the spoiler warnings without reading them because they looked like all other spoiler warnings. I think this is a good reason to keep {{spoiler2}}, but also modify it so that it takes a parameter, like {{spoiler-blank}}. This solves the problem of people skipping over custom spoiler warnings and not reading them because they look exactly the same as the other "normal" spoiler warnings. Spoiling the ending to Cowboy Bebop in the article on Samurai Champloo is an extraordinary (but necessary) act, and so an extraordinary spoiler warning is necessary. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 11:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. There are spoilers, and then there are spoilers. I think part of the problem comes from using the basic spoiler template too often; everything that has anything to do with a movie has that template on it. Is it really a spoiler to tell the reader basic plot outlines visible in the theatrical trailer?

I know the alternate spoiler template just got shot to death in committee, but what about one that specifically says, "This article contains information about the plot and/or ending details of this story and other related storylines." It might not help people who don't realize that certain movies are related, but it's a start. Maybe there's even a way to set it up so the related stories could be listed in the template, I don't know. It could be formatted the same as the existing one, just with more information. A longer warning with wikified links to the movies they are discussing would be more noticeable but still uniform. Kafziel 13:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC) Looking further up on the talk page I see this has been discussed before, so I guess I'll just wait and see what happens. Kafziel 13:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC) Alrighty have a look at this new test template I just threw together. Tell me what you think. This would be used in situations where a normal spoiler is not sufficient to warn the user, i.e. when spoiler details from something seemingly unrelated are about to come up. {{subst:spoiler-red|[[Star Wars]]}} User:Cyde/Spoiler-red Darth Vader is Luke's father! --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 14:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

{{Spoiler-about}} and {{spoiler-other}} do this. —Cryptic (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• You're missing the whole point ... those still look like every other spoiler. The point of this one is to be more noticeable because it needs to draw attention to the fact that spoilers above and beyond the scope of the article are going to be discussed. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 18:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

There is discussion in progress on Template Talk:Spoiler about adding an optional parameter to {{spoiler}}, which would allow {{spoiler-about}} to be merged with {{spoiler}}. People intersted in this might want to join that discussion. DES ^(talk) 18:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• That still doesn't address at all what I'm trying to bring up here. It's not so much adding an optional parameter, it's making the damn thing more visible so you know it's not just your standard, "You are reading Article X, this is a spoiler for X". --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 18:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about what everyone's problem is with this. How much space does it really take up to have a few different spoiler warnings? Even a few hundred different spoiler warnings? Who cares? If they are informative and user-friendly, what is the downside to having them? They are created in the spirit of making Wikipedia more enjoyable. Compared to things like long-winded discussions about whether or not the comic book character Colossus is gay (or the pages and pages and pages devoted to this debate), I think the spoiler warnings are a worthy use of space. Kafziel 19:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not about space at all. It's about maintaining a consistent, site-wide appearance. This is part of the reason templates were implemented in the first place, instead of using the old method of copy-pasting in boilerplate text. As for why Template:Spoiler looks the way it does, see the copious archives at Template talk:Spoiler (where this should have been discussed in the first place). —Cryptic (talk)

Some templates can have more info than others and still be uniform. If a private and a sergeant are both in uniform, the sergeant has different ribbons, medals, hash marks, rank insignia, etc. They're both still wearing the same uniform. If one thing has different information than another but they are both using the same basic format, then they are still uniform. A template is a pattern. They are meant to be guides for filling in information; templates are not rubber stamps. By definition, they should be filled in with information specific to the situation. Kafziel 21:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Frankly I think this template far surpasses the older one. I mean, a spoiler warning is a warningL it's grabbing people's attentions to warn them about something. Surely a high visability tag would do this? Although, I don't know if I would choose the pink as the background colour, but y'know. I think the current spoiler warning is rubbish, and does little to warn people of spoilers. People do skim-read articles, and may miss spoiler warnings. Allthesestars 22:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Shakespeare: Spoiler warnings out of hand

Can someone explain to me why, exactly, 400-year-old Shakespeare plays have spoiler warnings on them? See The Tempest (play) for instance. I tried removing the spoiler warning and I was reverted. I'm of the opinion that spoiler warnings are intrusive, real encyclopedias don't have them, and they should be used as little as possible. I really don't think analysis of Shakespeare plays should include spoiler warnings. For that matter, Bible doesn't have spoiler warnings on it - if you're going to put spoiler warnings on centuries-old-literature, at least be consistent! --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 13:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Simple: mythology does not have spoiler warnings. Narrative does. The difference between epics like the Iliad (which has a spoiler warning) and Arthurian legend (which doesn't) is the difference between a spoiler warning and no spoiler warning, and the Bible falls into the nether-region between these two concepts.

• So Bible doesn't have spoiler warnings because it's mythology. Works for me ... --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 14:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Exactly. The question of whether it's a general mythology or a specific fictional narrative like the Odyssey and Harry Potter is the question that determines whether a "spoiler warning" is merited, as I understand it. -Silence 14:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't oppose adding a spoiler warning to Genesis, etc., I would oppose removing the spoiler warnings on Shakespeare, King Kong, etc. on the Western-biased assumption that certain random classics are already universally known, and I wouldn't oppose the removal of all spoiler warnings from Wikipedia altogether. Then again, I'd also support italicizing the Bible just as we italicize the Aeneid, so maybe I'm a bit too revolutionary for Wikipedia to listen to me. :) -Silence 13:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings on Romeo and Juliet are part of American high-school culture; theygive Wikipedia its characteristic flavor. Keep them, I say. The Book of Job definitely needs a spoiler warning. Leviticus not so much... --Wetman 16:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Additional warnings - current warnings are only seen if that part of the article happens to be seen

There are some articles where only part of the article is a spoiler. This normally does not include the introduction, or someone may follow a link to a section (from the contents or another article), or someone may simply scroll down without reading everything. All of these lead to the possiblity that someone may not see the spoiler warning.

This leads to problems for both readers and editors.

Readers may accidentally read a spoiler, or editors may insert a spoiler in a section that's not covered by any warnings (probably the introduction).

We should have additional warnings to help prevent these situations - for readers, we should have JavaScript that makes the warning always visible, unless the user turns it off. Brian Jason Drake 04:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

How about we just change spoiler warnings to being used in the same way as __NOTOC__ or __NOEDITSECTIONS__. Just put it at the top of the article and it will display a standard spoiler warning at the top of the article, something a reader can't miss. I think it's ridiuclous to start throwing multiple spoiler warnings on an article just because a reader might skip into a certain section by way of the Table of Contents. Frankly I don't think Wikipedia should have any spoiler warnings, but limiting it to one a page is a good compromise. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggest more specific spoiler warnings

Spoiler warnings are useless and annoying because "Plot and/or ending details" is vague and unhelpful. I was recently "spoilt" because I disregarded the warning for a series I had seen. I didn't realise there would be spoilers on material that hadn't been aired yet. So, why not:

• Spoiler warning: The ending of this film is revealed below.
• Spoiler warning: Un-aired material is revealed below.
• Spoiler warning: Major plot points are revealed below.
• Spoiler warning: Material which has not been aired in all countries revealed below.

Etc. Then there might actually be a point to this template. As it stands, it's being used on pretty much every article about a book, series or film, and covers most of the article. Stevage 21:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, at that point you're getting to a level of detail where it's impossible (or at least not worth the effort) to have a distinct template for each specific message, and gets waaaay too difficult to remember what every individual message's template is named. Instead, why not a single "blank spoiler warning" template which allows you to insert whatever text you want?

That, combined, of course, with the suggested feature above of making an option of MediaWiki that hides all spoiler warnings. :) Spoiler warnings belong on video game fansites, not an encyclopedia. -Silence 22:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• I see no need for this kind of specificity. In the very rare case where a more specific spoiler warnign is needed, simply insert it in the article text. DES ^(talk) 22:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• We have {{spoiler-blank}} for such cases. —Cryptic (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Cool. Now we just have to get people to use it. :) Stevage 11:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers in content list

Shall we move content list below spoiler warning if a header element is a spoiler, like, for instance, secret levels and/or characters in games? -- Drange net 15:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The page already says not to "put spoilers in section headers, unless the spoiler warning is before the TOC." —Cryptic (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on tape delay spoilers

Due to the fact that the 2006 Winter Olympics is starting today and will be broadcast in tape delay in much of the Western Hemisphere, I felt the need to put a spoiler warning on that page. I created my own, which you can see on 2006 Winter Olympics#Results; however I'd like to get experienced opinion on what I should do with it:

1.) Leave it as is.

2.) Create basically the same template with {{tld|spoiler-about}} or {{tld|spoiler-other}} .

3.) Create a template for future use, something like {{tld|spoiler-tapedelay}}

Your comments would be greatly appreciated! EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I feel this spoiler is rather superflous if not downright unnecessary. Chances that anyone would feel a spoiler situation due to tape delay, which itself is never more than just a few minutes, are so unlikely. :arjunm

Actually, for the Olympics, the tape delay can be as much as about 12 hours. However, this can be confused by the link to Tape delay (broadcasting), which doesn't really talk about this. For an update of the situation, the spoiler warning on 2006 Winter Olympics has been merged into the current events tag, which you can see at the top of that page. This was generally agreed as a good compromise and is pretty unobtrusive. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 23:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings are ugly - alternative proposals

I suppose this issue has been discussed ad nauseam but has been archived... anyway, IMHO the current spoiler warnings are a big eyesore, not to mention too "paternalistic" to the reader. In fact, placing them as boxed displays may be counterproductive: I suspect that the reader eventually learns to skip over them without seeing them (just as I no longer "see" the half-page of boilerplate, intelinks, categories, TOC, etc. at the top of every article.)

Would you consider changing the spoiler warning template to be a shorter warning that can be embedded in the text, like

The movie follows the typical Western movie plot, except for the director's apparent fondness for armadillos. The underwater shooting scene is one of Carrey's best performances so far. [SPOILER> Quite surprisingly, the movie ends with a big shootout in the town's main street, and all the bad guys die. <END OF SPOILER]

I believe that this format is at least as effective as the current one, makes better use of scarce screen estate, makes for a cleaner article layout, and is a bit more flexible (can be used for part of a paragraph, as above). Moreover, by being "cheaper", it may be more acceptable to article editors. Comments? Jorge Stolfi 13:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Nah that's even uglier IMO WikiSlasher 08:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warning aesthetics: Italy's spoiler warning is more prominent and makes up for that by being more visually appealing: Template:Tramafilm. I would choose it over our current one. (2¢) Outriggr 23:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Not Effective

It seems that the spoiler warnings on some pages are ineffective, the reason being as follows:

On short pages, such as those in the Redwall series, as an example see any of those books, with not much material to fill an entire page scroll on a browser, the spoiler warning, directly above the spoiler, does not conceal it [spoiler]. I use that word too much, I'll just call it S now. If S is on the page and you cannot scroll it out of the way, there is no avoiding it. Maybe some kind of either a long blank space or one of those "highlight the hints" things is in order.

Anyway, Flameviper12 18:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC) has been boring you for too long. Go expand human knowledge or something!

Yeah for spoiler page

I'm happy that there is a style page on spoilers!!!

Is an exposition of content necessary for a work of art?

Excuse me if this has been discussed elsewhere. At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Crying_of_Lot_49 I've been questioning the need for a spoiler. Is there 'pedia policy page on the spoiler? --Maas 04:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

irony?

Hello, I just wanted to say that I consider it absolutely ridiculous to put a big "SPOILER WARNING" under every headline that already says "plot synopsis". i don't search the english Wikipedia very often and the first time i saw this i laughed for 5 minutes unable to continue working. i thought it to be irony or meant to be funny and then realized that many articles in the english wikipedia have those "Spoiler Warnings". there are no such things in any other language on Wikipedia, consider this. there is not one single encyclopedia in written form in the world with it. anyone looking into an encyclopedia must be aware of the fact that, when he is looking for a book, the content is revealed! Pesonnaly I cannot take the english Wikipedia for serious with something like this in it, it's simply "unscientific". In my opinion encyclopedias are for preserving knowledge, not fun. Or can someone sue Wikipedians for taking away the ending and the pleasure of reading/seeing the end he wanted to find out for himself and then uh, he was stupid enough to do research on his book in an encyclopedia??? think about it. kind regards, the german guy

You're right that it's a bit much, but think of it this way: we need the template for various sections that aren't labelled something blatant like 'Plotline', so for the sake of regularity across Wikipedia it makes sense to add the template. Perhaps a seperate template could be formed that is supposed to go in the title? - Drrngrvy 11:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

of course regularity throughout Wikipedia is very important and it would be utopic to think that those warnings could be removed now that they've found their place in the Wikipedia. but if this understanding of people that reading in an encyclopedia might "SPOIL" something is so important why not put ONE big spoilerwarning on Wikipedias MainPage?

Other warnings, relating to this

Around February 16, I had a long discussion about Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (it's changed since then, so here is the version I'm referring to) regarding a warning about the pictures, which I have recreated below:

Warning: This article is under dispute because it contains explicit images of abuse and torture. For details and discussion of this dispute, see the talk page .

After the discussion, which you can find here, it came to the conclusion that Wikipedia is not censored. I believe that would include "spoilers" as well. In regards to a comment I saw about the spoiler warnings, about this being a courtesy to readers, that's exactly the point that was shot down regarding the pictures in the above example. I just find it hard to understand how a warning about grotesque pictures can not be allowed, but one about the ending of a movie or book can be. One thing to note, the wording was rearranged several times to resolve several complaints...and that is not the reason that it was taken down. Just to make it known, I'm still against the pictures in the Abu Ghraib article, but am confused about the clear differences in precedent that is created here. Chuck 08:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings in articles about documentaries?

In some articles about documentaries (such as Fahrenheit 9/11 and Super Size Me), there are spoiler warnings. What is the general view on this? Should spoiler warnings be used in such articles? In my opinion, they should not. One reason for not using a spoiler warning in an article about a documentariy is that documentaries are educational material meant to inform, not to entertain. So witholding information that might be important to the documentary itself kind of contradicts the idea with making a documentary at all. Instead, my view of this is that encyclopedias such as Wikipedia should do as much as possible to help spread the contents/message of any documentary considered important enough to have its own article. /Magore 19:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No feedback so far. Alright, I'll be bold and add a little notice about spoiler warnings in articles about documentaries. (Ie, they shouldn't be used, since documentaries technically doesn't have a plot or storyline, but are meant to inform and educate.) /Magore 02:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Documentaties often have narratives. Hoop Dreams and Spellbound are good examples of this. Writing who wins the spelling bee or the college scholarship would taint the experience for a new viewer. Spoiler: To know in advance that the woman in Farenheit 911 loses her son is to have an altered viewing experience. Not all docs are focused on being informative; some primarily tell a story. --Chris Griswold 07:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, many documentaries have a narrative of some kind. But that is a question about how a documentary can be done, and not what it is for. The spoiler-vs-no-spoiler question is about the purpose of a documentary. And that purpose is as I previously stated to spread information and knowledge, ie they are meant to educate, not to entertain. Within that context, a spoiler warning works against the purpose and nature of a documentary, since the spoiler warning tries to keep information that the documentary wants to spread away from the viewer/reader. A spoiler warning also has a degrading effect on a documentary being reviewed, implying that it is edutainment rather than something educational. /Magore 04:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen Spellbound or Hoop Dreams? The narrative takes precedence over the education idea. Not all documentaries have education as their primary goal. How about My Date with Drew?--Chris Griswold 04:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with spoilers in edit summaries?

I found some unmarked spoilers for "Lost" on Michelle Rodriguez. I put the spoiler tag on the page, but the edit summary when it was added also has the spoiler. This guide says not to do that, so is there a way to get such spoilers removed? (Update: I subsequently removed the spoiler from that page altogether as it really belonged on the character page.) DAF 05:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Funniest spoiler ever

It's used in Everyone Poops! Stevage 19:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed it. It doesn't "spoil" anything.--SeizureDog 07:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Skip to end function

I just got an idea that could be interesting: What if we wrote in a function into the spoiler tag where you can click something to where it takes you to the {{tld|endspoiler}} tag? This way, readers don't have to scan through the text to see where the spoilers end, which entails the risk of accidently reading a spoiler in trying to get past them. --SeizureDog 07:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Like the TOC? That is a really interesting idea. --Chris Griswold 08:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, like the TOC. The only problem I'm seeing is that the TOC skips to specific sections, I dunno if you could script it to skip to the middle of a section. Surely someone with the know-how could figure out a way though. --SeizureDog 23:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I mean like how the TOC expands and collapses. But either way could work. I'd prefer your way because the people who don't want to be spouiled would be inconvenienced, rather than the alternative. --Chris Griswold 00:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Expanding and collasping wouldn't be very reasonable on some pages, and hiding that much text could cause layout issues.--SeizureDog 00:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a different (and more beneficial) Spoiler design idea

I see many people not taking advantage of the spoiler tags (I am new, and I did not even know that they existed here myself... there are just so many possible tags here), so my original discussion on another page was about adding them to which I was lead here. Seeing now that spoiler tags do exist, I would like to propose a different design unlike what is currently used.

How about a physical manual-hide spoiler similar to how some forum software hides boards inside of each category (Example URL - Click the minus image at the far right of any category header) or this site allows the hiding of the Table of Contents? This type would require an endspoiler, but since it physically hides the text, many problems could be solved including a few addressed in other discussions here including the spoiler notes not being noticed, more visible spoiler warning needed, and ability to skip past spoilers.

This type of spoiler design would also allow for the addition of a "Hide spoilers by default?" checkbox option in user preferences! Check the box if you wish and so long as the tag is used, you will never accidentally read another spoiler again!

I am aware this is an encyclopedia, and it is not normal for an encyclopedia to hide information, but your average encyclopedia does not allow any random Joe to create articles or talk in detail about specific books and movies which is why spoilers were created in the first place. CobraWiki 21:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Look two threads above. --Chris Griswold 07:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw it when I was posting this (note the "ability to skip past spoilers" point made), but that thread began on a different note, so instead of changing the flow I started anew anyway. CobraWiki 19:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)