Archives

Archive 1

Archive index Wikipedia talk:Warn readers about spoilers/Archive 1 Wikipedia talk:Warn readers about spoilers Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/Archive Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/Archive2 Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/Guideline status Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/Guideline status2 Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/guidelines Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/archive3 Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/archive4 Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/archive5 Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/archive6

This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Will someone at least put a disputed tag on this? I'm not sure which tag to use. Ken Arromdee 15:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't dispute with policy itself, but rather massive removal of spoiler warnings from Wikipedia by a small clique of editors. But I believe, since this is a bad move and a people's encyclopedia, that this will eventually be uphill and useless battle on side of those who decided on this policy (I believe most users actually want the spoiler warnings). Samohyl Jan 17:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If they wanted them, they'd insert the spoiler tags when they were removed. This only happened in a tiny number of cases. --Tony Sidaway 17:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I reinserted tags when I noticed them missing and it was reverted within a short time and I was reprimanded. 213.39.198.154 15:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone else please field this. Ken? Nydas? Just now I'm far too weary. --Kizor 19:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Few people have the fanatical mindset to make hundreds of edits an hour to repair the damage inflicted by the anti-spoiler squad. With a substantial number of admins in the squad, they can presumably block anyone that tries to use the AWB.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony DOES have a point though. If people aren't reverting them then either 1) They aren't watching the page anymore/never did or 2) Don't care to put them back. Granted, one assumes that a lot of pages will have a small number watching them, but if there was really that few that had them readded, then I think it's a good possibility that either they DON'T care, or at least accept that the guideline has changed and feel it's not worth it to change it back. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally have 2 pages about fiction on my Watchlist (one is article I started). Both of them had templates removed in the last 2 days, and seeing fanatical people here, I don't really feel like arguing with them. But if someone will add the SWs back in the upcoming months, I will support it. I believe the general public (and casual editors) will react much slower to this. It'll be like Iraq war - ultimately tiring and bothersome to the victors. Samohyl Jan 01:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in the habit of watching pages so I didn't know there was a wholesale removal in progress of all spoiler flags. (I occasionally write a new article, but mostly I just correct blatant misspellings and fix broken links, where I can). After reading the high-handed & sarcastic reasons that people have been giving for removing spoilers (e.g., "they mess up our articles", "they annoy me", "this is an encyclopedia and you might learn something new"), I will happily start being bold and put them back where I think they belong. Aelfgifu 12:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I too came here when tags were mass-removed from one article I started. I put them back, and they were removed by another editor so hastily that he removed some of his own edits — had to partly revert himself. Not the sort of behavior that suggests a talk page discussion will be useful. (He also lacked knowledge of the article subject.)

Unfortunately, former visionaries can become fanatics, though some may just remain seriously illusioned as the future becomes the unrecognized past. Still others are just saluting and enforcing the clique-led coup; majoritarian enforcers are difficult for average editors to oppose.

But if a valid hypothesis, why the fanaticism or illusioning? I suggest three of several possible explanations are:

(1) a widespread contempt for fiction-reading adults as being "children" (further parseable into contempt for both non-reality and children);

(2) a Hollywood dramatic exaggeration that spoiler tags are "warnings", when in fact they are just a "caution" or even a mere "notice";

(3) a persistent illusion that the shattered dream of Wikipedia being like Britannica in credibility, is still attainable (cue zombie parade with forward-stretched arms: 'obliterate ... non ... Britannica ... feature'.) Milo 08:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Per Melodia- Sethie agrees- the lack of putting them back could very well show support for the policy..... and Sethie has a few questions: -How often were they put back and then removed again? (That behavior brought Sethie to this disucssion) -How many people read the edit summary and just assumed that the editor was in the know? "removed as redundant per WP:SPOILER." It does sound pretty official. -How many people missed what was happening, because David Gerard undid all of the spoiler tags as "minor" edits (and we are talking about 10,000+ edits here!)?Sethie 22:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I just put one back, hence showing my lack of support for this. Tony, how does not immediately putting all these masses of spoiler tags back count as "consensus"?Tomgreeny 02:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You need a diagram? From the first paragraph of our Consensus policy:

The basic process works like this: someone makes an edit to a page, and then everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it. Over time, every edit that remains on a page, in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community (or at least everyone who has looked at the page). "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it. Most of the time consensus is reached as a natural product of the editing process.

Apply an edit to 45,000 pages, most of which are being watched and edited regularly, and you have a huge number of people looking at an edit and deciding to leave it. And that's how we know we have consensus for removing spoiler tags. --Tony Sidaway 02:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a simplistic analysis that does not prove consensus. As has now emerged in a number of samples, editors who want to put the spoiler tag back are deterred by other editors who claim violation of WP:Spoiler. Since you are claiming WP:Spoiler guide consensus based on lack of tag restorations, it's circular reasoning. Therefore your analysis is a manufactured consensus claim. Milo 05:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain the error in your reasoning. We (mainly David Gerard I believe) performed tens of thousands of edits. Nearly every single one of those edits prevails. Now either there are many, many people going around removing tags when they're replaced, or there are only a small number of replacements every day compared to the tens of thousands of articles originally edited. I can assure you we don't have a robot scooting around and removing tags as they appear. It's all being done by humans, as it should be. And not solely by a small, tight group. The decisions are being made organically. You can see this rather graphically on articles about recently released films such as the Silver Surfer and Oceans 13. Different people add and remove tags. There is very little mention of any spoiler guideline. People just use their common sense. And, extraordinarily, their common sense feelings seem to favor removing the spoiler tag even from articles, such as those two recently released films, where I myself would be happy to permit them if the decision were up to me alone.

Each of these articles is still out there, with its edit history and its absence of spoiler tags. At any one moment there may be hundreds or even thousands of people reading one or those articles. For recently released movies the figure is going to be very high, and popular movies and TV shows such as Oceans 13, Doctor Who and the like will have more than a dozen editors in attendance. And yet the spoiler tags aren't coming back and sticking. In the relatively small proportion of articles where tags have been put back, no consensus is emerging to keep them. In the vast majority of cases, no attempt is made to restore them. That's consensus for removal, according to our very own Consensus policy. --Tony Sidaway 07:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Your group has been reverting hundreds of people every day for the past few weeks, sometimes with just an edit summary of 'no'. Anyone can examine the contribution and edit histories to establish this for themselves.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What is my group? Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you mean every single editor who has ever supported the removal of spoiler tags on this page. Let's see, that's:

• Tony_Sidaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kusma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• David Gerard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ned Scott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vassyana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TheFarix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Oh and this fellow whom I've seen around and about:

• CBM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Now let's see what they're actually doing. I'll take Monday as an example day. I omit names of people who performed no tag removals:

• User:Tony Sidaway 26
• User:CBM 4

So that's a total of about 30. Maybe I've forgotten some fellow who is performing hundreds of tag removals. If so, perhaps you could name him. Or maybe you're out by an order of magnitude. Or maybe there was a huge amount of reverting at some point but now it's died down.

But if it's as it appears, with just 30 tags restored (and then reverted almost single-handedly) in the course of a whole Monday, then when you consider that there were formerly 45,000 or more articles with tags, it does appear to me that there is a very substantial consensus. When people read these many thousands of articles articles, as they must do every day, they don't suddenly think "this article needs a spoiler tag." --Tony Sidaway 08:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And if you take the Monday before last, it's:

• User:Tony Sidaway 39
• User:David Gerard 56
• User:Kusma 69
• User:Vassyana 2

That's about 166 removals, presumably what you meant when you said 'that's only happened in a tiny number of cases' two days earlier. Since anybody who was willing to reverse the removals on a significant scale was threatened, and the numbers and time periods used for judging 'significant resistance' are arbitary, it's no surprise that a 'consensus' has been reached.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, only 166 out of 45,000? I thought it was more. In any case we would have seen many, many hundreds more than that had there been any serious problem.

You say "anybody who was willing to reverse the removals on a significant scale was threatened", but I think what you're referring to is the warnings, and sometimes blocks, given to those very, very few editors who edited disruptively. It isn't allowed, you know.

Did you mean to count David Gerard twice, or did you mistype the username of another involved user? --Tony Sidaway 17:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

166 in one day is a lot. If we generously assume two reverts per user, that's eighty people overruled by four admins. The 'very, very few editors' who mass-restored tags are about the same in number (probably slightly more) as the six or so admins systematically removing tags. One group is disruptive, the other is bold.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The disruptive editing was, I seem to recall, singleton editors edit warring against multiple editors, and involved egregious and undeniable breaches of Wikipedia policy (such as the three revert rule). This is why those editors were blocked.

We'll have to agree to differ on whether 166 is "a lot". It's certainl not compatible with your claim, made just a few hours ago, of our "reverting hundreds of people every day for the past few weeks". Now this Monday was down to 30. Consensus. The stragglers are slowly learning, by example and not edit warring, that they don't have to insert those spoiler tags. --Tony Sidaway 18:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The numbers creep up the further back you go. It's taken a full month to bludgeon through the 'consensus' your faction has been claiming existed since day two of the debate. The current situation doesn't prove anything, aside from the gross power disparity between a tiny group of admins and a small group of normal editors. One is bold, the other is disruptive. Breaches of policy have been made by both sides, but no-one is going to enforce 'don't use the AWB for controversial edits' or WP:POINT against a bunch of senior admins.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I take exception to this use of the term "bludgeon". Editing articles in full compliance with all of Wikipedia's policies is not bludgeoning. I'm unsure of what you mean by "the 'consensus' your faction has been claiming existed since day two of the debate."

You say "One is bold, the other is disruptive." No. Only the disruptive editors, as defined by Wikipedia's policies and three revert rule in particular, have been described as disruptive.

You say "Breaches of policy have been made by both sides." Well you haven't demonstrated this. "You have made edits I disagree with" is not a credible allegation of breach of policy.

You say "no-one is going to enforce 'don't use the AWB for controversial edits' or WP:POINT". Please read WP:POINT. Please explain how the 45,000 edits were controversial. They were hardly noticed. --Tony Sidaway 20:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The anti-spoiler admins have insisted since the beginning of the mass removal campaign that there was a consensus for their actions. It began by using the arbitarily closed MfD, but the 'lack of significant resistance' line was started not long after. Neither was grounds for consensus. 'They were hardly noticed' is a variation on the 'lack of significant resistance' line. It's unsupported by facts and cocooned in vague and arbitary measures. Since there wasn't a consensus, policy was not followed.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I've already said quoting from Wikipedia:Consensus, absence of opposition is usually taken as a sign of consensus. I have to say that I think I've probably been editing articles to remove spoiler tags for over a month now, and with the exception of some early disruption by edit warriors I've had virtually no opposition, and where I have encountered disagreements I've had no problems discussing and reaching consensus on talk pages. It's been some of the easiest, most trouble-free editing I've been involved in since I first edited (under the username User:Minority Report) in November, 2004.

This is a very, very small part of what I'm doing on Wikipedia at the moment. I feel that I'm paying far more attention to educating a few people on this talk page than to other, more important things. If you're unhappy about what we've done, if you think we've done anything at all wrong, please pursue dispute resolution. --Tony Sidaway 23:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

All you are saying is 'it wasn't bludgeoning, because I think it wasn't bludgeoning'. It is obvious that this situation would not have come about were it not for the gross power disparity between a miniscule number of admins and a small number of normal editors.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying it isn't bludgeoning because it's only editing. You refer to a "gross power disparity" that exists only in your mind. I am not an administrator and I do not use any automated tools. The main source of complaint--bulk edits by David Gerard--are well within the capability of any editor with publicly available software, David's patience and a reasonable amount of care, subject to adherence to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and the conditions of use of the tool. --Tony Sidaway 16:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's 'only editing' when your side does it, whereas it's disruptive editing by 'a few stragglers' when the other side does it. Even Ed Fitzgerald, who broke no policies, was threatened. As I have stated before, your interpretation of policy not being breached depends upon the mysterious shifting definition of 'significant resistance'. Rather than going by what is straightforward, obvious and fair (is the issue being discussed?), you make such judgements based on vague, subjective criteria like 'I've had no problems' or 'hardly any have been reverted'.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's only disruptive editing when the editing pattern matches Wikipedia's definitions of disruptive editing. You refer to a "mysterious shifting definition of 'significant resistance'". This shifting definition exists only in your own mind. If there were significant resistance then there would be many spoiler tags on articles. This is an objective measure. --Tony Sidaway 19:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comments can be examined to see your definition of 'significant resistance' changes constantly. Typically it's either vague ('hardly any') or circular ('obvious'). At one point you said 'A significant amount of resistance might be, for instance, hundreds of editors restoring tags'. Hundreds of people have been restoring tags; this can be confirmed by examining the edit histories. The fact that they have ceased doing this is simply down to fact that anyone attempting to restore them in large numbers was threatened, whether they violated any policy or not. The threats are justified by the consensus, the consensus enforced by the threats.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing hundreds of editors restoring spoiler tags at all. I'm seeing diminishing numbers of editors doing any adding of spoiler tags, as the habit of routinely adding them slowly dies out. The only time in recent days when the number of pages with spoiler tags on them has exceeded 20 was when the spoiler-season tag was deleted. Those were dealt with in a few hours and now only one Star Gate episode remains of that lot. There really are only two or three editors systematically removing spoiler tags now, and those of us doing it are not taxed in any way. By comparison we've got massive backlogs of articles for tagging, improving, deletion and so on. This is small beer. --Tony Sidaway 12:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What's more, I decided to go look. It's not just that, this Monday, Tony reverted 26 articles. He reverted the edits of almost 20 separate _people_ all presumably acting in good faith. If he did that on one article, he'd be accused of going against consensus. Or, of WP:OWNing the article. Which is what I suggest the anti-spoiler people are doing. They are in violation of the spirit of WP:OWN, by declaring that they have the right to decide what spoiler warnings should and should not exist, and others are not qualified. Of course, it's not one article, it's several.

But let's scale it upwards. Let's say there are 10 editors out there who are on 'spoiler patrol'... whether or not they're in cahoots or acting singly, it doesn't _really_ matter. Each of them seeks out pretty well any spoiler, and reverts them. Let's say they all revert about the same amount in a day. It's a hypothetical leap, but let's go with it - Nydas has shown that there were times when the numbers were pretty high. By these numbers, that's about 200 people. But that's being too generous to my side. Let's say about half are completely unjustified. So we're down to 10 people overruling 100. Oh, okay, and let's say again that there probably will be some duplication. So let's say that about half are accounted for by people doing the spoiler thing on multiple articles which have to be removed by different people (I'd think that's being extremely generous, considering the previously described severe inbalance in speed and ease of removing spoiler tags compared to adding them). So, 50 different people overruled completely. By 10. Lovely consensus there.

But maybe my numbers are wrong. I after all, haven't been the one to claim that it's easy to see the amount of opposition. So, I ask again. Will anybody who claims to be able to monitor the level of opposition please answer me 1) how many different editors have removed spoiler tags in the last month, and 2) how many different editors have added spoiler tags in the last month. Or if nobody can, please admit that you're not monitoring the amount of opposition, only the amount of spoiler tags themselves.

Keeping in mind again that before about a month ago, when the guideline was more spoiler-warning friendly, nobody has reported to me that there was a wide-scale revolt to remove spoiler tags (since they remained in large numbers), which suggests, by Tony's logic, that there must have been consensus.

Maybe the 'consensus' from the lack of so many wide scale reverts is to 'follow the guideline whatever it is'. That does not equal consensus for the guideline as it stands, especially since the guideline as it stands is pretty disputed on this page, for the guideline. So let's change the guideline to get consensus. Wandering Ghost 13:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're misrepresenting a lot of statements here. Of course we don't see every tag insertion and removal. All we see is the result: that at any given moment there aren't a lot of articles with spoiler tags. If somebody we don't know about is adding them at a great rate, it follows that somebody else we don't know about is removing them at an equally great rate. On balance I'd say that either seems implausible because if it were happening there would be big fluctuations owing to one chap working while the other one is offline. I think we've probably accounted for the main methodical removals, which are a few dozen. Less evidence of a massive campaign to subvert consensus, more evidence of a few stragglers who haven't yet heard that they don't need to insert spoiler tags.

You reason that the former guideline had consensus "by Tony's logic." Clearly it did not. 45,000 tags were removed without pain. --Tony Sidaway 17:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd have put spoiler tags back on a dozen pages by now, but instead of trying to brute-force my way to consensus, I'm sitting here talking about it trying to REACH a consensus to be enforced. If we reach a consensus that spoiler tags are OK in some instances, I'll go add them to the articles I watch. However, what's the point adding them when someone on spoiler patrol will just remove them? It'd violate WP:POINT. I suspect others feel the same, hence the lack of mass addition. Consider: User X notices the lack of spoiler tag on Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, for instance. User X remembers there being a tag here, checks edit summary, finds that apparently spoilers are no longer kosher and are being removed. User X then goes to edit several other articles with tags being removed and does not bother to add them again, having seen for himself that there are people activly removing all spoiler tags on wikipedia, so it'd be pointless to add them. Thus, User X gets discouraged and gives up on spoiler tags altogether. This is consensus, the Tony way: people are intimidated by numbers like 45,000 tags, and thus figure, well, there must be consensus on a page I'm not aware of. Kuronue 18:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well if you don't agree that your edits would have consensus, I suppose it is at least logical that you don't perform the edits. But the guideline doesn't stop you putting spoiler tags where you think they're needed, indeed I've inserted a few myself over the past few days, though they seem not to take. The guideline has gone "viral", in other words.

I don't understand your reference to Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT). Performing an edit that you think directly improves Wikipedia isn't covered by that guideline at all.

I don't think the "intimidated by numbers" or "finds that apparently spoilers are no longer kosher and are being removed" are plausible, really. Maybe one or two of our more timid editors might think like that, but it's hardly likely to work in great numbers. No I think editors are simply unlearning a bad habit.

You refer to someone thinking "there must be consensus on a page I'm not aware of". Firstly the guideline is often, though not always, referred to by link in the edit summary. Secondly an edit that is considered unsuitable can be reverted and discussion can arrive at consensus as to the suitability of the edit. The guideline (like all good guidelines) recognises this and explicitly allows for it. If we're not seeing spoiler tags emerging in any great numbers, it's because hardly anybody seems to be interested enough to argue for their use on any given article. --Tony Sidaway 19:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If it didn't have consensus, the week _before_ the deletion spree happened, by your logic, a significant number of editors would have removed spoiler warnings. Since it didn't happen, a week before the deletion spree, there was consensus to keep spoilers, up until the deletion spree happened. There was no groundswell of support to delete them, and as David Gerard demonstrated, it would have been easy to do so in an automated way. Let's go back two months. Same situation? Now keeping spoilers have a month of "consensus" over the current policy. So you must admit by then, if there's consensus to keep the warnings out now based on the lack of them, that there was broad consensus to keep the warnings only a month ago. What changed, pray tell, in so short a time?

And I'm glad you're finally admitting you're not monitoring the amount of opposition, but rather the amount of spoiler tags at any given time. Now, let's keep on that logic train. Do you acknowledge that it's _much_ easier for a person to delete a _lot_ of spoiler tags, than it is for anyone to add a _lot_ of spoiler tags? Do you from that acknowledge that a small number of editors who decide to remove virtually all spoiler warnings to overrule a much larger number of editors who decide to add spoiler warnings where they feel them appropriate? Please tell me where in the train of statements this fails for you. I'll even throw you a bone. You can continue to believe, even after accepting all of this, that the guideline has broad consensus. It just becomes much harder to prove it. 74.121.182.101 01:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC) This was me - didn't noticed I'd been logged out. Wandering Ghost 01:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you're getting at in your first paragraph. The degree of consensus is apparent, though we didn't realise until we tried it. Consensus results from action, observation and consideration. Here the consideration seems to have played an overwhelmingly important role once we became bold enough to perform the requisite action.

I also have problems with your statement that I'm "admitting I'm not monitoring the amount of opposition." As I obviously am monitoring very closely, and am still astonished at the lack of it, I cannot agree to your statement. I've indicated clearly why I think it's extremely unlikely that there is a hidden opposition out there placing tags with an equally strong and opposing group removing them at the same rate so as to cancel them out and remain undetected by me. Even if they were running in lockstep for hours at a time, one of them would have to sleep at some point and I'd notice.

I strongly agree that it's easier to remove inappropriate spoiler tags than it is to decide where they are appropriate. I'm still rather astonished that so few people seem motivated to place them. --Tony Sidaway 03:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, you're dodging the issue. There doesn't _have_ to be "a hidden opposition out there placing tags with an equally strong and opposing group removing them at the same rate so as to cancel them out and remain undetected by me." When did Wikipedia become a warzone, where in order for one side to hold a policy stalemate they had to be comparable in weapons and fanaticism? Consensus is determined by people. If there are people out there who creatively use various tools to overwhelm the majority and are so determined to remove spoiler tags that they push for removal in nearly every case, they shouldn't _win_ just because it's easy and they've got the drive. If the other side is significantly larger but they are _unable_ to add spoiler tags at the same rate (hey, in the spirit of open debate and finding the truth why not be fair and suggest ways for an individual person to add spoiler tags at the same rate as an individual person can remove them?), and are forced by circumstances to only add one page at a time where they see fit, that doesn't mean they're not still larger and not still consensus. If you can't tell me how many different people are removing spoiler warnings and how many people are adding them, you're not monitoring opposition. You're monitoring the number of spoiler tags. And that number can be kept down by superior firepower. If the anti-warning crowd and pro-warning crowd were exactly equal in numbers, the anti-warning crowd could still keep spoilers down to a minimum, so long as the pro-warning crowd wasn't organized enough to get together and fight battles together on each page. Wandering Ghost 11:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If it is easier to remove spoiler tags than to justify their replacement, it follows that there is no broad consensus for spoiler tags. --Tony Sidaway 17:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

C'mon Tony, now who's being a silly sausage? You know that it's easier to remove than to recreate, to use AWB than operate in a decentralized manner, and to use Special:Whatlinkshere to see where the tag is included rather than Special:Recentchanges to see where it has been removed. Also, some people have the radical concept of discussing before acting broadly in an edit war, which is why this talk page has exploded. -- nae'blis 21:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The difficulty is exactly why there is no broad consensus for them. I'm glad that there have been few edit wars. That is a good thing, too. --Tony Sidaway 23:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That is yet another of your non-answers that don't make any logical sense. Because it's, technically speaking, easier to remove 40,000 spoiler tags in the course of a few days by one man than it is for one man to replace them, it proves there's no consensus? To retreat to that nonsensical position, I can only assume I've made points you can't argue against, and instead of conceding the point, you just fling out another absurdity in the hopes that somebody reading might fall for it. I'd like to say I'm surprised. But then, what should I expect, from the person who claims the lack of tags prove consensus and the fact that there's consensus proves that they should continue to force tag removal, in some cases threatening people who do. Or the person who continues to say 'rm per WP:SPOIL' when he removes spoilers of a large number of people, when the guideline's in dispute. The same guy who reverts dozens of different people every day on one topic, who claims to have consensus but won't back down from removing spoilers when he finds them, in the confidence that the spoilers will be removed by someone else. No, you continue to argue in bad faith, and so there's no point to responding to you anymore. To those of you, even those vehemently anti-warning, who continue to argue in good faith, I salute you. I'm just sorry that you have someone on your side who does you have such a disservice, since I think that without him and a few like him, it might actually be possible to reach a compromise satisfiable to a large number of people. Instead, bring on the next step in dispute resolution. I may continue to respond to others in the debate, but I can't keep banging my head against the brick wall of people behaving in bad faith (and in this, I suspect I'm feeling the same as many people who put spoiler warnings in and were ganged up on, and so have stopped), so my contributions will be substantially reduced. Don't mistake that for consent to the policy as it stands. Wandering Ghost 21:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, forget about the removal of the spoiler tags in the first place, it's what is happening now that shows the state of play. They're just not going back and staying back. That's consensus. Yes, you can always claim this or that, but the only way to refute my claim of consensus would be to show that there were many, many spoiler tags on Wikipedia. And there are not. --Tony Sidaway 23:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• I came to this article to try to find out what the template was for inserting a spoiler tag because I couldn't find it on any page relating to the TV series LOST, Battlestar Galactica or Grey's Anatomy. All three of those have character and episode pages which reveal a huge amount of information about episodes at the end of the series and I have had to be very careful about which pages I view, since I haven't seen all the episodes in any of them. I think the removal of spoiler warnings is a mistake, and I think the average Wikipedia reader would suffer without them, so much to the point that they would quit reading the encyclopedia for details about those TV shows (or, eventually, with any article at all). I hope this helps you form a consensus. Cumulus Clouds 01:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Similiar experience here, also when reading about fictional characters. I can understand not putting it in in sections marked "Plot Summary," but apart from that, it's often really convenient. Encyclopedic articles on fictional characters aren't there for the fun of making them, they're there as a reference. Many people who look up a reference on an element in a fictional work are currently in the process of reading/watching it. Purpose is important in any website, but in Wikipedia it sometimes gets lost. Cayafas 15:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

(Copied from #Change guideline tag to proposal)

"Why did you remove the guideline dispute tag when there is a guideline content dispute? Milo 22:15, 25 June 2007"

" There is no significant opposition to the guideline. --Tony Sidaway 22:18, 25 June 2007"

The Help Desk told me that only one editor with a talk page explanation is needed to place a dispute tag, but that there are no formal rules for such things. Therefore, the editors who have placed the dispute tag have as valid a claim as Tony's claim of "no significant opposition to the guideline". This calls for a poll, to determine whether or not there is a dispute with the Wikipedia:Spoiler guideline to be indicated by a Dispute tag. Milo 00:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Poll question: Is there a taggable dispute?

Putting aside your opinion of the guideline itself, do you agree that there is a Wikipedia:Spoiler guideline dispute and that a guideline Dispute tag should be in place?

• Agree, a dispute exists and a dispute tag should be placed. Milo 00:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Duh Hello? Dispute about whether disputed or not = dispute. BTW, Look at the this talk page! Sethie 01:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Duh This, that we're participating in, is a dispute. The real question is, what does Tony have to gain by suppressing that information? Kuronue 01:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, obviously. This page used to be archived once per year, and look at the last month. Samohyl Jan 05:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, of course. Though I doubt if even tagging it will stop certain people from 'enforcing' the guideline anyway.Wandering Ghost 12:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, good grief. Call me a member of the "silent majority", I came here via http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?t=6424 and read through the above debate. If that's not a dispute, I don't know what is. Though I could be persuaded to take the opposing view, as it really looks to me like Tony Sidaway against all comers, which isn't really a debate. The imp 13:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes and I second the Duh. Ken Arromdee 13:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes If there is a dispute over whether there is a dispute, then we can pretty safely say that there IS a dispute. Tomgreeny 14:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, naturally. Kizor 20:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I strongly support the use of spoiler tags. 76.198.204.224 05:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Just a regular user

Enough with the polls. The guideline has been working very well for weeks. If you think it needs to be changed in some way, change it and we'll see if there is consensus for your change. --Tony Sidaway 00:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, one part of the dispute is about what constitutes consensus. If anyone changes the guideline, you'll just insist "there are tens of thousands of spoiler warnings removed and few put back, so there's consensus for the guideline. I'm changing it back." It's impossible to "change it and see if there's consensus" when the definition of consensus is being warped in this way. Ken Arromdee 13:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Polls are evil and anyway, the problem that the supporters have by this point gone on to other useful things isn't going to disappear with a poll. Phil Sandifer 01:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You got what you wanted and I supported it. Why don't you go on to other useful things? Do you have that jargon condition of "Sore Winner Syndrome"?

Btw, polls are not evil, and should not be confused with voting. George Gallup said polling was the only way to truly know the will of the people. Milo 10:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think the guideline itself is in opposition, but clearly the mass warning removal has opposition. In other words, how people are applying the guideline, not so much the guideline itself. I was hoping that we'd be able to ease people into this, but the change was too much and too sudden. This would have gone a lot smoother if the warnings were not removed via scripts. There is a dispute on how people are handling spoiler warnings. Originally I was opposed to tagging the page as disputed, but I'm not sure where else we would note the dispute. -- Ned Scott 02:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't believe there is a dispute going on about if there is a dispute on this page or not. Can't we all just play nice and build an encyclopedia? Darthgriz98 03:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Reading template:disputedpolicy I see that for templates such as this where there is dispute about how the policy or guideline should be expressed the best template to use is "underdiscussion". So I've changed it. Hope nobody minds. I think we're all agreed that we need a guideline on spoiler tagging, but we're not agreed on its content. The tag I've put up explicitly directs readers to this discussion page. --Tony Sidaway 14:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    • There is a dispute. The "underdiscussion" tag doesn't mention a dispute. Milo 10:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. If this isn't a dispute, what is? There's even a dispute on whether there's a dispute or not. Cayafas 12:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know if the old version [1] of this page (last version from month before this furious discussion and changes) would be acceptable compromise for anti-spoilerists, now that they argue that the spoiler warnings should be discussed on the appropriate talk pages (and most of them have been removed). This version takes completely neutral approach to spoilers, and even shows how to turn them off (in Tony's words, it's just an user education issue ;-)). So looking back, why is this version unacceptable, if it still is? Samohyl Jan 19:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The old version looks good to me, after a cursory skim. I might find things to quibble with, but I like it a lot better than the current version, which seems kinda punitive. Even if we went back to the old version, I would still be unhappy with the script-powered mass deletion of spoiler tags, though; as I said elsewhere, people who approve of spoiler tags are in a position of having to build on scorched earth, which is a de facto victory for those who dislike them. I would say that the spoiler guidelines should make it clear that people shouldn't use scripts to mass-delete spoiler tags, but that seems so obvious to me that I expect it's covered by some other policy. --Jere7my 19:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A change to the earlier version of the guideline would be absolutely and completely unacceptable. The current version reflects reality and keeps spoiler tags from every again becoming a serious problem. --Tony Sidaway 20:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that reverting to the old version is pointless. We had beatings and bashings and verbal tongue-lashings over this already. And the new revision better reflects consensus. We had literal dozens of polls at RfC, and this was hammered out. Just because some people still don't want to accept that doesn't change the fact that we already tread this ground, and recently, and some people are just trying to worm out their own acceptable consensus. David Fuchs 20:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverting to the old version is an excellent idea. If anti-spoiler brigade truly believe in their consensus, then a neutral guideline should have no effect on the already completed mass removal.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The old one that started a mass revolt and was well on its way to getting nuked via WP:MFD? Yeah. No way in hell. Phil Sandifer 20:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Had the MfD run for a week and been advertised on the spoiler tag itself, as would be normal and fair, then there would have been substantial majority in favour of keeping it.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus isn't a permanent thing, right? If you achieved a consensus before, you clearly don't have one now. So, hey, look, we're trying to achieve consensus again. The fact is, a major change was made to Wikipedia, and it was implemented using questionable methods (scripts should not be used to change tens of thousands of articles at one go). Word is getting out about the change, and people are not going to be satisfied being told "No, we already achieved consensus, go home." Casual Wikipedia users of my acquaintance have reacted with bafflement to the spoiler tag removal — they all assumed it was some local oversight, not a global purge. Returning to the previous status quo seems like a good starting point to me. --Jere7my 21:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The old status quo was absurd - spoiler tags on fairy tales! — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, but this is not what the new guideline is about. The new guideline removes the SWs from most of the articles, because most articles on fiction will have spoilers in their Plot section. I understand the arguments of anti-spoilerists, but the guideline as it is written now is dishonest, because as it is written it means "no spoiler warnings except few very special cases and/or for the limited time". Samohyl Jan 07:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the effect of the guideline, but why is that dishonest? Isn't it possible that spoiler tags are simply not needed? The sheer absence of the right now certainly seems to be extremely strong evidence for this. --Tony Sidaway 09:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Count me as another one who feels that spoiler tags greatly increase Wikipedia's utility, and that this is the most important argument. My problems with the way the policy has been changed are: 1. Mass removal of a tag using scripts is completely unacceptable. Even if it were, consensus should be reached before this kind of change. 2. Wikipedia is nothing like other encylopedias in all sorts of ways. I see no particular reason that such a big deal should be made out of this one. 3. The argument that spoiler tags make Wikipedia unencylopedic, and that this is a negative point, is completely arbitrary. This small extra amount of metatext does not interfere with the integrity (what little it often has) of the article content itself.

In short, I think making Wikipedia useful - something with practical value - is more important than making it "encyclopedic", a property that in this case provides no benefit in and of itself. (Contrast to the encylopedic practice of providing sources, which is of clear benefit.) The fact that the anti-spoiler group won't even an accept a compromise where the user chooses their preference tells me that their priorities are far beyond skewed. I have no idea if my opinion is shared by the majority, but this article should be reverted to the version before any of this took place until something resembling a consensus can be reached. Philip Reuben 23:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Not that I particularly disagree with making Wikipedia useful, but frankly, it doesn't matter at all what you think Wikipedia should be. Wikipedia is purposefully limited in scope because otherwise it is abused. The perennial example: a list of my personal contacts and telephone numbers would be useful, but then Wikipedia's servers would be bogged down by personal interests and porn. Order is required, and that is why wikipedia has a list of things it's not. David Fuchs 23:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You're all-too-eager to place this issue in the same box as the others listed on WP:NOT. There are several differences here. The first is that spoiler notices are not a significant change to the way an article is worded; they do not affect the mentality with which one has to write and edit an article. They are a small amount of added text that will benefit some and can be easily ignored by others, while in no way modifying the information itself. Honestly, I doubt they even affect anyone's perception of Wikipedia beyond the few of you who have forced this change. It's not spoiler tags that the media have pointed to as representative of Wikipedia's unencyclopedic qualities, it's the far more glaring issue of inaccurate information amid constant vandalism. (As others have pointed out, this means that Wikipedia will never be encylopedic, though that's an aside point.) Furthermore, looking at WP:NOT, it seems to me that an argument could be made for any of the points there that there is an inherent benefit to users in the rule's existence, which is not so in this case as far as I have seen from this talk page. Maybe I'm being presumptuous in assuming that the entire point of wanting Wikipedia to be "encyclopedic" is to make it a more coherent and useful source for a specific kind of information, and not merely the lofty yet arbitrary (and unachieveable) goal of making Wikipedia respected as an encyclopedia alongside Britannica. Finally, the obvious point that there is no clear consensus here. WP:NOT is a Wikipedia article, and anyone is free to change it provided there is suitable discussion and consensus about it beforehand. Since that was clearly not the case here, the article should be reverted for the time being. On that note, I would very much like a response to my point #1 from above. Philip Reuben 23:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you go back to the very reason this whole thing began you'd notice that, in fact, one of the major points for wanting the guideline to change was BECAUSE writing around warnings was causing worse articles. So, you're wrong about modifying the info -- by using the tags, people write to keep certain info within the tags, which hinders the quality of the articles, tags there or not. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 00:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a problem with the way spoiler tags are implemented, not with spoiler tags themselves. The ideal method is to write an article, decide what's worthy of being deemed a spoiler, and tag it. I could accept a rule to that effect far more comfortably than a rule that effectively prohibits all use of spoiler tags no matter how appropriate and unintrusive. However, I do feel that major spoilers should never be included in the lede; examples like the Tia Dalma article are ridiculous. How does this fit with your view on "writing around" spoilers being a detrimental force? Philip Reuben 00:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The real problem here is that so far nearly all designations of this or that plot element as a spoiler have been fundamentally contrary to the neutral point of view. I read Lord of the Rings, a three-volume epic in six books, in the following order: 5, 6, 1, 2, 3, 4. Star Wars was filmed and shown in the order: 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3. Before a single reel of Episode 1 was filmed, we knew that Luke was the son of Annakin, that Annakin would one day kill his master Obi Wan, and so on right up to the climax of the epic, which had been filmed nearly two decades before. Everybody knows that Rosancrantz and Guildenstern are dead, everybody knows that Don Quixote is just a silly old man.

So who decides which bits of knowledge must be surrounded with these scare quotes?

My point is that artificially isolating part of an article and treating it as if it needed "don't go there, you might learn something new" stickers around it is insulting, demeaning, annoying, and most of all, completely unnecessary. I would hope that every single thing in every single one of our articles will come as a surprise to many people. Who knew that the estimated population of Madagascar had grown by 50% in just over a decade? Who knew that both Americans and Canadians celebrated the War of 1812 as a great victory? This is all new stuff. This is why people come to Wikipedia. If they come here expecting us to cultivate their ignorance, they have come to the wrong place.

Spoiler tags are simply style tags. As such, their existence in an article is subject to the existence of consensus for their presence. In the past, they overran much of Wikipedia, some 45,000 articles. Now they're back under control. Which is to say that they're present on a few articles. --Tony Sidaway 01:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

People who are familiar with the work and sensitive to the the concerns of those unfamiliar with it while also not too heavy-handed with spoiler tags. In other words, editors acting in good faith to enact reasonable guidelines. It's no more POV than it is to determine what information is important enough to go in the lede.

The difference is so obvious that I can barely believe I need to write it. People want to be able to learn certain types of details about items of fiction without having to learn other types of details against their will. It's really as simple as that, and clearly doesn't apply to such hyperbolic examples as the population of Madagascar. Someone who wants to learn things from Wikipedia without reading spoilers is hardly expecting Wikipedia to "cultivate their ignorance"; the only reason they have come to Wikipedia is to learn information. On the other hand, if the article is useless to anyone who is (a) spoiler-conscious and (b) not familiar with a work of fiction, and they therefore decide not to read Wikipedia's articles about fiction, that's Wikipedia cultivating their ignorance. Again, it comes down to the fact that Wikipedia is more useful, more informative, with spoiler tags than without. (I also feel the need to note that, as someone who is generally spoiler-conscious, I don't find spoiler warnings insulting or demeaning in the least. I find them useful, unintrusive and easy to gloss over in cases where I am familiar with the subject matter or not concerned about spoilers.)

I, and many others in this talk page and the other discussions that have been scattered around, feel that they should be present in more articles than they are now. No one is disputing that they were in too many before, but the idea that there is consensus for their virtual lack of presence is laughable, and as such I still feel there should have been no mass removal (especially so soon after the discussion began in May) and that the current guidelines are inappropriate. Philip Reuben 02:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Before a single reel of Episode 1 was filmed, we knew that Luke was the son of Annakin, that Annakin would one day kill his master Obi Wan, and so on right up to the climax of the epic, which had been filmed nearly two decades before. Everybody knows that Rosancrantz and Guildenstern are dead, everybody knows that Don Quixote is just a silly old man.

This is an anti-worldwide view. Only somebody who was heavily suffused with 'encroaching Internet culture' could believe that 'everyone' knows who Darth Vader is. There are millions of people who've never seen the Star Wars films. How many women over 50 will know? How many Africans or Indians? --Nydas^(Talk) 07:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

People without contact to Internet culture will not expect spoiler warnings. Wikipedia doesn't need to be the first place where they encounter them. Kusma (talk) 07:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

They won't expect a lot of things. Whether that includes spoiler warnings is questionable; the concept is used in TV and newspapers.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Any particular reason why not? Spoiler warnings (or, more broadly, being considerate of people's desire not to be spoiled) are standard practice on the internet, of which Wikipedia is a part. They will have to encounter them sometime, and in using Wikipedia they may (like many internet-savvy people) prefer to find out information about popular culture they're not familiar with without finding out the ending in the process. Philip Reuben 08:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

One could say the same about ANY warning though. A lot of places online warn about NSFW pics or whatever else. But the question is, why SHOULD Wikipedia be like other internet websites? I have to wonder if some of you on the pro-warning side have ever read the five pillars of just what WP is supposed to be. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You could say that about any warning. The difference is that nobody is, because (to the best of my knowledge) there is clear consensus that a lack of NSFW warnings is beneficial to Wikipedia. To my mind, spoiler tags are as much a crucial part of Wikipedia as hyperlinks - they have been here for years and are fundamental to the way people use Wikipedia. Furthermore, insisting that "encyclopedias don't have spoiler tags, therefore Wikipedia shouldn't have spoiler tags" is sticking the letter of the law but not the spirit: The first of the five pillars gives a detailed list of things that are inherently unencyclopedic, and they are of an entirely different calibre than spoiler tags, which (as I have said) ideally have only a bare minimum effect on the article's content if at all. I don't see that the five pillars bear any but the barest relationship to this issue. Philip Reuben 11:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this says it all: The difference is so obvious that I can barely believe I need to write it. People want to be able to learn certain types of details about items of fiction without having to learn other types of details against their will.

Wikipedia does not exist to aid people in their quest for ignorance--rather the reverse. We should not impose changes on the format of encyclopedia articles to satisfy a perverse quest for ignorance. --Tony Sidaway 11:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate a response that takes my arguments into account rather than ignoring them. As I said, there is no quest for ignorance on the part of those who come to Wikipedia but still want to avoid spoilers; by definition, you come to Wikipedia to inform yourself even if you nonetheless want to avoid spoilers. There is no inherent disadvantage in giving these people the choice by clearly labelling which information is a spoiler and which is not. As I see it, you are the ones engendering ignorance by artificially making perfectly good articles useless to a large group of people. Philip Reuben 11:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, you seem to have missed the key point of what you quoted. I was countering your slippery slope/strawman argument that adding spoiler tags on fiction articles is somehow equivalent to putting spoiler tag on an article about Madagascar. It is entirely different and should be treated as such. Philip Reuben 12:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't it seem to anyone else that that phrasing conflicts with "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception"? "May not" sounds pretty set in stone to me. How would we feel about a phrasing that uses "discouraged" instead of "may not"? --Jere7my 23:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

All WP policies should use "should" phrasing instead of "must" phrasing, I agree. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. Self-contradictory guidelines are not exactly the display of professionalism Wikipedia means to attain. JimmyBlackwing 06:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the name of the section to say "should not" instead of "may not". The wording that implies that spoiler tags must not interfere with our core policies is correct, and so I've left that as it is. Obviously a style element must never compromise article quality in any way. --Tony Sidaway 07:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

On Tony's advice above, I've made a few more edits, to remove the "may" permission language and to make the policy more neutral. As I said on the mediation page, since the anti-spoiler folks think there's broad consensus that spoiler tags are bad, granting more leeway to local editors shouldn't (in their eyes) lead to a lot of new spoiler tags. Please consider my edits seriously before reverting — I think they're representative of a broader compromise. (Essentially, I tried to tone down the "You have this option — but you really shouldn't do it" language.) --Jere7my 12:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony, if you're going to revert my edit, leave the "might" in there — "may" implies that people need someone's permission to add spoiler tags. As for the rest of it, if you believe that there is widespread consensus against spoiler tags, my revisions won't lead to "indiscriminate sprinkling" of tags — they won't survive the consensus. --Jere7my 12:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think "may" and may not" are pretty plain, but feel free to move it back. Widespread consensus or no, simple entropy will put them back into articles about fairy tales if we're not careful. I've popped some wording in to make sure that consensus rules. No automatic popping of spoiler tags in "because I think this ending is particularl significant." --Tony Sidaway 12:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I've heard, the only fairy tale spoiler tag was inserted as a joke by an anonymous IP (in Three Little Pigs). It went unnoticed for a long time, but I don't think we actually need to worry about fairy tales acquiring spoiler tags. If it was more widespread than that, let me know. --Jere7my 17:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I appreciate you taking my edits seriously, and I agree with your consensus language. I do think the "history headings" and the "fairy tales" bits are overspecifying — sensible editors should be able to figure them out on a case-by-case basis, and I think they only still exist because of historically isolated cases. I don't expect them to come up very often, and including them may give the impression we're trying to cover all bases. But *shrug*. --Jere7my 18:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Many, many fairy tales had spoiler tags on them and if you look at the discussions over the past month you'll even see people openly advocating this practice. Until about mid-May some editors were adding spoiler tags to newly created articles about fairy tales. --Tony Sidaway 14:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the justification for including this in the guideline: "Do not make home-made spoiler warnings using plain text?"

Templates are helpful tools, but I'm not used to seeing templates that are required to be used. Does this just make it easier for editors to search for all spoiler warnings across the encyclopedia, and remove them by automated process?zadignose 11:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, to put it bluntly it keeps the articles clear of inappropriate and extremely unprofessional clutter. This has been part of the guideline for some years now. --Tony Sidaway 11:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this a 'bright line' case? What happened to the 'no hard rules' philosophy?--Nydas^(Talk) 11:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a "bright line" case, and an appropriate one. "Spoilers on all articles about recent fiction" is an example of an inappropriate one, for obvious reasons. --Tony Sidaway 11:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

My proposed alternative did not insist on spoiler tags on all recent fiction, it said they may be used. It was not a hard rule. The 'no bright lines' philosophy, with its subjective interpretations, isn't a Wikipedia policy and has no role in forming this guideline.--Nydas^(Talk) 12:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wishful thinking. --Tony Sidaway 12:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean?--Nydas^(Talk) 13:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, from all standpoints home-made spoiler warnings shouldn't be used. I know some people here are worried over the whole AWB thing, but if you have custom warnings several things happen:

• global changes to the template would not be feasible on the pages without the template.
• the look and feel would change from the accepted template, thereby making it possible the following content would not be considered a spoiler (in other words, makes it more confusing and easy to miss)
• if spoilers were banned outright for some reason, or a significant change in the spoiler guidelines changed how they were used (like they were no longer redundant in the plot summary, but shouldn't be used in the lead), it would be very hard to change this. Maybe its not "a pillar of Wikipedia", but its common sense.

David Fuchs 18:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the above discussion, I've continued to wonder about this part of the guideline:

Do not improvise such warnings in plain text, always use the templates.

That sentence is bold in the guideline, and seems overly strong. What is the policy basis of this requirement?

I've reviewed a random selection of other editing guidelines and while many of them are quite specific on certain elements of style, I did not find any others that included a requirement that a template be used if a certain type of content is included by editors. Even with Wikiproject guidelines, the inclusions of Categories and Templates are most often stated as recommendations or suggestions rather than as requirements.

Even with charged issues such as warning users of vandalism, templates are not required but are provided only as a convenience. The vandalism warning template usage page here states the following:

They [the warning templates] are not a formal system that you have to use: they are a shortcut to typing, nothing more. If you cannot find a template that says what you want to say then go ahead and say it normally.

Based on the core policy of WP:Consensus, editors decide if, where, and how to use spoiler notices in the articles - just as Wikipedia allows editors to structure articles with headings and subheadings and info-boxes and all sorts of style components that are not controlled from a centralized guideline that requires certain templates to be used. As a guideline, WP:SPOILER helps editors to make these choices with regard to spoiler notices. It should provide the option, but not require the use of the templates. --Parzival418 _Hello 20:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No other sort of style or maintenance template can be replaced with a handmade warning - think of {{unreferenced}}, {{fact}}, etc. Moreover, having this as a template allows mirrors to ignore it, and should allow individual users to hide it by CSS if its set up correctly. I removed the claim in the guideline that hand made warnings are acceptable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've not seen any policy on Wikipedia that prohibits the use of plain text to indicate issues like "unreferenced" or "citation needed". In warning templates for talk pages (granted, that is not article mainspace), the template instructions specifically indicate they may be replaced by plain text. If you know of a policy that states that the use of templates rather than plain text is required for style elements, I would be interested to see that - would you please provide the Wikilink?

Regarding the reasons you listed that templates may be better - CSS hiding of the notices and mirrors ignoring them - those are valid points. However there are valid arguments for accepting plain text notices as well. For example: making the notices less obvious or less disruptive to the flow of the articles; customizing the notices to the content of a particular article; and other reasons that others have discussed above.

It's not obvious that technical template notices are always better - there is not consensus on that, at this point. --Parzival418 _Hello 18:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I realized that Funpika is right: the fundamental problem here is that some people want spoiler warnings and some people don't. So here is a possible technical compromise I would accept, and think it is acceptable even to the most hardcore opposers of spoiler warnings:

• The spoiler warning template will use a special CSS style, which will make it invisible in default CSS (invisible by default), but it will be possible to turn it on.
• Anyone can add spoiler warnings anywhere in the article, within the limits of the old guideline (April 2007).
• The massive removal of spoiler warnings will not be reverted in any way (I don't think it's possible anyway), but no one will patrol articles to remove spoiler warnings in the future.

So if you don't like spoiler warnings, you will not see them at all. If you want them, there will be a way how to enable them. Samohyl Jan 06:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• • While this would be the best way, I just don't see it happening. Spoiler warnings would have to become so embedded into Wikipedia that they wouldn't even be user-added any more. It would involve site reprogramming that, frankly, I don't think will happen. JimmyBlackwing 06:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

In April 2007, there was a howto in the guideline how to switch the spoiler warnings off. So if it was possible then, it should be possible now. Samohyl Jan 07:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this, especially from the pro-spoiler point of view (which if you've been paying attention, you know I am not included in this), is that it would defeat the purpose of having the warning at all. Why? Well, one of the major objections to no spoilers is that the "average person" would expect a warning. My turning them off be default, this doesn't help said average person. So it ends up being a pointless extra that few will use, and take up more resources than needed -- not to mention, with so few using them, few will be added in the first place. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Melodia, it's a compromise (before April, it was possible to switch warnings off, but people like you didn't like it). Those who want spoiler warnings will just turn it on (you turn it on Wikipedia-wide, so you will not need to read the article containing spoilers before that), and then they can browse happily. So it doesn't defeat the purpose. To Tony - as I said - it's a compromise. I don't understand why it should be unacceptable for you - you won't see the warnings. How's that incompatible with providing free information for everyone? It seems that you are more interested in imposing your own will to others (removing spoiler warnings to others) than your own interests (not seeing the spoiler warnings). Samohyl Jan 13:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you read my comment at ALL? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you don't like in my answer. If you would be completely selfish, you wouldn't have any problem with my compromise, and me neither, and that's the point. But you say not many people would use the feature or that it's not useful, I disagree. You cannot really tell how many people want it or judge usefulness of something for them. Many people added spoiler warnings before this guideline, and they obviously have read the spoiler before doing so. If this would be accepted, maybe there will be a group of people who will turn it on and start adding spoiler warnings for the others, won't step on freedom of anyone else and that will be it. Samohyl Jan 14:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I'll say it again. One of the main arguments for the pro-spoiler crowd is that a lot of people come across Wikipedia through a search engine (try Googling a number of terms -- WP is near or even on top a LOT). Much of the argument is that "people don't expect to be spoiled, because it's online". They don't read the content disclaimer. Etc. Thus, if the warnings are off by default, all these people won't know about them in the first place . While it's true that yes, it's clear some people would love to be able to choose, the knowledge of the ability has to be there in the first place. With what you're proposing, it's not all that likely. So as I said, it's a waste of resources (possibly, I don't know what would have to be changed) for something that would very likely work worse. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Still, when you get a result on Google it clearly identifies itself as coming from Wikipedia. Then you follow through to it, and you get the article. Even if you haven't read the content disclaimer, you should, by this point, know that you're on WIkipedia. I think we've reached the point where most people know, bascally, what that means. There may be some who get spoiled once or twice because they don't realize that Wikipedia doesn't have spoiler warnings in general, but I expect these people of being capable of learning. Phil Sandifer 16:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to look at it from the perspective of someone who actually uses SWs, look at it this way: The current guideline means no spoiler warnings at all. So even if they have to be enabled, the users of SWs will be better off with this compromise. Samohyl Jan 16:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is that this is still a proposal to further clutter our encyclopedia with encumbrances that have no place in an encyclopedia. People who come to Wikipedia expecting us to connive in their wish to remain ignorant are suffering from a fundamental misconception about what kind of project this is. They should be gently discouraged from trying to use our website in a way that is incompatible with our mission. --Tony Sidaway 12:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I see your problem, Tony. You believe that Wikipedia's credibility is somehow dependent on the fact if there are the spoiler warnings or not. But we could likewise say that its credibility depends on how many articles about Starcraft or Doctor Who is there. But the people are not as stupid as you think - they will judge the credibility by other factors, such as if the information here is true or not, and not by stupid criteria such as "contains spoiler warnings" or "contains articles about Star Trek". After all, if they really do this, they deserve their error in judgment. Samohyl Jan 13:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't about credibility, but rather, another attempt to inflict self-referential clutter upon Wikipedia content without good reason. --Tony Sidaway 13:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, and secondarily, it's still remarkably out of line with precedent in other areas. Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy has no warning or disclaimer templates. This is, empirically, some of the most potentially upsetting content we have on Wikipedia, since people have killed each other over it. If that does not merit a disclaimer or warning tag (and I think you'd be reverted in seconds if you tried to add one) then it is ridiculous to suggest that the plot of a random Smallville episode does. Phil Sandifer 13:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It has been argued many times before why this is different. I really can't understand people wanting to censor themselves from nudity or religious things, because I don't have this need (and frankly, I believe most of them want censor others for power). But I can explain why I am willing to self-censor myself (not the articles, mind you!) from spoilers - because I want ultimately to know that information, not from Wikipedia article, but from the original source (though I still may want to read the plot in Wikipedia later). I think this is the reason why SWs are special case. Samohyl Jan 14:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that wanting warnings to aid in self-censorship for the things you support self-censoring yourself from, but not for things you "can't understand" is much more of a power grab than the position of "Let's just not get into the censorship business." Phil Sandifer 15:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that is a power grab? From whom? Myself? I am talking about self-censorship, not censorship. I just said I cannot comment on people who want to censor other things, therefore, to me it is not the same thing, because the while I cannot understand the self-censorship from nudity, I can understand the self-censorship from spoilers. You probably don't understand neither, and that's fine, as long as you are willing to admit there exist people who want to be self-censored. Samohyl Jan 16:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If someone wanted to self-censor for religion, or to make Wikipedia safe for their kids, etc., we would never add tags to allow it. Why should we do so with spoiler tags but not for issues that are truly divisive? Recall WP:ISNOT#CENSORED. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I keep asking people that myself, and the only answers have been odd senseless mishmash about "since hiding the other warnings would be bad, but not the spoiler warnings, the spoiler ones are ok!", or "it's not censorship, it's informing!". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tags don't hide anything. The sole reason we don't have other tags is that the vast bulk of our 'objectionable' content is on the level of something you'd find in an art gallery or sex education booklet. We don't even have any photos for sexual intercourse.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm Talking about this bit of sillyness. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you answer the question that the thought experiment poses?

I've noticed that some people call things silly when they refuse to take an obvious point, but can't think of a logical response. Milo 02:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Melodia, it's really simple. Like the law cannot fit into a single rule, the Wikipedia rules also cannot fit into single rule, because the world is complex. You're trying to generalize something that is by many considered two different things, that's it. You may think it's not logical, and it may be true (although I explained the reason why for me it is different), but that isn't an argument for not having two rules. The laws for people are not laws of physics and may cover different cases with different inconsistent rules, if the rules fit the general "feeling" of the people better. Samohyl Jan 03:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

(←) A tag at the top of articles with pictures of Muhammad wouldn't hide anything, either, but such tags have been soundly rejected here. Why is it that spoilers warrant a tag but images of Muhammad (which sparked a global controversy and have the potential to spark riots and murders) do not? — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Our article on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy uses reduced size images of the cartoons (i.e. it censors them), apparently for copyright reasons, although it's pretty obvious that every one of those cartoons is fair use. Our articles on Muhammad and Bahá'u'lláh have their pictures shunted down so as not to offend anyone.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

As the above-linked thought experiment demonstrates, there is no danger, so spoiler tags are not bone fide warnings. That's dramatic hyperbole. They are actually a content notice like disambiguation notices and the content box.

The incorrect term "warning" is long gone from the tag itself, and needs to be removed from the guideline, to be replaced by the accurate term "notice". Then the debate can stop getting sidetracked by this "warning" red herring.

The subject was the technical compromise. The objections have come down to 'we don't like the way spoiler tags look when they are default visible' and 'we think they might not be used if they are default invisible'. However, apparently 40% of editors/readers would like to use them. They are probably several ways to make the 40% aware that spoiler tags can be activated. But then the objection is 'we want those 40% to not use Wikipedia because we don't like the image spoiler tagging gives to readers'. What image is that? Basically, the Wikipedia-as-Britannica illusion that died on March 22, 2007:

March 22 NBC Nightly News. Wikipedia charged with bad information.

Also see Wikipedia will never be as Britannica, period.

The Wikipedia-as-Britannica illusion blocks spoiler tag technical compromise, in order to get rid of unwanted readers. Milo 02:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It;s more like 40% of people who ended up at a page more likely to be frequented by those who want them to stay. If they wanted them gone, or didn't care either way, there's a far less chance they would have gone out of their way to goto that page, now isn't there? And I don't see what the NBC thing has any relevence to all this. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 03:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"don't see what the NBC thing has any relevence to all this" As I gather it, the original goal of Wikipedia was to become a reference encyclopedia as respected and authoritative as Britannica. So that meant doing things the way Britannica does them. Britannica doesn't have spoiler notices, so that motivated the clique to get rid of them.

The NBC story was a watershed announcement: Academia is in process of concluding that Wikipedia is too unpredictably unreliable to cite in academic research, even for college undergrads who are otherwise allowed to cite encyclopedias. Unpredictable unreliability is inherent to the Wikipedia project model. That means Wikipedia will never become a citable reference encyclopedia as respected and authoritative as Britannica.

Prior to the March 22, 2007 watershed, the as-Britannica modeling made some kind of sense, even if one thought spoiler tags weren't a significant problem. Now, intensely modeling Britannica is just a futile pursuit of a vanished dream. Therefore, there is no longer any realistic it's-not-like-Britannica reason to prevent the use of spoiler tags at Wikipedia.

The even weaker justifications for not allowing the technical compromise of hidden tags has exposed an as-Britannica clique elitism of wanting only some supposed better class of readers. That better class may have flirted with Wikipedia for a few years, but they will now be heading back to Britannica. Milo 06:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a connection between Wikipedia's reliability (or lack thereof) and spoiler tags. "Wikipedia is worse than Britannica, so it doesn't matter if it is made even worse by using silly tags" doesn't seem to be a good argument for spoiler tags any more than "Wikipedia is less reliable than Britannica, so we don't need to spell correctly" is one against spellchecking articles. Kusma (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"I don't see a connection between Wikipedia's reliability (or lack thereof) and spoiler tags." The hoped-for 'better class' of Wikipedia-as-Britannica readers, that were presumed to not want spoiler tags, are departing back to Britannica due to WP's unpredictable unreliability. So as-Britannica elitism is obsolete as a reason to oppose open or hidden spoiler tags.

"we don't need to spell correctly" Statistical 0% of editors/readers want misspellings. On the other hand, 40%+ of 'declasse' editors/readers want spoiler tags which they believe are not silly and do not make Wikipedia worse. So serve them something, even if they have to turn on the hidden tags that you will not see. Milo 18:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine. So is this proposal acceptable for you or not? You will not see the silly tags. Samohyl Jan 17:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Re Milo: I think you are confused about the goal of WP, which is still to produce a top-quality encyclopedia. The fact that WP can't be cited as a source is nothing new – no encyclopedia can be cited as a source in college courses, including Brittanica and WP. Nevertheless I personally see researchers who use WP as a source to start reading about things. Reports of WP failing are exaggerated at best. In many technical areas, our coverage is much better than Britannica.

Re Samohyl Jan: The CSS method used to hide data is disfavored because it doesn't work with complete reliability across various platforms, screen readers, and such. Moreover, it wouldn't work for unregistered (IP) users, who can't set preferences. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Default CSS would hide them, so unregistered users wouldn't see the tags. True, the platforms incapable of CSS would render the spoiler warnings, but they are really a tiny minority (3% perhaps?). I believe that even modern PDAs/mobile phones can handle basics of CSS. Samohyl Jan 18:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"no encyclopedia can be cited as a source in college courses You must be confused — the March 22 Wikinews article [2] cites sources that state otherwise.

"In many technical areas, our coverage is much better than Britannica" That's not the academic issue. Basic fact reliability at WP is unpredictable, no matter how brilliant is the coverage here and there. I guess WP could be renamed "The encyclopedia of jackpot better coverage."

"the goal of WP, which is still to produce a top-quality encyclopedia" Three questions are: (1) top-quality for whom?, and (2) if WP is inherently unpredictably unreliable, is "top-quality" now meaningless in the WP context?, (3) if meaningless, what are the new goals?

Draft answers are: (1a) whoever is left that wants to read Wikipedia; (1b) the dreaded declasse "encroaching internet culture"; (2) "top-quality" and unpredictable unreliability are mutually incompatible; and (3) "WP should be good enough for background research and infotainment reading".

"The CSS method" Those are technical issues that can be resolved following consensus. Start with using what's available, then set a goal to gradually implement technical improvements that will work for any user. Milo 19:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

As a college instructor who teaches a number of writing courses intended to introduce students to the nature of scholarly research, a couple of things to note here. First, the biggest problem most of us have with citing Wikipedia is not that it leads to errors but that it leads to laziness. Students who cite Wikipedia often do so to the exclusion of other sources, including primary sources, and often don't look at article history or evaluate the Wikipedia article as a living document. Since, at the college level, our job is to teach critical thinking skills and careful research, it tends to be beneficial to forbid Wikipedia, not because it's inherently unreliable, but because we want to force students to move beyond it. And, indeed, a number of high profile academics have endorsed using Wikipedia in various ways - Alan Liu has written a very thoughtful document on how students should use Wikipedia, for instance, and Nick Montfort has, tongue only slightly in cheek, suggested that Wikipedia can be used if you cite all of the authors fo the article by handle - a sort of social reinforcement that I, at least, find quite clever.

In any case, my point is that it's far from clear that the Middlebury College history department ban on citing Wikipedia indicates the death of any sort of dream, or that it's even particularly significant. Our goal remains academic respectability, and that goal is something we've made great progress towards. Phil Sandifer 20:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"Middlebury College history department ban on citing Wikipedia ... that it's even particularly significant" As opposed to rank partisan debate skills, I hope you don't teach critical thinking by example of the misleadingly-selective source minimization in which you just engaged. The Wikinews article mentions not just Middlebury College history department, but also "individual professors at other schools, including UCLA and the University of Pennsylvania"[3]. Their MSNBC source (The word on Wikipedia: Trust but verify) also indirectly quotes a journalism professor at Columbia University: "And for students whose research will be graded by real, honest-to-goodness experts in the classroom, that is probably too big a risk, said Sree Srinivasan..."

Furthermore, the article lead reads, "Many professors at universities throughout the United States have recently adopted policies prohibiting Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia, from being used as a primary source in reports." Are you claiming this lead is unreliable reporting? If so, Wiki project reporting may be too unpredictably unreliable to cite even within Wikipedia itself, eh? Milo 22:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The MSNBC article makes clear that the UCLA and UPenn policies are mirrors of the Middlebury policy. In all cases, the motivation is likely to be similar - an attempt to force the students to use better and more challenging sources. Virtually all academics I have ever spoken to or read about note that Wikipedia is usually reliable. But in college classes we tend to ask our students to adhere to standards similar to those we adhere to in our own research. We would never cite Wikipedia. Nor should they. That Britannica and other sources are seen as acceptable is unfortunate - but it's less praise of Britannica than an unfortunate caving to the fact that the least common denominator of student research has shifted. It used to be that lazy students used Britannica. Now they use Wikipedia. In all cases, the goal is the same - forbid the laziest approach to encourage better ones. Phil Sandifer 22:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"less praise of Britannica than an unfortunate caving" My research agrees with your position on this point. I found that the Middlebury History Department doesn't allow citing encyclopedias by long-standing policy. Stunning as it seems to me, they weren't enforcing it; Wikipedia just slipped in through the cracks.

While you do not, the rest of the world seems to think this story is significant. Prof. Neil Walters wrote about his Wikipedia banning resolution:

"The history department always has held students responsible for accuracy, and does not consider general encyclopedias of the bound variety to be acceptable for citation either. But Wikipedia seemed worth mentioning by name because it is omnipresent and because its "open-source" method of compilation makes it a different animal from, say, the Encyclopedia Britannica." --The Middlebury Campus Issue date: 4/11/07 Section: Opinions

(and Walters continued as to how his 6-minute resolution became #1 news in online hits at NYT, then global news).

That pushes the Wikipedia vs. Britannica comparison down to the high school level. There was only one hint about that in The Middlebury Campus:

"'Wikipedia's not a citable source,' said Peter [surname omitted] '09. 'I knew that in high school.'" --The Middlebury Campus Issue date: Issue date: 1/24/07 Section: News

Peter would have been a high school senior circa 2005, and around that time I recall news of high school teachers warning students to not cite the internet. In Peter's high school class, Wikipedia was apparently no exception just because it is called an encyclopedia.

Here's an unscientific survey about Wikipedia reliability linked to the Daniels/MSNBC story:

MSNBC Live survey (web accessed 2007-07-03)

Do you trust Wikipedia? * 4101 responses

Yes. Millions of contributors means the truth eventually emerges.

18%

No. It's too easy to slip falsehoods onto the site.

34%

Pretty much, but only as a starting point on the way to more credible research.

49%

Not a scientific survey. Click to learn more. Results may not total 100% due to rounding.

This survey doesn't suggest that anything like academic respectibility for Wikipedia exists, and given the unreliable unpredictability of the project model, I have no reason to believe that it ever will. That you and the clique believe otherwise, I can only label a dream or illusion.

Is Wikipedia good enough for the typical non-academic use? Surely so, so why not spoiler tags?

Should Wikipedia serve the "encroaching internet culture"? Ultimately, I doubt that there is a choice. Milo 04:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Samohyl Jan, I think your compromise is fine. Please, somebody, anybody, launch a COMPROMISE. I'm so tired of various participants in these debates sticking to their guns and refusing to budge. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 19:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Although anybody didn't strictly opposed this, I think it will be resisted, but I'll give it a shot anyway. Samohyl Jan 01:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been requested this non-encyclopaedic template be moved. Matthew 10:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, it's been requested, but the discussion there is running about 3:1 against the move, so consensus to move seems unlikely. The claim that the tag is non-encyclopaedic has come in for some strong opposition there too. Andrewa 02:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ummmm

So people keep dropping by Memories of Matsuko and remove the spoiler tag with various and assundry reasons not listed in the WP:SPOILER policy.

Sethie replies, pointing this out, then they don't reply, Sethie waits a week, puts the tag in then another person comes by and does the same thing over again. Sethie replies, pointing out that they are not listing reasons contained within the policy. they are silent, then another user comes by.

So Sethie's request of the wikipedia community is:

Will someone re-write this policy so it is actually workable- whether to include or exclude spoilers?

Will some people who are neutral on the whole spoiler thing- come by the Memories of Matsuko page and help us decide what to do. This is getting old! Sethie 01:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Meh, it's a moot point for that page. Just removed the whole section due to copyright violation. --- RockMFR 02:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to discuss individual cases on this page. Discuss problems pertaining to an article on the talk page of that article. --Tony Sidaway 13:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

First, the point is not moot. There is now a summary which doesn't violate copyright, and the same issues of the spoiler warning remain. Second, I for one am interested in seeing how this guideline, and the actions of various editors are impacting real articles. It's not just an academic debate. Third, the editor on that page has a valid point. We actually don't have a guideline that clearly calls for the removal of spoiler tags on that article, and the editors who have come in to change the article don't have any real interest in the article or the film it describes. They simply want to remove all spoiler tags. The best approach would be to first establish a viable guideline, then get articles in line with the existing guideline.zadignose 01:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Sethie agrees with Tony, this the page to discuss the large issues. Sethie still would like to see any NEUTRAL people (people who are on the fence about spoilers) to come to the Memory of Matsuko page and discuss the application of this policy there. Sethie believes he is following the policy and believes those who are removing it are not... and he would like further opinions. Sethie 01:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I dropped by Memories of Matsuko. Am I NEUTRAL? No. If you review my comments here and on other arbitration/mediation/brawl pages on the issue, you'll see that I'm still in favor of judiciously positioned spoiler tags. But I'm getting soft on the arguments against them, and now favor on the side of withholding them in Plot sections except in extreme cases. Take a look at The Yakuza, there are some surprises towards the end that spoil the tension at the outset, but still, a Plot section is intended to divulge storyline developments, and not hide anything. Remember please, that WP is not a fan site, nor advertising, so we're discouraged from "hiding" plot details as you would in an advertisement or subjective review. In the case of your page, I think the spoiler warning is not justified. And I think some of the edit summaries for removals were unnecessarily terse; I still feel that those removing the tag are obligated to specify the reason (not just "per guideline"), as those reinstating it are obligated to give compelling/persuasive/supportable reasons for restoring the tag. I hope I've helped there.... If you wish to respond to me on this issue, please do so on the article's talk page -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 21:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The arguments are set out in the spoiler guideline. I suppose they could be cut'n'pasted into the edit summary or onto the talk page each time ... or just link to the page - David Gerard 22:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Or, in theory, you could actually think about the article you're removing tags from.zadignose 00:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Or, let me make that more explicit, you could actually think about the article you're editing. Here you are espousing the editing of an article without looking at it, and simply cutting and pasting some "argument" from a guideline that shouldn't be full of arguments, but actually should be clear and explicit on the matter. If a guideline states explicitly "no one should use spoiler warnings," then yeah, you can just point to it when removing a spoiler warning. But if the guideline doesn't explicitly forbid the use of a warning on a particular article, and an editor has posted a defensible explanation as to why a warning should be used, you can't just shrug your shoulders and point to an ambiguous guideline to justify your edits. It's time to think about the edits your making, or get a better guideline.zadignose 00:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not always necessary to point to a guideline - in the case of that article, the general principle that a plot section shouldn't need a spoiler tag has been brought up several times, and nobody seems to have a strong argument why that article is exceptional. The guideline reflects this argument, but in the end guidelines are never written with no exceptions, wikilawyering is not well respected, and it's up to editors on an article-by-article basis to decide on the content, following site-wide consensus. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not it is always necessary to point to a guideline, in fact this guideline is being pointed to as the reason for an article edit (or perhaps tens of thousands of edits). As I pointed out in the article talk page, this guideline offers absolutely no guidance on what would constitute an exception to the "usual" case where warnings are considered redundant, and it's not explicit enough on when such "redundancy" is grounds for removing a spoiler tag. As for the idea that "guidelines are never written with no exceptions," if that's the case then I think it's time to remove the text "fairy tales should never have spoiler warnings." As for "wikilawyering," I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I don't think that's a good description of what I see as asking for clear guidance. Regarding decisions made by editors on an article-by-article basis, this seems a strong argument against edits made by automated process, or maintained by editors who haven't even begun to consider the individual merits of the articles they are editing.zadignose 04:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As for the idea that "guidelines are never written with no exceptions," if that's the case then I think it's time to remove the text "fairy tales should never have spoiler warnings." - I concur with this statement from zadignose. By way of illustrating the problem with that part of the guideline: Who decides if a particular story is a fairy tale or not? For example, Peter Pan is a novel, not a historical fairy tale. But parents tell it to their kids like a fairy tale. So, which is it, fairy tale or novel? Who decides? --Parzival418 _Hello 00:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering why the nutshell banner says Only put such warnings in articles about fictional subjects as this is inconsistent with the text of the page, which only says they should be avoided (whatever that means) in articles about non-fictional subjects. — The Storm Surfer 19:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Both wordings mean that we really don't want to go back to having these silly tags on articles about non-fictional subjects. --Tony Sidaway 23:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't seem inconsistent to me. "Should be avoided" basically sounds like "don't do it."

Here's something to consider: Let's say we gain consensus that the guideline will state that spoiler alerts are to be minimized and we list situations where they are not wanted. We update the guideline and remove the page headers that say the guidline is disputed, ready for all to refer to the page as a style guideline.

Does that give the right to editors not involved in a particular article to remove the spoiler alerts without discussion? Certainly, we can be WP:BOLD and do so, but if an editor on that page reverts it and puts the spoiler tag back, then we abide by policy of WP:CONSENSUS, which trumps the guideline. Before continuing to re-delete the spoiler alerts, discussion and consensus on that article page is needed. The discussion can refer to the guideline, but the consensus determines the result - for that one page anyway.

In fairness and respect, it seems to me that whatever is decided about the guideline, editors not familiar with an article should not visit to remove a spoiler template without at least saying hello first and talking about it. For example, a boilerplate note could be placed on the talk pages, such as

Request for Comment on Spoiler Alert

There's a spoiler template on this article page that in my view does not conform to the guideline at WP:SPOILER. I plan to remove the spoiler alert in one week unless editors here do not agree. So please enter discussion here. If there is no discussion, I'll remove the template in a week. If there is discussion, I'll wait to find out what the consensus is for keeping or removing the tag. Please review the guideline and enter comments here.

Or, to automate it, we could handle it like the {{PROD}} template. Put it at the top of the article and track for follow-up by category, like the {{PROD}} template does. If an article editor removes the tempalte within 5 days, then discussion about the spoiler alerts can take place before removing them. If the spoiler-alert deletion notice stays up for 5 days with no contest, then go back and remove the spoiler alerts, fair and square.

Just some thoughts... comments invited. --Parzival418 _Hello 01:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with this proposal wholeheartedly, the current guidelines require consensus before a spoiler tag is added (and almost no articles currently have spoiler tags), rendering it somewhat meaningless. It would have been useful a few weeks ago when Tony Sidaway and co. were using their own brand of "consensus" to remove all reinstated spoiler tags. Philip Reuben 01:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to note my support for the reinstated "disputed" tag. The article is clearly still under dispute. Philip Reuben 01:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with keeping the disputed tag on the guideline page until a clear consensus emerges for removing it.

Even after the guideline is clarified, whatever it states in the consensed version, the editors on any given topic page have the right to create their own consensus about how or if they will include spoiler alerts, according to Wikipedia core policy. --Parzival418 _Hello 02:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Philip Reuben 11:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that this guideline is deficient. Perhaps some of you agree. I can only see two reasonable ways forward from where we are:

A) We can simply abolish the use of spoiler warnings. This approach is consistent, and easily maintained. Most of the arguments as to why spoiler warnings are inappropriate in an encyclopedia actually suggest this categorical approach.

B) We can offer guidance on where spoiler tags are appropriate. Currently the guideline completely fails on this point. It is clear in opposing spoiler tags on non-fictional subjects, and fairy tales. It tells us several cases where tags should not be used. It generally seems to suggest that spoiler tags are not a good thing. But it also suggests that there are cases where tags are appropriate, and tells us how to add the tags, without giving any guidance as to where they can or should be used. It's been suggested in some of the discussions above that the guideline needs to give good examples of where the tags are appropriate. I think that's obvious. Unless, or course, we go for option A, and simply rule against all applications of the spoiler tags. What is not appropriate is to hint that there are places where the tags can be used, without offering any guidance whatsoever as to where these places are.zadignose 01:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the technical compromise I described above? I also would like to remark that current guideline mostly abolishes spoiler warning because "no SWs in plot sections or such" covers 99% of use cases. Samohyl Jan 01:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't it seem like a method requiring regular readers to seek technical solutions would end up not being used by the regular readers? Maybe I'm not understanding your idea... ?? --Parzival418 _Hello 03:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The proposed technical compromise doesn't seem correct to me, as it's really just a content fork. I think the most important consideration is what to do with this Wikipedia, the one that everyone sees.zadignose 03:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It may be true, but for people who actually want the spoiler warnings, I believe it's better than to have no tags (which is, I think, what the current guideline is about). It's a compromise, so it has shortcomings. And btw, I wouldn't oppose more customization of the Wikipedia in the future, I consider it as a good thing, as long as it doesn't hurt the performance too much. Samohyl Jan 07:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

We can simply abolish the use of spoiler warnings. I don't believe this is possible. We can abolish the template and we can state in the guideline that the use of spoiler alerts is deprecated, but the editors writing articles about fiction they personally care about are sure to insert spoiler warnings anyway. If we delete the templates from the pages, which we can do by searching for them, or if we blank the template content to remove its display on the pages, the spoiler alerts will resurrect themselves in plain text or custom warning boxes, because the editors of those pages will want to protect the stories.

I'm not making a judgment on this, I'm just expressing the pragmatic idea that it will happen anyway, whatever we decide to write in this guideline.

We can offer guidance on where spoiler tags are appropriate. Currently the guideline completely fails on this point. I concur. The best we can do - in my humble opinion - is to come up with a guideline that co-ordinates how the editors use the spoiler alerts so we have a consistent look and feel across Wikipedia.

The most effective points that I see in the guideline as it now appears are these:

• Omit spoilers in articles about non-fiction works - that seems self-evident to me.
• The section titled "Unacceptable alternatives" - I agree those methods should not be used - technical tricks like hiding text by making it white, etc... Especially, this I feel is an important point that should stay in the guideline:

One should not be Deleting relevant and significant, neutral and verifiable information about a narrative work from an article about that work "because it's a spoiler".

Otherwise though, my recommendation is to focus the guideline on helping editors format the spoiler alerts in the most effective way, so there is minimal disruption of the articles and Wikipedia looks good and easy to read. If we tell editors not to warn readers when spoilers are approaching, it won't work, they'll do it anyway, and the articles will get messy. --Parzival418 _Hello 03:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The idea that people who have edited an article in the past have any precedence over other editors is wrong. They may know more about the article than other editors, and if they do they can bring that knowledge to bear in the discussion. But they don't, no really, they don't, have more say in editing than any other editor. --Tony Sidaway 03:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

To further Tony's point, see WP:OWN. Though I'm sure some of you will think certain people in this discussion violate that. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 03:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what this relates to. Where was it suggested that people who have edited an article in the past have precedence over other editors? Or was that from another section of this discussion?zadignose 04:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think they thought that's what I was saying about the articles where the tags were removed. But that is not what I meant. I'll clarify... --Parzival418 _Hello 04:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - prior editors on an article do not take precedence. I am familiar with WP:OWN and was not implying that should take place. Maybe I did not word my comment clearly.

I meant to suggest: it might be better to approach with politeness and respect for the people at those articles, in that they may have already put a lot of thought into whether or not the article should have a spoiler alert, and that they might be more familiar with the topics and have based their choices on that knowledge.

I was not implying that one must comply with a prior editor's demands, only that it might be better to discuss the issue first before deleting the spoiler alerts they placed; ie, to bring it up with the people editing the articles to see if they agree about removing the tags, to attain consensus about it. I was not saying this "must" be done, only that it might be a more positive approach. --Parzival418 _Hello 04:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

changes to the nutshell

I changed the nutshell from this:

to this:

I made this change because there is no policy that requires editors to "demonstrate consensus" in advance of making an edit, except perhaps in the limited situation of an edit war or RFC or other special circumstance under ongoing discussion. We are encouraged to edit boldly, then discuss for consensus if our edits are reverted, not the other way around.

If anyone disagrees with this approach, please elaborate. Thanks. --Parzival418 _Hello 07:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

changes to the second paragraph

The second paragraph included what seemed to be a biased claim that the word "spoiler" is not used by respected publishers of reviews and synopses, so I added an additional example to show that both forms are used. The example I included in the reference is IMDB, the world's largest database of movie summaries - they use this phrase to alert about spoilers:

View full synopsis. (warning! may contain spoilers)

Now that we have references that respected sources do use spoiler alerts, the conclusion of the paragraph needed to be modified as well. I added there a wikilink to Wikipedia policy on consensus. --Parzival418 _Hello 07:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

IMDB and Wikipedia have different goals, though. While a "teaser" summary could be acceptable there, it is obviously bad for an encyclopedia. Kusma (talk) 09:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, I agree. IMDB and Wikipedia do not have the same goals. Maybe I did not word my note above clearly. The quote I put there, View full synopsis. (warning! may contain spoilers) - was not on a teaser summary, it was a link by itself and until you click the link you don't see the story at all.

But that was not my point. My point was that they use the word "spoiler" and they warn you before you read the synposis. I only added IMDB as a reference because there was another similar database listed as a reference, supposedly to show that the word "spoiler" is not used. I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia should follow the customs of IMDB - only that there is no clear consensus among reliable sources that there is anything wrong with using that word to announce that there will be a spoiler coming up. And: that is what was written in the guideline before, based on the other similar reference, so I only added IMDB to balance that fairly, with a real world example. --Parzival418 _Hello 10:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It HAS been suggested by some people that editors who "never participated in the page" before shouldn't be allowed to remove the warnings. Which is clearly against WP:OWN. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

But don't you feel that it's against consensus, a far more important guideline IMHO, for a few people to travel to every spoiler debate and voting no, to add one (or collectively add several - again, I'm not alleging conspiracy here, but whether or not they collaborate the effect is the same) 'no' votes for any individual page, and, in effect, shouting down lots of individual editors on individual pages? In this way, 10 people can overrule hundreds on the implementation policy as a whole. I mean really, this seems to be fairly basic, and so far you've seemed to argue in relatively good faith, can you concede that? What do you think is an appropriate remedy for that? To me, putting some sort of guideline against that is the only fair and sensible way to do that. Without some sort of guideline, the only thing I can think of (before giving up meekly towards the technical superiority of those who want to quash spoilers), is for the pro-spoiler crowd to organize. Have each of us tackle one anti-spoiler person removing it, and have an assignment to counteract them, following their edit history reinstating spoilers where they remove it, voting yes where they vote no, to exactly balance out their negative impact and allow a true consensus to form. But to me, that seems against the spirit of wikipedia. At the same time, I'm getting a little weary of being on the side that obeys the spirit while those who don't trample over people. Please, why not reach some kind of sensible agreement on this issue? Wandering Ghost 11:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to quote the nutshell of WP:OWN: If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and within reason you should not prevent them from doing so. I think this case is outside of that "within reason", especially since (once again) the actual text of WP:OWN says nothing about this kind of situation, making it a tenuous link. Consensus policy is being abused to allow a small number of editors to override a large number of editors of different articles who are in agreement but whose voices don't count as a collective. In this situation, existing editors of a page should have precedence in deciding on spoiler tag placement purely to level the playing field. Philip Reuben 13:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that an existing consensus should override someone passing by, to a point, people were proposing to actually put IN THE POLICY that, essentially, "don't add or removes the tags if you never participated", which would make the policy pretty much void, not to mention certainly DOES go against WP:OWN. If the consensus truly IS to keep the warnings (or keep them off, even), then perhaps people should add inline comments to the effect . It's what often is done to keep external links stable, not to mention Final Fantasy VII for this pecific issue. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 14:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you mean by "inline comments". Could you give an example? Philip Reuben 14:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, is there any chance you could offer an opinion on the key idea that it is not really consensus if a small group of editors override a much larger number of individual editors on different pages over the same issue? Philip Reuben 14:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The logic here can be used against the anti-spoiler crowd easily. Spoilers have been on many articles on Wikipedia for years now. Isn't the fact that they weren't removed for so long consensus for them? Many editors do this on and off. Many editors also don't necessarily read/see every little edit to a page (my watch page scrolls by somewhat quickly), so they didn't notice it. I came here because I noticed on one page (the first I checked in fact), that it was reverted on the basis "it was removed before so we're keeping it this way" (paraphrased). Many editors don't want to get into a revert war, especially with this clique.

I have a simple way to see if there is true consensus. I'm posting this to Slashdot to get the word out and link to the relevant pages in the dispute to see where the consensus really lies. Nathan J. Yoder 08:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I also checked a random big mmovie page (The Matrix) just now to try to reinsert a spoiler, but apparently there is a user there who has reverted people reinserting the warning multiple times. Can someone point out to me a big movie where this hasn't happened? Where's the evidence that it isn't actually being reverted in so many articles? Nathan J. Yoder 08:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

First, consensus can change, and this is an example where it has. Second, what does the consensus of the Slashdot crowd have to do with Wikipedia consensus? Third, the guideline does allow for spoiler warnings if there is a good justification why the individual article should carry an (otherwise generally accepted as redundant or bad) disclaimer template. Kusma (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would not try to start campaigns on Slashdot, though it might be interesting if spoiler warnings on Wikipedia were given a story there. Njyoder is correct that the consensus against spoiler warnings doesn't exist.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that consensus against spoiler warnings exists in many cases (you know, the Bible, fairy tales, operas, Final Fantasy). There does not seem to be any consensus that spoiler warnings should be generally used in some classes of articles. Kusma (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

When were spoiler tags on the Bible?--Nydas^(Talk) 09:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is one. Kusma (talk) 09:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That one that lasted for 15 days on a relatively low traffic article. In general, biblical articles have not had spoiler warnings. It's an unrepresentative example.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

1. It's never been established that it was changed. Heck, it would seem that there are many users here arguing that there isn't such a change and there are only a few arguing against it. The actual number of pages for which it was reinserted hasn't beeen presented. The current estimate is "how many pages for which the anti-spoiler side won the edit war" and that's like saying "there is a revert war where the one side has more energy" is consensus. Until you can establish that it's a well known change or even give the percentage of articles where it was _not_ changed back at any point, that inference doesn't hold. Would you be opposed to a straw poll? It's certainly better than all of this guesswork based on "some indeterminate number haven't changed it back."

2. I'm posting to Slashdot to raise awareness, because it's not even clear that more than a few know about this change. A huge number of Slashdot readers have edited Wikipedia. 3. The spoiler warnings were removed wholesale regardless of justification and just from my quick check re-insertions in very legitimate places (like in The Matrix) are being reverted, so I don't see why you'r arguing about that aspect of the guideline. This isn't an argument over whether or not certain types of articles shouldn't include them, it's an argument over whether or not spoiler warnings should exist in the first place. Nathan J. Yoder 09:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read the RfC and its archives (several hundred K of discussions including multiple straw polls). These discussions established the change of consensus, and resulted in the new guideline. The discussions there clearly show that the old status quo was unacceptable and not supported by consensus (and violated a couple of more important guidelines (WP:LEAD) or policies (WP:NPOV). Kusma (talk) 09:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any straw polls there on the _existence of spoiler warnings all together_ (they were removed wholesale, without regard to guidelines), which is what is being argued above. Furthermore, those polls don't even seem to have consensus for what they're saying. Consensus isn't the same thing as having simple majority support either (large and continued disagreement is antithetical to consensus). Guidelines can't really violate other guidelines--they're the same "level" and they're guidelines for the very reason that they don't have to be applied. If they're inconsistent, you choose which is most suitable given the circumstance. I just looked and it seems the user User:Alientraveller is patrolling multiple articles to revert any attempt to reinsert spoiler warnings, which shows even further lack of consensus (his edits are challenged, but people just don't want to spend as much energy as he in an edit war).

What's interesting is that even without consensus, new things were inserted into the article like not using spoiler tags in 'plot' sections in spite of no consensus. The closes thing I see to demosntrating conensus is a simple majority, but even that straw poll is worded poorly. It equates "plot" with "synopsis," which clearly aren't the same--plot doesn't have to summarize at all and likewise, it could just include a non-spoiler summary; there's no official guideline dictating that a section titled 'plot' must be one way or the other. Nathan J. Yoder 09:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the first times anyone has asserted that the RfC reached a consensus. It doesn't make much sense, though, since the mass removals were started one day into the beginning of the RfC. Up until now, the 'consensus' was supported by the lack of 'significant resistance'. The closed-after-a-day MfD was used for the initial justification, but has since been quietly dropped as a rationale.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Nydas, could you please just explain what you're talking about? The RfC started more than a month ago. Were Tony and his "anti-spoiler brigade" removing the warnings on May 22? You're not really being clear with that. The MfD was closed because deletions shouldn't set policy. In other words, rather than put the warnings under the guillotine, you have a sensible discussion through regular channels. David Fuchs 13:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they were. Mass removals started in their dozens on May 15th and switched to AWB in their thousands on May 18th or 19th. The specific times are in Gerard's edit history [Will cause browser strain] approximately 28'000 contributions back. This was after WP:SPOILER was rewritten (by one side, etc., etc.,) but well before it had become a "guideline" instead of a "proposal." --Kizor 13:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we have this detail cleared up. It seems hard to argue that RfC showed consensus for a large-scale change at the time the change was made. Philip Reuben 14:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"I don't agree with this policy so I'm posting about it on Slashdot" is certainly a novel idea. I don't think it's likely to have much effect either way, however. Slashdot is not Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 12:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

More like "I don't think enough people are aware of this policy, so let's publicise it in a forum that may have a lot of Wikipedia editors present". It might make a difference, it might not. I have strong feelings on this subject but only discovered a few days ago that there was even a controversy, thanks to a friend complaining that he accidentally got spoiled on something. How many others out there like me are there, who would weigh in if only this issue had been better publicised (such as on the spoiler tag itself before the mass removals)? Who knows! Philip Reuben 12:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I find posting it on slashdot a strange variation, but the point is that he wants attention to this issue, so that you can get a clear view of how the community as a whole sees it, as opposed just to those violently interested in the Spoiler issue. Most users of wikipedia aren't active wikipedia editors who take interest in such things. Cayafas 12:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The mass changes were carried out over a period of about four weeks. There has been absolutely no significant opposition before, during or since. --Tony Sidaway 16:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd hope that most of us see through your rhetoric on this point by now, having seen the huge amount of argument during and after (in the MfD, RfC, RfM, spoiler template talk page and this talk page both recently and in the archives - I'm too lazy to hunt for links to all these right now, but you've certainly seen them all), as well as the many pages where editors reverted the changes made during this time (only to have them reverted again by the same few editors, of course). Philip Reuben 18:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"Absolutely ... no significant...." (David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) falls out of his chair, laughing himself to tears.)

So this is why I had the movie Die Hard partially spoiled for me before I realized what I was reading. Because some people think that spoiler warnings aren't needed!

Thanks, Wikipedia! Eztli 09:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Warning: Wikipedia may contain information. If you do not wish to learn, do not read it. >Radiant< 10:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning: People may want information other than the plot of a work of fiction. Cayafas 12:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Every post like this is further evidence that Wikipedia users prefer the use of spoiler tags. Philip Reuben 12:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really. For all anyone knows, there could be ten others who encountered the same thing and shrugged it off. They AREN'T going to goto any page and say "Hey! I learned something! Thanks for not trying to warm me off!". You're basically trying to proove a negative here. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It may seem unbelievable to some, but going to a WP:Spoiler page to complain about the cause of spoilertag-deletion is not a basic instinct. That fact that we see people doing this DOES say something. Every complaint actively made here is positive proof of discontent. Cayafas 12:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoever comes here is indeed in the minority. But we can't prove anything by casual users coming here and saying "I didn't like it", because as Melodia pointed out its hardly a good sample of any reliability. In other words, don't try and use statistics when the pool isn't surefire to begin with. The data and thus the conclusions will be erroneous. David Fuchs 12:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hence the need to get this issue out to the general public. Because frankly, these polarised discussions by a few people aren't a really good sample pool either - and neither were the polls that stood at the base of this policy. That being said, each and every post of this DOES illustrate the pro-spoilertag group's point: There is very likely to be a sizeable portion of the population who dislikes WP:Spoiler. The only way to check if this is indeed a silly, vocal minority, or just the tip of the iceberg of a large, silent majority - is by getting attention to this issue. Cayafas 12:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

While I said evidence rather than proof, I do feel that each of these comments holds more weight than simply "one person disapproved". Most Wikipedia users don't edit Wikipedia, many who do will keep their complaint silent rather than writing it down, and for all we know some of those might put their complaint in that article's talk page where none of us will see it rather than actively seeking out the non-linked article about spoiler tags. Also, if the numbers are large enough, some who would fall into the latter category will inevitably have been lucky enough so far to avoid unmarked spoilers. I agree with Cayafas that publicising this issue to get a better perspective on the numbers is very important. Philip Reuben 13:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Several of you have succeeded in changing my perspective on the Plot/synopsis/storyline sections, that is, spoiler tags are indeed redundant. I put on a "usability" cap and found that a diligent reader landing on a film article (my own area of interest and active participation) will likely expect to have the plot, down to surprises and twists, discussed in in a NPOV voice, IN THAT SECTION. Anyone with a moderate education can scroll past that section if s/he wishes not to learn about plot turns. Case in point, last night I watched Blood Diamond (film), and found the trailers did not adequately prepare me for the suspense and ambiguity about the characters' (Donny, Maddy(?)) motivations and goals. The film held me in suspense. But the Plot section of a WP article will probably provide the action points (and not make OR suppositions about character motivation or intentions). I still remain convinced of the spoiler tags validity in other sections where a casual (not regular) WP reader might not expect to find plot details or surprises.

I say this to a) add some moderate perspective to the continuing issue, and b) reassure some of the anti-spoiler parties that you can, and do, make compelling arguments to your POV so long as such arguments are not backed up with radical and controversial editing actions. ;) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 15:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Due to an unusual flurry of ill-advised edits during what's the night over here, I've had to largely revert the last eight or so edits. A couple specific reasons.

• The change to the nutshell does not reflect what the guideline says, and is an attempt to alter the meaning of the page away from the version that has consensus.
• The removal of "Wikipedia aspires to be a scholarly reference work" is simply in error. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are scholarly works.
• Scholarly works do not warn about spoilers in online journals either.
• IMDB is not a good comparison here. For one thing, we do not publish reviews, and so the comparison to publishers of reviews is immaterial. For another, IMDB is a fan/industry publication, not a scholarly one. Sight & Sound remains the relevant comparison here.

I did keep Nydas's reworking of the "other methods" section, and some of the nutshell reworking, including the removal of the suggestiont hat consensus must be obtained before making an edit. WP:BOLD says otherwise, and if nobody objects no consensus is needed. Phil Sandifer 13:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That edit seems good to me. The loss of focus due to last night's edits was palpable. The guideline should reflect actual practice and correctly describe the nature of our project. Comparing it to the likes of imdb in particular is inappropriate. --Tony Sidaway 13:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Out of general interest, didn't you say days ago that you'd be leaving this discussion and "go write a fucking encyclopedia"? --Kizor 13:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what makes Sight & Sound a "scholarly work". As far as I can tell from the website itself and the Wikipedia article, it is a magazine that publishes reviews. Philip Reuben 13:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sight and Sound is a magazine dedicated to serious commentary on film, published by the BFI, which (like British universities) holds a Royal Charter. Incidentally we should probably remove the lists of films from our article on that magazine, because the BFI probably owns the copyright.--Tony Sidaway 14:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at the article for Royal Charter and finding nothing than inherently suggests a work published by an organisation with a Royal Charter is scholarly. The BBC has a Royal Charter, but that doesn't mean Doctor Who or (to give a publication) the Radio Times is a scholarly work. This leaves the suggestion that it deals with "serious commentary on film", which is an entirely POV declaration both in itself and because it suggests that any "serious commentary" is necessarily scholarly. The Sight & Sound page calls it a magazine that publishes reviews, and it should be treated as such on this page as well. Philip Reuben 14:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make my point clear. That Sight and Sound is a serious publication is evident. A more appropriate BBC comparison would be with the now-defunct magazine, The Listener. Radio Times is merely a listings magazine. --Tony Sidaway 14:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that you're making a point at all. Which of these new items suggests that Sight & Sound is a scholarly work? Philip Reuben 14:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That it is a serious work is evident. I won't entertain quibbles about the applicability of words like "scholarly". --Tony Sidaway 15:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Accordingly, I've changed the word "scholarly" to "serious" in the guideline. --Tony Sidaway 15:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You edited before I made my reply below. I still take issue with the idea that Sight & Sound is exempt from the "reviews" clause (though you're free to disagree with Phil Sandifer's original statement that "we do not publish reviews, and so the comparison to publishers of reviews is immaterial"). Also, I feel that the word "serious" is a vague and far-reaching term of little relevance to Wikipedia and its goals, and find it much less suitable to the article than "scholarly". I propose that it should be changed back. Our priority should not be rewording the article to justify an unsuitable reference. Philip Reuben 15:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not a quibble, it's crucial to whether the reference is included in the article or not. It's only a relevant example to the sentence:

If [scholarly works] do [warn about spoilers], they often avoid terms such as "spoiler"

if it is actually a scholarly work. Also, Phil Sandifer says that "we do not publish reviews, and so the comparison to publishers of reviews is immaterial", and both Wikipedia's Sight & Sound page and the Sight & Sound website state in no uncertain terms that Sight & Sound publishes reviews. The comparison to Sight & Sound is therefore immaterial by his logic (and I am inclined to agree). Philip Reuben 15:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As I say I think this is just a petty quibble. The wording makes perfect sense. It shows a serious publication that, while it does warn the reader, does not employ a silly and ugly neologism in doing so. --Tony Sidaway 15:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You're not going to like my further argument over a single term here, since I only just noticed that the sentence in question states almost outright that Sight & Sound is a reference work when it is not, but in any case I still think this is a pertinent discussion about the content of the article.

The thing is, I don't object at all to the statement that "scholarly reference works (of the sort that Wikipedia aspires to be)" generally do not have spoiler tags. (And I still feel that "scholarly" is more appropriate than "serious" for this statement.) You would be hard-pressed to find a print encylopedia that has spoiler tags, even if the details and implications of that are open to debate. However, the statement following that is nonsense. It groups Sight & Sound into the category of "scholarly/serious reference works (of the sort that Wikipedia aspires to be)" when it is clearly neither, making it irrelevant to the point the paragraph is trying to make - that reference works treat spoiler tags a certain way, and that we should treat spoiler tags the same way as reference works. (I also object to the weasel word "often" when only one example is given.) Philip Reuben 16:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Check the cited page. It's clearly a work of reference, giving a full synopsis and production credits. --Tony Sidaway 16:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the cited page clearly reads, Our synopses give away the plot in full, including surprise twists. So I'm unclear on what you're asserting here. That SIGHT & SOUND is a scholarly publication that DOES use spoiler notices, of a sort? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, providing that information about a film doesn't on its own make it a reference work. If you're saying that all that information about various films being collected in a manner that can searched for makes it a reference work, that applies to IMDB as well (in fact, I think it applies moreso to IMDB). IMDB, Wikipedia and Sight & Sound are all nothing alike, but it seems that all are reference works. What makes Sight & Sound "serious" while IMDB is not "serious"? Once again, I find the word "serious" to be vague, POV and inappropriate to this Wikipedia article. Philip Reuben 16:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Gentleman, perhaps we can soften the argument by comparing WP with other periodicals in which film theory articles (with reviews as garnishnig) are published like ... Film Comment, early-days Cinefantastique, and online sites published by the American Film Institute, The Criterion Collection essays, et al. WP is not like Rotten Tomatoes, clearly, and less a repository of data like IMDB. Just my two cents.... David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 16:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure we can, since I don't see how any of those are relevant to the topic of "we should treat spoiler tags the same way as reference works" either. Philip Reuben 16:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not that hard. Unless I'm distracted, the issue is whether scholarly works contain spoilers, and the general assumption is NO. Fetching examples of that is what we've digressed into. ... If you read a REVIEW of a Frank Capra film like American Madness, Meet John Doe, It's a Wonderful Life, you can reasonably expect that the critic will not divulge surprises. The purpose of the review is to get someone to see (or avoid) the film based on quality. But a scholarly article about Frank Capra's routine themes of degradation, despair, and redemption, will certainly include tidbits about the twists and turns that Longfellow Deeds and George Bailey endure. I believe the assertion is that WP articles on films fall into the latter camp, as film articles are discouraged from being "fan pieces" or "reviews." Film Comment and Cinefantastique are two periodicals that, back when I subscribed, discussed ALL plot points and did not feature spoilers spoiler warnings. -- Getting any clearer? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm taking issue with at all. We're agreed that scholarly works don't use spoiler tags, the issue is whether the rare scholarly works that do include spoiler tags use the word "spoiler" when doing so. I see no evidence either way for the latter, because I don't see that the one example presented (Sight & Sound) is a scholarly work, or indeed a "serious reference work" (at least any more or less than, say, IMDB). Also, as a nitpick but something that I wish people would understand for the sake of clarity: "XYZ does not contain spoilers" means the opposite of you think it means. You mean it does not have spoiler tags (or warnings, notices, etc.) Philip Reuben 17:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I see you realised your error before I even finished my reply =) Philip Reuben 17:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't be surprising anyone by quoting the guideline heading, "When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this page's talk page." Any edits which change the substance of the guideline (particularly in the opening nutshell) ought to be traced to Talk page discussions. For the most part they have. This topic has had enough hoopla over bold edits and bold actions (including outrage over article edits based on changes to the guideline that farflung editors hadn't been aware of),... it will be served well by a modicum of restraint and collaboration. Thanks,... David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 16:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to object and say I think those edits belong.

While in some sense Wikipedia "aspires to be" like something else, that means Wikipedia aspires to have some general things in common with it. It doesn't, and can't, mean that Wikipedia aspires to be like it in every last detail. Using "Wikipedia aspires to be like these other works" to justify something as specific as "Wikipedia should not have spoiler warnings" is wrong--"Wikipedia aspires to be like..." is a general statement and doesn't have that level of specificity. It's like saying "Wikipedia aspires to be an unspecialized encyclopedia" and "unspecialized encyclopedias don't have articles about the Drake Equation". Or "Wikipedia aspires to be an encyclopedia" and "encyclopedias are sold by door to door salesmen for $500".

(And in fact, to say that Wikipedia aspires to be anything is poorly worded. Encyclopedias aren't people; they don't have aspirations. The people creating it do--but not all of those people aspire for it to be exactly the same thing, and quite a few do aspire for it to be something with spoiler warnings.) Ken Arromdee 17:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Where was the discussion about the inclusion of the WP:SCHOLARLY fluff? It looks a lot like personal wikiphilosophy masquerading as an established standard. As far as I can tell, it was dumped on the guideline without any discussion. [4]--Nydas^(Talk) 18:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have re-removed the scholarly aspirations paragraph. As well as being devoid of support on this talk page, the only arguments being presented are the non-existent consensus and idiosyncratic opinions on what Wikipedia aspires to be.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

And I've reverted. Encyclopedias are scholarly. Whatever we may have revolutionized about encyclopedias, lowering their standards isn't one of them. The fact that the paragraph stood through multiple versions of the page and for a month suggests a level of support that merits more serious engagement than "nobody talked about it on the talk page." Phil Sandifer 22:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that particularly paragraph has been changed and removed quite a few times, if I remember correctly. --- RockMFR 22:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty standard to discuss the desire of a written work in this fashion in literary studies - the exmaple that springs to mind most readily is W.J.T. Mitchell's book What Do Pictures Want. I agree that it's an odd formulation, but it's not an unreasonable one - particularly for a work like Wikipedia, where it's not entirely clear to me that it's sensible to talk about the aggregate desires of the editors as equivalent to what Wikipedia is doing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It aspires to be a good one, and part of that is a level of scholarly decorum. Phil Sandifer 22:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My serious engagement is this; you are offering personal opinions with no basis in policy. Ken Arromdee is correct, it's no different from saying that 'scholarly works don't have hyperlinks' or 'encyclopedias don't have edit buttons'. The paragraph belongs on an essay or your user page, not passing itself off as some sort of established fact. There is no WP:SCHOLARLY.

The reason the paragraph has stood for so long is that you own the guideline; after all, you see no problem in reverting someone's good faith edits as 'ill-advised' or 'don't be dense'. There has been scant discussion of this part of the guideline, and your claims of 'silent consensus' have little weight. You could justify anything with them.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that Wikipedia is identical to Britannica. But quality standards are not one of the things we changed about encyclopedias. There's no WP:SCHOLARLY because it's unnecessary and obvious. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are scholarly. The end. Phil Sandifer 22:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I present this link that can be found on Wikipedia's encyclopedia page. Apparently, a scholarly encylopedia is a specific type of encylopedia (more specialised in a field), whereas according to this source at least, a general encylopedia like Britannica is "remedial". Philip Reuben 22:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, "scholarly encyclopedia" is an odd term, since all encyclopedias are scholarly in the sense that they adhere to basic scholarly standards of the fields they cover. (Which a remedial course in something would as well.) Certainly remedial is not the opposite of scholarly. Phil Sandifer 22:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The standards and 'scholarliness' of Wikipedia do not magically entail an effective ban on spoiler tags. There is no policy claiming otherwise, and the paragraph should be removed as being misleading. If you want WP:SCHOLARLY to be a policy, write it up and get it accepted.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the above comment. Also, as there is no consensus that the alerts should not be used at all, let's compromise and say it's recommended their use be minimized.

In Wikipedia articles, for purposes of style and clarity, it is recommended that the use of spoiler alerts be minimized, though they are acceptable when the editors working on an article have consensus for their inclusion.

That's a way we can say it without the WP:SCHOLARLY question, and based in policy. --Parzival418 _Hello 09:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the nutshell is still missing a sentence explaining that although spoiler tags are used, they should not be used in places where the reader reasonably expects to find spoilers. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That's been fixed. --Tony Sidaway 15:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced a mention of readers in that sentence. The fact that 45000 spoiler warnings were placed in such sections implies that it is not universal that spoilers are expected in such sections. While this is certainly something like the consensus now, we need to be clear that it is an assumption we are making, and imposing on our readers, for better or for worse. -Kieran 16:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot details are expected in plot sections. That's a statement of fact. --Tony Sidaway 16:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot details are not necessarily spoilers, and the question is whether spoilers are expected in plot sections. We have seen people post on this page that they were accidentally spoiled, so clearly this is not an assumption that everyone makes, whether we expect them to or not. Philip Reuben 16:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur that plot sections, with a robust NPOV, will contain pertinent details including "twists," "surprises," etc. Elsewhere, the notice may be called for. E.g., what about a page about the singer in THE CRYING GAME ... could a character article contain the surprise in the lead paragraph (making a notice arguably supported), or in a "storyline" or "history of character" section (in which plot details are expected)? Personally, I think a nutshell is a summary, and need not contain detailed information. If an editor needs details,... s/he must read the guideline! :D David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 16:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained that there's good justification for leaving warnings in plot sections. In short:

• Not all plot elements are spoilers and it's possible for a plot section to not contain spoilers, especially if the plot section is not at the level of detail where the spoiler would show up.
• Even if it was true that every plot section contains a spoiler, that doesn't tell the reader where in the section the spoiler is located. A spoiler warning can be put in the middle or end of the section if the spoiler isn't at the top.
• It's a better user interface to consistently put spoiler warnings on all spoilers, even if the reader could deduce the existence of some of them without a warning. Human communication is filled with redundancy.

Ken Arromdee 17:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agreed with you ... a month or two ago. In the process of writing/editing synopses for some films with significant plot twists on which I have some expertise, I realized that a spoiler warning in the midst of a detailed plot description was not only redundant, but condescending to the reader. I mean, here I am writing clearly and succinctly about surprises in The Other (plot) and The Yakuza (plot), in which I reveal information which is meant to be an ephiphany to the characters and/or the viewer/reader, and I'm putting in a notice that says, "hey look out, David's going to reveal some plot information." Well, duh, that's what the plot section is for. As a reader, I want a movie reviewer to either hold back that information, or alert me that he's going to spoil a surprise, because I'm reading the review with an intention to see the film. No such intention is assumed when I'm reading a scholarly/serious/retrospective discussion of the film, as we write here. Within the confines of a plot exposition, imho, a notice that we're going to divulge a detailed plot description is rather pedestrian writing. Like a paper which starts, "(heading)Outline:(new line)This is the outline of my paper. In this outline, I will detail the sections of the paper and what is covered in each section...." I'm not confident that I'll sway your opinion, but if you've never seen either of those films, take a look at the synopses and let me/us know if you're honestly, sincerely shocked by what I divulge, considering you're reading a plot description.... David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ken, why should we strive for redundancy? If we liked everything redundant, when I wanted to click on my email, a notice would pop up that I'm clicking on my email. Just because human communication can be filled with redundancy does not a pinnacle to strive for make. If we based everything on the wiki on human communication and such, Wikipedia would be a mess. Readers are not babies; they shouldn't have to be coddled. David Fuchs 22:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not "striving for redundancy" (that's a strawman), it's accepting some redundancy for the sake of the greater good. Philip Reuben 23:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

We've recently passed through these two incarnations of the nutshell:

The edit was described as: "cleanup to make more neutral, sound more fluid prose-wise." I agree that it's more fluid, I like the brevity, but I don't think we really are neutral on the issue of whether spoiler warnings should frequently be used. The trend of the article, and discussion, for quite a while has suggested that we're generally against spoiler warnings except in unusual cases (which we've completely failed to deliniate) where their necessity can be demonstrated. Anyway, I don't want to go crazy over this, so maybe a third party can again strike a compromise between these versions.zadignose 00:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The second version listed above seems fine to me. --Parzival418 _Hello 09:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to defend my version as simply encapsulating all that has been definitively set down. There's still arguments about exactly what occasions mark a spoiler, but we do agree that they shouldn't be used in nonfiction, and consensus should be reached regardless. David Fuchs 18:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's rather silly to say that this page's "designation as a guideline" is disputed. It's not. pretty much everybody here is agreed that Wikipedia requiers some sort of guideline on the usage (or lack thereof) of spoiler warnings. What appears to be under dispute is what exactly the guideline should say, hence this is "under discussion on the talk page". Simple, no? Wasn't there an ArbCom case about this very subject? Radiant! 16:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any such trivial matter reaching arbitration, but if it did perhaps it might be a good idea to cite the case. --Tony Sidaway 16:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the guideline in dispute? or simply details and application? I say, the latter. The policy/guideline already has a notice that it's hotly debated on the Talk page. A dispute notice is redundant overkill, imho. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 16:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course if this guideline really were disputed as a guideline we'd just remove all of the tags. The No disclaimers in articles guideline would prevail in its absence. --Tony Sidaway 23:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As someone has again restored the dispute tag, I've taken the bold step of redirecting the page to No disclaimers in articles. --Tony Sidaway 23:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, WP:POINT? Regardless of whether there is dispute or not, there is clearly no consensus for this redirect. Philip Reuben 23:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm disputing this article's designation as a guideline. This is disputed, and has been hotly disputed for a long time. I've seen plenty of other guidelines given a "disputed" tag because there was heavy dispute over the contents of the page, not over the issue of whether a guideline should exist on the subject. Edit warring over the presence of a disputed tag is almost universally proof of the existence of a dispute, and the removal of the tag is inappropriate until such a time that we can come to an agreement that the page is an adequate guideline supported by consensus. We're not there yet, so stop pulling stunts like turning the page into a redirect because, by some twist of logic, this implies that the guideline isn't disputed.zadignose 00:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't out to prove a point, but I seem to have done so unexpectedly. It appears that there is consensus that this guideline should exist, after all. Therefore the disputed tag can be replaced with an underdiscussion tag. --Tony Sidaway 00:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"I certainly wasn't out to prove a point, but I seem to have done so unexpectedly"? You make it very difficult to assume good faith, I'll say that much. My main issue with the underdiscussion tag is that the wording is not strong enough, and suggests to me that there is broad agreement that that the guideline as it stands is roughly appropriate, with any possible changes being minor in nature. What we are disagreeing over is whether the article as it stands can be designated a "guideline", and clarifying that this fact is disputed makes it harder to point to this page as an argument in itself, instead promoting discussion of individual opinions on talk pages as a way to obtain local consensus. The current situation promotes circular reasoning (WP:SPOILER supports the consensus, the consensus supports WP:SPOILER) which is not desirable when such a drastic change has been made to WP:SPOILER so recently and with opposition from numerous editors across numerous articles. It's a shame that there isn't an in-between tag. Philip Reuben 01:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

So, someone else reverted Tony's redirect of this page (obviously), and I restored the shortcuts for this page with the edit summary of "rv". Tony's kind of having a cow about it, so I just kind of want to make sure it's not just me.. User talk:Ned Scott#Four reverts without adequate edit summaries. -- Ned Scott 06:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. Least controversial edit ever. (Of course, I was the one who reverted Tony, but no one else seems to be objecting to that or to this. Tony should direct his nitpicking to things people care about.) Philip Reuben 11:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

My issue is not with Ned Scott's edit, but his failure to explain his edits in the edit summary, and (when asked about it) to act dismissively and insultingly. Such behavior is absolutely not permitted on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 14:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a policy stating that all edits must have an explicitly clear edit summary? Last I checked, there was a guideline (Wikipedia:Edit_summary) that "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". His response was dismissive, but in jest and (I think) entirely appropriate to your blatant overreaction to a non-issue. Philip Reuben 15:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well not in jest, obviously. It was a naked, and rather disgusting, personal attack. --Tony Sidaway 15:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Tony, are you feeling ok?" and "Stop it, Tony, you're scaring me" are a disgusting personal attack? That's hilarious, and I'm being charitable in putting it that way. Philip Reuben 15:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No. It's absolutely beyond the norms of acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 18:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess we must agree to disagree. Philip Reuben 19:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Tony executed an disruptive edit here [5][6] and in redirects [7][8][9] which seems an example of WP:POINT, but starts sniping at Ned when he rvv (yes, I said rvv) to restore the previous versions, just because he didn't use more verbose edit summaries? And this, "I certainly wasn't out to prove a point, but I seem to have done so unexpectedly"? I really don't think you're so naive and inexperienced as to have blanked this article with a redirect, and changed all the redirects, without any expectation of someone reminding you of WP:POINT. You asserted that one of my comments (elsewhere) was trying to "poison the well," I could easily paint you with the same brush here. Tony, I humbly suggest that it's time for you to sit back and let cooler heads prevail. Blanking of guideline/policy pages is the kind of action that editors get blocked for, and I'd dislike seeing it applied to you. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 20:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

My viewpoint on the dispute tag: the dispute tag does not mean that it is disputed that Wikipedia should have a guideline page named Spoiler. What is disputed is that this page* is that guideline.
* (i.e. its content, because if we aren't talking about its content we're only left with the title)
— The Storm Surfer 00:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I know there have been many various "compromise" proposals and there is no chance in hell of anyone accepting anything like this, but I just want to say it:

If a section named "Plot" or "Synopsis" or suchlike, or any other section for that matter (e.g. "Background" or "Characters" etc.) contains spoilers in some particular part (but not in others), why not make a subsection of that section and name it appropriately, for example "Plot twist" or "Surprise ending" or "Identity of the murderer" or anything like that, as appropriate? This way the readers are sufficiently warned about the content, but the warning is not in the form of any intrusive tag or notice but just a part of standard wiki-formatting.

Here's more or less an example of what I mean:

 ==Plot==
 ===Main story===
   ...
   <here goes the main plot story, no spoilers>
   ...
 ===The surprise ending===
   ...
   <here is the "spoiler" part>
   ...

etc.

This way the significant ("spoiling") part of the story is sufficiently separated and signposted, but no intrusive warnings are used. 131.111.8.104 00:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That isn't a compromise. Such edits are well within the current guideline, subject to consensus. --Tony Sidaway 00:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a compromise in the sense that those who really want to have spoiler notices can do it in a "neutral" way, without using any tag or template; even, in a sense, improving the structure of the articles, by dividing sections into appropriate subsections. I don't see anything wrong with it. 131.111.8.104 00:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds pretty reasonable actually. I interpret it as "no spoiler tags, but use section titling appropriately." Though I wouldn't really like to see a section that says "surprise ending." It's probably enough to say "ending." Certainly no one would read that section if they don't want to know how the plot ends. In something like the Crying Game there could be sections such as "Introduction to the relationship," and "A Surprising Revelation," or something similar. This would also address my concern that we really shouldn't have a template that's required to be used. Heck, sign me on for this compromise.zadignose 00:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, "surprise ending" was just an example. One can use anything that is appropriate for the occasion... 131.111.8.104 00:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If it can be included as part of the guideline that users are encouraged to put spoilers in intuitively-marked sections (more specific than simply "Plot") where possible, I am all for this proposal as a compromise. This would of course conflict with the current part of the guideline that "Concerns about spoilers should play no role in decisions about the structure or content of an article, including the article's lead section." On a semi-related note, I would particularly like the "lead section" part to go, at least as pertaining to endings in mainstream fiction where the lead could quite happily say "XYZ is known for its twist ending" or similar as in the page for The Sixth Sense. Philip Reuben 01:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That spoilers must not play a part in decisions about article organization is, frankly, a non-negotiable point. That's the road that leads to shit like The Crying Game not mentioning its twist in the article lead despite the fact that there are serious NPOV issues in doing so. In cases where something is notable for being a twist ending it may be sensible to break it out into its own section, but this must not be a general rule. Phil Sandifer 01:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to look at The Crying Game because I don't want to be spoiled, but is there any particular reason the twist needs to be spelled out and not referred to metatextually as "a twist"? Philip Reuben 01:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a "twist" that absolutely needs to be included in this article. I strongly agree with Phil on this one -- we can't let spoilers dictate how an article is organized or what content is included in the article. I agree that this is non-negotiable. --- RockMFR 01:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The twist is the basis for most of the academic commentary on the film, and is the basis of the film's reputation amoung a particular group of people. Phil Sandifer 01:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your ability to explain this without spoiling the twist for me. (Shame that RockMFR couldn't manage the same, but oh well, what's done is done.) I agree that the spoiler belongs in the lead, but I also feel this is an exception where a spoiler tag in the lead is warranted, as allowed for by the rules and agreed by several people on the article's talk page. Also, I still feel that cases where the lead reveals the ending should be at least gently discouraged and considered the exception rather than the rule. Philip Reuben 01:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I mostly agree, but I think the discouragement should come from basic article structuring. The decision, in most cases, really makes itself. The Crying Game has to have it in the lead. Soylent Green needs to, because the spoiler is itself a catchphrase and thus important to report as such. The Usual Suspects probably doesn't need to reveal the spoiler. The Sixth Sense and Fight Club are 50/50. These decisions really all make themselves when you look at the subjects, without having to consider the severity of the spoiler. (Other ones that should definitely have spoilers: Valen. [[Sue Dibney].) Phil Sandifer 02:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, if people were really not considering spoilers when writing their lead text, almost any lead text about a movie with a famous twist would reveal the twist. There was even a 50/50 split on the Crying Game talk page about whether the lead should explain the twist, and that's a fairly extreme example since the twist is very specifically relevant to the film's notoriety. I think the guideline should reflect the reality that people do (and should) consider spoilers when writing the lead text, and should specifically ask themselves whether a major spoiler at the top of the article is really necessary or appropriate in any given case. Philip Reuben 02:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that lead section is fairly clear on this, to wit:

The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article.

At the same time, not everything should go into the lead. The fact that Superman brings Lois Lane back to life by making time go backwards is a well known plot element of the film, but reliable sources don't identify it as a crucial part of the plot. The fact that Rick's cynicism is a cover for his idealism and nobility has been covered widely in commentary and this theme should probably be covered in the lead (as part of the allegory on US isolationism). --Tony Sidaway 15:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, we are free to make a decision that conflicts with Wikipedia:Lead section if we feel it's appropriate. Philip Reuben 19:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've performed the following edit:

Spoilers on the Internet are sometimes preceded by a spoiler warning.^[1] In Wikipedia articles, for purposes of style and clarity, it is recommended that the use of spoiler alerts be minimized, though they are acceptable when the editors working on an article have consensus for their inclusion.

is changed to:

Spoilers on the Internet are sometimes preceded by a spoiler warning.^[2] In Wikipedia articles, for purposes of style, clarity and neutral point of view, use of spoiler alerts is deprecated in accordance with our general guideline, No disclaimers in articles, but may be included where they do not affect article quality and consensus exists for their inclusion.

This brings the spoiler tag into the context of general Wikipedia policy, to which it is very much an exception. The bolded section in the second block above is the changed wording. --Tony Sidaway 14:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify the role of WP:NDT. I've reworded the relevant sentence to:

In Wikipedia articles, for purposes of style and clarity, the use of spoiler alerts is minimized, though they are acceptable as an exception to our general guideline, no disclaimers in articles, when there is consensus for their inclusion.

Note also a significant change:

when the editors working on an article have consensus for their inclusion.

This wording seems to contravene ownership of articles, so I've changed it to:

when there is consensus for their inclusion.

--Tony Sidaway 15:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that it makes a great deal of difference either way. "The editors working on an article" can include any editors who are only working on it because they routinely swoop down on all articles that have spoiler tags added. Philip Reuben 15:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's best to avoid misunderstandings. Your accusation of editors "swooping down on articles" is very, very much contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia policy, which encourages the principle that anyone can edit an article. --Tony Sidaway 15:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's been reasonably well-established on this talk page that a small group of editors overriding a much larger group of editors on the same issue across multiple articles is an exploitation of consensus policy that is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Others are welcome to offer their thoughts. Philip Reuben 15:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've also restored the reference to neutral point of view, whch is obviously a very great concern when editors decide to label this or that statement to be of a nature that it would merit an exception to our general guidelines against self-reference and disclaimers. --Tony Sidaway 15:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

And I've removed it again. There is no consensus here that spoiler tags are inherently POV, and discussion should take place before this change is implemented. Philip Reuben 15:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm very, very surprised at your statement. In marking a plot detail as significant, an editor is usually expressing his personal opinion. This is why our neutral point of view policy exists: to distinguish between the reporting of facts, including facts about notable opinions (subject to verifiability), and the recording of our personal opinions. If the editor is saying that a plot detail is significant because it has been described as a twist ending or some such in reliable sources, this is somewhat compatible with our policy, provided it is a mainstream opinion, recorded widely in such sources. So obviously there are issues of neutral point of view here. I don't think that was ever in doubt, hence my surprise. --Tony Sidaway 15:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the reference to neutral point of view was only recently removed. I don't recall any significant discussion to justify that removal. But that is a minor point. Obviously NPOV concerns belong here as in all disclaimers. --Tony Sidaway 15:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's in doubt, two people have reverted your edit. "In marking a plot detail as significant, an editor is usually expressing his personal opinion." By that line of reasoning, an editor is also expressing his person opinion by deciding which information is important enough to go in the lead. And let's say an article about a person has an "Early life" section - is an editor expressing his personal opinion by deciding when this "early life" ends? Or is he using his common sense to organise the information in the most appropriate and useful way? I think the latter. Spoiler tags are a common sense, NPOV method of organising information. Philip Reuben 15:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You're simply wrong. The lead section must conform to NPOV. From Lead section guideline.

The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources.

You will of course recognise this as a restatement of our neutral point of view policy, specifically:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources).

Spoiler tags, just as every single element in a Wikipedia article, must conform to neutral point of view. --Tony Sidaway 15:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

And the "Early Life" example? Spoiler tags don't unbalance the article towards anyone's point of view, they merely tell the reader what type of content to expect. Philip Reuben 15:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Early life" is a section heading. It isn't a disclaimer or warning. There's a subtle, but significant, distinction, though obviously section headings are still covered by NPOV, too. --Tony Sidaway 15:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to explain more clearly how this "subtle, but significant distinction" relates to the idea that spoiler tags are NPOV and section headings are not. Anyway, I really need to get on with some work so (provided I don't get distracted) I won't be back to check here for a few hours. Philip Reuben 15:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

To put it simply, a section heading describes the subject covered in the section, and a spoiler tag states an opinion about the significance of a factual statement or statements within an article. Both are subject to neutral point of view, but this requirement is more exacting in the case of an opinion. We do not decide the significance of a statement by ourselves, but by reference to reliable sources. --Tony Sidaway 16:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

'Early life' in biographical articles are still expressing an opinion regarding someone's 'early life'.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain this? What opinion is being expressed? --Tony Sidaway 18:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Early life" ends at point X. Everything after that is too late to be called "early life". This is an opinion. Philip Reuben 18:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As above. Early life could end at 15 or 35.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Both of those claims (by Nydas and Philip Reuben) are subject to verification. You can't walk away from the core policies. They're there all the time. If someone puts "At the age of 35, Winston Churchill...." under the heading "Early life" then it can be challenged. If someone moved "At the age of 5, Winston Churchil..." to a section titled "Middle age", it can be challenged. All section headings can be challenged under neutral point of view. All spoiler tags can be challenged under neutral point of view. --Tony Sidaway 00:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

And? That doesn't mean spoiler tags (or "Early Life" headings) inherently violate NPOV. Philip Reuben 00:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration reject: Spoiler Warning (19:57, 5 July 2007 )

[10]. The mediation has stalled, so that brings this down to two active venues of discussion: here and the RFC. Any others? - David Gerard 15:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

With the exception of a meta-discussion about the tone of the debate, and a digression about depictions of rape, the RfC seems to be dormant at present. --Tony Sidaway 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Any admin want to remove the RFC pointer from {{spoiler}}? I would but I expect me doing it would go down badly in itself ... - David Gerard 18:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Premature closing of things has been a contentious issue so far. This last week was a vacation for a lot of U.S. professionals due to Independence Day (July 4). There's no rush. I suggest admins wait 8 days before a closing the Spoiler RFC to give any remaining once-a-week editors a final opportunity. Milo 09:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's stop the silly arguing and sit down and mull over some hard truths. I hold these to be self evident:

• that whether or not spoilers should exist is moot at this time as the community is divided;
• that spoilers, still existing, have a limited scope, which was already argued over at the RfC (none in fairy tales, etc)
• that generally spoiler warnings should be avoided in plot sections;
• that technical workarounds, such as preferences and javascript backends, are infeasible for technical reasons as well as violating some Wikipedia policies, et al.;
• that the alleged improper removal of spoiler warnings using automated methods has no bearing on the spoiler guideline itself, and should be left out of this forum of discussion, lest it continually muddle debate.

Where should we go from this? I propose:

• that in its current form, with the redaction of the weasel words, etc, that were argued over previously, the guideline is fairly stable and should not be regarded as contested (yes, we can clarify, etc, but I think most of the offensive stuff, like how it said you needed a reason to add a spoiler but not to remove one, etc, and "compelling" were removed, so I call that progress).
• that the issue of whether spoilers should exist or not be put to bed, for at least a decent period of time (consensus will not change in the next month, I promise you.)
• that we go back to our merry lives as before.

Nydas and those who want to grieve about Tony and the "anti-spoiler brigade" can take that elsewhere, since it is more a perceived misuse of some tools rather than directly dealing with the spoiler warning guideline as above. David Fuchs 18:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

About the first point: So your perspective is that we can't determine a wider consensus for spoiler tags (from the present lack of them across Wikipedia, for example), but that we also can't determine a wider consensus against spoiler tags? And that the page should therefore stay roughly as it is at present? (I'd like to clarify this before I respond further.) Philip Reuben 19:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Essentially. Face it, argue against spoiler tags and you get into crap like "are spoiler tags encyclopediac" which leads into "but wikipedia isn't a regular encyclopedia" and has led to a circular argument that doesn't get anywhere. We should just accept some things won't change. Part of this is the whole 45K removal thing, but that is tangental to the main issue, which I believe we solved to the best of our ability. David Fuchs 20:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I agree with most of that. I can much more readily accept that there is no consensus either way than that there is a clear consensus against. I don't think anyone disagrees that fairy tales and non-fiction articles should have no spoiler tags. I can even accept the idea that people should expect Plot and Character History sections to have unmarked spoilers, even though I disagree with it, in the name of compromise and because it's easy for me to deal with in browsing Wikipedia.

Having considered this at length, my biggest problem with the guideline as it stands is as follows: The concession (and consensus) about certain sections being expected to contain spoilers is actually meaningless, because the article says unmarked spoilers are appropriate anywhere in an article. Is there anything resembling consensus on the latter point? It feels like one side is making a major concession and the other side is taking far more than that, i.e. the article isn't nearly as neutral as the lack of consensus would suggest.

I know that several people feel very strongly that concerns about spoilers should play no part in the structuring of an article, so that's presumably out. (I'm not even sure I disagree too strongly anymore, having been shown quite conclusively yesterday that some articles, like The Crying Game, really need to spoil the ending in the lead.) The other option is for spoiler tags to be deemed generally appropriate outside of Plot/Character/etc. sections. This would actually affect very few articles, but this minority might have a spoiler tag in the lead or in a Themes section, as subject to local consensus but encouraged by this guideline. How do you (and others) feel about this suggestion? Philip Reuben 21:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia contains spoilers, as we've known all along, and so its just what kind of spoilers and where they should be marked, yes? How about if we say "Spoilers can generally be found anyway in an article, however if editors agree an explicit spoiler can be placed"? David Fuchs 21:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

(You mean a spoiler tag, right?) I really think the guideline needs to be more specific than that. We seem to have reached a consensus that readers can expect unmarked spoilers in Plot sections, etc. Is this meaningful as a distinction or not? If it is, the guideline should reflect that rather than dancing around the issue. Philip Reuben 21:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm onboard with you on this, David. Particularly, that we go back to our merry lives as before. I've twice waded into this since May, shook my head, and gone back to my very busy and very full life here in RTP,... then come back expecting that the dust had settled, the new norms and practices arrived at, but found the issue was as red-hot and contentious as ever. The reckless action I noted above makes it quite clear -- it's time for all parties to chill out, step back, and admit that this is really not even a very big issue for WP, let alone the world. No one's winning here, everyone (and WP) are losing. I actually revisit a few articles about movies with significant twist endings or plot turns, and believe me, there are far more important article tasks than "whether to tag or not to tag" the spoilers. Being true to the movie, accurately communicating what makes the film(s) notable, these are the tough jobs. Spoilers just arent' worth all the back and forth bickering and nail-biting. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 21:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"admit that this is really not even a very big issue for WP" Time for you to admit that you're wrong to take such a narrow view. The spoiler tagging is just the fallout issue. The real problem is the clique's WP:Own of 45,000 articles, enforced by cavalier process abuses, and lame circular reasoning that's going to get their intellectual's license suspended. :) Milo 09:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The only relevant topic for discussion on this page is the guideline for spoiler tags. If you want to complain about the behavior of a group of editors, you need to pursue dispute resolution of some sort, rather than a guideline talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"The only relevant topic for discussion" You appear to be claiming that the issues I mentioned aren't relevant to the guideline for spoiler tags. If so, I claim you are Wikilawyering, which of course is the taking of too narrow a view. Milo 07:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Carl, if you really really really want to exact a pound of flesh for what was certainly a brash and controversial editing campaign, the talk page for this guideline is not the place. My comment that you pulled ("admit that this is really not even a very big issue for WP") is specific to the discussion at hand. It's not "a narrow view." Look at my other comments, you'll see that a) I'm actively involved in the spoiler tag debate, and b) I allow my opinion to grow and adopt differing perspective. Milo, please avoid personal back-biting in your comments. Attack the ideas, not the person. - David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 14:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

how about this: anything that doesn't have consensus (like the thing about structuring articles around spoilers, spoilers in the leads, etc) we just don't make a definitive ruling on, then we all go away and see how the encyclopedia turns out, and if in a month there's a horrible train wreck of tags like before, we come back and fix it again? Do we have to arbitrate every last detail? Kuronue 21:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Essentially, besides the changes which we fixed, we stay with the previous changes, and leave the rest up to editors. WP:SPOILER isn't a guideline, I think, that can be definitively put in black or white, as much as I would like, without one side losing entirely. David Fuchs 22:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with this, provided it involves rewording the guideline to make clear that certain issues are contentious and therefore left entirely up to local editors. Once again, the current guideline states outright that unmarked spoilers are appropriate anywhere, and that tags for spoilers in the lead are rarely appropriate, which we do not seem to have consensus for. If our aim is to be neutral on this issue, the guideline should be neutral, so let's pointedly not make recommendations either way. Philip Reuben 22:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I am essentially suggesting we remove or (preferably) reword the "Very rarely, a spoiler warning may appear in the article lead" bullet point to make it clear that there is no consensus on this issue. Philip Reuben 22:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

...and the same for the lead section of this article, as relevant. Sorry, I'm having a bit of a fractured conversation with myself here. Bear with me =) Philip Reuben 23:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the prohibition against spoiler tags in factual articles must have been created with something I haven't seen in mind. I don't find it reasonable that if, say, there is an article about an actor, and it is important to the actor's article to say something about how their character died in season N of series X (or some other very spoily fact), there shouldn't be a tag saying there's a spoiler for season N of series X. I think this should be removed or clarified. Otherwise, I agree with most everything in this talk section. — The Storm Surfer 23:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, wow, I hadn't thought of that. I think it was intended against things like putting a spoiler tag on the end of WWII or something stupid like that. Kuronue 23:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Another exception mentioned a few weeks ago was amusement park rides with suprises.

==>(carnival "haunted" ride spoiler below)<==

.........................................................................I still remember the "haunted" carnival

.........................................................................ride where strings dragged over my face.

Spoiler tagging can apply to any kind of surprise-designed packaged entertainment, including city tours and guided outdoor adventures with actual surprises as opposed to features. Milo 09:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This is already mentioned in the guideline, with the recommendation that such spoilers probably don't belong in actor articles anyway. Where they do belong, I think the guideline probably defaults to the general idea that spoilers in unexpected places should have tags. Maybe all this should be clarified. Philip Reuben 23:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Didn't notice that you were the one who added the actors part. I'm clearly not paying attention tonight... Philip Reuben 23:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It didn't say anything about actors, which is why I added "actors" to that section about them not belonging. I had to check what it actually said, and just slipped in "actors" because that sounds like a common use to me. We should, however, add something about them needing tags when in unexpected places. Let me see if I can put something. Kuronue 23:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I had intended with my edits to say nothing about the lead at all, thus letting it default to non-spoiler wikipedia policy, in this case WP:NPOV and WP:LS. Is that not acceptable, Phil? Kuronue 23:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Did Phil Sandifer fail to notice that we're discussing this on the talk page? If he doesn't weigh in with his objections here we're going to assume we have consensus and start making changes. That's common sense. Philip Reuben 23:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the thing - whatever shape this guideline takes, there has been a shift in spoiler policy, and the use of spoiler tags and spoiler concerns to violate NPOV and basic needs of article leads was one of the most significant motivations in the sudden surge of objection to spoiler warnings. And so I tend to think they're a very, very important thing to note here, if only because they're the most recent and most significant change. And because it was recently standard practice (and The Crying Game has still recently been edited to remove the spoiler fromt he lead), I think it requires explicit caution at this stage. Phil Sandifer 23:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Not all spoilers are as notable as The Crying Game. That one probably belongs in the lead because it's what leads the movie to be notable. So to say they always belong in the lead is as much a folly as to say they never belong. It should be up to the individual article's editors to determine what belongs and what doesn't. Kuronue 23:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This talk page has had little impact on actual practise and policy on Wikipedia, as can be seen by checking for extant spoiler tags. Wikipedia's normal process of discussion, consensus and editing are sufficient to regulate the presence of spoiler tags. If they should ever again become a serious problem, a mass edit will again become necessary, but this is unlikely to be a matter for serious concern in the near future. I suggest that we recovene whenever the number of spoiler tags again exceeds 1,000. --Tony Sidaway 23:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

1,000 needed spoiler tags are better than 0 tags at all. Kuronue 23:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No spoiler tags are needed. They're just style tags. They're disposible. --Tony Sidaway 23:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That's your point of view, that's not nessicarily consensus. Which is why we're trying to see what occurs when we leave it alone. Kuronue 23:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony, there is consensus on this page that the current lack of spoiler tags across Wikipedia cannot be seen to represent an overall consensus against (or for) spoiler tags. (Someone is welcome to correct me if I am wrong, just as the last time I mentioned this and no one corrected me.) That's why we're working to construct a suitably neutral guideline that won't unfairly influence any discussions on individual talk pages. To be fair, I think we're nearly done. Philip Reuben 23:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no such consensus. You cannot construct a guideline to subvert the normal editing and consensus process of Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 23:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

subvert what process? What we're trying to do is create as minimal and neutral a guideline as possible, and letting the process of consensus take over on individual pages, with the intent to later adjust the guideline to what is being implemented on actual article pages. Kuronue 23:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus already applies. The result is that there are very few spoiler tags on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 00:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Then why are you so opposed to sprucing up the guideline so it's not so heavy-handed, washing our hands of this, and calling it a day? Kuronue 00:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If the guideline is heavy handed, why are there so few spoiler tags? --Tony Sidaway 00:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What? A heavy handed guideline would obviously result in very few spoiler tags. Philip Reuben 00:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I absolutely concur with David Fuchs. Let' put it to bed. There are no spoiler tags because nobody cares enough to put them even into articles about new films and TV shows, and when they're put in they're often removed and stay removed. It's a dead issue. Only the repugnant personal attacks remain. --Tony Sidaway 00:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Then go away and let us wrap up this guideline. All we're doing is removing bits that are contradictory, don't have any consensus, or seem overly specific. If consensus is really with you, none of that will matter. We're not coming up with anything novel, so if you're done with this, then go away. Kuronue 00:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there is consensus, since you seem to be the only holdout. To frame this in terms of Wikipedia policy, we feel that we are unable to write a descriptive guideline, since it is too soon to determine that the dust has settled after a drastic and evidently controversial change. Rather than accidentally writing a proscriptive guideline, we will stay silent on matters of contention and let nature take its course for a while. Philip Reuben 00:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, who are you calling "the only holdout"? Wishful thinking. Sorry. --Tony Sidaway 00:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the opening post's statement that the improper removal of spoiler tags is a side-issue. As long as we have people claiming 'silent consensus' using the lack of spoiler tags as 'proof', it will continue to be relevant.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree per Nydas. Furthermore, the clique has promised to do it again. To adapt from a popular Peace & Justice political party slogan: If no Justice, then no Consensus Milo 09:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree, the methods of spoiler removal are completely relevant to this discussion, because we have to view everything in light of it. Some people seem to be striving for 'a compromise that isn't'. Sure, it looks nice and even handed on the surface, but when you scratch that surface it's designed to make it easy to subvert. It's like a member of a NATO-like organization saying, "Okay, we agree that we will not invade another country when everybody is against it." Seems all well and good, until that one starts invading countries and using, "Well, _we're_ part of everybody, and we're not against it, even if all of you are, so we'll proceed". Spoiler warnings can be added when there is consensus. Sounds great. But every fictional page will have the same 10 people who join the debate to make sure that, at the very least, consensus is difficult to claim for one side or the other (which, according to their preferred version of the guideline, suggests that it shouldn't be there) and often outright claim consensus for removal because the page isn't watched by many people except one or two local editors and the people who decide they need to personally approve or deny every spoiler warning.

We need either some rule against going on spoiler crusades, a rule about local consensus overriding the people who jump onto every debate (even if it conflicts with OWN, it's in the spirit of IAR, since it's in the interest of improving wikipedia), or we need to make the guideline itself much more open to spoilers, with clear locations where it's okay to add spoilers and where they should not be removed without very good reasons.

Otherwise, 'walking away and seeing what happens in a few months' is a victory for the anti-warning side, because they can simply keep enforcing their spoiler warning embargo with great ease, making perhaps a token exception now and then, but overruling a much higher number of individual editors, and keep the spoilers down to a minimum. Let's face it. There was no consensus for removing spoiler tags completely, so any guideline which does this _in practice_ is probably poorly designed.

If I'm wrong about the effect of this, I once again invite anyone who does search for spoiler warnings and then goes in and delete them to 'enforce' the policy, to tell me how many different people they've reverted when they tried to add a spoiler warning. Wandering Ghost 12:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, another option I've not seen brought up, but would at least help the 'local consensus' issue... I haven't thought it through very much, so it might be unworkable, but it's an idea. Perhaps collapse the spoiler debate to individual projects rather than individual pages. So the Books project would write guidelines and decide about their level of spoilers, the comics project for comics, and so on. The exact location of divisions (since some overlap) would probably be a bit hard to manage, but it's something to consider, anyway. Wandering Ghost 12:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The fundamental nature of WP is the "wiki process", which means that anyone can edit any article. It goes against the whole idea to make rules that encourage local consensus or prevent editors from editing articles. I think the outcome of the RFC was that spoilers should be minimized in practice, so if the guideline does that it's doing the right thing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"...'wiki process'... It goes against the whole idea to make rules that encourage local consensus" I don't have the time to do it, but that would make an interesting statement to quote at the Village Pump. Milo 07:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Funny, aside from certain things like fairy tales and non-fiction articles, I thought the outcome of the RfC was a load of endless bickering. Philip Reuben 11:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This appears to me to be what the guideline should say, the baseline that's agreed upon by most of us editors. I propose we legislate nothing above and beyond those things:

Spoiler tags are not needed in "plot summary" sections. "Character Background" sections are similar cases.

Consensus can overrule any rule in the guideline

No spoiler tags in fairy tales or classic literature

Use tags sparingly (might be a good idea not to spell that one out too much though)

In non-fiction articles, if there are spoilers, make sure they REALLY need to be there. If they do, tag them.

This guideline should not conflict with any policy previously existing.

That's why I deleted the bit about the lead; that last bit should cover it, and spelling things out too explicitly tends to lead to rules lawyering abuse. Kuronue 23:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Local consensus cannot override core policy. To the extent that this guideline expresses the requirements of core policy (neutral point of view, verifiability, etc) it cannot be overridden by local consensus. --Tony Sidaway 23:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

But the guideline should not be overruling core policy, did you not see that part? So overruling the guideline shouldn't be a problem if the guideline is silent where core policy already covers. Kuronue 23:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus on whether spoiler tags violate NPOV. There is a visible lack of consensus either way, so our guideline shouldn't be too specific on the subject. Philip Reuben 23:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Every element of a Wikipedia article is subject to neutral point of view. There is absolutely no possibility of spoiler tags being magically declared to be immune from the policy. --Tony Sidaway 23:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's saying they are! Instead, we're not coming up with a "all spoilers show POV" or "no spoilers show POV" statement. If a spoiler is POV, it needs to be edited to NPOV. Who is arguing against this? Tony, maybe you should take a break, your arguments are getting more and more absurd and difficult for me to follow. Kuronue 00:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't need to be explicitly mentioned in all guidelines. NPOV applies to everything without it being stated everywhere. Philip Reuben 00:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

All guidelines must give due recognition to core policies. I've cited several that do. --Tony Sidaway 00:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Not all guidelines need to mention the NPOV policy. Browse through Wikipedia:List of guidelines and then tell me I'm wrong. Philip Reuben 00:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

All guidelines should refer to WP:NPOV where relevant. It's definitely relevant to a guideline that applies to tags that are often placed, for the most part, solely based on the personal opinion of the editor. At the very least, this reference explains why such tags are quickly removed unless a justification is given. --Tony Sidaway 01:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it's not relevant.

I've no objection to a stated spoiler tag justification as long as it applies equally to placement or removal. That aside, this guideline does not need to mention NPOV. "Core policy" talk is too frequently an attempt to make the issues being discussed seem more important than they are. The guide probably should not mention NPOV to avoid confusion, because there are normally no significant NPOV issues in placing spoiler tags. There are always enough editors who know how to invoke general policy NPOV in the rare exception cases, if there are any at all.

Disclaimer guides don't apply because spoiler tags are not a disclaimer/warning, because there is no danger, only possible disappointment. Spoiler tags are a content notice, like the disambig notice and the contents box — and, btw, nobody complains about the contents box because it can be optionally hidden.

People want to know these spoiler details eventually, so it's not about 'conniving with ignorance'. Rather, like sex, it's about good timing. (That 'conniving' bon mot somehow reminded me of military stories about running underwear up a flagpole to see who salutes without paying attention.)

There's nothing about a spoiler tag placement in any common fiction that's likely to express a POV that rises above the de minimus level. POVs below the de minimus level are found everywhere in Wikipedia. To invoke them in a consensus debate as rising to core policy issues is usually Wikilawyering, and to be suspected as an attempt at WP:Own. It strikes me that inserting an unneeded reference to NPOV will stir up Wikilawyering over trivia, which unnecessarily makes routine spoiler tags consensus decisions more difficult.

The reason that the de minimus principle exists in law is to prevent legal disputes over all small uncertainties. So one editor thinks a particular plot point is a spoiler, and another doesn't. So what? They may both be reasonable depending on how much experience they have with increasingly familiar fictional plots. That's a routine consensus issue, not an NPOV issue, and therefore it is WP:Consensus that should referenced, not WP:NPOV. Milo 07:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether we think that certain details are or are not spoilers - either way, they still usually don't need tags. If spoiler tags are not a disclaimer or warning, similar to a "not safe for work" warning, what are they? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"what are they" As I stated in the next sentence, spoiler tags are a content notice, like the disambig notice and the contents box. The word "warning" is dramatic hyperbole used to promote fictional drama. "Warning" is literally not true, so the word "warning" should be removed from the guide and replaced with "notice". Milo 05:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur that WP:Consensus is the guiding policy here, not WP:NPOV. NPOV is not affected one way or the other by the presence of a spoiler notice, because a spoiler notice advises the reader of upcoming content; it is not part of the content itself. Therefore it connot affect the NPOV status of the article in any way. --Parzival418 _Hello 07:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This looks very good. I also think it's important to keep the unacceptable alternatives section, and perhaps mention that spoilers should be in the lead if it is important for them to be there. — The Storm Surfer 02:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

When we do reach some kind of consensus, would somebody be willing to try and briefly summarise the process, arguments and justifications we went through to arrive there? This policy has been disputed periodically for at least four years. I think it would be best if we left something brief and understandable for people to start from if they want to reopen discussion (as they almost certainly will). We've produced an enormous body of text here, far more than any sane reader will want to wade through unguided in the future. -Kieran 00:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

We'll try, but no doubt we'll argue about that as well =) Philip Reuben 00:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is incredibly inflamed. With the amount of process abuse and argumentum ad baculum accusations that have been going around, each side will sadly accuse the other of abuses and idiocy. I don't see how we can work out an agreement on this. --Kizor 07:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I won't revert this, but I think it's a very odd thing to remove:

When adding a spoiler in the lead section, remember that Wikipedia is written from a real-world perspective.

A misconceived edit by another editor (which will undoubtedly be reverted) had removed the rationale for this:

what is exciting in the context of a fictional universe is almost certainly a standard plot device in literary construction.

This elucidates the reason why we probably don't want to put the violent takeover of the earth (yet again) into the lead of Last of the Time Lords. Although it's a huge deal from an in-universe point of view, it's a recognised and very regular science fiction plot. --Tony Sidaway 00:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I'd misunderstood that sentence entirely, which is a testament to how unclear it was. It really should have been phrased to make its point, which (I gather now) is that certain plot points that are very significant to the characters in the story are still not significant enough to go in the lead. I think that's a moot point anyway, since advice about appropriate content in the lead probably belongs in WP:Lead. Philip Reuben 00:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh - WP:LEAD is a very general guideline, whereas this is a guideline that (most of the time) applies to articles on fictional subjects. The subject-specific guidance is important. Phil Sandifer 00:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a problem with WP:LEAD though, surely? If that guideline isn't clear enough about its own topic, another guideline shouldn't be stepping on its toes. Philip Reuben 00:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so - WP:LEAD should apply to all articles, not just the subset of ones on fictional topics. This is a good place to clarify a very specific aspect of LEAD - to put it in LEAD itself is a bit instruction creepy. Phil Sandifer 01:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I felt it was condescending to say that all spoilers are just common plot elements. Isn't this situation covered by the editing of the later portion to mention that non-significant spoilers shouldn't belong in the lead anyway? Kuronue 01:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not happy about the wording of the later portion. I think the idea that "the article lead should not need to warn about plot spoilers that are significant enough to appear in the lead" is exactly the kind of thing this guideline needs to not be dictating. Philip Reuben 01:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It's the spoiler tag guideline. This is the place to say "don't be stupid" to people who want to slap a tag on an article out of the very justifiable fear that somebody might learn something. --Tony Sidaway 01:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is that we don't have consensus that "the article lead should not need to warn about plot spoilers that are significant enough to appear in the lead". We don't need to contradict this statement, but neither do we need to state it as a given. Making it clear that some people take this perspective and others don't is enough for now. Philip Reuben 01:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain why you think we don't have consensus for this statement? It seems self-evident. Shakespeare didn't need a silly warning message before he had his prolog launch into a description of the death of the star-cross'd lovers and their role in reconciling their warring families. Why are we pandering to the idiots who claim that he did? --Tony Sidaway 01:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It probably belongs to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) (WP:WAF). I see no reason not to have it here too because this is supposed to be about spoilers. --Tony Sidaway 01:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as it can be worded more directly (possibly along the lines of how I stated it above) I don't really object to this advice being concluded. I do object to the condescending "common plot device" rhetoric, so let's avoid that place. Anyway, I'm too tired to continue now; it's past 3am here in Germany. I'll look forward to seeing what the situation is like tomorrow afternoon, as well as responding to any points that are still open. Philip Reuben 01:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The wording is: When adding a spoiler in the lead section, remember that Wikipedia is written from a real-world perspective. What is exciting in the context of a fictional universe is almost certainly a standard plot device in literary construction.

Could you explain what is ambiguous about this, and to which alternative wording you refer? And why is it condescending to refer to a common plot device as a common plot device? This is getting seriously weird. --Tony Sidaway 01:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not. But it's condescending to label all plot devices and twists "common". Sometimes they really ARE surprising. Kuronue 04:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

But the fact that it's surprising doesn't make it any less banal of a plot device. Just as exceptional music written in C major is still written in C major, many excellent works of fiction use completely standard plots, which includes having plot twists. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

And what's the relevance of the fact that it's been done similarly in other works to the debate of whether they ought to be marked as spoilers and/or included in the lead? Kuronue 05:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is that spoiler tags tend to overstate the importance and originality of what are standard plot devices. See Tony Sidaway's comment at the top of this section. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's not significant, important, or original, it doesn't belong in the lead, per WP:LEAD, and per later mention on the spoiler guideline. Why do we have to be condescending critics of what is and is not original on the guideline page? Kuronue 05:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe the point is that even if a detail is significant to the plot of a single work, if the plot of that work is clearly not original (someone turns out to be a different sex than they claim, someone was abused as a child, a dead person turns out to be alive) then there is no reason why we need to put a spoiler tag on it. Our goal is to describe the work of art in an encyclopedic way. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Does it make it any less of a spoiler? I mean, one could see the Tia Dalma spoiler coming a mile away, but it's still a spoiler. Common, trite, overused plot devices are rarely the basis of notability for a subject as they are in The Crying Game, and when they're not, they're best left to plot sections anyway, rather than being flaunted in the lead JUST because they're spoilers and we want to look down our noses at anyone who didn't see it coming. Kuronue 05:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't make it less of a spoiler, but it means there is less reason for it to carry a spoiler tag. Our articles contain spoilers - the disclaimer says so - but the vast majority of them shouldn't be tagged as spoilers.

It's up to editors on an article by article basis to decide what goes in the lede, but when something is important enough to go in the lede that isn't on its own a reason to use a spoiler tag. There needs to be something special that justifies it above and beyond the typical article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine the vast majority of spoilers are not important enough to go in the lede, therefore, one would not expect spoilers in the lede. If we tag spoilers where they are not expected, it follows that at least some of the time, the spoilers in the lede must be tagged. The exceptions are absurdities like shakespeare or fairy tales where it's expected that there are no tag-worthy spoilers because the material is so old. Kuronue 06:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought the guideline already said that sometimes it's OK to have spoiler tags in the lede, but the mere existence of plot info in the lede on its own is not enough to justify a tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 06:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that it's necessary to have spoiler tags in the lead. But I don't agree that the vast majority of plots don't need spoiler tags, either. There doesn't need to be a special reason. Editors shouldn't have to get a permission slip to add spoiler tags. If there was a genuine consensus against, then spoiler tags would die out anyway.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's now been established clearly that we don't have consensus on this matter. Therefore the guideline should be ambiguous, as it is at present. Philip Reuben 10:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Since this guideline still has a "disputed" tag, I wonder if those who dispute its status as a guideline would be prepared to have it labelled as an essay. --Tony Sidaway 01:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly not an essay. Nearly every comment you make causes me more and more difficulty in believing you are not out to be disruptive. — The Storm Surfer 01:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. It's just that we already have a No disclaimers in articles guideline, which is not disputed. This guideline's status as a guideline (and not just the wording of the guideline) is disputed, so we could call it a day and say "this is an essay". Then the existing guideline applies. Indeed as long as the "disputed" tag remains on the page, it would be appropriate to regard the "no disclaimers" guideline as the operative one. --Tony Sidaway 01:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you can delete the templates then. It should not be controversial. — The Storm Surfer 02:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think those who dispute that this is a guideline would support that. Moreover the templates are useful to keep around, even without a guideline, for a number of reasons that must by now be evident to all. --Tony Sidaway 02:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Doubtful, someone would remove them on sight from articles. We can tag the templates and this guideline as historical, though, because trying to use it will only create an edit war. -- ReyBrujo 03:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's disputing that this is not a guideline. We're disputing whether it's good or not. But there's no "the content of this guideline is under heavy debate and is subject to change", so we stuck a disputed tag on it and called it a day. Kuronue 04:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony, you're really trying to get as much leverage out of the disputed tag as possible, aren't you? A very sensible approach, when a guideline is disputed, is to leave the tag in place until the dispute is largely resolved, and then remove the tag when there's clear consensus supporting the guideline. You, however, flip from day to day between "this isn't disputed, let's take off the tag," to "let's just delete the guideline and make it a redirect," to "let's make it an essay." How about the more reasonable "let's resolve the dispute!?"

*applauds* Kuronue 05:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well put. Philip Reuben 10:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The tag says "This page's designation as a policy or guideline is disputed." If as you claim "Nobody's disputing that this is not a guideline" then we're all agreed that this document is a guideline the tag should be removed and replaced with an "underdiscussion" tag. I have done so. --Tony Sidaway 12:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

And someone else has replaced it. Either that person is illiterate or you're wrong. --Tony Sidaway 12:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

How about a "historical" tag? The guideline and its history will still be available for reference. --Tony Sidaway 12:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You can try as many times as you like to surreptitiously invalidate the guideline by insisting that the disputed tag necessitates a course of action that invalidates the guideline (this is the third one you have suggested now). Unfortunately for you, we're all smarter than that. Philip Reuben 12:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's odd to be accused of attempting surreptitiously to invalidate a guideline when I've been openly discussing, and trying to establish, the validity of the guideline for some days now. The "disputed" tag does not necessitate any course of action, but it certainly does suggest that the several people who keep restoring the tag do not accept the document as a guideline. --Tony Sidaway 13:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't suggest that at all, and it never has. It didn't suggest that when you redirected the guideline, it didn't suggest that when you proposed changing it to an essay, and it didn't suggest that when you proposed adding a historical tag. You seem to have failed to notice the pattern of general disagreement with you over this matter. Philip Reuben 13:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying the tag is incorrect when it says "This page's designation as a policy or guideline is disputed"? --Tony Sidaway 14:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I kinda have to agree with Tony here. Think about it this way. The text states: "This page's designation as a guideline..." -- think about that. The way it currently reads, it's saying that the FACT it's a guideline (and thus should be more or less followed) is under despute. It's really not though -- pretty much everyone is in agreement that there needs to BE a guideline. What's under dispute is the content, which the 'under discussion' tag works a bit better for. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact the guideline as it stands "should more or less be followed" is exactly what is under dispute. Philip Reuben 12:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why this is even an issue. The dispute tag is not causing any harm, and if discussion continues to be minimal, we should hopefully be able to remove it soon anyway. Philip Reuben 12:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

So to get back to the subject, are we now all agreed that this page's designation as a guideline is not under dispute? --Tony Sidaway 13:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Nitpicking over the dispute tag is hardly "the subject". I'd appreciate it if you would get back to the subject. Philip Reuben 13:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly nitpicking. But I'll assume we've resolved the issue and the tag is being used, as someone suggested earlier, in lieu of a "the content of this guideline is under heavy debate and is subject to change" tag. --Tony Sidaway 14:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the new change you did. I think it covered exactly the current issue. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 15:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This brings us to the final question: is the content of this guideline still under heavy debate?

Since the start of this month, some 33 editors have made comments on this page. However the actionable disputes about the content of the guideline have been very sparse.

There was a flurry of editing a couple of days ago and the wording of the guideline has been very stable since then. Since the start of the month we've removed or refined disputed wording, such as "compelling reason", we've debated and removed some disputed exposition about scholarly works in the opener, the role of the lead section guideline has been clarified, a section about spoilers in trivia section has been removed, some weaseling about the status of "classic" films has been removed, and "When spoiler warnings may be appropriate" has been refined.

Are there any remaining disputes about the content of the guideline? Well, to answer that question I looked at the diff of discussion since midnight on the morning of 5th July, and this is what I got:

• A proposal by Zadignose to remove Fairy tales should never have spoiler warnings.. This was supported by Parzival418.
• Zadignose remarked that "It's been suggested in some of the discussions above that the guideline needs to give good examples of where the tags are appropriate. I think that's obvious." User:Parzival418 had his comments on this and recommended that we "focus the guideline on helping editors format the spoiler alerts in the most effective way, so there is minimal disruption of the articles and Wikipedia looks good and easy to read."
• Discussion over the nutshell, which seems to have been largely resolved.
• Discussion of the reference to "scholarly" works, which seems to have been resolved by removal of the disputed section.

Are there any other ongoing disputes over the content?

Speaking for myself, those above don't seem to be particularly major disputes. But that's a matter of perspective. --Tony Sidaway 14:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know where best to comment, so I decided it would do to comment here. It hadn't been my intention to oppose the text "Fairy tales should never have spoiler warnings," though now I think it's good to see it gone, as I think the treatment of fairytales should be clear from the more general priciples of the guideline. However, what I really meant was to point out that we can give strong, clear guidance, even using absolutes when it's the clearest way to communicate. My greatest concern, however, is the second point above. I really would like some clear guidance to be given, with examples, to show how and when tags are to be used... or I'd like to clearly declare that spoiler tags shouldn't be used.zadignose 04:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I used your post as an opportunity to read the guideline yet again (groan), trying to forget what it had said in the past. I concur, I think the guideline is in a pretty neutral and uncontroversial state at the monent. As a practice, a guideline provides a baseline for an editor wondering if an editing change is supported or generally approved of in WP. The current guideline reads just fine to me, it provides some advice on both inclusion and removal of the spoiler notice, while making clear that there can be exceptions, and discussion on the article talk page can result in acceptance. I say we're done. Let's open up the bar.... - David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 14:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the statement "Fairy tales should never have spoiler warnings", mainly because it is unlikely to have any practical effect. Spoiler tags are usually inappropriate in fairy tales for the same reason that they're usually inappropriate in works of classical literature, and this doesn't need to be amplified or strengthened. --Tony Sidaway 14:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Your last few edits are pretty benign, but let's stop editing the guideline for a while and let others review the current state and answer your proposition. If the guideline is churning rapidly while addressing the question "are there any lingering disputes," the answer is likely to be yes. ;) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 15:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

We are very slowly getting closer to a neutral guideline, but the guideline should be looked at not just in terms of what it says, but what the intent is and what it winds up being in practice. The intent of this new revised guideline was to provide a compromise between those people who think spoiler warnings have no place, and those who think they do, with those people being roughly equal in number (except in certain uncontroversial areas), because there was no consensus that they should be removed. Thus, the effect of it should be to allow spoiler warnings in certain areas. But what actually is the effect? Look at 'What Links Here' for the Template:spoiler (Mainspace only). Currently, 7 articles have a spoiler warning. Now, considering the intent, this is either a problem with the guideline, or a problem with the behaviour. My feelings about the improper behaviour of certain parties on the anti-spoiler side, and the technical ease this gives them to override larger numbers, has been stated many times. But since many of them are the very same people who are participating on this guideline and pushing the compromise towards fewer and fewer spoilers, it's worthy of pointing out again. If everyone on the debate who searches for spoiler warnings being added and then immediately deletes them or votes to would agree to no longer do this and leave it to the mass of unbiased editors to handle it page by page, or put wording in the guideline to discourage this type of behaviour, I could probably agree to the guideline. But since they've repeatedly rejected or ignored offers of this kind, I think we need to take a look at the guideline, because the guideline is not promoting the effect we (collectively, although not individually) want.

As it stands, one of the big hidden traps in the guideline is "obtain consensus to add a spoiler". This makes the guideline presumptively "no spoilers", and dangles out a hope that there might be an exception, but with enough dedicated anti-spoiler-warning people, this hope can be effectively eliminated, as it has been now. Different people keep adding spoilers, and the same few people always seem to quash them down. As such, while I think we could still go with 'obtain consensus' on "spoiler warnings in the Plot sections", and perhaps even for the lead. For every other section, we should word it to be presumptively warnings allowed (assume good faith on those adding them), and consensus should be required to REMOVE them, unless of course they're surrounding something that is clearly not a spoiler. If there's a significant amount of disagreement, that means the warning stays. Wandering Ghost 15:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, but it's hard to see what can be done about it if certain people will repeatedly insist that this is a non-issue, that it violates WP:OWN, or that it should be dealt with elsewhere even though it relates directly to the writing and application of this guideline. A neutral guideline will necessarily encourage (or rather, not restrict) somewhat more use of spoiler tags than the miniscule seven articles that we see them on now.

Maybe the entire part about "the use of spoiler alerts is minimized" could be removed? The article makes it fairly clear when spoiler tags are and are not appropriate, except for the parts that we deliberately left vague due to a lack of consensus. Philip Reuben 15:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The way to get more spoiler tags where they belong is to place them in the articles, with consensus. This isn't rocket science. The fact is that very, very few editors across the entire wiki are doing this. --Tony Sidaway 16:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The number of editors across the entire wiki who are placing them in articles with consensus is minimal because of a variety of factors that have made it unjustifiably hard to gain this consensus over the last month and a half. Philip Reuben 16:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wandering Ghost, you propose this "if there is disagreement, keep the tag" solution only for non-plot sections. Here are some data points for you:

I've removed spoiler tags from 12 articles this afternoon.

• Of the 12, 8 involved removals from "Plot", "Plot summary", "Plot and characters", "Story" or similar sections.
• 1 was a removal of a tag that preceded discussions of individual episodes, each one being clearly identified by the episode's name.
• 1 was from a "Characters" section, which I changed to "Character histories" to clarify that the section contained plot details.
• 1 was from a section labelled "Themes". While I think it's clear to most people that the "Themes" section of an article on a play will discuss plot detail, I decided to clarify to "Synopsis an themes".
• 1 was from a section marked "MI6 life", clearly a fictional biography.

So of the four examples above that arguably conformed to your exceptions, it appears to me that all but two were easily handled by clarifying a section heading to indicate that the section contained plot. The remaining two were both in fictional biographies, which necessarily contain little other than plot. --Tony Sidaway 16:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

So you agree that there would be no harm in an "if there is disagreement, keep the tag" solution for non-plot sections, and that in fact it would make little difference? Philip Reuben 16:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

For clarity, I would add "or in fictional biographies or character histories". It would make little difference, because in nearly every case where a section heading gives no indication that it is likely to contain plot, it can be changed to one that does and the tag can then be removed. There may be situations where this does not apply but I don't think I've found one yet. Where it cannot be done, I don't think it would be difficult to obtain consensus for a tag. So the exception is hard to justify, in my view. --Tony Sidaway 16:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What about that perennial example, The Crying Game? I feel a spoiler tag is justified in the lower part of the lead, which is an exception to the situations noted above. Philip Reuben 17:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Discuss it on Talk:The Cryng Game. The article is protected. --Tony Sidaway 17:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a past discussion on why spoiler tags in the lead don't work. The basic reason is that it visually divides the lead section so as to create an above the fold/below the fold section of the lead. The spoiler thus always ends up below the fold, which can be a NPOV problem. (The problem arises from the spoiler template's demarcated box, which physically divides the article layout in a manner similar to the ToC box.) It's not acceptable to demand that spoilers always go after visual markers that tell the eye "You have reached the end of an important section," which is what template boxes do. Phil Sandifer 20:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Spoiler tags never stood out to me in that way. The lead starts under the title and ends above the contents box; I'm aware of that so I deal with Wikipedia in that way. A spoiler tag is exactly that - a tag, a small amount of extra information, which I note if I don't want to be spoiled and ignore if I do. If anything, I'd say it draws more attention to the content within the spoiler tag (which could be seen to counterbalance the "below the fold" problem?). In any case, for the small number of articles this actually affects, surely it's acceptable as a concession? As I noted a couple of days ago, the pro-spoiler tag side has made numerous concessions in what is ultimately a very divisive argument with no overall consensus at all. Philip Reuben 22:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I honestly believe a spoiler tag at the top of the article is preferable to bisecting the lead. (Bisecting the lead also mandates a multi-paragraph lead, which is not always stylistically wise. That leads down the road of spoilers affecting article structure.) This seems sensible to me, if only because if the spoiler is important enough to be in the lead, it's probably important enough to be woven throughout the article such that an article-wide tag is appropriate. (That is what we did when Utopia (Doctor Who) was tagged) Phil Sandifer 22:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. You say that "in nearly every case where a section heading gives no indication that it is likely to contain plot, it can be changed to one that does and the tag can then be removed", and that "Where it cannot be done, I don't think it would be difficult to obtain consensus for a tag." Clearly The Crying Game is an exception: The spoiler is in the lead, so there can't be a heading change, and yet it's proven difficult to reach a consensus to include a spoiler tag, essentially because of a couple of people insisting that the same absolutist view we're taking with Plot and Character sections should apply to article leads as well. This is an example of precisely the situation that Wandering Ghost and I think is unjustified. Philip Reuben 17:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I see, I did miss your point. Yes, this is an instance where there is no consensus at the moment and a heading change would not be possible. If you think I take an absolutist view on anything, you should re-read my edits on this page: I have always advocated the use of discussion on consensus to make decisions on individual instances (how would I do otherwise, this being Wikipedia?)

So you're suggesting, it seems to me, that in the absence of agreement we should leave a spoiler tag in a lead section? This certainly highlights the danger, which I hadn't appreciated until now, of reversing the normal Wikipedia practice of requiring consensus on placement of style tags. --Tony Sidaway 18:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

And again we come back to the point that discussions on talk pages are inevitably biased on this issue, because it is possible for people who are against spoilers to watch all spoiler tags that are added while those for spoilers can't watch all spoiler tags that are removed. I'm not necessarily suggesting such a strong measure as that, but I think it's clear that Wikipedia's usual consensus policy falters a little in this instance. There are strong feelings on each side, but one side is in a better position to realise their strong feelings. Philip Reuben 22:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a solid argument in favor of using plain text spoiler notices rather than the templates, per #"Do not make home-made spoiler warnings using plain text." --Parzival418 _Hello 22:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Some more data points:

• Yesterday I removed two hand-made spoiler tags, one of which was in an infobox giving biographical details of a fictional character. The other one followed a "Plotline" section heading.
• I removed about a dozen spoiler tags the followed "Plot", "Plot summary", "Character history", "History" headings and the like.
• I clarified the biography sections of an article about a fictional character by putting in a new "Biography" heading and removed the tag.
• I created a "Plot summary" heading for one article and removed the tag.
• I renamed one "Summary" section to "Plot summary"
• I removed a solution section from an article about a text adventure computer game, because that was simply an unencyclopedic sequence of actions which if performed will successfully complete the game.
• I removed one synopsis because there was an indication that it had been copied directly from the back of the DVD packaging

--Tony Sidaway 17:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to expand upon my suggestion that we remove the statement that "the use of spoiler alerts is minimized". When referred to in an argument, it shows its colours as a meaningless weasel statement: Who defines what is "minimal"? 7 articles out of 1,869,674 is pretty minimal, so wouldn't 8 or 10 or 50 articles out of 1,869,674 also be pretty minimal? Its inclusion merely serves as a pretext for this meaningless argument to take place, with one side insisting that "minimal" spoiler usage means that every single insertion of spoiler tags, even outside of Plot areas and so on, requires careful vetting before it is allowed. If, as Tony insists, almost all his current removal of spoiler tags are uncontroversial changes that are fully covered by the rest of the guideline anyway, removing this statement should have little/no effect, with that little effect likely to be a positive one.

Also, regarding the edit Tony made adding the word "necessarily" to the sentence "This does not imply that spoiler tags necessarily become redundant shortly after the work of fiction reaches market." on the grounds of "weaseling" in the original sentence. Where is the weaseling in the original sentence? Philip Reuben 17:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I felt that the wording "Note that..." amounted to a weasel-worded statement intended to imply that spoiler tags should not be removed in due course. It's not that important, restore the original wording if you prefer. --Tony Sidaway 17:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Philipreuben's 23:46, 8 July 2007 version is acceptable (to me at least) as the new spoiler guideline, with the possible removal of “Do not improvise such warnings in plain text, always use the templates.” or at least the removal of its bold status. — The Storm Surfer 00:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No one has responded about the possibility of removing the statement that "the use of spoiler alerts is minimized" (as per my reasoning above). What are people's feelings on this? Philip Reuben 00:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Under what circumstances should we tolerate redundant or unnecessary style tags? --Tony Sidaway 01:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not under very many, but what does that have to do with spoiler tags? --Kizor 11:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care whether that particular sentence stays or goes. It's not particularly meaningful, so perhaps it should go. — The Storm Surfer 01:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a disparity between stating spoiler tags are redundant on plot sections and stating spoiler tags may be used on recent works of fiction. Plot sections in recent fiction articles should have spoiler tags, since they don't get released evenly across the world.

Spin-off merchandise (novels, computer games, etc) may reveal the plot of an upcoming film early, allowing the plot section to be completed, but hardly anyone is going to expect this.

The recent works section should be strengthened to make it clear that the 'redundancy' argument does not apply to them. Otherwise users living in certain regions will face a window of uncertainty whether plot sections contain spoilers or not. No doubt it will be argued that such users should check the release dates before reading, in another blow for usability and neutrality.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this: users living in certain regions will face a window of uncertainty whether plot sections contain spoilers or not.

Plot sections of articles are supposed to contain spoilers. That is what they are for, to describe the plot.

The use of spoiler tags for articles about recent releases and future releases is a concession, basically, although in practice our editors seldom seem to bother using it. --Tony Sidaway 19:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If you do not understand it, then you should not be removing spoiler warnings. Are you under the impression that all fiction is released at the same time everywhere in the world?--Nydas^(Talk) 19:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Or that all fiction is uniformly known across the world? Less than half of en.wiki's readers are American. --Kizor 20:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A section entitled "plot" doesn't need spoiler tags regardless of when the work was released - the section title is quite clear about what's going on. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Fiction that has not been released may have a plot summary, but without spoilers. The section title is not clear on this.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the only definition of "spoiler" that will stand up to thought is "plot information". I doubt it is possible to find any other meaning for the term that will apply broadly. In some people's mind, any information about the plot of a work is a spoiler. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That's overly broad. According to the American Heritage dictionary: A published piece of information that divulges a surprise, such as a plot twist in a movie. It's not a sharp line, but there is a line. Not all plot details are spoilers. --Parzival418 _Hello 21:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that nobody will ever agree on which things are spoilers and which aren't. That's one of the reasons we don't use warning tags for obscenity, "not safe for work", sacred images, etc. - because they lead to unending discussion about whether an image is obscene, or safe for work, etc. So if we are going to violate the principle of "no content warnings" for spoilers, the only way for use to define spoiler in the context of Wikipedia is "plot information". Anything else only encourages pointless disputes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we in this discussion can't decide in advance what situations will be appropriate for spoiler notices. My comment was addressing the prior comments regarding the definition. We can't change the definition of the word "spoiler", we can only decide how to structure the guideline on the use of spoiler notices. We can (and should) safely leave to editors the determination (by consensus) of if and where to apply spoiler notices in particular articles. --Parzival418 _Hello 21:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

'No-one will agree, therefore we shouldn't have them' could be used to remove lots of things. The American Heritage Dictionary's definition is workable. The 'all plot is spoilers' view is not intuitive or widespread. There is no way to tell if a plot summary for a recent work of fiction will contain spoilers, and it's reasonable to use spoiler warnings in such cases. The current situation privileges those living in areas which get new fiction early. They get the benefit of a (usually) spoiler-free plot summary up until the fiction is released.

The reason we don't use obscenity notices is that our users censor anything they think is obscene, not because we have any truly hard policy against censorship.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That is an interesting view, but people nevertheless lobby for obscenity tags from time to time, and we point to WP:NOT#CENSORED. And the argument that nobody can agree about warning messages is used to remove warnings. If a plot summary for any piece of work doesn't contain 'spoilers" I would argue it is insufficiently written, or else the plot is so simple that you don't think it has any spoilers. So the readers should be disappointed if the plot section doesn't contain spoilers, because it means our article isn't up to snuff yet. Plot summaries placed before the work are released are usually copyright violations of promotional materials, and usually should be removed as unverifiable per WP:V. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to provide a plot summary for unreleased fiction, based on previews and speculation in reliable published sources, copyright doesn't come into it. A plot summary for unreleased fiction without spoilers is up to snuff, that a part is unknown isn't important. It is likely that our readers will be disappointed to read a plot summary for an unreleased work of fiction, not expecting it contain spoilers, only to find that some fan has written out the whole thing based on the sticker album.

WP:NOT#CENSORED is routinely ignored, both for 'official' reasons (WP:BLP) and on an article by article basis (Muhammed, Bahá'u'lláh). Seems like it's OK to censor stuff if it hurts or offends someone, unless it's spoiler tags, which aren't really censorship anyway. --Nydas^(Talk) 15:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can find anywhere an article that you believe needs a spoiler tag, add the tag to the article. If somebody removes the tag, use the talk page to argue for its presence. Just as with any other edit on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 23:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion immediately above is ongoing as far as I am concerned; please respond to the points that have been made rather than deciding on your own what is or is not the bottom line.

Also, I'm not going to get into an edit war with you over this last thing. Simplicity doesn't win just because you say it does. We had a specific discussion about that paragraph earlier up the page and, as far as I could tell, we came to a consensus. That discussion hasn't disappeared, so please go and participate in it if you want to try and sway the consensus. Philip Reuben 00:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

On this, I think Tony has a point - this page is not going to move to consensus at this point. The realm where consensus will usefully be found is on individual articles. Phil Sandifer 00:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If I repeated what I said above it could get tiresome. So I won't. And I won't rub it in. Much. --Tony Sidaway 01:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Are there any spoiler tags in existence which you have not personally approved?--Nydas^(Talk) 08:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A spoiler tag was added to Allspark two or three days ago and nobody has removed it, while other tags have been removed in the same time period. It appears that there is agreement that this article can have a spoiler tag, at least for the time being. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

So it was personally approved. The guideline's commandment that spoilers should be minimised suggests that instead of being considered on a case by case basis, they should be considered as part of the wider 'problem'. That leads to unfair 'judgements'.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

(←) I don't quite understand what you mean by "personally approved". Nobody commented on the talk page of the article, last time I checked. On the other hand, anytime any editor feels a tag is unjustified they can remove it, so in that sense every maintenance and style tag on WP is "personally approved". — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not every maintenance and style tag requires the approval of half a dozen editors dedicated to 'minimizing' them.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No, but if they're disputed they do need a consensus. Phil Sandifer 16:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw this text in the guideline:

"Remember that Wikipedia is written from a real-world perspective; what is exciting in the context of a fictional universe is almost certainly a standard plot device in literary construction. The importance of plot details should be considered from a real-world rather than in-universe perspective (see WP:WAF)."

I'm afraid I just don't understand it. I know that wikipedia is supposed to take a real-world perspective, rather than an in-universe one, but I don't understand the rest of this. How does this relate to spoilers, and how does it offer us any guidance regarding their use?zadignose 04:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there are two ways it pertains. On one hand, since many plots have some twist near the end, the mere existence of such a twist isn't enough to put the plot detail in the lede, even if the twist is major from an in-universe perspective. On the other hand, the mere existence of a plot twist probably isn't enough to put a spoiler tag inside a "plot" section, again because so many fictional works have somewhat unpredictable plots. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the in-universe or out-of-universe distinction has to do with spoiler notices. The manual of style calls for out-of-universe perspective anyway. That paragraph is confusing and should be removed. Every sentence should be very specific and clearly related to the main topic of the guideline, and evern more so in the intro. --Parzival418 _Hello 04:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I ran into an edit conflict, so my post is similar in content to the above. Anyway: I don't think the text is at all clear on this, and still don't really see the point. It's largely confusing, and doesn't really hint at how I'm supposed to consider the plot details from a "real-world rather than an in-universe perspective." I've never been in the universe of a film or book, but I know what plot twists are supposed to be surprising. I can't really see how the concept of "in-universe" perspective is even relevant to this guideline, and this entire text just confuses things. It seems like an attempt to tenuously link our rules regarding in-universe perspective to some interpretation of spoiler policy. It should probably be removed from the guideline entirely. Is it guidance, or is it a justification of a particular perspective?zadignose 04:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed it earlier today, and someone added it back in. I did not want to remove the same text twice, so I left it. If you want to remove it, I would support that decision. --Parzival418 _Hello 05:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I pointed out above how it is relevant. From the perspective a single work, a plot twist may seem like a major or surprising thing. From the perspective of an encyclopedia with articles on hundreds of similar works, the existence of a plot twist in a plot is nothing to get worked up about, because most important works will have them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, now I understand your point. However, I don't agree with your conclusion that because there are hundreds of similar works, the plot twist is not important to a particular reader. The purpose of spoiler notices is to help a reader not have the story ruined for them. That has nothing to do with the fact that the story they are interested in is one among many or that we are writing "about" the story rather than "telling" the story. Either way, we have the option, according to consensus on an individual article, to alert the reader of the plot twist in advance. So I still feel that paragraph should be omitted from the intro of this guideline. --Parzival418 _Hello 06:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Writing from a real world perspective really doesn't relate to the question of whether "most important works" will have plot twists, which is a claim I don't accept in any case. I'm not much in favor of getting worked up about spoilers or plot twists, but whether or not a plot detail is revealing enough to qualify as a "spoiler" has nothing to do with real world perspective, and as I pointed out, the existing text offers no guidance on how this concept should be applied, and is generally confusing. It reads like "here's another reason we could think of that might argue against the use of spoiler warnings, by some implied link to an unrelated policy, though the logic is fuzzy and you probably won't get it."zadignose 06:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact almost all works have some sort of plot twists is one of the reasons for not using spoiler tags to mark plot twists in "plot" sections. It's why the reader should expect to find descriptions of plot twists in our plot summaries. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)